Keen On Democracy

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. 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

Why is America so over-medicated? According to Harvard Medical School professor Jerry Avorn, author of Rethinking Medications, everything begins and ends with the unaccountable power of Big Pharma. While acknowledging the tremendous benefits of modern medications, Avorn critiques the American healthcare system's pricing structures, pharmaceutical patent abuse, and profit incentives that drives the over-prescription of medicine. Avorn advocates for more thoughtful, evidence-based approaches to medication use, encouraging us to have meaningful conversations with our doctors about prescribed drugs. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Modern medications provide tremendous benefits, but Americans pay approximately twice as much for prescription drugs as citizens of other wealthy countries due to limited price controls and lobbying influence.* The pharmaceutical industry uses "patent thickets" to extend monopolies beyond reasonable timeframes, preventing price competition that would make medications more affordable.* Patients should engage in conversations with their doctors about medications, asking questions about purpose, alternatives, and affordability rather than blindly accepting or rejecting prescriptions.* Progress in mental health medications has been limited compared to other fields like cancer treatment, partly due to the complexity of the brain and partly due to an over reliance on medical solutions for social problems.* Recent government funding cuts to university research could significantly impact life-saving medical innovations, as most drug discoveries begin with federally-funded academic research.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Is America screwed? Not according to the former managing editor of Wired, Peter Leyden. The creator of the Substack newsletter The Great Progression, Leyden believes that U.S. history operates in 80 year cycles and that America, empowered by Northern Californian technology, is gearing up for another remarkable period of innovation. Leyden is no MAGA fanboy, but argues that Trump is enabling the American future by destroying the Republican brand and unintentionally guaranteeing a longterm Democratic majority. It's a provocative thesis which I hope is true. But what about China? And can we really trust Silicon Valley's tech titans to make America great again? 5 Takeaways* Leyden believes America cycles through major reinventions approximately every 80 years, with previous transformations occurring after the Constitutional Convention, Civil War, and World War II.* He argues that post-WWII systems (welfare state, Pax Americana) are outdated and that Trump's presidency is accelerating their necessary dismantling.* Leyden sees an opportunity for progressives to rebuild American systems using AI, clean energy and bioengineering in more efficient, effective ways.* Leyden references economic historian Carlota Perez's theory that technological revolutions move from "Gilded Ages" (concentrated wealth/power) to "Golden Ages" (distributed benefits) through democratic intervention.* Leyden positions the US-China competition, particularly in AI development, as a fundamental contest between democratic and authoritarian approaches to organizing society with new technologies.Peter Leyden is a tech expert and thought leader on artificial intelligence, climate technologies and a more positive future through his keynote speaking, writing and advising. Leyden currently is the creator of The Great Progression: 2025 to 2050, which is a series of keynote talks, Substack essays, and his next book on our new potential to harness AI and other transformative technologies to create a much better world. He also is the founder of Reinvent Futures, advising senior leaders in strategic foresight and the impacts of these new technologies. Since coming to San Francisco to work with the founders of WIRED to start​​ The Digital Age, he has followed the front edge of technological change and built an extraordinary network of pioneering innovators in Silicon Valley. Leyden most recently convened this network of elite tech experts through the first two years of the Generative AI Revolution as host and curator of one of the premier event series at ground zero in San Francisco — The AI Age Begins. Leyden is the former Managing Editor of WIRED, who then became the Founder and CEO of two startups that pioneered the early video mediums of first YouTube and then Zoom. He wrote two influential books on the future that went into multiple languages, including The Long Boom that foretold how the new digital economy would scale over 25 years — and largely did. Leyden began his career as a journalist covering America, then did a stint as a foreign correspondent in Asia for Newsweek, including covering the early rise of China. He has traveled to more than 50 countries around the world. He was raised in the heartland in Minnesota, graduated summa cum laude at Georgetown University, and earned two masters degrees from Columbia University.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 Google and Facebook screwed? That's the question which Keith Teare asks in today's That Was The Week tech newsletter. In our age of nationalist globalization, Teare argues, Facebook and Google, the original darlings of the Web 2.0 revolution are, so-to-speak, half-fucked. On the one hand, they are the victims of a legal witch hunt by a nationalist U.S. government intent on punishing Big Tech innovation; on the other, they continue to reap the benefits of an increasingly globalized digital marketplace. No wonder, then, that Lee-Anne Mullholland, the Google VP of Regulatory Affairs, has claimed a kind of Trumpian half-victory in this week's legal ruling against her company. “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” Mullholland wrote. Perhaps. But as Teare drolly remarks in his editorial, “nobody can accuse the Government of being fast.” No, not even half-fast. In this absurdly anachronistic fight against Google and Facebook, the snail-paced U.S. government is actually fighting the war before the last war. The only Big Tech thing that matters in 2025 is artificial intelligence. And retroactively breaking up half-archaic companies like Meta or Google isn't going to make much difference in today's all-important race to control tomorrow's A.I. economy. * Google and Meta (Facebook) are facing significant antitrust challenges. Meta is undergoing a trial questioning the legitimacy of their acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp from 2012 and 2014, while Google has been found guilty of maintaining an advertising monopoly.* Both Keith and Andrew discuss how the government's antitrust actions seem to come too late, with Keith describing it as "government overreach" and noting that "Nobody can accuse the government of being fast," calling these cases against actions from a decade ago "shocking."* Keith argues that these companies are facing existential threats from technological shifts, not just legal challenges. He notes that Google's core business of cost-per-click advertising is shrinking both in usage and revenue per click, and faces additional challenges in the AI era where ads don't fit neatly with AI results.* Then there's China. Keith and Andrew discuss about the decline of Western technological dominance and the rise of the Chinese economy, with references to a shift toward "de-globalization" at the political and military level while economic globalization continues.* They discuss the potential future impact of AI on employment and social structures, with Keith noting that the "unknown unknown" is "the impact of AI on employment and abundance," suggesting two possible futures: either a utopia where "nobody needs to work and everyone can eat, live, feed, be entertained" or an "apocalypse where it's a hellscape for anyone that isn't rich."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 Americans have been as explicit in their warnings about Donald Trump than the St. Louis based writer Sarah Kendzior. Her latest book, The Last American Road Trip, is a memoir chronicling Kendzior's journey down Route 66 to show her children America before it is destroyed. Borrowing from her research of post Soviet Central Asia, Kendzior argues that Trump is establishing a kleptocratic “mafia state” designed to fleece the country of its valuables. This is the third time that Kendzior has been on the show and I have to admit I've always been slightly skeptical of her apocalyptic take on Trump. But given the damage that the new administration is inflicting on America, I have to admit that many of Kendzior's warnings now appear to be uncannily prescient. As she warns, it's Springtime in America. And things are about to get much much hotter. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Kendzior views Trump's administration as a "mafia state" or kleptocracy focused on stripping America for parts rather than traditional fascism, comparing it to post-Soviet oligarchic systems she studied as an academic.* She believes American institutions have failed to prevent authoritarianism, criticizing both the Biden administration and other institutional leaders for not taking sufficient preventative action during Trump's first term.* Despite her bleak analysis, Kendzior finds hope in ordinary Americans and their capacity for mutual care and resistance, even as she sees formal leadership failing.* Kendzior's new book The Last American Road Trip follows her journey to show her children America before potential collapse, using Route 66 as a lens to examine American decay and resilience.* As an independent voice, she describes being targeted through both publishing obstacles and personal threats, yet remains committed to staying in her community and documenting what's happening. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, it is April the 18th, 2025, a Friday. I'm thrilled today that we have one of my favorite guests back on the show. I call her the Cassandra of St. Louis, Sarah Kendzior. Many of you know her from her first book, which was a huge success. All her books have done very well. The View from Flyover Country. She was warning us about Trump and Trumpism and MAGA. She was first on our show in 2020. Talking about media in the age of Trump. She had another book out then, Hiding in Plain Sight, The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America. Then in 2022, she came back on the show to talk about how a culture of conspiracy is keeping America simultaneously complacent and paranoid that the book was called or is called, They Knew. Another big success. And now Sarah has a new book out. It's called The Last American Road Trip. It's a beautifully written book, a kind of memoir, but a political one, of course, which one would expect from Sarah Kendzior. And I'm thrilled, as I said, that the Cassandra of St. Louis is joining us from St. Louis. Sarah, congratulations on the new book.Sarah Kendzior: Oh, thank you. And thank you for having me back on.Andrew Keen: Well, it's an honor. So these four books, how does the last American road trip in terms of the narrative of your previous three hits, how does it fit in? Why did you write it?Sarah Kendzior: Well, this book kind of pivots off the epilog of hiding in plain sight. And that was a book about political corruption in the United States and the rise of Trump. But in the epilogue, I describe how I was trying as a mom to show my kids America in the case that it ended due to both political turmoil and corruption and also climate change. I wanted them to see things themselves. So I was driving them around the country to national parks, historic sites, et cetera. And so many people responded so passionately to that little section, especially parents really struggling on how to raise children in this America that I ended up writing a book that covers 2016 to 2024 and my attempts to show my children everything I could in the time that we had. And as this happens, my children went from relatively young kids to teenagers, my daughter's almost an adult. And so it kind of captures America during this time period. It's also just a travelog, a road trip book, a memoir. It's a lot of things at once.Andrew Keen: Yeah, got great review from Ms. magazine comparing you with the great road writers, Kerouac, of course, and Steinbeck, but Kerouak and Steinback, certainly Kerouack was very much of a solitary male. Is there a female quality to this book? As you say, it's a book as much about your kids and the promise of America as it is about yourself.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I think there is in that, you know, I have a section actually about the doomed female road trip where it's, you know, Thelma and Louise or Janet Bates and Psycho or even songs about, you know, being on the road and on the run that are written by women, you know, like Merle Haggard's I'm a Lonesome Fugitive, had to be sung by men to convey that quality. And there aren't a lot of, you know, mom on the Road with her husband and kids kind of books. That said, I think of it as a family book, a parenting book. I certainly think men would like it just as much as women would, and people without kids would like just as people with kids, although it does seem to strike a special resonance with families struggling with a lot of the same issues that I do.Andrew Keen: It's all about the allure of historic Route 66. I've been on that. Anyone who's driven across the country has you. You explain that it's a compilation of four long trips across Route 66 in 1998, 2007, 2017, and 2023. That's almost 40 years, Sarah. Sorry, 30. Getting away my age there, Andrew. My math isn't very good. I mean, how has Route 66 and of course, America changed in that period? I know that's a rather leading question.Sarah Kendzior: No, I mean, I devote quite a lot of the book to Route 66 in part because I live on it, you know, goes right through St. Louis. So, I see it just every day. I'll be casually grocery shopping and then be informed I'm on historic Route 66 all of a sudden. But you know it's a road that is, you once was the great kind of romanticized road of escape and travel. It was decommissioned notably by Ronald Reagan after the creation of the interstate. And now it's just a series of rural roads, frontage roads, roads that end abruptly, roads that have gone into ruin, roads that are in some really beautiful places in terms of the landscape. So it really is this conglomeration of all of America, you know of the decay and the destruction and the abandonment in particular, but also people's, their own memories, their own artistic works, you know roadside shrines and creations that are often, you know pretty off beat. That they've put to show this is what I think of our country. These are my values. This is what, I think, is important. So it's a very interesting journey to take. It's often one I'm kind of inadvertently on just because of where I live and the direction I go. We'll mirror it. So I kept passing these sites again and again. I didn't set out to write this book. Obviously, when I first drove it when I was 19, I didn't know that this was our future. But looking back, especially at technological change, at how we travel, at how trust each other, at all of these things that have happened to this country since this time, it's really something. And that road will bring back all of those memories of what was lost and what remains to be lost. And of course it's hitting its 100th anniversary next year, so I'm guessing there'll be a lot of reminiscing about Route 66.Andrew Keen: Book about memories, you write about that, eventually even your memory will just or this experience of this trip will just be a memory. What does that suggest about contextualizing the current moment in American history? It's too easy to overdramatize it or perhaps it's hard not to over dramatize it given what's happening. I want to talk about a little bit about that your take on America on April the 18th, 2025. But how does that make sense of a memorial when you know that even your memories will become memories?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean it's hard to talk frankly about what's happening in America now without it sounding over dramatic or hyperbolic, which I think is why so many people were reluctant to believe me over my last decade of warnings that the current crises and catastrophes that we're experiencing are coming, are possible, and need to be actively stopped. I don't think they were inevitable, but they needed to be stopped by people in charge who refused to do it. And so, my reaction to this as a writer, but just as a human being is to write everything down, is to keep an ongoing record, not only of what I witness now, but of what know of our history, of what my own values are, of what place in the world is. And back in 2016, I encouraged everyone to do this because I knew that over the next decade, people would be told to accept things that they would normally never accept, to believe things that they would normally, never believe. And if you write down where you stand, you always have that point of reference to look back towards. It doesn't have to be for publication. It doesn't have to for the outside world. It can just be for yourself. And so I think that that's important. But right now, I think everyone has a role to play in battling what is an authoritarian kleptocracy and preventing it from hurting people. And I think people should lean into what they do best. And what I do best is write and research and document. So that's what I meant. Continue to do, particularly as history itself is under assault by this government.Andrew Keen: One of the things that strikes me about you, Sarah, is that you have an unusual background. You got a PhD in Soviet studies, late Soviet studies.Sarah Kendzior: Anthropology, yeah, but that was nice.Andrew Keen: But your dissertation was on the Uzbek opposition in exile. I wonder whether that experience of studying the late Soviet Union and its disintegration equipped you in some ways better than a lot of domestic American political analysts and writers for what's happening in America today. We've done a number of shows with people like Pete Weiner, who I'm sure you know his work from the Atlantic of New York Times. About learning from East European resistance writers, brave people like Milan Kundra, of course, Vaclav Havel, Solzhenitsyn. Do you think your earlier history of studying the Soviet Union helped you prepare, at least mentally, intellectually, for what's happening in the United States?Sarah Kendzior: Oh, absolutely. I think it was essential, because there are all sorts of different types of authoritarianism. And the type that Trump and his backers have always pursued was that of a mafia state, you know, of a kleptocracy. And Uzbekistan is the country that I knew the most. And actually, you what I wrote my dissertation about, this is between 2006, and 2012, was the fact that after a massacre of civilians... A lot of Uzbekistan's journalists, activists, political figures, opposition figures, et cetera, went into exile and then they immediately started writing blogs. And so for the very first time, they had freedom of speech. They had never had it in Uzbekistan. And they start revealing the whole secret history of Uzbekistan and everything going on and trying to work with each other, try to sort of have some impact on the political process in Uzbekistan. And they lost. What happened was the dictator died, Islam Karimov died, in 2016, and was replaced by another dictator who's not quite as severe. But watching the losing side and also watching people persevere and hold on to themselves and continue working despite that loss, I think, was very influential. Because you could look at Václav Havel or Lech Walesa or, you know, other sort of. People who won, you know, from Eastern Europe, from the revolutions of 1989 and so forth. And it's inspiring that sometimes I think it's really important to look at the people who did not succeed, but kept going anyway. You know, they didn't surrender themselves. They didn't their morality and they didn't abandon their fellow man. And I think that that's important. And also just to sort of get at the heart of your question, yes, you the structure of it, oligarchs who shake down countries, strip them and sell them for parts. Mine them for resources. That model, especially of what happened to Russia, actually, in particular in the 1990s of these oligarch wars, is what I see as the future of the United States right now. That is what they're trying to emulate.Andrew Keen: That we did a show with Steve Hansen and Jeff Kopstein, both political scientists, on what they see. They co-wrote a book on patrimonialism. This is the model they see there. They're both Max Weber scholars, so they borrow from that historic sociological analysis. And Kopstein was on the show with John Rausch as well, talking about this patrimonials. And so you, do you share the Kopstein-Hansen-Rausch analysis. Roush wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this too, which did very well. But this isn't conventional fascism or communism. It's a kind of 21st century version of patrimonialism.Sarah Kendzior: It's definitely not traditional fascism and one of the main reasons for that is a fascist has loyalty to the state. They seek to embody the state, they seek to expand the state recently Trump has been doing this more traditional route somewhat things like wanting to buy Greenland. But I think a lot of what he's doing is in reaction to climate change and also by the way I don't think Trump is the mastermind or originator. Of any of these geopolitical designs. You know, he has a team, we know about some of them with the Heritage Foundation Project 2025. We know he has foreign advisors. And again, you know, Trump is a corporate raider. That is how he led his business life. He's a mafia associate who wants to strip things down and sell them for parts. And that's what they wanna do with the United States. And that, yes, there are fascist tactics. There are fascists rhetoric. You know there are a lot of things that this country will, unfortunately, and has. In common, you know, with, say, Nazi Germany, although it's also notable that of course Nazi Germany borrowed from a lot of the tactics of Jim Crow, slavery, genocide of Native Americans. You know, this has always been a back and forth and America always has had some form of selective autocracy. But yeah, I think the folks who try to make this direct line and make it seem like the 20th century is just simply being revived, I've always felt like they were off because. There's no interest for these plutocrats in the United States even existing as a sovereign body. Like it truly doesn't matter to them if all of our institutions, even something as benign as the Postal Service, collapse. That's actually beneficial for them because then they can privatize, they can mine resources, they can make money for themselves. And I really worry that their goal is partition, you know, is to take this country. And to split it into smaller pieces that are easier to control. And that's one of the reasons I wrote this book, that I wrote The Last American Road Trip because I don't want people to fall for traps about generalizations or stereotypes about different regions of this country. I want them to see it as a whole and that our struggles are interconnected and we have a better chance of winning if we stand by each other.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and your book, in particular, The View from Flyover Country was so important because it wasn't written from San Francisco or Los Angeles or D.C. Or New York. It was written from St. Louis. So in a way, Sarah, you're presenting Trump as the ultimate Hayekian b*****d. There's a new book out by Quinn Slobodian called Hayek's B******s, which connects. Trumpianism and mago with Neoliberalism you don't see a break. We've done a lot of shows on the rise and fall of neoliberalism. You don't say a break between Hayek and TrumpSarah Kendzior: I think that in terms of neoliberalism, I think it's a continuation of it. And people who think that our crises began with Trump becoming the president in 2017, entering office, are deluded because the pathway to Trump even being able to run for president given that he was first investigated by the Department of Justice in 1973 and then was linked to a number of criminal enterprises for decades after. You know, that he was able to get in that position, you know that already showed that we had collapsed in certain respects. And so I think that these are tied together. You know, this has a lot to do with greed, with a, you know a disregard for sovereignty, a disregard human rights. For all of this Trump has always served much better as a demagogue, a front man, a figurehead. I do think, you he's a lot smarter. Than many of his opponents give him credit for. He is very good at doing what he needs to do and knowing what he need to know and nothing more. The rest he gives to the bureaucrats, to the lawyers, et cetera. But he fills this persona, and I do wonder what will happen when he is gone because they've tried very hard to find a successor and it's always failed, like DeSantis or Nikki Haley or whoever. And I kind of wonder if one of the reasons things are moving so, so fast now is they're trying to get a lot of things in under the wire while he's still alive, because I don't think that there's any individual who people have the loyalty to. His cult is not that big. It's a relatively small segment of the country, but it is very intense and very loyal to him. I don't think that loyalty is transferable.Andrew Keen: Is there anything, you know, I presented you as the Cassandra from St. Louis, you've seen the future probably clearer than most other people. Certainly when I first came across your work, I wasn't particularly convinced. I'm much more convinced now. You were right. I was wrong. Is there, anything about Trump too, that surprised you? I mean, any of the, the cruelty? Open corruption, the anger, the hostility, the attempt to destroy anything of any value in America, the fact that they seem to take such great pleasure in destroying this country's most valuable thing.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, it's extremely sad and no, he doesn't surprise me at all. He's been the same guy since I was a little kid. You know, he was a plot line on children's television shows in the 1980s where as a child, I was supposed to know that the name Trump was synonymous with corruption, with being a tax cheat, with being a liar, you know, these were just sort of cultural codes that I was expected to know. What surprised me more is that no one stopped him because this threat was incredibly obvious. And that so many people in power have joined in, and I'm assuming they're joining in because they would rather be on the side with all that power than be a target of that power, but that they feel apparently no sense of loss, no sense grief for things like the loss of national parks, public education, the postal service, things that most folks like, social security for your elderly parents. Most Americans... Want these things. And most Americans, regardless of political party, don't want to see our country torn apart in this fashion. And so I'm not surprised by Trump. I'm surprised at the extent of his enablers at the complicity of the press and of the FBI and other institutions. And, you know, it's also been very jarring to watch how open they are this time around, you know, things like Elon Musk and his operation taking out. Classified information. The thing is, is I'm pretty sure Trump did all that. I mean, we know Trump did this in his first term, you know, and they would emphasize things like this box of physical written documents in Mar-a-Lago illegally taken. But, you know my mind always just went to, well, what did they do digitally? Because that seems much easier and much more obvious. What did they with all of these state secrets that they had access to for four years? What kind of leverage would that give them? And I think now they're just kind of, they're not bothering to hide anything anymore. I think they set the stage and now, you know, we're in the midst of the most horrible play, the most terrible performance ever. And it's, you can be still crushing at times.Andrew Keen: And of course, the real question is whether we're in the last act. Your book, The Last American Road Trip, was written, mostly written, what, in 2024 from?Sarah Kendzior: 2023.Andrew Keen: 2023. So, I mean, here's, I don't know if you can answer this, Sarah, but you know as much about middle America and middle Americans as anyone. You're on the road, you talk to everyone, you have a huge following, both on the left and the right in some ways. Some of your books now, you told me before we went live, some of your previous books, like Hiding in Plain Sight, suddenly become a big hit amongst conservative Americans. What does Trump or the MAGA people around him, what do they have to do to lose the support of ordinary Americans? As you say, they're destroying the essential infrastructure, medical, educational, the roads, the railways, everything is being destroyed, carted off almost like Stalin carted of half of the Soviet Union back into Asia during the Second World War. What does he have to do to lose the support of Middle America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, I don't think middle America, you know, by which like a giant swath of the country that's, that's just ideological, diverse, demographically diverse supports him. I mean some do certainly. He's got some hardcore acolytes. I think most people are disillusioned with the entire political system. They are deeply frustrated by Trump. They were deeply frustrated. By Biden, they're struggling to pay bills. They're struggling. To hold on to basic human rights. And they're mad that their leverage is gone. People voted in record numbers in 2020. They protested in record number throughout Trump's first term. They've made their concerns known for a very long time and there are just very few officials really listening or responding. And I think that initially when Trump reentered the picture, it caused folks to just check out mentally because it was too overwhelming. I think it's why voter turnout was lower because the Democrats, when they won, didn't make good on their promises. It's a very simple thing. If you follow through with your campaign platform that was popular, then you're going to retain those voters. If you don't, you may lose them, especially when you're up against a very effective demagogue who has a way with rhetoric. And so we're just in such a bad place, such a painful place. I don't think people will look to politicians to solve their problems and with very good reason. I'm hoping that there are more of a sense of community support, more of sense that we're all in this together, especially as financially things begin to fall apart. Trump said openly in 2014 that he intended to crash the American economy. He said this on a Fox News clip that I found in 2016. Because it was being reprinted all over Russian-language media. They loved this clip because it also praised Putin and so forth. And I was astounded by it. I was like, why in the world isn't this all over every TV station, every radio station? He's laying out the whole plan, and now he's following that plan. And so I'm very concerned about that. And I just hope people in times like this, traditionally, this opens the door to fascism. People become extremely afraid. And in their fear they want a scapegoat, they are full of rage, they take it out on each other. That is the worst possible move right now from both a moral or a strategic view. People need to protect each other, to respect each other as fully human, to recognize almost everyone here, except for a little tiny group of corrupt billionaires, is a victim in this scenario, and so I don't see a big difference between, you know, myself and... Wherever I go. I was in Tulsa yesterday, I was in San Francisco last week. We're all in this together and I see a lot of heartache wherever I go. And so if people can lend each other support, that is the best way to get through this.Andrew Keen: Are you suggesting then that he is the Manchurian candidate? Why did he say that in 2014?Sarah Kendzior: Well, it was interesting. He was on Fox during the Sochi Olympics, and he was talking about how he speaks with Putin every day, their pals, and that Putin is going to produce a really big win for us, and we're all going to be very happy about it. And then he went on to say that the crashing of the economy and riots throughout America is what will make America great again. And this is in February 2014. Fox has deleted the clip, You know, other people have copies. So it is, it's also in my book hiding in plain sight, the transcript of that. I'm not sure, like a Manchurian candidate almost feels, you know like the person would have to be blackmailed or coerced or brainwashed somehow to participate. I think Trump is a true volunteer and his loyalty isn't to Russia per se. You know, his loyalty is to his bank accounts, like his loyalty is to power. And one thing he's been after his whole life was immunity from prosecution because he has been involved or adjacent to such an enormous number of crimes. And then when the Supreme Court granted him that, he got what he wanted and he's not afraid of breaking the law in any way. He's doing what all autocrats do, which is rewrite the law so that he is no longer breaking it. And he has a team of lawyers who help him in that agenda. So I feel like on one sense, he's very. All-American. It's kind of a sad thing that as he destroys America, he's doing it in a very American way. He plays a lot of great American music at his rallies. He has a vernacular that I can relate to that and understand it while detesting everything he's doing and all of his horrific policies. But what they want to turn us into though, I think is something that all Americans just won't. Recognized. And we've had the slipping away of a kind of unified American culture for a while, I think because we've lost our pop culture, which is really where a lot of people would bond, you know, movies, music, all of it became split into streaming services, you know. All of it became bifurcated. People stopped seeing each other as much face to face, you know, during COVID and then that became kind of a permanent thing. We're very fragmented and that hurts us badly. And all we've kind of got left is I guess sports and then politics. So people take all the effort that they used to put into devouring American pop culture or American civic life and they put it into this kind of politics that the media presents as if it's a game, like initially a horse race during the election and now like, ooh, will the evil dictator win? It's like, this is our lives. Like we have a lot on the line. So I wish they would do, they would take their job more seriously too. Of course, they're up paywalled and on streaming sites, so who's watching anyway, but still it is a problem.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting you talk about this death wish, you mentioned Thelma and Louise earlier, one of the great movies, American road movies, maybe in an odd way, the final scene of the Trump movie will be similar to the, you seem to be suggesting to, I'm not gonna give away the end of Thelmer and Louise to anyone who's watching who hasn't seen it, you do need to see it, similar ending to that movie. What about, you've talked about resistance, Sarah, a one of. The most influential, I guess, resistors to Trump and Trumpism. You put up an X earlier this month about the duty of journalism to resist, the duty to thinkers to resist. Some people are leaving, guys like Tim Snyder, his wife, Marcy Shaw, Jason Stanley, another expert on fascism. You've made it clear that you're staying. What's your take on people like Snyder who are leaving this country?Sarah Kendzior: Well, from what I know, he made a statement saying he had decided to move to Canada before Trump was put in office. Jason Stanley, on the other hand, explicitly said he's moving there because Trump is in office, and my first thought when I heard about all of them was, well, what about their students? Like, what about all these students who are being targeted by ICE, who are being deported? What about their TAs? What about everyone who's in a more vulnerable position. You know, when you have a position of power and influence, you could potentially do a lot of good in helping people. You know I respect everyone's decision to live wherever they want. Like it's not my business. But I do think that if you have that kind of chance to do something powerful for the community around you, especially the most vulnerable people in it who at this time are green card holders, people here on visas, we're watching this horrific crackdown at all these universities. My natural inclination would be to stay and take a stand and not abandon them. And I guess, you know, people, they do things in different ways or they may have their own personal concerns and, you know that's fine. I just know, you know I'm not leaving, you know, like I've got elderly parents and in-laws. I've got relatives who need me. I have a lot of people who depend on me and they depend on me in St. Louis and in Missouri. Because there aren't that many journalists in St. Louis. I think there could be, there are a lot of great writers in St Louis, you know, who have given a chance, given a platform, you could really show you what it's actually like here instead of all these stereotypes. But we're always, always marginalized. Like even I'm marginalized and I think I'm, you know, probably the most well-known in terms of being a political commentator. And so I feel like it's important to stand my ground but also You know, I love this, this state in the city and I love my community and I can't fathom, you know, leaving people in the lurch at a time like this. When I'm doing better, I'm on more solid ground despite being a target of various, you know organizations and individuals. I'm at a more solid down than somebody who's a, you know a black American or an immigrant or impoverished. Like I feel like it is my job to stand up for you know, folks here and let everyone know, you know what's going on and be somebody who they can come to and feel like that's safe.Andrew Keen: You describe yourself, Sarah, as a target. Your books have done very well. Most of them have been bestsellers. I'm sure the last American road trip will do very well, you're just off.Sarah Kendzior: It is the bestseller as of yesterday. It is your bestseller, congratulations. Yeah, our USA Today bestsellers, so yeah.Andrew Keen: Excellent. So that's good news. You've been on the road, you've had hundreds of people show up. I know you wrote about signing 600 books at Left Bank Books, which is remarkable. Most writers would cut off both hands for that. How are you being targeted? You noted that some of your books are being taken off the shelves. Are they being banned or discouraged?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, basically, what's been happening is kind of akin to what you see with universities. I just think it's not as well publicized or publicized at all, where there's not some sort of, you know, like the places will give in to what they think this administration wants before they are outright told to do it. So yes, there is an attempt to remove hiding in plain sight from circulation in 2024 to, you know, make the paperback, which at the time was ranked on Amazon. At number 2,000. It was extremely popular because this is the week that the Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. I was on vacation when I found out it was being pulled out of circulation. And I was in rural New Mexico and I had to get to a place with Wi-Fi to try to fight back for my book, which was a bestseller, a recent publication. It was very strange to me and I won that fight. They put it back, but a lot of people had tried to order it at that time and didn't get it. And a lot of people try to get my other books and they just can't get them. You know, so the publisher always has a warehouse issue or a shipping problem and you know, this kind of comes up or you know people notice, they've noticed this since 2020, you know I don't get reviewed in the normal kind of place as a person that has best selling books one after another would get reviewed. You know, that kind of thing is more of a pain. I always was able to circumvent it before through social media. But since Musk took over Twitter and because of the way algorithms work, it's more and more difficult for me to manage all of the publicity and PR and whatnot on my own. And so, you know, I'm grateful that you're having me on your show. I'm also grateful that, you Know, Flatiron did give me a book tour. That's helped tremendously. But there's that. And then there's also just the constant. Death threats and threats of you know other things you know things happening to people I love and it's been scary and I get used to it and that I expect it but you know you never could really get used to people constantly telling you that they're gonna kill you you know.Andrew Keen: When you get death threats, do you go to the authorities, have they responded?Sarah Kendzior: No, there's no point. I mean, I have before and it was completely pointless. And, you know, I'll just mostly just go to people I know who I trust to see if they can check in on things. I have to be very vague here who are not in the government or in the police or anything like that. I don't think anyone would protect me. I really just don't think anyone could help. You know, one thing is, you know, yes, I'm a prominent critic of Trump and his administration, but I was also a prominent critic of. The DOJ and Merrick Garland for not doing anything about all of these threats and also a critic of Biden and the Democrats for not impeaching quickly, for not being more proactive, for not acting with greater urgency. So I'm targeted by kind of everyone except for people who don't have any power, which is a strange situation to be in because I love my readers and I think that they're wonderful and I'm incredibly grateful for them because my books largely spread through word of mouth. It is scary for me, just as like a mom in Missouri without a lot of resources to be targeted by all of these kind of high profile, wealthy, powerful people. But all I have is my voice and my writing. And so I just do what I can. And that's just the way the cards have been dealt for me and it is what it is, so.Andrew Keen: Later historians write about this period in 50 or 100 years time. How do you think you mentioned the Biden administration, you were critical of them. We haven't talked about Kamala Harris's failed presidential term, which I wasn't particularly impressed with. How much moral responsibility do you think that Biden and Harris should be accused of for Trump too?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I'd be delighted if we have historians in the future. Well, I will be, even if I don't.Andrew Keen: Well, there will be, even if, I don't know, in America, there'll be somewhere.Sarah Kendzior: I is where it'll be some sort of AI creation that just, you know, belches out, make America great again, like, you know, like in The Shining or something, just over and over and over again. But assuming we have real historians that actually assess the situation, I think they are going to be tremendously critical of the Biden administration. I think it may in fact go down as one of the worst of all time. And he will be seen as a Neville Chamberlain-like figure who had the opportunity to stop or slow A number of autocratic practices and either chose to look the other way or to enable them. Because the thing is, in 2016, people were very doubtful that America could become an autocratic state. They hadn't seen this before. A lot of this was new to them. From 2016 through 2021, we saw all that Trump was capable of, and he committed a large multitude of crimes,RetryClaude hit the max length for a message and has paused its response. You can write Continue to keep the chat going.AKplease continueEditHere's the continuation of the transcript:Sarah Kendzior: ...and those crimes, not just him, but his cohort were never held accountable. And what they did during the Biden years was plan all of their next moves. Like you don't suddenly have a gulag for Americans in El Salvador, like just off the top of your head. You know, all of this takes planning. We knew about a lot of the plans, you know, the Democrats campaigned about combating Project 2025. And my question to them was, well, what what if you lose? How are you going to combat it then? You know what, if he gets back, what are you gonna do? They would be so offended. They're like, how dare you, you question us. How dare you question, you know, our plans? They're, like, well, I don't, you don't have a plan. Like, that's my question is what is the plan? And they didn't. And they could have spent those four years creating a bulwark against a lot of the most horrific policies that we're seeing now. Instead, they're kind of reacting on the fly if they're even reacting at all. And meanwhile, people are being targeted, deported, detained. They're suffering tremendously. And they're very, very scared. I think it's very scary to have a total dearth of leadership from where the, not just the opposition, but just people with basic respect for the constitution, our civil rights, etc., are supposed to be.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Project 2025, we've got David Graham on the show next week, who's written a book about Project 2025. Is there anything positive to report, Sarah? I mean, some people are encouraged by the behavior, at least on Friday, the 18th of April, who knows what will happen over the weekend or next week. Behavior of Harvard, some law firms are aggressively defending their rights. Should we be encouraged by the universities, law firms, even some corporate leaders are beginning to mutter under their breath about Trump and Trumpism?Sarah Kendzior: And it depends whether they actually have that power in wielded or whether they're just sort of trying to tamper down public dissent. I'm skeptical of these universities and law firms because I think they should have had a plan long ago because I was very obvious that all of this was going to happen and I feel so terribly for all of the students there that were abandoned by these administrations, especially places like Columbia. That gave in right away. What does hearten me though, you know, and I, as you said, I'd been on this tour, like I was all over the West coast. I've been all over, the Midwest and the South is, Americans, Americans do understand what's happening. There's always this like this culture in media of like, how do we break it to Americans? Like, yeah, well, we know, we know out here in Missouri that this is very bad. And I think that people have genuine concern for each other. I think they still have compassion for each other. I think there's a culture of cruelty that's promoted online and it's incentivized. You know, you can make money that way. You could get clicks that that way, whatever, but in real life, I think people feel vulnerable. They feel afraid, but I've seen so much kindness. I've been so much concern and determination from people who don't have very much, and maybe that's, you know, why people don't know about it. These are just ordinary folks. And so I have great faith in American people to combat this. And what I don't have faith in is our institutions. And I hope that these sort of in between places, places like universities who do a lot of good on one hand, but also can kind of act as like hedge funds. On the other hand, I hope they move fully to the side of good and that they purge themselves of these corrupt elements that have been within them for a long time, the more greedy. Aspects of their existence. I hope they see themselves as places that uphold civic life and history and provide intellectual resistance and shelter for students in the storm. They could be a really powerful force if they choose to be. It's never too late to change. I guess that's the message I want to bring home. Even if I'm very critical of these places, it's never to late for them to change and to do the right thing.Andrew Keen: Well, finally, Sarah, a lot of people are going to be watching this on my Substack page. Your Substack Page, your newsletter, They Knew, I think has last count, 52,000 subscribers. Is this the new model for independent writers, journalist thinkers like yourself? I'm not sure of those 52,00, how many of them are paid. You noted that your book has disappeared co-isindecially sometimes. So maybe some publishers are being intimidated. Is the future for independent thinkers, platforms like Substack, where independent authors like yourself can establish direct intellectual and commercial relations with their readers and followers?Sarah Kendzior: It's certainly the present. I mean, this is the only place or other newsletter outlets, I suppose, that I could go. And I purposefully divorced myself from all institutions except for my publisher because I knew that this kind of corruption would inhibit me from being able to say the truth. This is why I dropped out of academia, I dropped out of regular journalism. I have isolated myself to some degree on purpose. And I also just like being in control of this and having direct access to my readers. However, what does concern me is, you know, Twitter used to also be a place where I had direct access to people I could get my message out. I could circumvent a lot of the traditional modes of communication. Now I'm essentially shadow banned on there, along with a lot of people. And you know Musk has basically banned substack links because of his feud with Matt Taibbi. You know, that led to, if you drop a substack link in there, it just gets kind of submerged and people don't see it. So, you know, I think about Twitter and how positive I was about that, maybe like 12, 13 years ago, and I wonder how I feel about Substack and what will happen to it going forward, because clearly, you Know, Trump's camp realizes the utility of these platforms, like they know that a lot of people who are prominent anti authoritarian voices are using them to get the word out when they are when they lose their own platform at, like, say, the Washington Post or MSNBC or... Whatever network is corrupted or bullied. And so eventually, I think they'll come for it. And, you know, so stack has problems on its own anyway. So I am worried. I make up backups of everything. I encourage people to consume analog content and to print things out if they like them in this time. So get my book on that note, brand new analog content for you. A nice digital.Andrew Keen: Yeah, don't buy it digitally. I assume it's available on Kindle, but you're probably not too keen or even on Amazon and Bezos. Finally, Sarah, this is Friday. Fridays are supposed to be cheerful days, the days before the weekend. Is there anything to be cheerful about on April The 18th 2025 in America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, yeah, there's things to be cheerful about, you know, pre spring, nice weather. I'm worried about this weekend. I'll just get this out real quick. You know, this is basically militia Christmas. You know, This is the anniversary of Waco, the Oklahoma City bombings, Columbine. It's Hitler's birthday. This is a time when traditionally American militia groups become in other words,Andrew Keen: Springtime in America.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, springtime for Hitler. You know, and so I'm worried about this weekend. I'm worry that if there are anti-Trump protests that they'll be infiltrated by people trying to stoke the very riots that Trump said he wanted in order to, quote, make America great again and have everything collapse. So everyone, please be very, very careful this weekend heading out and just be aware of the. Of these dates and the importance of these days far predates Trump to, you know, militia groups and other violent extremist groups.Andrew Keen: Well, on that cheerful note, I asked you for a positive note. You've ruined everyone's weekend, probably in a healthy way. You are the Cassandra from St. Louis. Appreciate your bravery and honesty in standing up to Trump and Trumpism, MAGA America. Congratulations on the new book. As you say, it's available in analog form. You can buy it. Take it home, protect it, dig a hole in your garden and protect it from the secret police. Congratulations on the new book. As I said to you before we went live, it's a beautifully written book. I mean, you're noted as a polemicist, but I thought this book is your best written book, the other books were well written, but this is particularly well written. Very personal. So congratulations on that. And Sarah will have to get you back on the show. I'm not sure how much worse things can get in America, but no doubt they will and no doubt you will write about it. So keep well, keep safe and keep doing your brave work. Thank you so much.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, you too. Thank you so much for your kind words and for having me on again. 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 yesterday's show, the neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod explained how radical ideology is infecting our brains. Today, Unite America executive director Nick Troiano explains how the American democratic system is empowering radicals in both parties. In The Primary Solution, Troiano argues that party primaries give disproportionate influence to political extremes, with 90% of elections being decided in primaries where few people participate. Troiano advocates for open primaries that allow all voters to participate regardless of party affiliation, citing Alaska's reform which combine open primaries with ranked-choice voting as a model solution. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* The primary election system in America gives disproportionate influence to political fringes, as 90% of elections are effectively decided in primaries where few people participate.* In 16 states, independent voters (about 16 million Americans) are locked out of taxpayer-funded primaries, meaning they cannot participate in elections that often determine the final outcome.* Five states (Nebraska, Louisiana, California, Washington, and Alaska) have already abolished party primaries for state or federal elections, implementing various alternative systems.* Troiano advocates for the Alaska model, which combines an open all-candidate primary with instant runoff elections, allowing all voters to participate regardless of party affiliation.* Structural reform at the state level is more achievable than national reform, as the Constitution allows states to set the "time, place, and manner" of their elections without requiring constitutional amendments.Nick Troiano is the founding executive director of Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. Since 2019, Unite America has invested over $50 million to help win three major statewide ballot initiatives and over a dozen state legislative and municipal policy victories. In 2014, Troiano ran for the US House of Representatives in Pennsylvania's 10th District and was both the youngest candidate of the cycle and the most competitive independent Congressional candidate nationally in over two decades. Nick earned both his BA and MA in American government from Georgetown University and, as an undergraduate, cofounded an endowed Social Innovation and Public Service Fund. He regularly provides commentary to a range of media outlets on topics of democracy and politics, and he has been featured in three documentaries: Follow the Leader, Broken Eggs, and Unrepresented. He lives in Denver, Colorado.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Our brains are delicate things. That, at least, is the view of the neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod, whose new book, The Ideological Brain, is a warning about how radical ideologies of both left and right can infect our brains. She argues that, in contrast with flexible thinking, ideological discourse involves rigid adherence to doctrines and anti-scientific dismissal of factual evidence. She notes that economic and political stress rigidifies our thought processes, making us more susceptible to ideological viruses. Ideology then, for Dr Zmigrod, is the new pandemic. Just as we defeated COVID, we need antidotes to fight this existential threat to our collective well-being. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Ideological thinking is characterized by rigid adherence to doctrine and resistance to evidence, while flexible thinking involves updating beliefs based on new information.* Research shows that political extremists on both left and right demonstrate cognitive rigidity, while moderate thinkers exhibit greater cognitive flexibility.* Stress physically rigidifies thought processes, making people more susceptible to ideological thinking and extremism during challenging times.* Cognitive flexibility can be cultivated as a protective factor against extremism, though it requires active work to resist fixed identities and doctrines.* Zmigrod worries that AI may accelerate extremism by blurring the line between fact and fiction, potentially creating separate AI models for different ideological communities.Dr Leor Zmigrod is a political psychologist and neuroscientist investigating why some brains are susceptible to extreme ideologies and how minds can break free from rigid dogmas. Her first book, The Ideological Brain, is available now from Viking (Penguin Random House) and Henry Holt & Co (Macmillan), alongside over 15 translations.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

To celebrate our 2500th show, long time KEEN ON friend David Masciotra interviewed me about the current perilous situation in America. We discuss why I've renamed the show KEEN ON AMERICA and my thoughts on the U.S's increasingly pivotal role in 21st century history. We discuss America's changing "operating system" as it struggles to reinvent its 20th century industrial identity. We explore America's age old relationship between technology, entertainment, and politics, particularly in how Trump represents a kind of apotheosis of Neil Postman's warning about the convergence of politics and entertainment. I express ever so cautious optimism about America in 2025, highlighting the country's historic capacity for reinvention, self-creation and, above all, defiant resistance to the stupidity and evil of you-know-who. 5 TAKEAWAYS* I've renamed the show to "Keen on America" because I see America at the "cockpit of world history" in the 2020s, and I wants to focus on exploring American themes and the country's changing identity.* I see America as reinventing its "operating system" - moving beyond its 20th century identity while maintaining its uniquely American characteristics rather than becoming more like Europe.* As an immigrant, I value America as a place for continual reinvention and second chances, reversing Fitzgerald's infamous remark that "there are no second acts in American lives."* I have evolved from my earlier tech pessimism to cautious optimism about America's future, noting that historical periods of transition produce both "monsters" and "angels."* We discuss how Trump represents the complete convergence of politics and entertainment, where entertainment isn't just replacing serious discourse but becoming "the ontological reality" itself.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

MIT professor Thomas Levenson is one of America's most celebrated science writers and filmmakers. In his upcoming new book, So Very Small, Levenson charts the history of germ theory to underline how modern scientific research has changed the world and saved tens of millions of lives. Not surprisingly, then, Levenson expresses deep concern about the Trump administration's attacks on the American scientific establishment, particularly funding cuts affecting critical research. He warns against growing the anti-vaccine ideology, explaining how periods of rapid social change often trigger the kind of anti-expertise attitudes articulated by paranoid reactionaries like RFK Jr. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Science in America is under assault by the Trump administration through funding cuts to critical research institutions like NIH, which doesn't just affect current work but dismantles research infrastructure that takes years to build.* Levenson's book "So Very Small" traces how humans discovered microbes and developed treatments for infectious diseases, showing both scientific progress and persistent resistance to medical innovations like vaccines.* Anti-vaccine sentiment has grown from fringe to mainstream, with RFK Jr.'s appointment as head of health policy representing a serious threat to public health despite the overwhelming evidence supporting vaccine efficacy.* The COVID pandemic demonstrated both scientific triumph (developing vaccines in record time) and societal division, reflecting a pattern where rapid social change often triggers anti-expertise attitudes.* Antibiotic resistance represents a growing crisis where previously curable infections are becoming untreatable, not because of scientific failure but because of social choices about how we've deployed these medications.Thomas Levenson is a professor of science writing at MIT. He is the author of several books, including So Very Small, Money for Nothing, The Hunt for Vulcan, Einstein in Berlin, and Newton and the Counterfeiter: The Unknown Detective Career of the World's Greatest Scientist. He has also made ten feature-length documentaries (including a two-hour Nova program on Einstein) for which he has won numerous awards.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Brookings Senior Fellow Andre M. Perry has a new book out today which measures what he calls the “racial gap” in America and asks what we can do to close it. Entitled The Black Power Scorecard, it draws on extensive research and analysis to quantify how much power Black Americans actually have. Using big data metrics, Perry compares Black communities to each other rather than to white populations to highlight local progress and solutions. The results are more encouraging that some might think. Perry argues for investing in Black-owned businesses and assets, noting they often deliver high quality products and services despite receiving less revenue. More W.E.B. Du Bois than Booker T Washington, Perry advocates for structural change while recognizing the importance of local solutions, rejecting the notion that Black communities must rely solely on Booker T's self-help doctrine. Five Key Takeaways * Perry's "Black Power Scorecard" focuses on factors that promote Black thriving rather than deficits, identifying 13 key predictors of life expectancy including home ownership, income, and clean air.* His research compares Black communities to each other rather than to white populations to highlight local progress and solutions that are often masked by national aggregate statistics.* Data shows Black-owned businesses often score higher on quality metrics (Yelp ratings) yet receive less revenue, demonstrating both quality and systemic barriers.* Perry argues that investing in Black communities benefits everyone, rejecting zero-sum thinking while still acknowledging the need to address specific discriminatory practices.* He takes a "Hamiltonian" structural approach, believing change requires both local solutions and government/corporate involvement, rejecting the notion that Black communities must rely solely on self-help.Andre M. Perry is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Community Uplift at the Brookings Institution. He is also a professor of practice of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. A nationally known and respected commentator on race, structural inequality, and education, Perry is the author of the forthcoming book “Black Power Scorecard: Measuring the Racial Gap and What We Can Do to Close It,” published by Henry Holt, available April 15, 2025 wherever books are sold. In 2020, Brooking Press published Perry's previous book, “Know Your Price: Valuing Black Lives and Property in America's Black Cities.” Perry is a regular contributor to MSNBC and has been published by numerous national media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, Bloomberg CityLab, and CNN.com. Perry has also made appearances on HBO, CNN, PBS, National Public Radio, NBC, and ABC. Perry's research focuses on race and structural inequality, education, and economic inclusion. Perry's recent scholarship at Brookings examines well-being across racial groups and regions in America, focusing on how investments in critical assets can lead to thriving.   Perry's pioneering work on asset devaluation has made him a go- to researcher for policymakers, community development professionals, and civil rights groups. Perry co-authored the groundbreaking 2018 Brookings Institution report “The Devaluation of Assets in Black Neighborhoods,” and has presented its findings on the price of homes in Black neighborhoods across the country, including to the U.S. House Financial Services Committee. He has extended that report's focus on housing in Black neighborhoods to include other assets such as businesses, schools, and banks.  A native of Pittsburgh, Perry earned his Ph.D. in education policy and leadership from the University of Maryland, College Park.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 are the most symbolic mid 20th century American Jews? In Eminent Jews, New Yorker staff writer David Denby tells the remarkable stories of Leonard Bernstein, Mel Brooks, Betty Friedan, and Norman Mailer. He explains how each embodied a new Jewish confidence after WWII, contrasting with earlier generations' restraint. Each figure pushed boundaries in their own way - Bernstein through his musical versatility, Brooks through his boundary-pushing humor about Jewish experiences, Friedan through her feminist theories, and Mailer through his provocative writing style. Five key takeaways * Post-WWII Jewish Americans displayed a newfound confidence and willingness to stand out publicly, unlike previous generations who were more cautious about drawing attention to their Jewishness.* The four figures in Denby's book (Bernstein, Brooks, Friedan, and Mailer) each embraced their Jewish identity differently, while becoming prominent in American culture in their respective fields.* Mel Brooks used humor, particularly about Jewish experiences and historical trauma, as both a defense mechanism and a way to assert Jewish presence and resilience.* Each figure pushed against the restraint of previous Jewish generations - Bernstein through his expressive conducting and openness about his complex sexuality, Friedan through her feminist activism, and Mailer through his aggressive literary style.* Rejecting the notion that a Jewish "golden age" has ended, Denby believes that despite current challenges including campus anti-Semitism, American Jews continue to thrive and excel disproportionately to their population size.David Denby is a staff writer at The New Yorker. He served as a film critic for the magazine from 1998 to 2014. His first article for The New Yorker, “Does Homer Have Legs?,” published in 1993, grew into a book, “Great Books: My Adventures with Homer, Rousseau, Woolf, and Other Indestructible Writers of the Western World,” about reading the literary canon at Columbia University. His other subjects for the magazine have included the Scottish Enlightenment, the writers Susan Sontag and James Agee, and the movie directors Clint Eastwood and the Coen brothers. In 1991, he received a National Magazine Award for three of his articles on high-end audio. Before joining The New Yorker, he was the film critic at New York magazine for twenty years; his writing has also appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Review of Books, and The New Republic. He is the editor of “Awake in the Dark: An Anthology of Film Criticism, 1915 to the Present” and the author of “American Sucker”; “Snark”; “Do the Movies Have a Future?,” a collection that includes his film criticism from the magazine; and “Lit Up,” a study of high-school English teaching. 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 Harper's cover story this month is about the ever-softening soft skills of American workers. Written by Lily Scherlis, it suggests that today's emphasis on "soft skills" reflects America's broader anxieties about automation, workplace conditions, and ever deepening socioeconomic inequality. After attending a Dale Carnegie training course, Scherlis observed how these programs frame human connection as something that can be quantified and engineered. She suggests that the focus on developing individual soft skills serves as a way to blame workers for systemic problems while avoiding addressing deeper political and economic issues. Scherlis views this trend as part of what she calls the "fantasy of the center" that values cultural politeness over meaningful political change. five key takeaways * Scherlis argues that the "soft skills crisis" is not actually about declining sociability but rather reflects deeper anxieties about labor conditions, automation, and political issues.* The Dale Carnegie training she attended focused on teaching formulaic approaches to influence others, emphasizing presentation skills and self-promotion rather than genuine connection.* The concept of "soft skills" emerged from the US military in the early 1970s as an attempt to quantify and control human connection and relationships.* There's a generational component where complaints about Gen Z's workplace behavior mask intergenerational resentment and fears about social change.* The emphasis on individual "adaptability" as a soft skill shifts responsibility from systemic problems to workers, blaming them for not being flexible enough to handle deteriorating conditions.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

Lenin quipped that "there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." The post Liberation Day drama of early April 2025, That Was The Week's Keith Teare suggests, will be remembered as one of those weeks. While the world isn't exactly ending, Keith suggests, the “West” - or at least a post Bretton Woods American centric west - is finished. He may well be right in seeing Trump's clownish tariffs as a symptom of American decline. But if the United States is the past and China the future, then where - Keith and I discuss - does that leave Silicon Valley? What becomes of supposedly pioneering American AI technology in a China centric world? And can traditional Big Tech leviathans like Apple and Google survive the end of the West? FIVE TAKEAWAYS * Shift in global economic power: Our conversation highlights a dramatic change in global trade patterns from 2000 to 2024, with China replacing the US as the dominant trading partner for most countries. This is visualized through maps showing the world changing from predominantly "blue" (US) to "red" (China).* Trump's tariff policy: Keith Teare argues that while Trump's tariffs may seem irrational, they represent a rational (though potentially harmful) attempt to slow America's relative economic decline. He suggests these policies aim to protect America's position even if they shrink the global economic pie.* Impact on Big Tech: We discuss how companies like Apple are vulnerable to tariffs due to their global supply chains, with predictions that an American-made iPhone would cost $3,000-$5,000 instead of $1,000. We also note that even service-oriented tech companies could face European tariffs in retaliation.* Historical significance: Keith characterizes the recent economic shifts as comparable to major historical events like the Bretton Woods agreement, suggesting this represents the end of the post-WWII economic order where America was the unambiguous world leader.* Silicon Valley's political divide: We touch on how Silicon Valley has shifted politically, with many tech elites supporting Trump's "America first" approach, while noting exceptions like Elon Musk who has criticized specific tariff policies. The Palo Alto based Keith observes that AI development remains a bigger topic of conversation in the Valley than politics.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 late February in DC, I attended the US premiere of the Bertelsmann Foundation of North America produced documentary “Lithium Rising”, a movie about the extraction of essential rare minerals like lithium, nickel and cobalt. Afterwards, I moderated a panel featuring the movie's director Samuel George, the Biden US Department of Energy Director Giulia Siccardo and Environmental Lawyer JingJing Zhang (the "Erin Brockovich of China"). In post Liberation Day America, of course, the issues addressed in both “Lithium Rising” and our panel discussion - particularly US-Chinese economic rivalry over these essential rare minerals - are even more relevant. Tariffs or not, George's important new movie uncovers the essential economic and moral rules of today's rechargeable battery age. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* China dominates the critical minerals supply chain, particularly in refining lithium, cobalt, and nickel - creating a significant vulnerability for the United States and Western countries who rely on these minerals for everything from consumer electronics to military equipment.* Resource extraction creates complex moral dilemmas in communities like those in Nevada, Bolivia, Congo, and Chile, where mining offers economic opportunities but also threatens environment and sacred lands, often dividing local populations.* History appears to be repeating itself with China's approach in Africa mirroring aspects of 19th century European colonialism, building infrastructure that primarily serves to extract resources while local communities remain impoverished.* Battery recycling offers a potential "silver lining" but faces two major challenges: making the process cost-effective compared to new mining, and accumulating enough recycled materials to create a closed-loop system, which could take decades.* The geopolitical competition for these minerals is intensifying, with tariffs and trade wars affecting global supply chains and the livelihoods of workers throughout the system, from miners to manufacturers. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. Last year, we did a show on a new book. It was a new book back then called Cobalt Red about the role of cobalt, the mineral in the Congo. We also did a show. The author of the Cobalt Red book is Siddharth Kara, and it won a number of awards. It's the finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. We also did a show with Ernest Scheyder, who authored a book, The War Below, Lithium, Copper, and the Global Battle to Power Our Lives. Lithium and cobalt are indeed becoming the critical minerals of our networked age. We've done two books on it, and a couple of months ago, I went to the premiere, a wonderful new film, a nonfiction documentary by my guest Samuel George. He has a new movie out called Lithium Rising and I moderated a panel in Washington DC and I'm thrilled that Samuel George is joining us now. He works with the Bertelsmann Foundation of North America and it's a Bertelsman funded enterprise. Sam, congratulations on the movie. It's quite an achievement. I know you traveled all over the world. You went to Europe, Latin America, a lot of remarkable footage also from Africa. How would you compare the business of writing a book like Cobalt read or the war below about lithium and cobalt and the challenges and opportunities of doing a movie like lithium rising what are the particular challenges for a movie director like yourself.Samuel George: Yeah, Andrew. Well, first of all, I just want to thank you for having me on the program. I appreciate that. And you're right. It is a very different skill set that's required. It's a different set of challenges and also a different set of opportunities. I mean, the beauty of writing, which is something I get a chance to do as well. And I should say we actually do have a long paper coming out of this process that I wrote that will probably be coming out in the next couple months. But the beauty of writing is you need to kind of understand your topic, and if you can really understand your topics, you have the opportunity to explain it. When it comes to filming, if the camera doesn't have it, you don't have it. You might have a sense of something, people might explain things to you in a certain way, but if you don't have it on your camera in a way that's digestible and easy for audience to grasp, it doesn't matter whether you personally understand it or not. So the challenge is really, okay, maybe you understand the issue, but how do you show it? How do you bring your audience to that front line? Because that's the opportunity that you have that you don't necessarily have when you write. And that's to take an audience literally to these remote locations that they've never been and plant their feet right in the ground, whether that be the Atacama in Northern Chile, whether that'd be the red earth of Colwaisy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And that's the beauty of it, but it takes more of making sure you get something not just whether you understand it is almost irrelevant. I mean I guess you do need to understand it but you need to be able to draw it out of a place. It's easier when you're writing to get to some of these difficult places because you don't have to bring 900 pounds of equipment and you can kind of move easier and you're much more discreet. You can get places much easier as you can imagine, where with this, you're carrying all this equipment down. You're obvious from miles away. So you really have to build relationships and get people to get comfortable with you and be willing to speak out. So it's different arts, but it's also different rewards. And the beauty of being able to combine analysis with these visuals is really the draw of what makes documentary so magic because you're really kind of hitting different senses at the same time, visual, audio, and combining it to hopefully make some sort of bigger story.Andrew Keen: Well, speaking, Sam, of audio and visuals, we've got a one minute clip or introduction to the movie. People just listening on this podcast won't get to see your excellent film work, but everybody else will. So let's just have a minute to see what lithium rising is all about. We'll be back in a minute.[Clip plays]Andrew Keen: Here's a saying that says that the natural resources are today's bread and tomorrow's hunger. Great stuff, Sam. That last quote was in Spanish. Maybe you want to translate that to English, because I think, in a sense, it summarizes what lithium rising is about.Samuel George: Right. Well, that's this idea that natural resources in a lot of these places, I mean, you have to take a step back that a lot of these resources, you mentioned the lithium, the cobalt, you can throw nickel into that conversation. And then some of the more traditional ones like copper and silver, a lot are in poor countries. And for centuries, the opportunity to access this has been like a mirage, dangled in front of many of these poor countries as an opportunity to become more wealthy. Yet what we continue to see is the wealth, the mineral wealth of these countries is sustaining growth around the world while places like Potosí and Bolivia remain remarkably poor. So the question on their minds is, is this time gonna be any different? We know that Bolivia has perhaps the largest lithium deposits in the world. They're struggling to get to it because they're fighting amongst each other politically about what's the best way to do it, and is there any way to it that, hey, for once, maybe some of this resource wealth can stay here so that we don't end up, as the quote said, starving. So that's where their perspective is. And then on the other side, you have the great powers of the world who are engaged in a massive competition for access to these minerals.Andrew Keen: And let's be specific, Sam, we're not talking about 19th century Europe and great powers where there were four or five, they're really only two great powers when it comes to these resources, aren't they?Samuel George: I mean, I think that's fair to say. I think some people might like to lump in Western Europe and the EU with the United States to the extent that we used to traditionally conceive of them as being on the same team. But certainly, yes, this is a competition between the United States and China. And it's one that, frankly, China is winning and winning handily. And we can debate what that means, but it's true. I showed this film in London. And a student, who I believe was Chinese, commented, is it really fair to even call this a race? Because it seems to be over.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's over. You showed it at King's College in London. I heard it was an excellent event.Samuel George: Yeah, it really was. But the point here is, to the extent that it's a competition between the United States and China, which it is, China is winning. And that's of grave concern to Washington. So there's the sense that the United States needs to catch up and need to catch up quickly. So that's the perspective that these two great powers are going at it from. Whereas if you're the Democratic Republic of Congo, if you are Bolivia, if your Chile, you're saying, what can we do to try to make the most of this opportunity and not just get steamrolled?Andrew Keen: Right. And you talk about a grave concern. Of course, there is grave concern both in Washington, D.C. and Beijing in terms of who's winning this race for these natural resources that are driving our networked age, our battery powered age. Some people might think the race has ended. Some people may even argue that it hasn't even really begun. But of course, one of the biggest issues, and particularly when it comes to the Chinese, is this neocolonial element. This was certainly brought out in Cobalt Red, which is quite a controversial book about the way in which China has essentially colonized the Congo by mining Cobalt in Congo, using local labor and then shipping out these valuable resources back to China. And of course, it's part of a broader project in Africa of the Chinese, which for some critics actually not that different from European 19th century colonialism. That's why we entitled our show with Siddharth Kara, The New Heart of Darkness. Of course, the original Heart of darkness was Joseph Conrad's great novel that got turned into Apocalypse Now. Is history repeating itself, Sam, when it comes to these natural resources in terms of the 19th-century history of colonialism, particularly in Africa?Samuel George: Yeah, I mean, I think it's so one thing that's fair to say is you hear a lot of complaining from the West that says, well, look, standards are not being respected, labor is being taken advantage of, environment is not being taken care of, and this is unfair. And this is true, but your point is equally true that this should not be a foreign concept to the West because it's something that previously the West was clearly engaged in. And so yes, there is echoes of history repeating itself. I don't think there's any other way to look at it. I think it's a complicated dynamic because sometimes people say, well, why is the West not? Why is it not the United States that's in the DRC and getting the cobalt? And I think that's because it's been tough for the United states to find its footing. What China has done is increasingly, and then we did another documentary about this. It's online. It's called Tinder Box Belt and Road, China and the Balkans. And what we increasingly see is in these non-democracies or faulty democracies that has something that China's interested in. China's willing to show up and basically put a lot of money on the table and not ask a whole lot of questions. And if the West, doesn't wanna play that game, whatever they're offering isn't necessarily as attractive. And that's a complication that we see again and again around the world and one, the United States and Europe and the World Bank and Western institutions that often require a lot of background study and open tenders for contracts and democracy caveats and transparency. China's not asking for any of that, as David Dollar, a scholar, said in the prior film, if the World Bank says they're going to build you a road, it's going to be a 10-year process, and we'll see what happens. If China says they'll build you a road a year later, you'll have a road.Andrew Keen: But then the question sound becomes, who owns the road?Samuel George: So let's take the Democratic Republic of the Congo, another great option. China has been building a lot of roads there, and this is obviously beneficial to a country that has very limited infrastructure. It's not just to say everything that China is doing is bad. China is a very large and economically powerful country. It should be contributing to global infrastructure. If it has the ability to finance that, wonderful. We all know Africa, certain African countries can really benefit from improved infrastructure. But where do those roads go? Well, those roads just happen to conveniently connect to these key mineral deposits where China overwhelmingly owns the interest and the minerals.Andrew Keen: That's a bit of a coincidence, isn't it?Samuel George: Well, exactly. And I mean, that's the way it's going. So that's what they'll come to the table. They'll put money on the table, they'll say, we'll get you a road. And, you know, what a coincidence that roads going right by the cobalt mine run by China. That's debatable. If you're from the African perspective, you could say, look, we got a road, and we needed that road. And it could also be that there's a lot of money disappearing in other places. But, you know that that's a different question.Andrew Keen: One of the things I liked about Lithium Rising, the race for critical minerals, your new documentary, is it doesn't pull its punches. Certainly not when it comes to the Chinese. You have some remarkable footage from Africa, but also it doesn't pull its punches in Latin America, or indeed in the United States itself, where cobalt has been discovered and it's the indigenous peoples of some of the regions where cobalt, sorry, where lithium has been discovered, where the African versus Chinese scenario is being played out. So whether it's Bolivia or the western parts of the United States or Congo, the script is pretty similar, isn't it?Samuel George: Yeah, you certainly see themes in the film echoed repeatedly. You mentioned what was the Thacker Pass lithium mine that's being built in northern Nevada. So people say, look, we need lithium. The United States needs lithium. Here's the interesting thing about critical minerals. These are not rare earth minerals. They're actually not that rare. They're in a lot of places and it turns out there's a massive lithium deposit in Nevada. Unfortunately, it's right next to a Native American reservation. This is an area that this tribe has been kind of herded onto after years, centuries of oppression. But the way the documentary tries to investigate it, it is not a clear-cut story of good guy and bad guy, rather it's a very complicated situation, and in that specific case what you have is a tribe that's divided, because there's some people that say, look, this is our land, this is a sacred site, and this is going to be pollution, but then you have a whole other section of the tribe that says we are very poor and this is an opportunity for jobs such that we won't have to leave our area, that we can stay here and work. And these kind of entangled complications we see repeated over and over again. Cobalt is another great example. So there's some people out there that are saying, well, we can make a battery without cobalt. And that's not because they can make a better battery. It's because they want to avoid the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But that cobalt is providing a rare job opportunity. And we can debate the quality of the job, but for the people that are working it, as they say in my film, they say, look, if we could do something else, we would do it. But this is all there is. So if you deprive them of that, the situation gets even worse. And that something we see in Northern Chile. We see it in Nevada. We see in Africa. We see it in Indonesia. What the film does is it raises these moral questions that are incredibly important to talk about. And it sort of begs the question of, not only what's the answer, but who has the right to answer this? I mean, who has right to speak on behalf of the 10 communities that are being destroyed in Northern Chile?Andrew Keen: I have to admit, I thought you did a very good job in the film giving everybody a voice, but my sympathy when it came to the Nevada case was with the younger people who wanted to bring wealth and development into the community rather than some of the more elderly members who were somehow anti-development, anti-investment, anti mining in every sense. I don't see how that benefits, but certainly not their children or the children of their children.Samuel George: I guess the fundamental question there is how bad is that mine going to be for the local environment? And I think that's something that remains to be seen. And one of the major challenges with this broader idea of are we going to greener by transitioning to EVs? And please understand I don't have an opinion of that. I do think anywhere you're doing mining, you're going to have immediate consequences. The transition would have to get big enough that the external the externalities, the positive benefits outweigh that kind of local negativity. And we could get there, but it's also very difficult to imagine massive mining projects anywhere in the world that don't impact the local population. And again, when we pick up our iPhone or when we get in our electric vehicle, we're not necessarily thinking of those 10 villages in the Atacama Desert in Chile.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I've been up to the Atacama's, perhaps the most beautiful part in the world I've ever seen. It's nice. I saw the tourist side of it, so I didn't see the mining. But I take your point. There is one, perhaps, the most positive section of the film. You went to France. I think it was Calais, you took your camera. And it seems as if the French are pioneering a more innovative development of batteries which benefit the local community but also protect them environmentally. What did you see in northern France?Samuel George: Point, and that gets back to this extractive cycle that we've seen before. Okay, so northern France, this is a story a lot of us will know well because it's similar to what we've see in the Rust Belt in the United States. This is an industrial zone, historically, that faced significant deindustrialization in recent decades and now has massive problems with unemployment and lack of job opportunities, as one of the guys says in the film. Nothing's open here anymore except for that cafe over there and that's just because it has gambling guy. I couldn't have said it any better. This EV transition is offering an opportunity to bring back industrial jobs to whether it's Northern France or the United States of America. So that is an opportunity for people to have these more advanced battery-oriented jobs. So that could be building the battery itself. That could be an auto manufacturing plant where you're making EV electric vehicles. So there is job creation that's happening. And that's further along the development stage and kind of higher level jobs. And we meet students in France that are saying, look, this is an opportunity for a career. We see a long-term opportunity for work here. So we're really studying batteries and that's for university students. That's for people maybe 10, 15 years older to kind of go back to school and learn some skills related to batteries. So there is job creation to that. And you might, you may be getting ready to get to this, but where the real silver lining I think comes after that, where we go back to Georgia in the United States and visit a battery recycling plant.Andrew Keen: Right, yeah, those two sections in the movie kind of go together in a sense.Samuel George: Right, they do. And that is, I think, the silver lining here is that these batteries that we use in all of these appliances and devices and gadgets can be recycled in such a way that the cobalt, the lithium, the nickel can be extracted. And it itself hasn't degraded. It's sort of funny for us to think about, because we buy a phone. And three years later, the battery is half as good as it used to be and we figure well, materials in it must be degrading. They're not. The battery is degrading, the materials are fine. So then the idea is if we can get enough of this in the United States, if we can get old phones and old car batteries and old laptops that we can pull those minerals out, maybe we can have a closed loop, which is sort of a way of saying we won't need those mines anymore. We won't have to dig it up. We don't need to compete with China for access to from Bolivia or Chile because we'll have that lithium here. And yes, that's a silver lining, but there's challenges there. The two key challenges your viewers should be aware of is one, it's all about costs and they've proven that they can recycle these materials, but can they do it in a way that's cheaper than importing new lithium? And that's what these different companies are racing to find a way to say, look, we can do this at a way that's cost effective. Then even if you get through that challenge, a second one is just to have the sheer amount of the materials to close that loop, to have enough in the United States already, they estimate we're decades away from that. So those are the two key challenges to the silver lining of recycling, but it is possible. It can be done and they're doing it.Andrew Keen: We haven't talked about the T word, Sam. It's on everyone's lips these days, tariffs. How does this play out? I mean, especially given this growing explicit, aggressive trade war between the United States and China, particularly when it comes to production of iPhones and other battery-driven products. Right. Is tariffs, I mean, you film this really before Trump 2-0, in which tariffs were less central, but is tariffs going to change everything?Samuel George: I mean, this is just like so many other things, an incredibly globalized ecosystem and tariffs. And who even knows by the time this comes out, whatever we think we understand about the new tariff scenario could be completely outdated.Andrew Keen: Guaranteed. I mean, we are talking on Wednesday, April the 9th. This will go out in a few days time. But no doubt by that time, tariffs will have changed dramatically. They already have as we speak.Samuel George: Here's the bottom line, and this is part of the reason the story is so important and so timely, and we haven't even talked about this yet, but it's so critical. Okay, just like oil, you can't just dig oil out of the ground and put it in the car. It's got to be refined. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, it's got be refined as well. And the overwhelming majority of that refining occurs in China. So even your success story like France, where they're building batteries, they still need to import the refined critical minerals from China. So that is a massive vulnerability. And that's part of where this real fear that you see in Washington or Brussels is coming from. You know, and they got their first little taste of it during the COVID supply chain meltdown, but say in the event where China decided that they weren't gonna export any more of this refined material it would be disastrous for people relying on lithium devices, which by the way, is also the military. Increasingly, the military is using lithium battery powered devices. So that's why there's this urgency that we need to get this on shore. We need to this supply chain here. The problem is that's not happening yet. And okay, so you can slap these tariffs on and that's going to make this stuff much more expensive, but that's not going to automatically create a critical mineral refining capacity in the United States of America. So that needs to be built. So you can understand the desire to get this back here. And by the way, the only reason we're not all driving Chinese made electric vehicles is because of tariffs. The Chinese have really, really caught up in terms of high quality electric vehicles at excellent prices. Now, the prices were always good. What's surprising people recently is the quality is there, but they've basically been tariffed out of the United States. And actually the Biden administration was in part behind that. And it was sort of this tension because on the one hand, they were saying, we want a green revolution, we want to green revolution. But on the other hand, they were seeing these quality Chinese electric vehicles. We're not gonna let you bring them in. But yeah, so I mean, I think the ultimate goal, you can understand why a country that's convinced that it's in a long term competition with China would say we can't rely on Chinese refined materials. Slapping a tariff on it isn't any sort of comprehensive strategy and to me it almost seems like you're putting the horse before the cart because we're not really in a place yet where we can say we no longer need China to power our iPhone.Andrew Keen: And one of the nice things about your movie is it features miners, ordinary people living on the land whose lives are dramatically impacted by this. So one would imagine that some of the people you interviewed in Bolivia or Atacama or in Africa or even in Georgia and certainly in Nevada, they're going to be dramatically impacted by the tariffs. These are not just abstract ideas that have a real impact on people's lives.Samuel George: Absolutely. I mean, for decades now, we've built an economic system that's based on globalization. And it's certainly true that that's cost a lot of jobs in the United States. It's also true that there's a lot jobs and companies that have been built around global trade. And this is one of them. And you're talking about significant disruption if your global supply chains, as we've seen before, again, in the COVID crisis when the supply chains fall apart or when the margins, which are already pretty slim to begin with, start to degrade, yeah, it's a major problem.Andrew Keen: Poorly paid in the first place, so...Samuel George: For the most part, yeah.Andrew Keen: Well, we're not talking about dinging Elon Musk. Tell us a little bit, Sam, about how you made this movie. You are a defiantly independent filmmaker, one of the more impressive that I know. You literally carry two large cameras around the world. You don't have a team, you don't have an audio guy, you don't ever sound guy. You do it all on your own. It's quite impressive. Been you shlep these cameras to Latin America, to Southeast Asia, obviously all around America. You commissioned work in Africa. How did you make this film? It's quite an impressive endeavor.Samuel George: Well, first of all, I really appreciate your kind words, but I can't completely accept this idea that I do it all alone. You know, I'm speaking to you now from the Bertelsmann Foundation. I'm the director of Bertelsman Foundation documentaries. And we've just had this fantastic support here and this idea that we can go to the front line and get these stories. And I would encourage people to check out Bertelsmen Foundation documentation.Andrew Keen: And we should have a special shout out to your boss, my friend, Irene Brahm, who runs the BuzzFeed Foundation of North America, who's been right from the beginning, a champion of video making.Samuel George: Oh, absolutely. I mean, Irene Brahm has been a visionary in terms of, you know, something I think that we align on is you take these incredibly interesting issues and somehow analysts manage to make them extraordinarily boring. And Irene had this vision that maybe it doesn't have to be that way.Andrew Keen: She's blushing now as she's watching this, but I don't mean to make you blush, Sam, but these are pretty independent movies. You went around the world, you've done it before, you did it in the Serbian movie too. You're carrying these cameras around, you're doing all your own work, it's quite an achievement.Samuel George: Well, again, I'm very, very thankful for the Bertelsmann Foundation. I think a lot of times, sometimes people, when they hear a foundation or something is behind something, they assume that somebody's got an ax to grind, and that's really not the case here. The Bertelsman Foundation is very supportive of just investigating these key issues, and let's have an honest conversation about it. And maybe it's a cop-out, but in my work, I often don't try to provide a solution.Andrew Keen: Have you had, when we did our event in D.C., you had a woman, a Chinese-born woman who's an expert on this. I don't think she's particularly welcome back on the mainland now. Has there been a Chinese response? Because I would say it's an anti-Chinese movie, but it's not particularly sympathetic or friendly towards China.Samuel George: And I can answer that question because it was the exact same issue we ran into when we filmed Tinder Box Belt and Road, which was again about Chinese investment in the Balkans. And your answer is has there been a Chinese reaction and no sort of official reaction. We always have people sort of from the embassy or various affiliated organizations that like to come to the events when we screen it. And they're very welcome to. But here's a point that I want to get across. Chinese officials and people related to China on these issues are generally uniformly unwilling to participate. And I think that's a poor decision on their part because I think there's a lot they could say to defend themselves. They could say, hey, you guys do this too. They could say, we're providing infrastructure to critical parts of the world. They could said, hey we're way ahead of you guys, but it's not because we did anything wrong. We just saw this was important before you did and built the network. There are many ways they could defend themselves. But rather than do that, they're extremely tight-lipped about what they're doing. And that can, if you're not, and we try our best, you know, we have certain experts from China that when they'll talk, we'll interview them. But that kind of tight-lip approach almost makes it seem like something even more suspicious is happening. Cause you just have to guess what the mindset must be cause they won't explain themselves. And I think Chinese representatives could do far more and it's not just about you know my documentary I understand they have bigger fish to fry but I feel like they fry the fish the same way when they're dealing with bigger entities I think it's to their detriment that they're not more open in engaging a global conversation because look China is gonna be an incredibly impactful part of world dynamics moving forward and they need to be, they need to engage on what they're doing. I think, and I do think they have a story they can tell to defend themselves, and it's unfortunate that they very much don't do it.Andrew Keen: In our DC event, you also had a woman who'd worked within the Biden administration. Has there been a big shift between Biden policy on recycling, recyclable energy and Trump 2.0? It's still the early days of the new administration.Samuel George: Right. And we're trying to get a grip on that of what the difference is going to be. I can tell you this, the Biden approach was very much the historic approach of the United States of America, which is to try to go to a country like Congo and say, look, we're not going to give you money without transparency. We're not gonna give you this big, you know, beautiful deal. We're going to the cheapest to build this or the cheapest build that. But what we can compete with you is on quality and sustainability and improved work conditions. This used to be the United States pitch. And as we've seen in places like Serbia, that's not always the greatest pitch in the world. Oftentimes these countries are more interested in the money without questions being asked. But the United states under the Biden administration tried to compete on quality. Now we will have to see if that continues with the Trump administration, if that continuous to be their pitch. What we've see in the early days is this sort of hardball tactic. I mean, what else can you refer to what's happening with Ukraine, where they say, look, if you want continued military support, we want those minerals. And other countries say, well, maybe that could work for us too. I mean that's sort of, as I understand it, the DRC, which is under, you know, there's new competition there for power that the existing government is saying, hey, United States, if you could please help us, we'll be sure to give you this heaping of minerals. We can say this, the new administration does seem to be taking the need for critical minerals seriously, which I think was an open question because we see so much of the kind of green environmentalism being rolled back. It does still seem to be a priority with the new administration and there does seem to be clarity that the United States is going to have to improve its position regarding these minerals.Andrew Keen: Yeah, I'm guessing Elon Musk sees this as well as anyone, and I'm sure he's quite influential. Finally, Sam, in contrast with a book, which gets distributed and put in bookstores, doing a movie is much more challenging. What's the goal with the movie? You've done a number of launches around the world, screenings in Berlin, Munich, London, Washington D.C. you did run in San Francisco last week. What's the business model, so to speak here? Are you trying to get distribution or do you wanna work with schools or other authorities to show the film?Samuel George: Right, I mean, I appreciate that question. The business model is simple. We just want you to watch. You know, our content is always free. Our films are always free, you can go to bfnadox.org for our catalog. This film is not online yet. You don't need a password, you don't a username, you can just watch our movies, that's what we want. And of course, we're always on the lookout for increased opportunities to spread these. And so we worked on a number of films. We've got PBS to syndicate them nationally. We got one you can check your local listings about a four-month steel workers strike in western Pennsylvania. It's called Local 1196. That just started its national syndication on PBS. So check out for that one. But look, our goal is for folks to watch these. We're looking for the most exposure as we can and we're giving it away for free.Andrew Keen: Just to repeat, if people are interested, that's bfna.docs.org to find more movies. And finally, Sam, for people who are interested perhaps in doing a showing of the film, I know you've worked with a number of universities and interest groups. What would be the best way to approach you.Samuel George: Well, like you say, we're a small team here. You can always feel free to reach out to me. And I don't know if I should pitch my email.Andrew Keen: Yeah, picture email. Give it out. The Chinese will be getting it too. You'll be getting lots of invitations from China probably to show the film.Samuel George: We'd love to come talk about it. That's all we want to do. And we try, but we'd love to talk about it. I think it's fundamental to have that conversation. So the email is just Samuel.George, just as you see it written there, at BFN as in boy, F as in Frank, N as in Nancy, A. Let's make it clearer - Samuel.George@bfna.org. We work with all sorts of organizations on screenings.Andrew Keen: And what about the aspiring filmmakers, as you're the head of documentaries there? Do you work with aspiring documentary filmmakers?Samuel George: Yes, yes, we do often on projects. So if I'm working on a project. So you mentioned that I work by myself, and that is how I learned this industry, you know, is doing it by myself. But increasingly, we're bringing in other skilled people on projects that we're working on. So we don't necessarily outsource entire projects. But we're always looking for opportunities to collaborate. We're looking to bring in talent. And we're looking to make the best products we can on issues that we think are fundamental importance to the Atlantic community. So we love being in touch with filmmakers. We have internship programs. We're open for nonprofit business, I guess you could say.Andrew Keen: Well, that's good stuff. The new movie is called Lithium Rising, The Race for Critical Minerals. I moderated a panel after the North American premiere at the end of February. It's a really interesting, beautifully made film, very compelling. It is only 60 minutes. I strongly advise anyone who has the opportunity to watch it and to contact Sam if they want to put it on their school, a university or other institution. Congratulations Sam on the movie. What's the next project?Samuel George: Next project, we've started working on a project about Southern Louisiana. And in there, we're really looking at the impact of land loss on the bayous and the local shrimpers and crabbers and Cajun community, as well as of course 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 a small world. The great David Rieff came to my San Francisco studio today for in person interview about his new anti-woke polemic Desire and Fate. And half way through our conversation, he brought up Daniel Bessner's This Is America piece which Bessner discussed on yesterday's show. I'm not sure what that tells us about wokeness, a subject which Rieff and I aren't in agreement. For him, it's the thing-in-itself which make sense of our current cultural malaise. Thus Desire and Fate, his attempt (with a great intro from John Banville) to wake us up from Wokeness. For me, it's a distraction. I've included the full transcript below. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS * Rieff views "woke" ideology as primarily American and post-Protestant in nature, rather than stemming solely from French philosophy, emphasizing its connections to self-invention and subjective identity.* He argues that woke culture threatens high culture but not capitalism, noting that corporations have readily embraced a "baudlerized" version of identity politics that avoids class discussions.* Rieff sees woke culture as connected to the wellness movement, with both sharing a preoccupation with "psychic safety" and the metaphorical transformation of experience in which "words” become a form of “violence."* He suggests young people's material insecurity contributes to their focus on identity, as those facing bleak economic prospects turn inward when they "can't make their way in the world."* Rieff characterizes woke ideology as "apocalyptic but not pessimistic," contrasting it with his own genuine pessimism which he considers more realistic about human nature and more cheerful in its acceptance of life's limitations. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, as we digest Trump 2.0, we don't talk that much these days about woke and woke ideology. There was a civil war amongst progressives, I think, on the woke front in 2023 and 2024, but with Donald Trump 2.0 and his various escapades, let's just talk these days about woke. We have a new book, however, on the threat of woke by my guest, David Rieff. It's called Desire and Fate. He wrote it in 2023, came out in late 2024. David's visiting the Bay Area. He's an itinerant man traveling from the East Coast to Latin America and Europe. David, welcome to Keen on America. Do you regret writing this book given what's happened in the last few months in the United States?David Rieff: No, not at all, because I think that the road to moral and intellectual hell is trying to censor yourself according to what you think is useful. There's a famous story of Jean Paul Sartre that he said to the stupefaction of a journalist late in his life that he'd always known about the gulag, and the journalist pretty surprised said, well, why didn't you say anything? And Sartre said so as not to demoralize the French working class. And my own view is, you know, you say what you have to say about this and if I give some aid and comfort to people I don't like, well, so be it. Having said that, I also think a lot of these woke ideas have their, for all of Trump's and Trump's people's fierce opposition to woke, some of the identity politics, particularly around Jewish identity seems to me not that very different from woke. Strangely they seem to have taken, for example, there's a lot of the talk about anti-semitism on college campuses involves student safety which is a great woke trope that you feel unsafe and what people mean by that is not literally they're going to get shot or beaten up, they mean that they feel psychically unsafe. It's part of the kind of metaphorization of experience that unfortunately the United States is now completely in the grips of. But the same thing on the other side, people like Barry Weiss, for example, at the Free Press there, they talk in the same language of psychic safety. So I'm not sure there's, I think there are more similarities than either side is comfortable with.Andrew Keen: You describe Woke, David, as a cultural revolution and you associated in the beginning of the book with something called Lumpen-Rousseauism. As we joked before we went live, I'm not sure if there's anything in Rousseau which isn't Lumpen. But what exactly is this cultural revolution? And can we blame it on bad French philosophy or Swiss French?David Rieff: Well, Swiss-French philosophy, you know exactly. There is a funny anecdote, as I'm sure you know, that Rousseau made a visit to Edinburgh to see Hume and there's something in Hume's diaries where he talks about Rousseau pacing up and down in front of the fire and suddenly exclaiming, but David Hume is not a bad man. And Hume notes in his acerbic way, Rousseau was like walking around without his skin on. And I think some of the woke sensitivity stuff is very much people walking around without their skin on. They can't stand the idea of being offended. I don't see it as much - of course, the influence of that version of cultural relativism that the French like Deleuze and Guattari and other people put forward is part of the story, but I actually see it as much more of a post-Protestant thing. This idea, in that sense, some kind of strange combination of maybe some French philosophy, but also of the wellness movement, of this notion that health, including psychic health, was the ultimate good in a secular society. And then the other part, which again, it seems to be more American than French, which is this idea, and this is particularly true in the trans movement, that you can be anything you want to be. And so that if you feel yourself to be a different gender, well, that's who you are. And what matters is your own subjective sense of these things, and it's up to you. The outside world has no say in it, it's what you feel. And that in a sense, what I mean by post-Protestant is that, I mean, what's the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? The fundamental difference is, it seems to me, that in Roman Catholic tradition, you need the priest to intercede with God, whereas in Protestant tradition, it is, except for the Anglicans, but for most of Protestantism, it's you and God. And in that sense it seems to me there are more of what I see in woke than this notion that some of the right-wing people like Chris Rufo and others have that this is cultural French cultural Marxism making its insidious way through the institutions.Andrew Keen: It's interesting you talk about the Protestant ethic and you mentioned Hume's remark about Rousseau not having his skin on. Do you think that Protestantism enabled people to grow thick skins?David Rieff: I mean, the Calvinist idea certainly did. In fact, there were all these ideas in Protestant culture, at least that's the classical interpretation of deferred gratification. Capitalism was supposed to be the work ethic, all of that stuff that Weber talks about. But I think it got in the modern version. It became something else. It stopped being about those forms of disciplines and started to be about self-invention. And in a sense, there's something very American about that because after all you know it's the Great Gatsby. It's what's the famous sentence of F. Scott Fitzgerald's: there are no second acts in American lives.Andrew Keen: This is the most incorrect thing anyone's ever said about America. I'm not sure if he meant it to be incorrect, did he? I don't know.David Rieff: I think what's true is that you get the American idea, you get to reinvent yourself. And this notion of the dream, the dream become reality. And many years ago when I was spending a lot of time in LA in the late 80s, early 90s, at LAX, there was a sign from the then mayor, Tom Bradley, about how, you know, if you can dream it, it can be true. And I think there's a lot in identitarian woke idea which is that we can - we're not constricted by history or reality. In fact, it's all the present and the future. And so to me again, woke seems to me much more recognizable as something American and by extension post-Protestant in the sense that you see the places where woke is most powerful are in the other, what the encampment kids would call settler colonies, Australia and Canada. And now in the UK of course, where it seems to me by DI or EDI as they call it over there is in many ways stronger in Britain even than it was in the US before Trump.Andrew Keen: Does it really matter though, David? I mean, that's my question. Does it matter? I mean it might matter if you have the good or the bad fortune to teach at a small, expensive liberal arts college. It might matter with some of your dinner parties in Tribeca or here in San Francisco, but for most people, who cares?David Rieff: It doesn't matter. I think it matters to culture and so what you think culture is worth, because a lot of the point of this book was to say there's nothing about woke that threatens capitalism, that threatens the neo-liberal order. I mean it's turning out that Donald Trump is a great deal bigger threat to the neoliberal order. Woke was to the contrary - woke is about talking about everything but class. And so a kind of baudlerized, de-radicalized version of woke became perfectly fine with corporate America. That's why this wonderful old line hard lefty Adolph Reed Jr. says somewhere that woke is about diversifying the ruling class. But I do think it's a threat to high culture because it's about equity. It's about representation. And so elite culture, which I have no shame in proclaiming my loyalty to, can't survive the woke onslaught. And it hasn't, in my view. If you look at just the kinds of books that are being written, the kinds of plays that are been put on, even the opera, the new operas that are being commissioned, they're all about representing the marginalized. They're about speaking for your group, whatever that group is, and doing away with various forms of cultural hierarchy. And I'm with Schoenberg: if it's for everybody, if it's art, Schoenberg said it's not for everybody, and if it's for everybody it's not art. And I think woke destroys that. Woke can live with schlock. I'm sorry, high culture can live with schlock, it always has, it always will. What it can't live with is kitsch. And by which I mean kitsch in Milan Kundera's definition, which is to have opinions that you feel better about yourself for holding. And that I think is inimical to culture. And I think woke is very destructive of those traditions. I mean, in the most obvious sense, it's destructive of the Western tradition, but you know, the high arts in places like Japan or Bengal, I don't think it's any more sympathetic to those things than it is to Shakespeare or John Donne or whatever. So yeah, I think it's a danger in that sense. Is it a danger to the peace of the world? No, of course not.Andrew Keen: Even in cultural terms, as you explain, it is an orthodoxy. If you want to work with the dominant cultural institutions, the newspapers, the universities, the publishing houses, you have to play by those rules, but the great artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians have never done that, so all it provides, I mean you brought up Kundera, all it provides is something that independent artists, creative people will sneer at, will make fun of, as you have in this new book.David Rieff: Well, I hope they'll make fun of it. But on the other hand, I'm an old guy who has the means to sneer. I don't have to please an editor. Someone will publish my books one way or another, whatever ones I have left to write. But if you're 25 years old, maybe you're going to sneer with your pals in the pub, but you're gonna have to toe the line if you want to be published in whatever the obvious mainstream place is and you're going to be attacked on social media. I think a lot of people who are very, young people who are skeptical of this are just so afraid of being attacked by their peers on various social media that they keep quiet. I don't know that it's true that, I'd sort of push back on that. I think non-conformists will out. I hope it's true. But I wonder, I mean, these traditions, once they die, they're very hard to rebuild. And, without going full T.S. Eliot on you, once you don't think you're part of the past, once the idea is that basically, pretty much anything that came before our modern contemporary sense of morality and fairness and right opinion is to be rejected and that, for example, the moral character of the artist should determine whether or not the art should be paid attention to - I don't know how you come back from that or if you come back from that. I'm not convinced you do. No, other arts will be around. And I mean, if I were writing a critical review of my own book, I'd say, look, this culture, this high culture that you, David Rieff, are writing an elegy for, eulogizing or memorializing was going to die anyway, and we're at the beginning of another Gutenbergian epoch, just as Gutenberg, we're sort of 20 years into Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and these other art forms will come, and they won't be like anything else. And that may be true.Andrew Keen: True, it may be true. In a sense then, to extend that critique, are you going full T.S. Eliot in this book?David Rieff: Yeah, I think Eliot was right. But it's not just Eliot, there are people who would be for the wokesters more acceptable like Mandelstam, for example, who said you're part of a conversation that's been going on long before you were born, that's going to be going on after you are, and I think that's what art is. I think the idea that we make some completely new thing is a childish fantasy. I think you belong to a tradition. There are periods - look, this is, I don't find much writing in English in prose fiction very interesting. I have to say I read the books that people talk about because I'm trying to understand what's going on but it doesn't interest me very much, but again, there have been periods of great mediocrity. Think of a period in the late 17th century in England when probably the best poet was this completely, rightly, justifiably forgotten figure, Colley Cibber. You had the great restoration period and then it all collapsed, so maybe it'll be that way. And also, as I say, maybe it's just as with the print revolution, that this new culture of social media will produce completely different forms. I mean, everything is mortal, not just us, but cultures and civilizations and all the rest of it. So I can imagine that, but this is the time I live in and the tradition I come from and I'm sorry it's gone, and I think what's replacing it is for the most part worse.Andrew Keen: You're critical in the book of what you, I'm quoting here, you talk about going from the grand inquisitor to the grand therapist. But you're very critical of the broader American therapeutic culture of acute sensitivity, the thin skin nature of, I guess, the Rousseau in this, whatever, it's lumpen Rousseauanism. So how do you interpret that without psychologizing, or are you psychologizing in the book? How are you making sense of our condition? In other words, can one critique criticize therapeutic culture without becoming oneself therapeutic?David Rieff: You mean the sort of Pogo line, we've met the enemy and it is us. Well, I suppose there's some truth to that. I don't know how much. I think that woke is in some important sense a subset of the wellness movement. And the wellness movement after all has tens and tens of millions of people who are in one sense or another influenced by it. And I think health, including psychic health, and we've moved from wellness as corporal health to wellness as being both soma and psyche. So, I mean, if that's psychologizing, I certainly think it's drawing the parallel or seeing woke in some ways as one of the children of the god of wellness. And that to me, I don't know how therapeutic that is. I think it's just that once you feel, I'm interested in what people feel. I'm not necessarily so interested in, I mean, I've got lots of opinions, but what I think I'm better at than having opinions is trying to understand why people think what they think. And I do think that once health becomes the ultimate good in a secular society and once death becomes the absolutely unacceptable other, and once you have the idea that there's no real distinction of any great validity between psychic and physical wellness, well then of course sensitivity to everything becomes almost an inevitable reaction.Andrew Keen: I was reading the book and I've been thinking about a lot of movements in America which are trying to bring people together, dealing with America, this divided America, as if it's a marriage in crisis. So some of the most effective or interesting, I think, thinkers on this, like Arlie Hochschild in Berkeley, use the language of therapy to bring or to try to bring America back together, even groups like the Braver Angels. Can therapy have any value or that therapeutic culture in a place like America where people are so bitterly divided, so hateful towards one another?David Rieff: Well, it's always been a country where, on the one hand, people have been, as you say, incredibly good at hatred and also a country of people who often construe themselves as misfits and heretics from the Puritans forward. And on the other hand, you have that small-town American idea, which sometimes I think is as important to woke and DI as as anything else which is that famous saying of small town America of all those years ago which was if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. And to some extent that is, I think, a very powerful ancestor of these movements. Whether they're making any headway - of course I hope they are, but Hochschild is a very interesting figure, but I don't, it seems to me it's going all the other way, that people are increasingly only talking to each other.Andrew Keen: What this movement seems to want to do is get beyond - I use this word carefully, I'm not sure if they use it but I'm going to use it - ideology and that we're all prisoners of ideology. Is woke ideology or is it a kind of post-ideology?David Rieff: Well, it's a redemptive idea, a restorative idea. It's an idea that in that sense, there's a notion that it's time for the victims, for the first to be last and the last to be first. I mean, on some level, it is as simple as that. On another level, as I say, I do think it has a lot to do with metaphorization of experience, that people say silence is violence and words are violence and at that point what's violence? I mean there is a kind of level to me where people have gotten trapped in the kind of web of their own metaphors and now are living by them or living shackled to them or whatever image you're hoping for. But I don't know what it means to get beyond ideology. What, all men will be brothers, as in the Beethoven-Schiller symphony? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's the way things are going.Andrew Keen: Is the problem then, and I'm thinking out loud here, is the problem politics or not enough politics?David Rieff: Oh, I think the problem is that now we don't know, we've decided that everything is part, the personal is the political, as the feminists said, 50, 60 years ago. So the personal's political, so the political is the personal. So you have to live the exemplary moral life, or at least the life that doesn't offend anybody or that conforms to whatever the dominant views of what good opinions are, right opinions are. I think what we're in right now is much more the realm of kind of a new set of moral codes, much more than ideology in the kind of discrete sense of politics.Andrew Keen: Now let's come back to this idea of being thin-skinned. Why are people so thin-skinned?David Rieff: Because, I mean, there are lots of things to say about that. One thing, of course, that might be worth saying, is that the young generations, people who are between, let's say, 15 and 30, they're in real material trouble. It's gonna be very hard for them to own a house. It's hard for them to be independent and unless the baby boomers like myself will just transfer every penny to them, which doesn't seem very likely frankly, they're going to live considerably worse than generations before. So if you can't make your way in the world then maybe you make your way yourself or you work on yourself in that sort of therapeutic sense. You worry about your own identity because the only place you have in the world in some way is yourself, is that work, that obsession. I do think some of these material questions are important. There's a guy you may know who's not at all woke, a guy who teaches at the University of Washington called Danny Bessner. And I just did a show with him this morning. He's a smart guy and we have a kind of ironic correspondence over email and DM. And I once said to him, why are you so bitter about everything? And he said, you want to know why? Because I have two children and the likelihood is I'll never get a teaching job that won't require a three hour commute in order for me to live anywhere that I can afford to live. And I thought, and he couldn't be further from woke, he's a kind of Jacobin guy, Jacobin Magazine guy, and if he's left at all, it's kind of old left, but I think a lot of people feel that, that they feel their practical future, it looks pretty grim.Andrew Keen: But David, coming back to the idea of art, they're all suited to the world of art. They don't have to buy a big house and live in the suburbs. They can become poets. They can become filmmakers. They can put their stuff up on YouTube. They can record their music online. There are so many possibilities.David Rieff: It's hard to monetize that. Maybe now you're beginning to sound like the people you don't like. Now you're getting to sound like a capitalist.Andrew Keen: So what? Well, I don't care if I sound like a capitalist. You're not going to starve to death.David Rieff: Well, you might not like, I mean, it's fine to be a barista at 24. It's not so fine at 44. And are these people going to ever get out of this thing? I don't know. I wonder. Look, when I was starting as a writer, as long as you were incredibly diligent, and worked really hard, you could cobble together at least a basic living by accepting every assignment and people paid you bits and bobs of money, but put together, you could make a living. Now, the only way to make money, unless you're lucky enough to be on staff of a few remaining media outlets that remain, is you have to become an impresario, you have become an entrepreneur of your own stuff. And again, sure, do lots of people manage that? Yeah, but not as many as could have worked in that other system, and look at the fate of most newspapers, all folding. Look at the universities. We can talk about woke and how woke destroyed, in my view anyway, a lot of the humanities. But there's also a level in which people didn't want to study these things. So we're looking at the last generation in a lot places of a lot of these humanities departments and not just the ones that are associated with, I don't know, white supremacy or the white male past or whatever, but just the humanities full stop. So I know if that sounds like, maybe it sounds like a capitalist, but maybe it also sounds like you know there was a time when the poets - you know very well, poets never made a living, poets taught in universities. That's the way American poets made their money, including pretty famous poets like Eric Wolcott or Joseph Brodsky or writers, Toni Morrison taught at Princeton all those years, Joyce Carol Oates still alive, she still does. Most of these people couldn't make a living of their work and so the university provided that living.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Barry Weiss earlier. She's making a fortune as an anti-woke journalist. And Free Press seems to be thriving. Yascha Mounk's Persuasion is doing pretty well. Andrew Sullivan, another good example, making a fortune off of Substack. It seems as if the people willing to take risks, Barry Weiss leaving the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan leaving everything he's ever joined - that's...David Rieff: Look, are there going to be people who thrive in this new environment? Sure. And Barry Weiss turns out to be this kind of genius entrepreneur. She deserves full credit for that. Although even Barry Weiss, the paradox for me of Barry Weiss is, a lot of her early activism was saying that she felt unsafe with these anti-Israeli teachers at Columbia. So in a sense, she was using some of the same language as the woke use, psychic safety, because she didn't mean Joseph Massad was gonna come out from the blackboard and shoot her in the eye. She meant that she was offended and used the language of safety to describe that. And so in that sense, again, as I was saying to you earlier, I think there are more similarities here. And Trump, I think this is a genuine counterrevolution that Trump is trying to mount. I'm not very interested in the fascism, non-fascism debate. I'm rather skeptical of it.Andrew Keen: As Danny Bessner is. Yeah, I thought Danny's piece about that was brilliant.David Rieff: We just did a show about it today, that piece about why that's all rubbish. I was tempted, I wrote to a friend that guy you may know David Bell teaches French history -Andrew Keen: He's coming on the show next week. Well, you see, it's just a little community of like-minded people.David Rieff: There you go. Well, I wrote to David.Andrew Keen: And you mentioned his father in the book, Daniel.David Rieff: Yeah, well, his father is sort of one of the tutelary idols of the book. I had his father and I read his father and I learned an enormous amount. I think that book about the cultural contradictions of capitalism is one of the great prescient books about our times. But I wrote to David, I said, I actually sent him the Bessner piece which he was quite ambivalent about. But I said well, I'm not really convinced by the fascism of Trump, maybe just because Hitler read books, unlike Donald Trump. But it's a genuine counterrevolution. And what element will change the landscape in terms of DI and woke and identitarianism is not clear. These people are incredibly ambitious. They really mean to change this country, transform it.Andrew Keen: But from the book, David, Trump's attempts to cleanse, if that's the right word, the university, I would have thought you'd have rather admired that, all these-David Rieff: I agree with some of it.Andrew Keen: All these idiots writing the same article for 30 years about something that no one has any interest in.David Rieff: I look, my problem with Trump is that I do support a lot of that. I think some of the stuff that Christopher Rufo, one of the leading ideologues of this administration has uncovered about university programs and all of this crap, I think it's great that they're not paying for it anymore. The trouble is - you asked me before, is it that important? Is culture important compared to destroying the NATO alliance, blowing up the global trade regime? No. I don't think. So yeah, I like a lot of what they're doing about the university, I don't like, and I am very fiercely opposed to this crackdown on speech. That seems to be grotesque and revolting, but are they canceling supporting transgender theater in Galway? Yeah, I think it's great that they're canceling all that stuff. And so I'm not, that's my problem with Trump, is that some of that stuff I'm quite unashamedly happy about, but it's not nearly worth all the damage he's doing to this country and the world.Andrew Keen: Being very generous with your time, David. Finally, in the book you describe woke as, and I thought this was a very sharp way of describing it, describe it as being apocalyptic but not pessimistic. What did you mean by that? And then what is the opposite of woke? Would it be not apocalyptic, but cheerful?David Rieff: Well, I think genuine pessimists are cheerful, I would put myself among those. The model is Samuel Beckett, who just thinks things are so horrible that why not be cheerful about them, and even express one's pessimism in a relatively cheerful way. You remember the famous story that Thomas McCarthy used to tell about walking in the Luxembourg Gardens with Beckett and McCarthy says to him, great day, it's such a beautiful day, Sam. Beckett says, yeah, beautiful day. McCarthy says, makes you glad to be alive. And Beckett said, oh, I wouldn't go that far. And so, the genuine pessimist is quite cheerful. But coming back to woke, it's apocalyptic in the sense that everything is always at stake. But somehow it's also got this reformist idea that cultural revolution will cleanse away the sins of the supremacist patriarchal past and we'll head for the sunny uplands. I think I'm much too much of a pessimist to think that's possible in any regime, let alone this rather primitive cultural revolution called woke.Andrew Keen: But what would the opposite be?David Rieff: The opposite would be probably some sense that the best we're going to do is make our peace with the trash nature of existence, that life is finite in contrast with the wellness people who probably have a tendency towards the apocalyptic because death is an insult to them. So everything is staving off the bad news and that's where you get this idea that you can, like a lot of revolutions, you can change the nature of people. Look, the communist, Che Guevara talked about the new man. Well, I wonder if he thought it was so new when he was in Bolivia. I think these are - people need utopias, this is one of them, MAGA is another utopia by the way, and people don't seem to be able to do without them and that's - I wish it were otherwise but it isn't.Andrew Keen: I'm guessing the woke people would be offended by the idea of death, are they?David Rieff: Well, I think the woke people, in this synchronicity, people and a lot of people, they're insulted - how can this happen to me, wonderful me? And this is those jokes in the old days when the British could still be savage before they had to have, you know, Henry the Fifth be played by a black actor - why me? Well, why not you? That's just so alien to and it's probably alien to the American idea. You're supposed to - it's supposed to work out and the truth is it doesn't work out. But La Rochefoucauld says somewhere no one can stare for too long at death or the sun and maybe I'm asking too much.Andrew Keen: Maybe only Americans can find death unacceptable to use one of your words.David Rieff: Yes, perhaps.Andrew Keen: Well, David Rieff, congratulations on the new book. Fascinating, troubling, controversial as always. Desire and Fate. I know you're writing a book about Oppenheimer, very different kind of subject. We'll get you back on the show to talk Oppenheimer, where I guess there's not going to be a lot of Lumpen-Rousseauism.David Rieff: Very little, very little love and Rousseau in the quantum mechanics world, but thanks for having me.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

Liberals won't like it, but according to the Seattle based historian and podcaster Daniel Bessner, Trump's wannabe imperial presidency is a “natural outgrowth” of the centralized power of the FDR presidency. In a provocative Jacobin piece, Bessner contends that executive power has been expanding since FDR, with the U.S. President increasingly becoming an "elected monarch." The leftist Bessner criticizes American liberals for both obsessing over the fictional specter of fascism and for failing to address the economic inequality that enabled the rise of Trump. And he expresses pessimism about meaningful reform, arguing that 21st century capitalism has become too entrenched for significant changes without some dramatic external shock. 5 Takeaways from the Bessner Interview* Trump's presidency represents a continuation of American traditions rather than fascism, with his immigration policies echoing historical patterns like the Palmer Raids and McCarthyism.* The significant shift under Trump is his aggressive tariff policy against China, which represents a departure from decades of neoliberal economic approaches.* Presidential power has been expanding dramatically since FDR (who issued over 3,700 executive orders), creating what Bessner calls an "elected monarch" with increasingly unchecked authority.* The failure of liberal leadership, particularly Obama's inadequate response to the 2008 financial crisis and insufficient economic redistribution, created the conditions for Trump's rise.* Bessner expresses deep pessimism about the possibility of meaningful reform, suggesting that capitalism has become too entrenched globally for significant democratic changes without some external shock like climate disaster or war.Daniel Bessner is an historian and journalist. He is currently the Anne H.H. and Kenneth B. Pyle Associate Professor in American Foreign Policy in the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He previously held the Joff Hanauer Honors Professorship in Western Civilization and is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an Associate of the Alameda Institute, and a Contributing Editor at Jacobin. In 2019-2020, he served as a foreign policy advisor to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign; in 2024, for unclear reasons, the Russian government sanctioned him. Daniel is an intellectual historian, and his work has focused on three areas of inquiry: the history and contemporary practice of U.S. foreign relations; the history and theory of liberalism; and, most recently, the history and practice of the entertainment industry. He is the author of Democracy in Exile: Hans Speier and the Rise of the Defense Intellectual (Cornell, 2018), which you may order here. He is also the co-editor, with Nicolas Guilhot, of The Decisionist Imagination: Sovereignty, Social Science, and Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Berghahn, 2019), which you may order here; and the co-editor, with Michael Brenes, of Rethinking U.S. World Power: Domestic Histories of U.S. Foreign Relations (Palgrave, 2024), which you may order here. In addition to his scholarship, he has published pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The New Republic, The Nation, n+1, and other venues. In July 2022, he published a cover story in Harper's Magazine titled “Empire Burlesque: What Comes After the American Century?”; in May 2024, he published a cover story, also in Harper's, titled “The Life and Death of Hollywood: Film and Television Writers Face an Existential Threat,” which was also republished as the cover of the Italian magazine Internazionale.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Question: What was the position of 19th century American Jews to the Civil War and Slavery? Answer: Complicated. Very complicated.Painfully and, in some ways, shamefully complicated, according to the historian Richard Kreitner. In his new book, Fear No Pharaoh, Kreitner explores the radically diverse positions that American Jews held toward slavery during the Civil War. He highlights 6 prominent Jewish figures including Judah Benjamin (a Confederate leader), Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphael (who justified slavery using Torah), David Einhorn (an abolitionist rabbi), Isaac Mayer Wise (who advised Jews to stay out of the conflict), August Bondy (who fought with John Brown), and Ernestine Rose (a radical feminist activist). Kreitner explains how American Jews, numbering around 150,000 by 1860, were - like the rest of the (dis)United States - deeply divided on slavery, with most influenced by regional issues that usurped the supposedly universalist religious ethic of their faith. 5 KEEN ON AMERICA TAKEAWAYS * American Jews were deeply divided on slavery and the Civil War, with most adopting the political views of their geographic region rather than having a unified "Jewish position."* The Jewish experience with slavery in Egypt (celebrated in the Passover tradition) created a complex dynamic for American Jews confronting American slavery, with some using it to oppose slavery while others justified the practice.* Jewish figures like Judah Benjamin rose to high positions in the Confederacy, while others like Rabbi David Einhorn were forced to flee for their anti-slavery activism.* Anti-Semitism was relatively subdued in the American South before the Civil War (as Black enslavement served as the primary social hierarchy), but increased during and after the war.* Figures like Ernestine Rose represented an intersection of Jewish identity, abolitionism, women's rights activism, and freethinking, highlighting the diverse ways American Jews engaged with 19th century social reform movements.Richard Kreitner is the author of Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America's Imperfect Union and Booked: A Traveler's Guide to Literary Locations Around the World. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Nation, Slate, Raritan, The Baffler, and other publications. He lives in the Hudson Valley, New York. In his new Substack podcast, Think Back, Kreitner interview US historians about connections between the past and the present.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. 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

Stephen Witt's last book was entitled How Music Got Free. His latest, The Thinking Machine, a history of NVIDIA and its CEO Jensen Huang, might have been called How Intelligence Got Expensive. It's about NVIDIA's role in both the multi trillion dollar AI revolution and the world's Taiwan-centric microchip economy. Witt explains how NVIDIA transformed itself from an obscure gaming graphics company into an AI hardware powerhouse by investing in scientific computing when competitors wouldn't. He describes Huang's relentless leadership style (including demanding Musk style weekly emails from 30,000 employees), the influence of his Taiwanese heritage, and NVIDIA's success in parallel computing as a post-Moore's Law company. * NVIDIA succeeded by taking a counterintuitive approach - investing heavily in academic computing markets that seemed unprofitable but eventually led to their AI dominance.* Jensen Huang has an unusual management style featuring a flat organizational structure with 60 direct reports, mandatory weekly emails from all employees, and public critiques of underperforming teams.* Huang's Taiwanese heritage and cultural background played a significant role in NVIDIA's success, particularly in establishing crucial manufacturing relationships with TSMC.* NVIDIA's focus on parallel computing positioned them as a post-Moore's Law company, allowing them to thrive when traditional chip manufacturers like Intel and AMD hit physical limitations.* Despite NVIDIA's current dominance, they face threats from Chinese competitors, potential shifts in manufacturing due to tariffs, and the challenge of maintaining control over increasingly powerful AI systems.Stephen Witt is the author of The Thinking Machine, a forthcoming book on the AI hardware giant Nvidia. His first book, How Music Got Free, was a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize, and the Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year. His writing has appeared in The New Yorker, Financial Times, New York, The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, and GQ. He lives in Los Angeles, California.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. 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 death row prisoners have the right to demand to be executed? In her debut book The Volunteer, Bay Area journalist Gianna Toboni exposes the absurd bureaucratization of the American death penalty system through the story of Scott Dozier, a death row inmate who volunteered for execution. Convicted of two murders on circumstantial evidence, Dozier preferred death to living 22-24 hours daily in a cell. Despite his and the state's shared goal of execution, bureaucratic delays and legal challenges prevented it. Toboni describes how extended solitary confinement undermined Dozier's mental health, eventually leading to his suicide, which she suggests was effectively state-induced. Toboni questions whether Americans truly understand the monstrously inefficient system they fund, where death sentences cost ten times more than life imprisonment yet only 15% of death row inmates are actually executed.FIVE TAKEAWAYS IN THIS CONVERSATION WITH TOBONI* The death penalty system is dysfunctional: Despite sentencing people to death, states like Nevada rarely carry out executions (the last one in Nevada was in 2006), creating a system where people are sentenced but left in limbo—only about 15% of death row inmates are ever executed.* Solitary confinement conditions are severe: Dozier was kept in conditions Toboni describes as "psychological torture"—up to 24 hours a day in a small cell, without human contact, reading materials, or other stimulation, which severely deteriorated his mental health.* Death row inmates face higher suicide rates: The suicide rate on death row is approximately 10 times higher than in general prison population, suggesting the conditions push many to take their own lives rather than continue living in those circumstances.* The financial argument is compelling: Death penalty cases cost approximately 10 times more than life imprisonment cases, yet most sentences are never carried out, raising questions about resource allocation.* Humanizing the condemned complicates perspectives: Toboni's experience showed how meeting death row inmates and understanding their full life stories—not just their crimes—can complicate black-and-white views on capital punishment, even for those who oppose it on principle.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.GIANNA TOBONI is a two-time Emmy-winning documentarian and author with dozens of films that have aired on HBO, Showtime, Hulu and VICE. Toboni has traveled to more than 30 countries, including Iraq, Mexico, Somalia, Israel/Palestine/Gaza, Nigeria, Russia, Philippines, and many more, telling stories that highlight the most significant challenges facing each local community and the humanity at the center of them. She's covered the biggest national stories and feels some of the most powerful ones are often hidden right here in America.n Her debut book, THE VOLUNTEER, a story about her relationship with a death row inmate, who volunteered for execution, and the broader story of America's death penalty, will be published by Atria Books, a Simon and Schuster imprint, in 2025. Toboni was honored on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list for Media. She was named a TEDx Speaker on truth and storytelling. Toboni is a Peabody and du-Pont Columbia Award finalist for her documentaries, has won two Emmys, a GLAAD, Gracie, two Front Page Awards, and a Webby for Best Documentary Series. She works alongside her sister, Jacqueline Toboni, to bring both scripted and unscripted projects to the screen through their production company, Mother Media.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. 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 measure the good life? According to Cambridge University's Professor of Public Policy, Diane Coyle, quantifying progress doesn't involve traditional economic metrics. In her new book, Measure of Progress, Coyle discusses how economic metrics like GDP, designed 80 years ago, are increasingly inadequate for measuring today's complex economy. She argues we need new approaches that account for digital transformation, supply chains, and long-term sustainability. Coyle suggests developing human-centric balance sheet measures that reflect true progress beyond simple growth numbers. Five Key Takeaways * Economic metrics like GDP were developed 80 years ago and are increasingly outdated for measuring today's complex digital economy with global supply chains.* We lack adequate tools to measure crucial modern economic factors such as data usage, cloud services, and cross-border supply chains.* Economic statistics have always been political in nature, from their historical origins to present debates about what counts as progress.* Coyle advocates for a "balance sheet" approach that considers long-term sustainability of resources rather than just short-term growth figures.* While productivity growth has slowed for many middle-income families over the past 20 years, Coyle rejects "degrowth" approaches, arguing instead for better metrics that capture true progress in living standards.Professor Dame Diane Coyle is the Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. Diane co-directs the Bennett Institute where she heads research under the themes of progress and productivity. Her latest book is 'Cogs and Monsters: What Economics Is, and What It Should Be', exploring the challenges for economics particularly in the context of digital transformation. Her current research focuses on productivity and on economic measurement: what does it mean for economic policy to make the world ‘better', and how would we know if it succeeds?Diane is also a Director of the Productivity Institute, a Fellow of the Office for National Statistics, and an expert adviser to the National Infrastructure Commission. She has served in public service roles including as Vice Chair of the BBC Trust, member of the Competition Commission, of the Migration Advisory Committee and of the Natural Capital Committee. Diane was Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester until March 2018 and was awarded a DBE for her contribution to economic policy in the 2023 King's Birthday Honours.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

Keach Hagey's upcoming new biography of OpenAI's Sam Altman is entitled The Optimist. But it could alternatively be called The Salesman. The Wall Street Journal reporter describes Altman as an exceptional salesman whose superpower is convincing (ie: selling) others of his vision. This was as true, she notes, in Altman's founding of OpenAI with Elon Musk, their eventual split, and the company's successful pivot to language models. Hagey details the dramatic firing and rehiring of Altman in 2023, attributing it to tensions between AI safety advocates and commercial interests. She reveals Altman's personal ownership of OpenAI's startup fund despite public claims to the contrary, and discusses his ongoing challenge of fixing the company's seemingly irresolvable nonprofit/for-profit structure. 5 Key Takeaways * Sam Altman's greatest skill is his persuasive ability - he can "sell ice to people in northern climates" and convince investors and talent to join his vision, which was crucial for OpenAI's success.* OpenAI was founded to counter AI risks but ironically accelerated AI development - starting an "arms race" after ChatGPT's release despite their charter explicitly stating they wanted to avoid such a race.* The 2023 firing of Altman involved tensions between the "effective altruism" safety-focused faction and Altman's more commercially-oriented approach, with the board believing they saw "a pattern of deliberate deception."* Altman personally owned OpenAI's startup fund despite publicly claiming he had no equity in OpenAI, which was a significant factor in the board's distrust leading to his firing.* Despite regaining his position, Altman still faces challenges converting OpenAI's unusual structure into a more traditional for-profit entity to secure investment, with negotiations proving difficult after the leadership crisis.Keach Hagey is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where she focuses on the intersection of media and technology. She was part of the team that broke the Facebook Files, a series that won a George Polk Award for Business Reporting, a Gerald Loeb Award for Beat Reporting and a Deadline Award for public service. Her investigation into the inner workings of Google's advertising-technology business won recognition from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing (Sabew). Previously, she covered the television industry for the Journal, reporting on large media companies such as 21st Century Fox, Time Warner and Viacom. She led a team that won a Sabew award for coverage of the power struggle inside Viacom. She is the author of The King of Content: Sumner Redstone's Battle for Viacom, CBS and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire, published by HarperCollins, and The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI and the Race to Invent the Future, published by W.W. Norton & Company. Before joining the Journal, Keach covered media for Politico, The National in Abu Dhabi, CBS News and the Village Voice. She has a bachelor's and a master's in English literature from Stanford University. She lives in Irvington, N.Y., with her husband, three daughters and dog.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

According to the LA Times book critic Bethanne Patrick, every generation gets the Gatsby it deserves. And our generation, the social media generation, has gotten it with Careless People, by the Sarah Wynne Williams, Facebook's former global policy director, which draws obvious parallels between Facebook and The Great Gatsby. Williams explicitly compares Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to Fitzgerald's lazily destructive Tom and Daisy Buchanan. She describes how the company prioritized business growth over ethical concerns, focusing on particularly disgraceful incidents in Myanmar and Brazil. And she reveals Sandberg's extravagant lifestyle ($13,000 on lingerie) and Zuckerberg's awkward interactions with world leaders. Patrick suggests the now best-selling book serves as a cautionary tale about powerful tech companies that "will do whatever it takes to get what they want."Bethanne Patrick maintains a storied place in the publishing industry as a critic and as @TheBookMaven on Twitter, where she created the popular #FridayReads and regularly comments on books and literary ideas to over 200,000 followers. Her work appears frequently in the Los Angeles Times as well as in The Washington Post, NPR Books, and Literary Hub. She sits on the board of the PEN/Faulkner Foundation and has served on the board of the National Book Critics Circle. She is the host of the Missing Pages podcast. 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 might be Liberation Day today, but according to Paul Rice, founder of US Fair Trade and author of Every Purchase Matters, Trump's tariffs are dumb. Rice firmly distances Fair Trade from Trump's controversial trade policies, calling them "backward" and "bad for American business." He explains how Fair Trade - which has expanded beyond coffee to include 40 products, from produce to furniture - certifies products through rigorous standards ensuring workers receive fair wages and environmental protections. Every purchase does indeed matter. And, in contrast with Trump's short sighted tariffs, Rice's Fair Trade movement is worth celebrating today. Five Key Takeaways * Fair Trade is fundamentally different from Trump's tariff policies - Rice strongly distinguishes between Trump's "big stick diplomacy" approach to trade and Fair Trade's focus on equitable market transactions that benefit workers and the environment.* Fair Trade certification involves rigorous standards - Products earn certification through a 200-point checklist covering social, labor, and environmental criteria, with independent annual audits ensuring compliance.* Sustainable products don't necessarily cost more - Rice challenges the "fallacy" that ethical products must be more expensive, citing companies like NatureSuite that have adopted Fair Trade standards without raising consumer prices.* The Fair Trade movement is expanding rapidly - What began with coffee has grown to encompass approximately 40 product categories including tea, produce, apparel, furniture, and even cosmetics, with fresh produce being the fastest-growing segment (32% growth last year).* Ethical consumption is a form of everyday activism - Rice promotes the idea that Every Purchase Matters, suggesting consumers can "vote for change" through their purchasing decisions rather than waiting for political elections.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Paul Rice is a pioneer in the global Fair Trade and sustainability movements. Raised with a deep sense of compassion for the poor, Paul has spent 40 years fighting poverty and environmental destruction. The quintessential social entrepreneur, this passion led him to develop innovative models that harness the power of consumers and business to improve people's lives and protect the planet. Paul launched Fair Trade USA (formerly known as TransFair USA) in late 1998 in a one-room warehouse in downtown Oakland, California. Under his leadership, Fair Trade USA became the leading certifier of Fair Trade products in North America, enlisting the support of over 1,700 major brands and retailers who sell everything from coffee and chocolate to apparel and seafood. By 2024, the organization and its partners had generated over $1.2 billion in cumulative financial impact for over 1 million farmers, workers and their families in 70 countries worldwide. Before founding Fair Trade USA, Paul worked with family farmers for 11 years in the highlands of Nicaragua, where he founded and led the country's first Fair Trade organic coffee export cooperative. This deep, firsthand experience with the transformative impact of Fair Trade in the lives of farmers and their communities ultimately inspired him to return to the United States with the dream of mainstreaming the movement in this country. Paul has been named Ethical Corporation's 2019 Business Leader of the Year and has been recognized four times as Social Capitalist of the Year by Fast Company magazine, which dubbed him a “rebel in the boardroom.” He is also a recipient of the prestigious Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship, the World Economic Forum's Social Entrepreneur of the Year, and the Ashoka Fellowship. He has spoken at the World Economic Forum, Clinton Global Initiative, Skoll World Forum, Conscious Capitalism CEO Summit, TEDx, Consumer Goods Forum, and numerous universities and conferences around the world. Paul is regarded as one of today's leading visionaries and practitioners for sustainable sourcing and conscious capitalism.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Happy April Fools, everyone! Although, according to cultural critic David Masciotra every day in Trump 2.0 America is now April Fool's Day. KEEN ON AMERICA regular Masciotra argues that the new Trump's administration represents a "bipartisan phantasm" featuring absurdly unqualified and ignorant figures from both right (Hegseth & Vance) and left (RFK Jr. & Tulsi Gabbard). Masciotra explores how the destruction of media gatekeepers has allowed fantasy to dominate reality - creating what he dubs, crediting Kurt Anderson, Trump's Fantasyland America. Thanks for reading Keen On America! This post is public so feel free to share it.Five KEEN ON AMERICA Takeaways from this Conversation with David Masciotra* America as "Fantasyland" - Masciotra view current American politics as increasingly absurd, with Trump's administration embodying a "fantasyland" where truth and reality are secondary to spectacle. He argues this stems from a longer American tradition of accommodating unfactual, anti scientific beliefs.* Bipartisan Delusion - While fantastical thinking may be more prevalent on the right, Masciotra identifies figures like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard as examples of how the left also contributes to this phenomenon, describing this collective idiocy as a "bipartisan phantasm."* Media Gatekeepers - The conversation highlights how the demolition of traditional media gatekeepers has allowed crazy fringe ideas to gain mainstream traction, with Masciotra confessing that his youthful opposition to “elite” gatekeepers was misguided.* Reality vs. Fantasy - I expresses more faith that reality (such as the economic consequences of tariffs) will eventually overcome fantasy. But Masciotra is more pessimistic, citing examples of people maintaining delusions that do them great personal harm.* Democratic Strategy - We discuss whether Democrats need to incorporate more "fantasy" and humor in their approach, with Masciotra suggesting Democrats need to balance factual standards with more imagination, spontaneity, and willingness to be confrontational.David Masciotra is the author of six books, including Exurbia Now: The Battleground of American Democracy and I Am Somebody: Why Jesse Jackson Matters. He has written for Salon, the Washington Monthly, and many other publications, on politics, music, and literature.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

This is an important interview. I've always thought of the political essayist Peter Wehner as representing the conscience of conservative, religious America. Wehner, who writes both for the Atlantic and the New York Times, has been offering a moral critique of Trump's MAGA movement since 2015. And now that many of his direst warnings are being realized, his voice is amongst the most important in America. In this conversation, Wehner, a religious conservative who worked in several Republican administrations, reiterates his moral critique of Trump, explaining how revenge has become an obsessive emotion that is corrupting both MAGA leaders and followers. He expresses concern about how Trump's behavior is "emotionally rewiring" otherwise decent people, and contrasts this with a figure like the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel who stood defiantly for truth in the face of petty, revengeful authoritarianism. Five Key Takeaways from the Wehner Interview* Revenge as Trump's driving force - Wehner identifies revenge as Trump's core motivation, describing it as an insatiable appetite that crowds out noble emotions and justifies destructive actions.* Moral corruption spreads - Wehner warns that Trump's behavior is "emotionally rewiring" his supporters, with many now taking pleasure in cruelty and transgression rather than just tolerating it.* Religious hypocrisy - Wehner expresses deep disappointment in white evangelical Christians' embrace of Trump, noting the contradiction between their professed faith values and their celebration of Trump's cruelty.* Truth-telling as resistance - Inspired by dissidents like Vaclav Havel, Wehner emphasizes that speaking truth is essential resistance to authoritarianism, even when institutions and leaders are capitulating.* Institutional courage matters - Wehner contrasts organizations and leaders who stand firm (like The Atlantic) with those making "deals with the devil" (like The Washington Post), highlighting the importance of courage during this "stress test" for democracy.Peter Wehner, a Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum, is a contributing Opinion writer for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The Atlantic, two of the most prestigious media journals in the world. He writes on politics and political ideas, on faith and culture, on foreign policy, sports and friendships. Mr. Wehner served in three presidential administrations, including as deputy director of presidential speechwriting for President George W. Bush. Later, he served as the director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Mr. Wehner, a graduate of the University of Washington, is editor or author of six books, including The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, which The New York Times called “a model of conscientious political engagements.” Married and the father of three, he lives in McLean, Virginia.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare believes that the publishing industry is about to be dramatically swept away by AI. I'm not sure. Here, for example, is Anthropic ‘s (Claude) 100 word summary of this week's KEEN ON AMERICA conversation with Keith:“The conversation between Andrew Keen and Keith Teare discusses OpenAI's new image generation tool that can now integrate text with images—a capability Keith considers revolutionary for publishing and graphic design. Andrew remains skeptical about its creative value. They debate whether this technology threatens graphic designers' jobs, with Keith arguing it will transform publishing workflows. They also discuss Google's experiment showing European users don't miss news content, Nick Denton's views on China, Trump's tariff policies, and Elon Musk merging X with his AI company. Keith highlights how AI is becoming integrated into content creation and publishing.”This sounds to me as if it was written by a12 year-old. Certainly not the kind of automated intelligence to keep a publisher up at night. However, if I ask Claude for five takeaways about our conversation this week, I get a much smarter response:Five Key Takeaways from the Conversation with Keith:* OpenAI's new image generation tool can now integrate text with images—a capability Keith views as revolutionary for publishing and graphic design, while Andrew remains skeptical about its creative value.* There's debate about AI's impact on creative professions—Keith believes tools like OpenAI's new image generator will transform graphic design workflows, while Andrew argues that human creativity remains essential.* Google's experiment revealed that removing European news content had negligible impact on user engagement, challenging assumptions about news content's value.* Elon Musk is merging X (formerly Twitter) with his AI company XAI, which Keith views as a smart financial move that could create a viable competitor to OpenAI.* Trump's tariff policies, particularly on vehicles, reflect a commitment to using trade barriers to encourage domestic manufacturing, signaling a broader trend toward economic nationalism.Smarter for sure. Maybe Keith is right. Perhaps traditional publishing companies like Adobe really are about to swept away by the AI revolution. 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

Has Signalgate triggered a credible resistance movement to Trump 2.0? Brookings scholar and Atlantic columnist Jonathan Rauch isn't particularly optimistic. He discusses the emerging resistance from law firms, media, and some religious groups, while expressing concern about Trump potential defiance of Supreme Court orders. Rauch observes that the opposition to Trump's authoritarianism remains fragmented, but believes that eventually counter-organization will develop, though he remains uncertain whether it will happen quickly enough to be effective.Five Key Takeaways from the Rauch Interview* Patrimonial Governance: Trump's administration operates on what Rauch describes as a patrimonial model where loyalty to Trump is paramount, with officials trying to "work toward the Führer" by anticipating his desires rather than awaiting orders.* Institutional Breakdown: Rauch believes the U.S. has moved from a three-branch to effectively a two-branch government, with Congress largely absent as a check on executive power.* Fragmented Resistance: Opposition to Trump remains disorganized, with Rauch noting that resistance is forming but suffering from a collective action problem where institutions (law firms, universities, think tanks) are being picked off individually.* Supreme Court Concerns: Rauch predicts Trump may openly defy a Supreme Court order in his second term, which would represent an unprecedented constitutional crisis.* Religious Politics: Despite writing a book on Christian politics, Rauch sees no cracks in evangelical support for Trump, though he does believe some religious groups might eventually respond to extreme measures like deportations or humanitarian crises.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in the Brookings Institute's Governance Studies program and the author of eight books and many articles on public policy, culture, and government. He is a contributing writer of The Atlantic and recipient of the 2005 National Magazine Award, the magazine industry's equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. His many Brookings publications include the 2021 book “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth”, as well as the 2015 ebook “Political Realism: How Hacks, Machines, Big Money, and Back-Room Deals Can Strengthen American Democracy.” Other books include “The Happiness Curve: Why Life Gets Better after 50” (2018) and “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America” (2004). He has also authored research on political parties, marijuana legalization, LGBT rights and religious liberty, and more.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. 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

This isn't exactly the radical message one would expect from a primary physician from Columbia, Maryland. But according to Dr Andy Lazris, co-author of A Return to Healing, Big Pharma wields an iron grip on the American healthcare system. And it's only by aggressively challenging the control of the pharmaceutical industry, Lazris says, that we can begin to reform the system. Lazris discusses how pharmaceutical companies heavily influence healthcare through funding medical organizations, research, and federal agencies like the CDC and FDA. He advocates for a return to patient-centered medicine with longer appointment times and less emphasis on unnecessary tests and medications. He suggests three core reforms: removing pharmaceutical influence from federal agencies, changing Medicare reimbursement to favor primary care over procedures, and increasing Medicare funding for primary care residency programs. Interestingly, Lazris views RFK Jr.'s health agency cuts as chaotic, but potentially beneficial.Five Key Takeaways from Andy Lazris's Interview* Pharmaceutical Industry Influence: The pharmaceutical industry has excessive influence over healthcare, including federal agencies (CDC, FDA), medical associations, academic research, and treatment protocols, prioritizing profit over patient wellbeing.* Primary Care Crisis: Primary care physicians are a "dying breed" despite their importance, as they face burnout from administrative burdens, quality metrics, protocol constraints, and insufficient time with patients.* Protocol-Driven Medicine: Doctors are increasingly forced to follow standardized protocols and quality indicators rather than providing individualized care, with financial penalties for not adhering to these guidelines.* Patient-Centered Reform: Lazris advocates for a return to healing through longer patient visits (40 minutes), focusing on lifestyle factors like diet and exercise (duh), and reducing unnecessary testing and medication.* Actionable Reforms: Lazris proposes three immediate reforms: eliminating pharmaceutical influence in federal agencies, restructuring Medicare reimbursement to favor primary care over procedures, and increasing Medicare funding for primary care residency programs.Dr. Andy Lazris is a physician Board Certified in Internal Medicine. He has practiced both primary care Internal Medicine and Geriatrics for the past 30 years. In addition to Internal Medicine board certification, he has a Certified Medical Director (CMD) degree and is the director of several long term care facilities in Howard County and beyond. He also is a certified wound specialist physician with a CWSP degree. Dr. Lazris is a Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University. He received a full merit scholarship to Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and completed his Internal Medicine training at University of Virginia Hospital. In 2021 and 2022 Dr. Lazris received the prestigious Top-Doc recognition in Geriatrics for the Baltimore region. In 2022 he was named one of America's most honored doctors. He has received numerous accolades and awards for his practice of medicine, his writing, and his work to reform health care.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Amidst all the chaos and hysteria of Trump 2.0, some things in America never change. As the Atlanta based journalist Brian Goldstone notes in There Is No Place For Us, America's “invisible” working homeless population have been mostly ignored by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Goldstone reveals how approximately 4 million Americans who work full-time jobs cannot today afford housing, with many living in extended-stay hotels, cars, or doubled-up with others. He highlights that 93% of homeless families in Atlanta are Black, and argues that these working homeless are victims of both failed economic policies and a lack of tenant protections. Goldstone criticizes both political parties for failing to address this crisis and calls for treating housing as a fundamental right rather than a commodity.Five Key Takeaways from this Goldstone Interview* Working Homelessness Crisis: Approximately 4 million Americans experience homelessness despite holding jobs, forming an "invisible" crisis where families live in extended-stay hotels, cars, or doubled-up with others.* Racial Disparity: In Atlanta, 93% of homeless families are Black, revealing significant racial disparities in housing insecurity, despite the city's reputation as a "Black Mecca."* Exploitative Housing Systems: Extended-stay hotels function as expensive, unregulated homeless shelters where families pay significantly more ($17,000 for eight months in one case) than they would for apartments they can't access due to credit barriers.* Bipartisan Failure: Both Republican and Democratic administrations have failed to address the root causes of housing insecurity, with Goldstone describing it as a "bipartisan abandonment of working poor people."* Housing as Commodity: The fundamental problem is treating housing as an investment vehicle or commodity rather than a basic human necessity, allowing it to be "auctioned off to the highest bidder."Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Brian Goldstone is a journalist whose longform reporting and essays have appeared in The New York Times, Harper's Magazine, The New Republic, The California Sunday Magazine, and Jacobin, among other publications. He has a PhD in anthropology from Duke University and was a Mellon Research Fellow at Columbia University. In 2021, he was a National Fellow at New America. He lives in Atlanta with his family.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown child 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

Which countries are best positioned to thrive in the 21st century? No, it's not Denmark. Nor China. According to Parag Khanna, the Singapore based geo-strategist, the three countries that top what he calls The Periodic Table of States are Germany, Japan and Switzerland. And the United States of America, Khanna says, going against conventional wisdom, isn't far behind. Khanna's analysis describes a "post-Westphalian world" where non-state actors like corporations and diasporas hold significant influence. Khanna challenges the more conventional rankings of countries by incorporating climate resilience, governance quality, and economic stability alongside traditional metrics into his Periodic Table.The 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our conversation with Khanna* Traditional power metrics are insufficient for measuring state stability - Khanna's "Periodic Table of States" incorporates factors like climate resilience, governance quality, and institutional effectiveness alongside conventional metrics.* Small states often outperform large powers in stability - Switzerland, Germany, and Japan top the rankings while large nations like India, Brazil, and Russia fall into the second tier.* We live in a "post-Westphalian" world where non-state actors (corporations like Google, diaspora networks, and even organized crime) wield significant power beyond traditional nation-state frameworks.* Migration management varies significantly across governance systems - Khanna notes that non-democratic states like UAE and Singapore have effectively managed high immigration rates while democratic nations have struggled politically with migration issues.* A "neo-Hanseatic league" of small, innovative states (like Estonia, Singapore, and Israel) is emerging as a powerful network outside traditional alliance structures, forming their own connections through academic exchanges, free labor mobility, and economic partnerships.Parag Khanna is Founder & CEO of AlphaGeo, the leading AI-powered geospatial analytics platform. He is the internationally bestselling author of seven books including MOVE: Where People Are Going for a Better Future (2021), preceded by The Future is Asian: Commerce, Conflict & Culture in the 21st Century (2019), as well as a trilogy of books on the future of world order beginning with The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order (2008), followed by How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance (2011), and concluding with Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization (2016). He is also the author of Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State (2017) and co-author of Hybrid Reality: Thriving in the Emerging Human-Technology Civilization (2012). Parag was named one of Esquire's “75 Most Influential People of the 21st Century,” and featured in WIRED magazine's “Smart List.” He holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics, and Bachelors and Masters degrees from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Born in India and raised in the UAE, New York and Germany, he has traveled to more than 150 countries and is a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 writer Daniel Oppenheimer and his wife, Jessica, have been going to marriage therapy for many years. But, as he confessed in a recent New York Times magazine piece, he had to go to a superstar councillor to finally recognize that the biggest problem with his marriage was himself. Oppenheimer explains how renowned therapist Terry Real helped them, particularly by teaching him about healthy expressions of power. As with yesterday's show with William Deresiewicz, our conversation expands to broader societal themes about modern masculinity, with Oppenheimer suggesting many men are now struggling with emotional maturity in relationships.Five KEEN ON AMERICA Takeaways with Daniel Oppenheimer* Self-awareness in relationships is crucial - Oppenheimer's confessional essay acknowledges his own reactive behaviors (anger, walking out, saying "f**k you") as primary problems in his marriage.* Men often struggle with emotional maturity - The conversation highlights how many men, including Oppenheimer, have difficulty processing emotions in healthy ways within relationships.* Power dynamics matter in relationships - Therapist Terry Real introduced the concept of "power with" versus "power over," suggesting passive men aren't effective in relationships, but dominating men aren't either.* Cultural representations shape expectations - Oppenheimer discusses how media portrayals of relationships (romantic comedies vs. train wrecks) create unrealistic relationship models without showing the healthy middle ground.* Good relationships require hard work - Despite 18 years of ups and downs, Oppenheimer and his wife chose to stay together, work through their problems, and find a path forward, suggesting commitment and effort are central to lasting relationships.Daniel Oppenheimer is a writer whose features and reviews have been featured in the Washington Post, Texas Monthly, Boston Globe, Slate.com, The Point, Washington Monthly, Guernica, The New Republic, Tablet Magazine, and Salon.com. He received his BA in religious studies from Yale University and an MFA in nonfiction writing from Columbia University. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife Jessica and his kids Jolie, Asa, and Gideon.Exit Right, which was published in February 2016 by Simon & Schuster, was his first book. His other book, Far From Respectable: Dave Hickey and His Art, was published in June 2021 by The University of Texas Press. It was reviewed in a variety of places, but the best review (ie the one that said the nice things most persuasively) was this one by Blake Smith.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 observers are more insightful than the critic William Deresiewicz at identifying the changing landscape of American culture. In my latest conversation with Deresiewicz, best known for his book Excellent Sheep, we explore how young American men are increasingly drawn to right-wing politics while feeling socially devalued and alienated by progressive rhetoric. Deresiewicz critiques universities for embracing a censorious left-wing ideology that has become intellectually stagnant. He contrasts this with the creative ferment happening on the right, while at the same time rejecting Trump's authoritarian tactics against universities. Deresiewicz argues that art has lost its cultural significance as consumption has become disposable, and notes that a new counter-elite is attempting to destroy the established liberal elite rather than join its exclusive club.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in our conversation with Deresiewicz: * Young men, particularly those without elite educations, are increasingly drawn to right-wing politics partly due to economic changes, dating app dynamics, and what Deresiewicz perceives as dismissive rhetoric from the progressive left.* Universities have embraced a "far left progressive ideology" that has been repeatedly rejected by voters even in traditionally liberal areas, yet Deresiewicz condemns Trump's authoritarian tactics against these institutions.* The political left has become intellectually stagnant, with creative energy now more visible on the right, while progressive spaces have become censorious and intolerant of debate.* Art has lost its cultural significance as streaming platforms and internet culture have turned creative works into disposable "content," diminishing both audience engagement and artistic seriousness.* A new counter-elite (represented by figures like Trump and Musk) isn't seeking admission to established power structures but rather aims to destroy them entirely, representing a significant shift in elite dynamics.William Deresiewicz is an award-winning essayist and critic, a frequent speaker at colleges, high schools, and other venues, and the author of five books including the New York Times bestseller Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life. His most recent book is The End of Solitude: Selected Essays on Culture and Society. His current project is a historically informed memoir about being Jewish. Bill has published over 300 essays and reviews. He has won the Hiett Prize in the Humanities, the National Book Critics Circle's Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing, and a Sydney Award; he is also a three-time National Magazine Award nominee. His work, which has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, Harper's, The London Review of Books, and many other publications, has been translated into 19 languages and included in over 40 college readers and other anthologies. Bill taught English at Yale and Columbia before becoming a full-time writer. He has appeared on The Colbert Report, Here & Now, The New Yorker Radio Hour, and many other outlets and has held visiting positions at Bard, Scripps, and Claremont McKenna Colleges as well as at American Jewish University and the University of San Diego. His previous books are The Death of the Artist: How Creators are Struggling to Survive in the Age of Billionaires and Big Tech, A Jane Austen Education, and Jane Austen and the Romantic Poets. Bill is a member of the board (directorial, editorial, or advisory) of The Matthew Strother Center for the Examined Life, a retreat and study program in Catskill, NY; The Metropolitan Review, a new literary journal; Tivnu: Building Justice, which runs a Jewish service-learning gap year and other programs in Portland, OR; the Prohuman Foundation, which promotes the ideals of individual identity and shared humanity; Circle, a group coaching and purpose-finding program for college and graduate students; and Clio's, a selectively curated, chronologically organized bookstore in Oakland.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 achieve BIG change with small acts? According to the Stanford psychologist Gregory Walton, this requires what, in his new book, he dubs Ordinary Magic. Small psychological interventions , Walton argues, can create significant positive changes. He explains that people often face "agency-depriving questions" that undermine their confidence and sense of belonging. His research shows how addressing these concerns through simple but powerful psychological reframes and supportive interactions can help individuals overcome obstacles. Walton distinguishes his evidence-based approach from typical self-help books and "nudge" tactics, emphasizing that while these interventions may appear simple, they require careful design based on deep understanding of human psychology.Here are the five KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our conversation with Walton:* "Ordinary magic" refers to everyday experiences that help people overcome limiting self-doubts, creating potential for extraordinary positive change.* People often face psychological barriers in the form of questions like "Can I do it?" "Do I belong?" and "Does this matter?" which can become self-fulfilling prophecies.* Unlike behavorial economics style "nudge" approaches that treat people like objects to be manipulated, Walton's interventions aim to help people understand and reframe how they make sense of challenging situations.* Simple psychological reframes (like telling a tired child "when you're tired and keep going, your muscles get stronger") can have profound effects on persistence and achievement.* Creating environments where people feel they belong and are valued can dramatically improve outcomes - as demonstrated by interventions that reduced juvenile recidivism from 69% to 29% by connecting students with supportive teachers.* Greg Walton, PhD, is the co-director of the Dweck-Walton Lab and a professor of psychology at Stanford University. Dr. Walton's research is supported by many foundations, including Character Lab, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. He has been covered in major media outlets including The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Los Angeles Times.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

On Thursday, we featured a conversation with Red Scare author Clay Risen about Joe McCarthy, Donald Trump and the Paranoid Style of American History. Today our subject is one of the best known victims of McCarthyism - the German writer Thomas Mann. In His Liberties essay “Mannhood: The Coming Revival of Democracy,” Morten Hoi Jensen writes about how Mann, as an exile from Nazi Germany, toured the United States in the spring of 1938 lecturing in support of New Deal democracy. Thomas Mann's brave defense of American democracy might now appear as a model for dissenting intellectuals in Trump's America. Especially since Mann himself became a victim of the anti communist witch hunt after the War. Here are the five KEEN ON takeways in our conversation with Morten Hoi Jensen about Thomas Mann:* Thomas Mann was initially a conservative artist who became an advocate for democracy as he witnessed the rise of fascism in Germany. His political views evolved significantly from his earlier "apolitical" stance to becoming an outspoken critic of Nazism.* Mann's 1938 book and lecture tour "The Coming Victory of Democracy" warned Americans that democracy was vulnerable even in the United States. He saw parallels between pre-Nazi Germany and aspects of American society, which later contributed to his decision to leave the US during the McCarthy era.* Mann became a victim of McCarthyism in the 1950s. He was labeled as a "premature anti-fascist" by American reactionaries despite his prominence as a Nobel Prize-winning author who had been welcomed to America and had even visited the White House during the Roosevelt administration.* Throughout his life and work, Mann engaged in intense self-criticism and introspection about Germany's descent into fascism. Unlike many other political commentators, he looked inward and questioned his own early nationalistic writings, wondering if he had inadvertently contributed to Nazi ideology.* Mann's approach to politics was always that of an artist rather than a political analyst. His views were complex and often contradictory, yet his willingness to engage with difficult political questions through both his fiction (particularly in "Doctor Faustus") and his public speaking made him an important moral voice during a tumultuous period in history.Morten Hoi Jensen is the author of A Difficult Death: The Life and Work of Jens Peter Jacobsen, which was published by Yale University Press in 2017 with a foreword by James Wood. His writing has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, Liberties: A Journal of Culture and Politics, The Literary Review, The Los Angeles Review of Books, The Point, The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, and Commonweal, among other publications. He is represented by Max Moorhead at Massie & McQuilkin.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 Europe about to become the World's Third Tech Superpower? In our regular That Was The Week round-up of tech news, Keith Teare says NO!, arguing that the EU's increasingly aggressive regulation of Apple and Google will relegate Europe to increasing irrelevance. But I'm not so sure. Just as Europe is finally establishing its military independence from Washington, so I suspect the same will become eventually true of technology. Sure, Europe will never probably develop big tech companies with the global muscle of Tencent or Google. But, in the long run, as Europe establishes economic and military autonomy from the United States, I expect the appearance of native European tech companies that will, at least, be competitive with Chinese and American corporations.Here are our 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in this conversation with Keith Teare:* Europe's regulatory approach to tech is viewed skeptically: Keith sees the European Commission's attempts to regulate American tech companies (particularly Apple) as counterproductive, potentially driving innovation away rather than fostering it. We discuss whether Europe's regulatory stance will lead to either excessive red tape or the development of state-subsidized European tech alternatives.* AI continues to advance rapidly: Our conversation repeatedly references how "AI marches on" as an inevitability. We discuss Sam Altman's view that AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) will become ubiquitous like electricity or transistors, diffusing into everything and becoming cheap and widely available.* A possible cultural shift in tech and politics: We discuss an article by Jaye Chen about why the political right is winning over STEM graduates. She suggests that progressive movements have positioned tech as problematic while conservative messaging portrays technology as an asset, making it more appealing to STEM grads like Chen.* Tech industry geography is changing: Keith emphasizes that the "center of world innovation has moved to China" and predicts this shift to Asia will be "the story for the next 30 years." We compare this to historical shifts in economic power and debate whether America and Europe are in relative decline.* New AI applications are emerging in various fields: Our conversation highlights several new AI applications, including a podcaster using AI to search his own episodes (Chris Williamson's Modern Wisdom), Mercor (an AI recruitment platform that has scaled rapidly), and Skyreel AI (a text-to-film AI agent that can create realistic videos from text descriptions).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

American history, Clay Risen reminds us, has an uncanny knack of repeating itself. In Red Scare, his important new book about blacklists, McCarthyism and the making of modern America, Risen suggests that Trump and MAGA have happened before. First as the tragedy of Joe McCarthy then as farcical Donald Trump? Or might today's latest chapter in the paranoid style of American history actually be its most consequential and thus tragic?Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in this conversation with Risen:* Historical Parallels to Today: Risen suggests that there are striking parallels between the McCarthy era and current American politics under Trump, with similar tactics being used to target perceived enemies and "others" within society. The infrastructure created during previous periods of paranoia (like the FBI and certain immigration laws) is being repurposed in the present day.* Bipartisan Nature of the Red Scare: While often associated with Republicans, the Red Scare had bipartisan elements. Risen explains that Democrats like Harry Truman implemented loyalty programs, and figures like JFK positioned themselves carefully regarding anti-communist sentiment. This challenges the notion that such movements are solely partisan.* Targeting Vulnerable Groups: Both historically and today, political movements often target the most vulnerable groups first. During the Red Scare, Risen explains that was suspected communists and homosexuals; today, transgender people face similar targeting as political pawns and scapegoats.* Impact Beyond the Obviously Political: Risen reminds us that the Red Scare affected ordinary Americans across many sectors - teachers, Hollywood professionals, government workers - whose lives were ruined based on rumors, associations, or past affiliations. This led to widespread conformity as people self-censored to avoid scrutiny.* The Role of Institutions as Backstops: Risen is cautiously optimistic about how America's current paranoid periods might end. He suggests that the judicial system (particularly the Supreme Court) represents the most effective backstop against MAGA excesses, much as the Warren Court eventually helped end McCarthy-era abuses of civil liberties.Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at The New York Times, is the author of Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America. His other recent books include The Impossible Collection of Whiskey (October, 2020) and Single Malt: A Guide to the Whiskies of Scotland (October, 2018). He is also the author of the spirits bestseller American Whiskey, Bourbon & Rye: A Guide to the Nation's Favorite Spirit, now in its sixth printing with more than 100,000 copies sold. It is widely considered the bible on American whiskey and placed Risen among the leading authorities on the history, business, and diversity of U.S. spirits. Risen has served as a judge on multiple spirit award committees, including the prestigious Ultimate Spirits Challenge. In addition to Red Scare, Risen is the author of The Crowded Hour: Teddy Roosevelt, the Rough Riders and the Dawn of the American Century, a New York Times Notable Book of 2019 and a finalist for the Gilder-Lehrman Prize in Military History; A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination; and The Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act. A graduate of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and the University of Chicago, Risen grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and now lives in Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and two children. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 is the MAGA movement's aesthetic? According to the New York Times' Dan Brooks, it's an aesthetic captured by the generative AI video “Trump Gaza”. Childishly absurd, it's an aesthetic, Brooks suggests, of “bearded belly dancers, an Elon Musk look-alike on the beach and a golden statue of President Trump”. It's not reality, of course. There are neither bearded belly dancers nor golden statues of Trump in Gaza right now. It doesn't even resemble actual MAGA America. But as Brooks notes, the MAGA aesthetic - driven by AI generated visuals - is social and cultural “posturing”. It's the post-ironic irony of social media. Unseriously serious. Designed for Instagram and TikTok. Here are the five KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in our conversation with Dan Brooks:* The MAGA style employs a unique form of irony - Brooks describes it as "unstable irony" rather than the "stable irony" of traditional satirists like Jonathan Swift or Stephen Colbert. This style mixes sincere statements with exaggerations and jokes in a way that makes it difficult to determine what's meant seriously.* Generative AI has been embraced by MAGA communities - The conversation highlights how conservative online communities have adopted AI technology for creating content (like the Gaza video discussed) at a higher rate than other groups, enabling them to produce visually impressive media quickly that aligns with their messaging style.* The relationship between politics and morality is shifting (duh) - Brooks contrasts his earlier writing about how social media "weaponized morality" with the MAGA approach, which he characterizes as "anti-moral" rather than amoral—a deliberate rejection of or reaction against perceived moralism in American politics.* Politics increasingly operates on "vibes" rather than facts - Brooks suggests that the "fact-based era in politics" may have been an illusion, with voters making decisions based on associations and cultural identity rather than policy specifics or factual information.* Contemporary American culture is saturated in irony - The conversation traces how irony has become embedded in American communication since the mid-90s, when even institutional messaging began adopting an ironic stance. Brooks notes that in current culture, "the worst thing you can be is cringe or overly sincere."Dan Brooks is a contributor to the New York Times Magazine, The Guardian, Harper's, Pitchfork, and other publications. He lives in Montana with his handsome dog.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Andrew Checchia, a young journalist at NewsJunkie.net, requested an interview with me about the current state of American journalism. So here are my thoughts about the Fourth Estate's role in democracy, our supposedly dwindling trust in media, the ongoing cult of amateurism in journalism and Trump's successful merging of news and entertainment. Here are the five KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from my interview with Checchia:* The Fourth Estate's Role in Democracy* I present journalism not as a formal branch of government but as a consequence of democracy* I believe journalism is necessary for a functioning democracy but I certainly don't think people can or should be forced to consume news* I defend "elite" journalism, comparing it to other professional fields like medicine or law* Trust in Media* I argue that while trust in journalism has declined, people who pay for subscriptions to The New York Times or Wall Street Journal likely trust those sources* I suggest (duh) the real problem isn't with journalism itself but with broader social, educational and cultural problems* I argue that traditional newspapers provide understood biases, while social media offers no way to determine credibility or truth* Digital Media and Amateurism* I discuss how the internet has disrupted traditional media through Web 2.0 style platforms like Craigslist (which decimated local newspapers) * I'm skeptical about most nonprofit news experiments, believing they only preach to the converted* New platforms like Substack, I argue, tend to create a winner-take-all economy rather than supporting a new middle class of journalists* Politics and Entertainment* I note how politics and entertainment have now totally collapsed together in American culture* I discuss how Trump treated politics like reality television, serializing it for an audience already comfortable with this type of medium* I believe people have become addicted to narrative forms derived from reality television and serialized Netflix style shows* Future Outlook* While careful about making predictions, I suggest the current bizarre political situation cannot continue indefinitely* I express cautious optimism about younger generations, believing they've been unfairly written off and will eventually take power* I note a pathetic, “Schumeresque” gerontocratic quality in American politics that needs complete overhaulKeen 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 musician and actor Daryl Davis probably knows more about the Klu Klux Klan than any other living African-American. As the author of Klan-Destine Relationships and his latest The Klan Whisperer, Davis has written about not only his infiltration of the Klan but his befriending of regretful Klansmen like Scott Shepherd (My wife, Cassandra Knight, also wrote about her dinner with Shepherd). Davis' new book should probably be entitled My Life with the Klan. But as the ideas of the Klan have become more mainstream in the last few years, so the traditional KKK itself seems like a quaint relic of a more innocent past. In the old days, you had to hide under a white sheet to say dumb things about people of other colors or faiths. Now these same dumb assumptions are being openly peddled by powerful media figures and elected politicians. Here are the five KEEN ON AMERICA take-aways from our conversation with Davis:* The power of conversation as a tool against hatred: Davis emphasizes that conversation is "the greatest tool or weapon to dismantle conflict" despite being "the least expensive" and "the most underused." His approach involves engaging directly with KKK members to challenge their beliefs through dialogue rather than confrontation.* People can change their racist beliefs: Davis firmly believes that racist ideologies are learned behaviors that can be unlearned. He makes a distinction between inherent traits (like a leopard's spots) and acquired beliefs, arguing that "what can be learned can be unlearned." He provides concrete examples like Scott Shepard, a former Klansman who completely transformed his worldview.* Understanding racism through personal experience: Davis's background as a diplomat's son who traveled extensively gave him a unique perspective on racism. Having been exposed to diversity from an early age, he was shocked when he first experienced racism at age 10, which led to his lifelong quest to understand and combat prejudice.* Core human values transcend differences: Davis believes that regardless of background, all humans share five core values: wanting to be loved, respected, heard, treated fairly and truthfully, and wanting the same things for their families as others want for theirs. He uses this understanding as a foundation for connecting with people across ideological divides.* The importance of distinguishing between ignorance and stupidity: Davis makes a crucial distinction between people who are ignorant (lacking information) versus stupid (having information but ignoring it). He believes education and exposure can cure ignorance, which is why he focuses on providing information and personal connection to those with racist beliefs.Dr. Daryl Davis is an international recording artist who has performed and toured all 50 States and around the world. He has performed extensively with Chuck Berry, The Legendary Blues Band (formerly The Muddy Waters Blues Band), Elvis Presley's Jordanaires, and many others. As an actor Daryl received rave reviews for his stage role in The Time Of Your Life, and has done film and television roles including HBO's acclaimed series The Wire. As a race relations expert Dr. Daryl Davis has received numerous awards and high acclaim for his book Klan-Destine Relationships and his award-winning film documentary Accidental Courtesy. He is the first Black author to write a book on the Ku Klux Klan based upon in-person interviews and personal encounters. His ability to get racists to renounce their ideology has sent Daryl to travel all over the United States and the world to share his methodology.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

Long-time views of the show know that I've always been skeptical of equating Trump/MAGA with European fascism. I've always thought it historically facile and misleading. But I'm beginning to change my mind. Take, for example, David Masciotra's thoughts on Trump's “ravenous bigotry” toward the trans community. As Masciotra warns, this is the kind of organized, willful persecution of powerless minorities that fascist parties openly pursued while in power. Meanwhile, as Masciotra notes, prominent Dems like Gavin Newsom are staging a “shameful retreat” on trans rights and inviting neo-fascists like Steve Bannon onto their podcast shows. And then there's Schumer. Oy.Here are the five KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways with our conversation with Masciotra* Democrats' retreat on trans rights: Masciotra argues that Democrats, including figures like Gavin Newsom and Rahm Emanuel, are retreating from defending transgender rights after the election loss, which he views as both a moral failure and a strategic mistake.* Targeted anti-trans rhetoric: According to Masciotra, 41% of Trump's campaign ads specifically targeted transgender Americans, demonstrating how the issue has been deliberately weaponized for political purposes despite transgender people making up less than 1% of the population.* Trans rights as the "first course": Masciotra warns that "bigotry is ravenous," suggesting that abandoning transgender rights opens the door to attacks on other minority groups, comparing it to a restaurant menu where "trans people are the first course."* Democratic leadership criticism: David Masciotra is highly critical of Democratic leadership, particularly Chuck Schumer, whom he describes as "pathetic" and "inert" in his response to Trump's policies, with Masciotra noting a generational divide in the party's approach to resistance.* Authoritarian tactics and erasure: Masciotra discusses concerning developments like the National Park Service removing transgender references from Stonewall Rebellion information, which he characterizes as a "totalitarian termination of knowledge" mirroring authoritarian tactics described in Orwell's 1984.David Masciotra is an author, lecturer, and journalist. He is the author of Exurbia Now: The Battleground of American Democracy (Melville House Publishing, 2024) I Am Somebody: Why Jesse Jackson Matters (I.B. Tauris, 2020), Mellencamp: American Troubadour (University Press of Kentucky), Barack Obama: Invisible Man (Eyewear Publishers, 2017), and Metallica by Metallica, a 33 1/3 book from Bloomsbury Publishers, which has been translated into Chinese and Greek. In 2010, Continuum Books published his first book, Working On a Dream: The Progressive Political Vision of Bruce Springsteen. Masciotra writes regularly for the New Republic, Washington Monthly, Progressive, the Los Angeles Review of Books, CrimeReads, No Depression, and the Daily Ripple. He has also written for Salon, the Daily Beast, CNN, Atlantic, Washington Post, AlterNet, Indianapolis Star, and CounterPunch. Several of his political essays have been translated into Spanish for publication at Korazon de Perro.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Will AI kill Apple? That's the (absurd) question with which Keith Teare and I begin our THAT WAS THE WEEK tech summary. We conclude that their failure to develop an in-house LLM or introduce a timely intelligence application in mobile won't , of course, destroy Apple. But as Keith and I discuss, the redundancy of its Siri architecture is now forcing Apple to get serious about AI. So should that mean totally scraping Siri? Or acquiring Anthropic or Perplexity? Or does Tim Cook need to be replaced by a more AI friendly CEO ? Sam Altman, perhaps?Here's our KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways for this week's conversation with Keith:* Apple's AI Struggles: Apple is facing criticism for its AI implementation, particularly for announcing features at their developer conference that weren't delivered. However, Keith argues this failure may not matter much since consumers can access better AI tools through third-party apps on their iPhones.* The Future of Voice Interfaces: Both hosts suggest that voice and listening capabilities represent a major untapped opportunity in tech. Keith recommends using OpenAI's conversational mode with AirPods for an impressive experience, indicating that voice interfaces could become a primary way we interact with AI.* Perplexity vs. Anthropic Acquisition: There's discussion about whether Apple should acquire an AI company, with Keith suggesting Perplexity (valued at approximately $9-15 billion) would be a better fit than Anthropic because it combines web search with AI capabilities.* Sam Altman and OpenAI Criticism: Keith criticizes Sam Altman for claiming DeepSeek is "state-controlled," suggesting this is a competitive tactic rather than reality. This is notable as Keith has typically been positive about OpenAI.* Future of Coding and App Development: The conversation touches on Cursor (an AI code editor valued at $10 billion despite being less than a year old) and how AI is transforming app development. Keith suggests that in the future, startups may not need to hire engineers if founders learn to use AI coding tools, potentially revolutionizing the startup ecosystem.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 who, exactly is government. It's the question that Michael Lewis and an all-star team of writers address in a particularly timely new volume of essays. Who is Government? According to the Montana based Sarah Vowell, author of “The Equalizer”, an essay in the volume about the National Archives, government enables all American citizens to find stories about themselves. Vowell praises the modesty of most government employees. But she warns, the work of public servants like the National Archives' Pamela Wright is anything but modest and represents the core foundation of American democracy. Vowell's message is the antidote to the chainsaw. Essential listening in our surreal times.Here are the five Keen On America takeaways in this conversation with Vowell:* The National Archives as a democratic resource: Pamela Wright's work at the National Archives focused on digitizing records (over 300 million so far) to make them accessible to all Americans, regardless of where they live. This democratization of access allows people to bypass intimidating physical buildings and access their history from anywhere.* Public servants are often modest and unsung: Sarah describes how government workers like Wright tend to be modest, team-oriented people who focus on doing their job rather than seeking recognition. This stands in contrast to more visible or self-promoting public figures.* Personal connections to national archives: The conversation reveals how Americans can find their own family stories within government records. Sarah discovered her own family history, including her grandfather's WPA work and connections to the Cherokee Nation's Trail of Tears through archival documents.* Government's impact on opportunity: Sarah emphasizes how government programs like the Higher Education Act of 1965 created opportunities that changed her family's trajectory from poverty to professional careers through access to public education and financial assistance programs.* The interconnectedness of government services and American life: The conversation concludes with Sarah's observation about how government services form an "ecosystem of opportunity" that impacts everything from education to outdoor recreation jobs in Montana, with each part connected to others in ways that aren't always visible but are essential to how society functions.Sarah Vowell is the New York Times bestselling author of seven nonfiction books on American history and culture. By examining the connections between the American past and present, she offers personal, often humorous accounts of American history as well as current events and politics. Her book, Lafayette in the Somewhat United States, explores both the ideas and the battles of the American Revolution, especially the patriot founders' alliance with France as personified by the teenage volunteer in George Washington's army, the Marquis de Lafayette. Vowell's book, Unfamiliar Fishes is the intriguing history of our 50th state, Hawaii, annexed in 1898. Replete with a cast of beguiling and often tragic characters, including an overthrown Hawaiian queen, whalers, missionaries, sugar barons, Teddy Roosevelt and assorted con men, Unfamiliar Fishes is another history lesson in Americana as only Vowell can tell it – with brainy wit and droll humor. The Wordy Shipmates examines the New England Puritans and their journey to and impact on America. She studies John Winthrop's 1630 sermon “A Model of Christian Charity” and the bloody story that resulted from American exceptionalism. And she also traces the relationship of Winthrop, Massachusetts' first governor, and Roger Williams, the Calvinist minister who founded Rhode Island – an unlikely friendship that was emblematic of the polar extremes of the American foundation. Throughout she reveals how American history can show up in the most unexpected places in our modern culture, often in poignant ways. Her book Assassination Vacation is a haunting and surprisingly hilarious road trip to tourist sites devoted to the murders of presidents Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. Vowell examines what these acts of political violence reveal about our national character and our contemporary society. She is also the author of two essay collections, The Partly Cloudy Patriot and Take the Cannoli. Her first book Radio On, is her year-long diary of listening to the radio in 1995. She was guest editor for The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2017. Most recently she contributed an essay for Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service by Michael Lewis (Riverhead, March 18, 2025). Vowell's thirty years as a journalist and columnist began in the freewheeling atmosphere of the weekly newspapers of the 1990s, including The Village Voice, the Twin Cities' City Pages and San Francisco Weekly, where she was the pop music columnist. An original contributor to McSweeney's, she has worked as a columnist for Salon and Time, a reviewer for Spin, a reporter for GQ, and a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times, where she covered politics, history, education and life in Montana. She was a contributing editor for the public radio show This American Life from 1996-2008, where she produced numerous commentaries and documentaries and toured the country in many of the program's live shows. Her notable side projects have included a decade as the founding president of 826NYC, a nonprofit tutoring and writing center for students aged 6-18 in Brooklyn; producing a filmed oral history series commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Montana Constitutional Convention of 1972; and occasional voice acting, including her role as teen superhero Violet Parr in Brad Bird's Academy Award-winning The Incredibles, and its sequel, Incredibles 2, from Pixar Animation Studios.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

As MAGA continues to vandalize the Federal bureaucracy, some progressives are beginning to publicly acknowledge their role in the historic undermining of the US government. In his provocative new book Why Nothing Works, the self-styled “progressive” Marc Dunkelman argues that it was the left - in their cultural aversion to power over the last half century - who have broken the U.S. government. If progressives want to get something…. anything, in fact, done in America - from building high speed railways to more affordable housing - Dunkelman argues that the Democrats need to once again embrace positive government. Don't blame Trump for Musk's chainsaw, Dunkelman tells the Democrats. Blame yourselves.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in this conversation with Dunkelman:* The Progressive Dilemma: Progressivism has two competing impulses that need to be in balance - one that seeks to centralize power to accomplish major projects (the "Hamiltonian" approach), and another that is suspicious of centralized authority and seeks to distribute power (the "Jeffersonian" approach). Since the 1960s, the balance has shifted heavily toward suspicion of power.* Crisis of Effective Governance: The current system has so many checks and constraints that even widely supported public interest projects can't get off the ground. Dunkelman cites the Biden administration's EV charger initiative that produced only 58 chargers from $5 billion in funding due to regulatory barriers and implementation challenges.* Historical Shift in Progressive Attitude: The 1960s-70s marked a turning point when progressive attitudes shifted from trusting centralized authority to deep skepticism. Dunkelman points to figures like Robert Moses (exposed in "The Power Broker") and Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley as embodying a form of centralized power that became viewed as problematic.* Political Consequences: This dysfunction in government has contributed to populist backlash, with voters supporting figures like Trump who promise to take a "sledgehammer" to institutions they see as failing. The inability to deliver visible results has undermined progressive credibility.* Path Forward: Progressives need to develop a new narrative focused on making government work effectively rather than just opposing power. Dunkelman suggests "permitting reform" and similar practical measures need to be central to the progressive agenda, rather than continuing the stale debate about moving left or right.Marc J. Dunkelman is a fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and a former fellow at NYU's Marron Institute of Urban Management. During more than a decade working in politics, he worked for Democratic members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and as a senior fellow at the Clinton Foundation. The author of The Vanishing Neighbor, Dunkelman's work has also appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Atlantic, and Politico. He lives in Providence, Rhode Island.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 New York Times' David Enrich is one of America's most tenacious investigative journalists. So when he comes out with a book entitled Murder the Truth, we should take note. There's a campaign, Enrich warns, sometimes secret, sometimes open, to undermine the First Amendment and press freedom, thereby protecting the rich and powerful. Led by Clarence Thomas, Enrich explains, it's an attempt to call into question the 1964 Supreme Court's 1964 New York Times vs Sullivan decision on libel. Undermine this critical judgement on press freedom, Enrich warns, and the truth could, indeed, by murdered in the United States.Here are the five key take-aways in our conversation with David Enrich:* New York Times v. Sullivan is a crucial legal precedent for press freedom - This 1964 Supreme Court case established the "actual malice" standard that gives journalists protection when reporting on public figures, allowing them to make good-faith mistakes without facing ruinous litigation.* There's a coordinated effort to weaken press protections - Enrich describes a network of conservative lawyers, activists, judges, and wealthy individuals working to undermine New York Times v. Sullivan, with Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch already expressing interest in reconsidering the precedent.* Legal harassment is already silencing journalism - Even with current protections in place, powerful individuals and organizations are weaponizing defamation lawsuits to intimidate journalists, particularly affecting smaller, independent outlets that lack the resources to fight prolonged legal battles.* Media ownership is responding to political pressure - The conversation touches on how even billionaire media owners like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) appear to be making editorial decisions based on fears of government retaliation under the Trump administration.* The threat to press freedom is incremental, not sudden - Enrich argues we may be at a pivotal moment where the campaign against press freedoms is moving from rhetoric to tangible action, comparing it to the "frog in boiling water" - a gradual process that may only be recognized in retrospect.David Enrich is the Finance Editor at The New York Times. He previously was an editor and reporter at The Wall Street Journal in New York and London. He has won numerous journalism awards, including the 2016 Gerald Loeb Award for feature writing. David grew up in Lexington, Mass., and graduated from Claremont McKenna College in California. He lives in New York with his wife and two sons.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Not everyone, especially mainstream Democrats, are going to agree with Jessica Pishko on this one. In Liberties, she argues that it was the Democrats who “built Trump's army”. It was Joe Biden, she claims, who built up the very law enforcement regime that Trump is now weaponizing. So, in Pishko's mind, the Democrats have as much responsibility for the Mad Max police state which Trump is now unleashing now on America.Here are the 5 takeaways in our conversation with Pishko:* Democrats invested in police despite lack of support: According to Pishko, Democrats under Biden significantly invested in law enforcement (adding 100,000 police officers), but this did not translate into police support for Democrats. She argues police overwhelmingly supported Trump in both elections despite these investments.* Police unions backed Trump: Police unions, which traditionally didn't endorse presidential candidates, explicitly supported Trump in his campaigns. Pishko finds this paradoxical since Republicans typically don't support unions, while Democrats (like Biden) protected police pensions and increased funding.* "Defund the police" aftermath: Pishko suggests the 2020 protests led to a backlash where police became more aligned with Trump. She argues Biden's attempt to distance himself from "defund the police" by increasing funding didn't win police support but may have alienated progressive supporters.* Reduced oversight under Trump: Pishko claims Trump has removed checks on police power, citing examples of him pardoning convicted police officers and ending Department of Justice investigations into police brutality. She believes oversight will now need to come from local and state levels.* Structural challenges to police reform: Pishko argues that the structure of policing itself resists reform, pointing to examples like the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department where, despite multiple oversight mechanisms, problems persist. She notes that Black officers are leaving the profession, suggesting systemic issues that individual "good officers" cannot overcome.Jessica Pishko is a journalist and lawyer with a JD from Harvard Law School and an MFA from Columbia University. She has been reporting on the criminal legal system for a decade, with a focus on the political power of sheriffs since 2016. In addition to her newsletter Posse Comitatus, her writings have been featured in The New York Times, Politico, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, The Appeal, Slate, and Democracy Docket. She has been awarded journalism fellowships from the Pulitzer Center and Type Investigations and was a 2022 New America Fellow. A longtime Texas resident, she currently lives with her family in North Carolina.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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's a story today about how a VR headset can make us more empathetic toward nature. But according to the Pacific Northwest based author and biologist Thor Hanson, no digital technology can ever replicate nature. Instead, he argues in his new book Close to Home, we humans are wired, so to speak, to appreciate the natureal world whether its on the Galapagos or in our local park. In fact, he told me in a windswept conversation he recorded outside his home on San Juan island, the wonders of nature are just acute outside our door, even if we live in Los Angeles or New York City. Here are the five KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in our conversation with Thor Hanson:1. Nature is accessible everywhere, not just in remote locations. Hanson emphasizes that meaningful connections with nature can be found right outside your door, even in highly urbanized environments like Los Angeles.2. Local nature connections provide emotional resilience against global environmental challenges. Hanson suggests that forming bonds with nearby natural spaces helps counterbalance feelings of helplessness about larger environmental crises.3. Scientific evidence confirms nature's positive impact on physical and mental health. Multiple studies show measurable benefits from nature exposure, including lower anxiety, reduced blood pressure, and faster recovery from illness.4. Children have a natural ability to observe and connect with nature that adults often lose. Kids see more details in nature because they haven't developed the sensory filters that adults use to block out environmental stimuli.5. Small-scale local conservation efforts can collectively make significant environmental impacts. Hanson shares examples like Switzerland's community pond-building initiative that successfully reversed amphibian population declines across an entire region.Author and biologist Thor Hanson is a Guggenheim Fellow, a Switzer Environmental Fellow, and winner of the John Burroughs Medal. His books include Close to Home, Buzz, The Triumph of Seeds, Feathers, Bartholomew Quill, The Impenetrable Forest, Hurricane Lizards and Plastic Squid, Star and the Maestro, and more.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Here are the 4 KEEN ON AMERICA take-aways in our conversation about the dysfunctional American immigration system with Felipe Torres Medina1) Background & Immigration Journey* Felipe Torres Medina is a comic writer for "The Stephen Colbert Show" and author of the new book America Let Me In about the US immigration system* Born in Bogotá, Colombia, Medina moved to the US at 21 on a student visa to pursue a master's in screenwriting at Boston University* Medina received an "alien of extraordinary ability" visa (talent visa for artists) after graduation, and eventually got a green card after marrying2) On the US Immigration System* Medina describes the immigration process as expensive (costing "tens of thousands of dollars" in legal fees) and filled with bureaucratic challenges* He emphasizes that legal immigration requires "tremendous privilege and money" that most people don't have* The book takes an interactive "choose your own path" format to highlight the maze-like nature of the immigration system* He points out that there hasn't been comprehensive immigration reform since the Clinton administration (nearly 30 years ago)3) Comedy as Commentary* Medina uses humor to process his experiences and create community around shared frustrations* He was inspired by writers like Julio Cortazar, George Saunders, Tina Fey, and Carrie Fisher* The book aims to educate Americans who "have so many opinions about immigration" but "don't know what it entails"* He mentions that making the book interactive and game-like adds "levity" to a tense topic4) How to Fix the System* While critical of Trump's immigration policies, Medina says the book isn't specifically about Trump but about a "flawed and messy" system created by multiple administrations* He suggests moving US Citizenship and Immigration Services out of the Department of Homeland Security to change the narrative that immigration is a security threat* His proposed reforms include creating better pathways for educated immigrants and hiring more USCIS staff to reduce backlogs FULL TRANSCRIPT* Andrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Sunday, March the 9th, 2025. Interesting piece in the times. A couple of days ago, The New York Times, that is about the so-called British flame thrower who is a comic best suited to taking on Trump. They're talking about a man called Kumar. Nish Kumar looks very funny, and apparently he's very angry too. I have to admit, I haven't seen him. It's an interesting subject. It suggests that at the moment, even in spite of Trump and outraging many Americans, the state of American humor could be amped up a bit. My guest today is a writer on The Stephen Colbert Show and a comic, or certainly a comic writer in his own right, Philippe Torres Medina. He has a new book out on Tuesday. It's called America Let Me In, and I'm thrilled that he's joining us from Harlem in Manhattan today. Congratulations, Phillip, on the new job. What do you the new book? I was going to say job. That's a Freudian error here. What do you make of the Times's observation that American humor isn't in its best state when it comes to Trump?Felipe Torres Medina: Oh, wow. That's that's an interesting question. First of all, I love Nish Kumar. I think he's a wonderful, wonderful comedian. He's very funny. He has a level of wit and his observations are just wonderful. I hadn't seen this article, but I really appreciate that the times recognized him because he's been working very hard for a lot of years. I think more than American humor not being fit for the moment. I think at least personally for me, a little bit of addressing Trump again began. And addressing Trump in general is, you know, jokes have to be new. And after basically ten years of Donald Trump every day, all the time, it's certainly hard to continue to find new angles. Now, the dysfunction of the administration and perhaps sometimes the cruelty and whatever they're doing does provide you with material. But I think it can cause you as a writer to be like, oh God, here we go again. More Trump stuff. You know, because that's what we're talking about.Andrew Keen: Do you see your book, Philippe, as a Trump book? America? Let me in. It's about immigration. I mean, obviously touches on in many ways on Trump and certainly his hostility to immigration and immigrants. But is it a Trump book, or is it a broader kind of critique or observation about contemporary America?Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, I never set out to write a book about Trump or a Trump book. My goal is to write a book about the immigration system, because I went through it, and as a comedian, I encountered in it many contradictions and absurdities that just kind of became fodder to me for comedy. So I try to write this book about the system, but the system was caused by many administrations in many parties, you know, now, the current hostility or the current everythingness of immigration, you know, immigration being kind of in the forefront of the national discourse certainly has been aided by Republican policy in the past ten years and by Donald Trump's rhetoric. But that doesn't mean that this is a book about Trump or as a response to Trump. It's actually a book responding to a system that is flawed and messy, but it's the one we have.Andrew Keen: Yeah. You described the book as a love letter to immigrants, but it's not a love letter to the system. Tell me your story. As you say. You went through it so you have firsthand experience. Where were you born?Felipe Torres Medina: So I was born in Colombia. I was born in Bogota, Colombia, which is the capital of Colombia. I lived there most of my life. I moved to United States when I was 21 on a student visa, because I came here to do my masters. I did my master's in screenwriting at Boston University. And after that, you know, I started working here as a comedian, but also as a writer. And I was able to get an alien of extraordinary ability visa, which is a very pretentiously named visa, kind of makes you sound like you're in the X-Men, but it it's just what they call talent visas for artists, athletes, entrepreneurs, educators, whatever. And so I got one of those and then several renewals of those. And then, you know, thanks to my work as a writer, as a comedian, initially as a copywriter in advertising, I was able to I bought I met the love of my life, got married, and then I have a green card and that's why I'm here.Andrew Keen: Yeah. As and quoting here, it sounds rather funny. An alien of extraordinary ability. Do you think your experience is typical? I mean, the even the fact that you came for grad school to to Boston puts you in a, in a kind of intellectual or professional elite. So is your experience in any way typical, do you think?Felipe Torres Medina: I wouldn't say typical. I would say my experience is the experience of many people who come here. And I think it's the experience of the people who are, quote unquote, the immigrants we want. Right. And, you know, if we're going to dive into the rhetoric of the of immigration these days, I came the right way and did everything, quote unquote, the right way. You know, but what this book and also this journey that I took to immigrate here proves is that it's it's only possible with tremendous amount of privilege and tremendous, tremendous amount of money. You know, it's a very expensive process for the majority of people.Andrew Keen: How much did it cost you?Felipe Torres Medina: Oh, I think in total since I started. I mean, when you count the fact that for most, like master's programs, you don't get any sort of financial aid unless you get, like a scholarship from your own country or a sort of like Fulbright or something like that. There's already the cost of a full master's program.Andrew Keen: But then you weren't coming. I mean, you didn't pay for your master's program in order to get immigration papers, you know.Felipe Torres Medina: Of course, that, but I, I had to pay for my master's program to be able to study here. You know, I didn't have I didn't have my any sort of aid. But, you know, discounting that in terms of immigration paperwork, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars because you have to hire immigration lawyers to make sure that everything's fine. And those are quite expensive.Andrew Keen: Was it worth it?Felipe Torres Medina: Well, yeah. You know, I met the love of my life. I live a.Andrew Keen: Very. I mean, there are lots of loves of. You could have met someone else, and that's true. Or you might have even you might have even met her or him at an airport somewhere else while they were on vacation.Felipe Torres Medina: That's that's possible. But yeah, I mean, I live a I live a good life. I do what I wanted to do, you know, I, I took got my master's because I wanted to write comedy professionally and I get to do that. And I do think when I set out to do this, I was like, well, the place with the best film and television industry in the world is and was then and still is the United States. So I was like, well, I have to go there, you know, and I was able to become a part of this industry and to work in this art form.Andrew Keen: You didn't get any job. You You got the combat job? Yes. I believe you drew the the short straw, right? I bet nobody else was right. Just Stephen Colbert.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, I'm very lucky. And but again, it's a mix of luck and hard work and all those things. So yeah, I don't I don't regret moving.Andrew Keen: So some people might be watching this maybe some some MAGA people. I'm not sure if MAGA people really watch this, but if they were they might be thinking, well, Philippe Torres Medina, he's a good example. He's the type of person we want. He jumped through many hoops. He's really smart. He's really successful. He brings value to this country. Is now a full time writer on the Colbert's show he came from it came from Latin America. And he's exactly the kind of person we want. And we want a system that's hard, because only guys like him have the intellectual and financial resources to actually get through it. Well, how would you respond to them?Felipe Torres Medina: I would say that I appreciate the compliment, but I wouldn't necessarily say that that's the best way to move forward on immigration now. I will say this book is a humorous take on the whole immigration journey. And so what? Like I tell different stories of different people coming here made up or inspired by real life. And one of the paths that you can take in this book, because this is kind of an interactive choose your own path book, is mine. But I think what this book tries to prove is that even if you do everything right, even if you, you know, have the money, sometimes it's very, very hard. And that, I think, does put us at a disadvantage when it comes to having a workforce that could be productive for the country, especially as birthrates are declining. You know, we are headed toward a but, you know, people have described as a barrel economy. If we don't simply up the population and the people who are upping the population and actually having children are immigrants.Andrew Keen: One other piece of news today, there's obviously a huge amount of news on the immigration front is apparently there's a freeze on funding to help green card holders. You've been through the process. You write about it in the new book. But how much more difficult is it now?Felipe Torres Medina: You mean under the current administration? Yeah. I wouldn't know. I you know, I think that.Andrew Keen: This idea of even freezing green card. Yeah. That holidays, even if you have a green card, you get frozen.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, exactly. And I think that that, you know, I think that that's what Trump did in his first term, more or less with legal immigration, was to create roadblocks and freezes and these kinds of things to kind of just like stymie the process and make it slower, make it harder, even for people who, again, are doing everything right to be able to remain in the country.Andrew Keen: And I'm guessing also some of the DOJ's stuff about laying off immigration judges and court stuff, they're taking office to leave. Apparently 100 immigration court staff are retiring. This adds to it as well.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS is a very particular part of the government because it is one of the few parts of the federal government that funds itself. Again, going back to cost the fees that they make are so big, they make so much money that if there's a government shut down, actually, USCIS does not shut down. It's one of the few parts of the government that didn't need to shut down, because they make so much money out of the immigrants trying to come here. So it's a really, really strange part of the government. It kind of doesn't know where it belongs. So seeing like the the DOJ's cuts that arrive into the and that may be implemented into USCIS. Kind I'm not familiar with any Dodge cuts recently on USCIS, but I suspect that they would be strange because it's a it's a very strange division of the federal government. It's not like the Department of Education or the like the Forestry Service. It's it's it's own kind of like little fiefdom.Andrew Keen: Are you wrote an interesting thing or you were featured recently on Lit Hub, where this show actually used to get distributed about how to write a funny book about American immigration. Of course, it's it's a good question. I mean, it's such a frustrating bureaucratic mess at the best of times. I do write anything funny, Philippe, about it.Felipe Torres Medina: Well, I think the, the to me, the, the finding a format to be able to explore this, this chaotic system. It's so, so complicated. It's like a maze. So to me, having this kind of interactive format allowed me to have some freedom to be like, okay, well, you know, one of the things that they taught me in my comedy education, when I was training at a theater here in New York, the Upright Citizens Brigade is the premise of if this is true, then what else is true? You know, so if this absurd thing is reality, then what? How can you heighten that reality? And for me, you know, the immigration system is so absurd. It's it's so Byzantine and chaotic that I was like, okay, well, I can heighten this to an extra level. And so when I keyed in on, on this format of like allowing the person who's reading it to be the many characters to inhabit the, the immigrants and also to be playing with the book, you know, going out and going to one page, making their own choices. It allowed me to change the tone immediately of the conversation because you say immigration and everyone's like, oh, you know, it gets tense. But if you're saying like, no, no, this is a game, you know, we're playing this game. It's about immigration, but it's a game. All of a sudden there's a levity to it, and then you take the real absurdities and the real chaos of the system and just heighten it, which is basically what you do with comedy at all times.Andrew Keen: Who are the the fathers or perhaps the mothers of this kind of comedy? The person who comes to my mind is is Kafka, who found his own writing very funny. Not, and I'm not sure everyone necessarily agrees. He, of course, wrote extensively about central mid European bureaucracy and its darkness and absurdity. Who's inspired you both as a comic writer and particularly in terms of this book?Felipe Torres Medina: Well, actually, Kafka also has a great book called America.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Which is a wonderful first paragraph about seeing this. Seeing the Statue of Liberty.Felipe Torres Medina: Yes. Which is also kind of about this. But I would say my inspirations comedically are, you know, I don't think I would have written this book without, like, the work of Tina Fey. I think Bossy Pants was a book where I was like, oh, you can be funny in writing. And Carrie Fisher is a big Star Wars nerd, you know, to like great, funny writer writers who are just, like, writing funny things about their lives. But I think the playfulness of it all, actually, I was inspired by this Argentine writer, Julio Cortazar, who wrote a novel that in English just translated as hopscotch. And this novel is a huge, like, structural disrupter, you know, in the like, what we call the Latin American boom of writing in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And he wrote this novel that is like a game of hopscotch. You're jumping from chapter two chapter. He's directing you back and forth. So I read a lot of that. And I, you know, I read that in my youth, and then I read it. I reread it as I was older. And then there are writers like George Saunders, who can be very funny while talking about very sad or very poignant things. And so that was also a big inspiration to me. But, you know, I am a late night writer, so I was interested in actually making it like, ha ha, funny. Not just, you know, sensible chuckle funny, you know, kind of like a very, like, intellectual kind of funny. So I was also inspired by, you know, my job and like Colbert's original character in Colbert's book, America, I am American. So can you the writing of The Onion and, you know, the book, The Daily Show Book America, which is just kind of like an explanation of what the federal government is and what the country is written in the tone of the correspondents or the the writers for The Daily Show back in the original Jon Stewart iteration. So those books kind of like informed me and made me like, realize, oh, I can you can make like a humorous guy that's jokey and funny, but also is actually saying something isn't just like or teaching you something. Because the biggest reason I started writing this book is that Americans don't know their own immigration system, and they have so many opinions about immigration, particularly now, but no one knows what what it entails. You know? And I don't just mean like conservatives, you know, I don't just mean like, oh, MAGA people. Like, I was living in New York in the Obama years or like the late Obama years, and none of my liberal Brooklyn, you know, IPA and iced matcha drinking friends had any idea what I was going through, you know, when I was trying to get my visas.Andrew Keen: The liberals drink IPA. I didn't know that I drink IPA, I mean, I have to change my. Yeah. It's interesting you bring up in the first part of that response, the, the the Argentine novelist. There's something so surreal now about America. An interesting piece in the times about not being able to pin Trump down because he says one thing one day, the next thing the next day, and everyone accepts that these are contradictions. Now, the times describes these contradictions as this ultimate cover. I'm not quite sure why they're a cover. If you say one thing one day, in the next something the opposite the next day. But is there a Latin American quality to this? I mean, there's a whole tradition of Latin American writing observing the, the cruel absurdities of of dictators and wannabe dictators.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah. I mean, it's it's part of our literary tradition. You know, the dictator novel you have. But again, just as the feast of the goat, and you have Garcia marquez, my my compatriot, you know, like that.Andrew Keen: Was one of my favorite magnificent writing.Felipe Torres Medina: It's it's possibly, I hesitate to say, my favorite writer because it creates ranking, but.Andrew Keen: Well amongst your.Felipe Torres Medina: Favorite, among my favorite writers, 100 Years of Solitude. Obviously that is possibly my favorite novel, but he has also, I believe it's the Autumn of the Patriarch, which is his novel about. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, there is a there is. I wouldn't say it's a South American or Latin American quality to it. I think it's just once you encounter it, it is so absurd that art does have to come out and talk about it, you know, and, you know, you see the in a book like the Autumn of the Patriarch. That is a character full of contradictions. That is a character who, in chapter one, hates a particular figure because they he they think that they're against him and then is becomes friends with them and then hires him to be his personal bodyguard. You know, that is what dictators are, and that is what authoritarians do. It is the cult of the person. It is the whims of the person, and the opinion of the person are the be all and the end all to the point where the nation is. It is at the whims of, of of a a person, of those of those persons contradictions. So I wouldn't say it's necessarily a Latin American nature to this, but I think Latin America, because we experience dictatorship in many times supported or boosted by the United States. Latin Americans were able to find a way to turn this into art. And quite good art is what I would say.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and of course, it's the artists who are best able to respond to this. As you know, it's not just a Latin American thing. The Central Europeans, the Czechs in particular. Yes.Felipe Torres Medina: Milan Kundera.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Written a series of wonderful books about this. But the only way to respond to someone like Trump, for example, who says one thing one day, the next thing the next day when he talks about tariffs, he says, well, I'm going to have 25%. And the next day, oh, I've decided I'm not going to have 25%. Then the following day he's going to change his mind again. The policy people, I'm not very helpful here. We need artists, satirists of one kind or another humorist like yourself to actually respond to this, don't we?Felipe Torres Medina: I think so. I think that that that is what. Helps you? I mean, it's the emperor has no clothes, right? That's how you talk. And it's about all kinds of government, obviously. Autocracy or dictatorship is one thing, but at all in all systems of government, these are powerful people who think they have they know better and who think that they are invincible. And you know what? What satire or humor and art does is just point out and say like, wait, that's weird. That thing they just did is weird. And being able to point that out is, is a talent. But also that's why people respond to it so well. People say like, yeah, that is weird. I also notice that. And so you create community, you create partnership in there. And so all of a sudden you're punching up, which is something you want to do in comedy. You want to make fun of the people who have more power, and you're all punching up and laughing at the same thing, and you're all kind of reminding each other. You're not crazy. This is weird.Andrew Keen: Yeah. I mean, the thing that worries me. I was on Kolber on the Colbert Show a few years ago in the original show. I mean, it's brilliant comic, very funny. But him and Jon Stewart and the others, they've been going so long, and they. I'm not saying they haven't changed their shtick. I mean, writers like you produce very high quality work for them, but it's one of the problems that these guys have been going for a while and America has changed, but perhaps they haven't.Felipe Torres Medina: I mean, it's an interesting thing to bring up, particularly with with Stephen, because his show was completely different. Ten years ago, it was a completely different show. He was doing a character. Yeah, right. And now he's doing a more traditional late night show. I think I think the format of late night is a very interesting beast that somehow has become A political genre. You know, it didn't used to be with Letterman. Didn't you see with Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno? You know, they would dabble in politics. They would talk about politics because it's what people are talking about. But now it's become kind of like this world. It all has to be satire. And there's some there's some great work. And I do think people keep innovating and making, like, new things, even though the shows are about ten years old. You know, you have Last Week Tonight, which my wife writes for, but it's a show that does more like deep dive investigations and stuff like that. So it's more like end of the week, 60 minutes, but with jokes kind of format. But I do think, yeah, maybe like the shows, can the shows in the genre in general, like there's genre I could do with some change and some mixing it up and.Andrew Keen: Well, maybe your friend Kumar could.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah. Well, what? Let us get.Andrew Keen: A slot to his own late night show. And I wonder also, when it comes to I don't want to obsess over Trump or that course it's hard not to these days, but because he himself is a media star who most people know through his reality television appearance and he still behaves like a reality television star. Does that add another dimension of challenges to the satirical writers like yourself, and comics like or satirical comics like Colbert and Jon Stewart?Felipe Torres Medina: I think it's just a layer of how to interpret him as a person. At least for me, it's like, okay, well, you have to remember that he is a show man, and that's what he's doing.Andrew Keen: Yeah. So they're coming back to your your metaphor of the air and power and not having any clothes on. He kind of, in his own nodding wink way, acknowledges that he's not pretending to wear any clothes.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, and, well, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. And that is. That's the challenge. And that's why writing jokes about him every day is hard. But, you know, we we.Andrew Keen: And the more I know I watched Saturday Night Live last week that Zelensky thing and it was brilliant. Zelensky and Musk and Trump. But I'm very doubtful it actually impacts in any way on anything. Well, and I.Felipe Torres Medina: Think that that's also a misconception people have about comedy. You know, comedy is there to be funny. You know, comedy isn't there to change your mind if it does that, great. But the number one impetus for For Comedy should be to make you laugh. And so the idea that, like, a sketch show is going to change the nation. I don't know. Those are things that I think are applied on to comedy. They're kind of glob down to comedy. I don't necessarily think that that's what it the, the people making the comedy set out to do so. I think if if it made you laugh and if it works. The comedy has done its job. Comedy, unfortunately, can't change the world, you know. Otherwise, you know, I'm sure there would have been a very. There are many good Romanian comedians who could have done something about it has.Andrew Keen: You know, time to time. I mean, Hava became Czech president for a while. You, you, you know, that you sometimes see laugh, laughter and comedy as a kind of therapy when it comes to some of the stuff you do with Kovat. Are you in in America? Let me in. Are you presenting the experience, the heartbreaking experience? So certainly an enormously frustrating experience of the American immigration system as a kind of therapy, both for people who are experiencing it And outsiders, Americans in general.Felipe Torres Medina: And for myself, I think.Andrew Keen: And of course, yes. So self therapy, so to speak.Felipe Torres Medina: I think so, I mean, it is for me a way to like comedy is a way to process things for me. It comes naturally to me, and it is inopportune at times when dealing with things like grief and things like that. But I mean event, anyone who's gone through grief, I think, can tell you there's one moment when things are going really bad and one of the people grieving with you makes one joke and you all laugh and you're like, this. This somehow fixed for one second. It was great. And then we're back to sadness. So I think comedy, you know, as much as again, I go back to what I said a second ago, it's about making you laugh and that making you laugh can create that partnership, can create that empathy and that that that community therapy, I guess, of people saying like, oh wait, yeah, this is weird, this is strange. And I feel better that someone else recognized it, that someone else saw this.Andrew Keen: It certainly makes you saying, hey, you wrote an interesting piece for The New Yorker this week. In times like these, where you, you write perhaps satirically about what you call good Americans. Is the book written for good or bad Americans or all Americans or no Americans? Who do you want to read this book?Felipe Torres Medina: Oh my God. I want everyone to read it and everyone to buy a copy so that I've got a lot of money. All right. No, I think it's written for most Americans and and immigrants as well. People living here. But I do think, yeah, it's written for everyone. I don't think I wrote it with particular like, kind of group in mind. I think to me, Obviously with my background and my political affiliations, I think liberals will enjoy the book. But I also think, you know, people who are conservative, people who are MAGA, people who don't necessarily agree on my vision of immigration, can learn a lot from the book. And I purposely wrote it so that these people wouldn't necessarily be alienated or dismissed in any way. You know, it's a huge topic, and I think it was more of a like, I know you have an opinion. I'm just showing you some evidence. Make with it what you will, but I'm just showing you some evidence that it might not be as you believe it is, both for liberals and conservatives. You know, wherever you are on the spectrum, liberals think it's super easy. Conservatives that think it's super easy but in a bad way to move here. And I'm here kind of saying like, hey, it's actually this super complicated thing that maybe we should talk about and we should try to reform in some way.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And I think even when it comes to immigration, often people are talking about different things. Conservatives tend to be talking about quote unquote, illegal immigration and progressives talking about something else, too. You deal with people who try to get into America illegally, or is that for you, just a subject that you're not touching in this book?Felipe Torres Medina: I address it very lightly toward the final pages of the book. I first of all, I can, like, claim ownership on all immigrant narratives. And I wrote this about the legal immigration system because it's what I've navigated. Again, I am not an immigration lawyer. I am not an activist. I'm a comedy writer who happened to go through the immigration like system, so I but I did feel like, you know, okay, well, let's talk for a second. You've seen how hard it is because I've shown you all this evidence in the first couple stories in the book. And again, I say in the last pages because because of the interactive nature of the book, this could there is potentially a way for you for this to be the first, one of the first things you read in the book, but to where the last pages of the book, I say, okay, let's talk about you. We've seen how hard it is. Let's talk about the people who do so much to try and come here and who go even harder because they do it in the like, in the unauthorized way, you know, or the people who come here seeking asylum, which is a legal way to come to the United States, but is very difficult. So I do present that, but I do think it is not necessarily the subject of a comedy book, As I said earlier, when you're dealing with comedy, you want to be punching up. You want to be making fun of people in authority figures or in a sort of status position that is above the general population or the the voice of the comic. And with with undocumented immigrants and people trying to come here in irregular ways. It's it's very hard to find the humor there because these people are already suffering very much. And so to me, the line is threading the line of comedy there. It can very quickly turn into bullying or making fun of those people. And I don't want to do that because a lot of people are already doing that, and a lot of people who are already doing that work on this in this administration. So I don't I don't really want to mess with that.Andrew Keen: Philip, I'm not sure if you've got a a Spanish translation of the book. I'm sure there will be one eventually.Felipe Torres Medina: Hopefully.Andrew Keen: If people start reading this in Colombia, where you're from, Bolivia or Argentina, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, they think themselves, this is so hard to get in, even legally. Even if you have money to pay for lawyers, they might think, well, f**k it, I'll just try and get over the border illegally. And do you think in a way, I mean, it's obviously designed as a humor book, but in a way this would encourage any sane person to actually give up. I mean, go try and try and go somewhere else or just stay where you are.Felipe Torres Medina: I think, I think the book has a tone of I'm I'm a pretty optimistic person. So I think the book does have a tone of optimism and love for America. I do love the United States, where I, while presenting it as a difficult thing, I am also saying, like it? It's pretty good. You're going to have a good time if you make it here. So I don't think it will be a deterrent. Whether it's some sort of Trojan horse to create more people, to try and go through the border. I don't know, it'd be pretty funny if a funny book tended ended up doing that, but.Andrew Keen: It'd be great if we just got hold of the book and blamed you for for for all the illegal immigrants. But in all seriousness, it was been a lot of pieces recently about, according to the New York Times, people going silent for fear of retribution. As a comic writer and someone clearly on the left, the progressive in American politics. Do you think that there is a new culture of fear by some of your friends and colleagues in the comedy business? Are they fearing retribution? Trump, of all people, doesn't like to be laughed that some people say that he he only wanted to be president after Obama so brilliantly and comically destroyed him a few years ago.Felipe Torres Medina: I think in comedy, you know, I think people are tired of talking of Trump because, again, as I said, ten years of writing about him. I don't think anyone is necessarily afraid of talking about him or making fun of him. I think that is or his administration. I think that is proven like this past week with explosion of memes, making fun of J.D. Vance, his face, you know, to the point where J.D. Vance has tried to hop on the meme and be like, ha ha! Yes, I enjoy this very much too. Good job members. So like, obviously, first of all, he doesn't like it, but I think everyone is. And I think this is something that America does so well. Americans like to make fun of politicians, period. And even though I think in certain spaces of, you know, politics and activism, there might be fear of retribution that is much more marked. I think the let's make fun of of the Emperor for having no clothes that make fun of them is an instinct that that it's not going away and it won't go away any, anytime soon.Andrew Keen: Philip, finally, you've written a funny book about immigration. But of course, behind all the humor is a seriousness. Lots of jokes. It's a very entertaining, amusing, creative book. But it also, I think, suggests reform. You've given a great deal of thought. You've experienced it yourself. How can America improve its immigration story so that we don't have in the future more satirical books like America Like Me and what are the the reforms, realistically, that can be made that even conservatives might buy into?Felipe Torres Medina: Well, I think one of the biggest things is, if you look at it historically, there hasn't been comprehensive immigration reform since Clinton. Which is ridiculous. You know, we're nearing on 30 years there, and we're. We're basically 30 years since. And, you know, I'm 33, so it's a whole lifetime for a lot of people with no changes to a system, no comprehensive changes to a system. And that just means that, like it is going to become outdated. So obviously it's very hard right now with the tenor, but what we really need is for people to sit down and talk about it as a normal issue. And this is not an invasion. This is not a national emergency. It is simply an issue, an economic issue. And I think one of the biggest things, and one of my personal suggestions is that. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has always been, as I said, this kind of strange ancillary part of the government. It started as part of the Department of Labor, eventually joining the Department of Justice. Then it goes back to labor. It kind of always bounces around. They don't know where it fits. And in after 911, it became part of the Department of Homeland Security. And I think that creates a an aura around immigration as something that is threatening to homeland security. You know, which is not true.Andrew Keen: Yeah. I see what you're saying. It's become the the sex when it comes to, in the context of Victorian something that we don't talk about, and we use metaphors and similes to, to, to describe. And I take your point on that. But what about some and I take your point on the fact that the system hasn't been reformed since Clinton. But let's end with a couple of final, just Doable reforms, Philippe, that can actually make the experience better. That will improve that. That might be cheaper that the the Doge people might buy into that both left and right will accept and say, oh, that's fair enough. This is one way we can make immigrating to America a better experience.Felipe Torres Medina: I think, rewarding if we're talking about this idea of like, we want the best immigrants, educated people. I think actually rewarding that because the current system does not do that for most people trying to get a work visa. They're subjected to a lottery where the chances are something like 1 in 16 of getting a work visa to be here, and that is really bad for companies in general. It's something that the big tech firms have been lobbying against for years, and because there's no consensus in Congress to actually do something. We have been able to address that. So I think actually rewarding the kind of like higher education, high achievement immigrants. In a way that isn't just like if you have $5 million, you can buy a gold car. Yeah, and.Andrew Keen: That's what Trump promised.Felipe Torres Medina: Right? Actually rewarding it in a way that's like, okay, well, if you have a college degree, maybe you don't just get a one year permit to work here, you know, maybe you can. There is a path for you to if you made your education here, if you start your professional life here, if you are contributing because all these immigrants are paying taxes or contributing, maybe there's a path that isn't as full of trapdoors and pitfalls. I would say that that that's one of the biggest things. And honestly, higher up, like I, I do think maybe this is my progressive side of me, but it's like get more people working in USCIS so that these waits aren't taking forever and getting more immigration judges, you know, hire people who are going to make this system efficient, because that is, I think, unfortunately, what Dodge thinks that the, you know, we're going to slim it down so it doesn't cost that much. Yeah. But if you slam it down, you don't have enough people. And there's a lot of people are still trying to come here and they're still trying to do things. And if you don't have enough people like working those cases, all you're creating is backlogs.Andrew Keen: Yeah. I'm guessing when those transforms the American immigration system through AI, you'll have another opportunity for you to write a book. Yeah. I mean, I let me in an important book, a very funny book, but also a very serious book by one of America's leading young comic writers full time, writing for Stephen Colbert, Philippe Torres Medina. Philippe, congratulations on the book. It's out next week. I think it will become a bestseller. Important book. Very funny too, and we can say the same about you. Thank you so much.Felipe Torres Medina: Thank you so much for having me.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 are back to AI (actually it never left us). In this THAT WAS THE WEEK tech show, Keith and Andrew talk about how AI is now enabling anyone - even non-coders - to code. "I was able to do something without having the skill to do it,” Keith confesses about his experience in building an iPhone app for teens. In the same way as Web 2.0 technologies turned all of us into broadcasters, AI makes all of us coders. So the real question is what becomes of professional coders when their skills are accessible to anyone.The Five KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from today's show:* AI is enabling coding autonomy: Keith built an app for teens without writing code himself, highlighting how AI is making software development accessible to non-coders. As Keith puts it: "I was able to do something without having the skill to do it."* The future of coding is paradoxical: Rather than the "end of coding," Keith believes we're seeing "the beginning of coding" with potentially "100 to 1 million times more code" being created because it's becoming easier to produce. Similar to how desktop publishing tools didn't end design, but democratized it.* The workplace is evolving toward automation: Keith discusses how the post-COVID move away from traditional offices is the first step toward automated workplaces. He borrows from Dwaresh Patel in exploring what fully automated firms might look like.* Technical skills remain valuable but in new ways: While AI can generate code, understanding technical concepts remains important. Keith's son without coding skills provided valuable product feedback as a "product manager," showing that different skills are becoming complementary to AI capabilities.* AI agents are transforming enterprise software: Aaron Levy's post-of-the-week suggests AI agents will replace traditional enterprise software modules, performing tasks without human intervention while achieving the same goals that previously required clunkier software and human oversight. 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 what's the most revolutionary invention in the history of the American Republic? The internet, maybe? Or the electric bulb or the motor car? Perhaps. But according to the Harvard historian Joyce Chaplin, it might be the Franklin Stove, Benjamin Franklin's innovation which she claims in an eponymous new book, represents an unintentional American revolution. What's really important about the Franklin Stove, she explains, is that it democratized heating, thereby enabling ordinary Americans to survive the “Little Ice Age” of the late 18th century. In an 21st century America where research into global warming is now under threat, Chaplin's intriguing The Franklin Stove is a convincing argument for the popular benefits of environmental science.Here the 5 Keen On America takeaways in our conversation with Joyce Chaplin* Franklin as a climate scientist: Chaplin reveals how Benjamin Franklin's work with his stove led him to understand atmospheric convection, which he then applied to explain larger climate systems like storm movements and the Gulf Stream. He essentially became an early climate scientist through his practical inventions.* The Little Ice Age context: Franklin invented his stove during the Little Ice Age (1300-1850), particularly in response to the severe winter of 1740-41. Unlike today's climate crisis, there was virtually no "denialism" about climate change during this period - people openly discussed and sought solutions to the cooling climate.* Franklin's environmental legacy: While Franklin initially created his stove to conserve wood and trees in Pennsylvania, his later models burned coal. This shift toward fossil fuels contributed to what Chaplin calls "an unintended industrial revolution" that ultimately led to our current climate warming crisis.* Franklin's political evolution: Though a monarchist for most of his life, Franklin underwent a radical transformation later in life, becoming head of Pennsylvania's abolition society after having previously owned enslaved people. This challenges the notion that historical figures were simply "products of their time."* Franklin's complex character: Chaplin, who has written extensively on Benjamin Franklin, portrays him as a self-cultivating narcissist who carefully crafted his public image and desperately sought fame from a young age. However, she acknowledges his genuine accomplishments and contributions to science and society, creating a more nuanced view of the founding father.Joyce E. Chaplin is the James Duncan Phillips Professor of Early American History at Harvard University, where she also holds affiliations with the Graduate School of Design and Center for the Environment. She is the author of The First Scientific American: Benjamin Franklin and the Pursuit of Genius, among other books, and her writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the London Review of Books. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Award-winning reporter Kevin Fagan is one of San Francisco's great treasures. In his much acclaimed new book, The Lost and Found, Fagan tells his his two-decade experience reporting about homelessness in San Francisco. He shares the stories of Tyson and Rita, two homeless individuals who he helped reconnect with their families. Tyson, despite having a supportive family, died of a fentanyl overdose, while Rita was rescued by her family and lived 20 more fulfilling years. Fagan, who experienced housing insecurity as a teenager, explains that homelessness stems from systemic poverty issues rather than personal failings. He notes that despite San Francisco's reputation as America's “homeless central”, 70% of its homeless population lost their homes while already living there.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our conversation with Fagan:* Personal connection to homelessness shapes Fagan's perspective - his own experience with housing insecurity as a youth gives him unique insight and empathy toward homeless individuals.* Homelessness is not simply a choice - Fagan emphasizes that "no one wants to be homeless" and many fall into homelessness through a combination of trauma, mental illness, addiction, and economic factors.* Family intervention can be transformative - Rita's story demonstrates how family reconnection (which inspired San Francisco's "Homeward Bound" program) can successfully help people exit homelessness.* San Francisco's homeless reputation is somewhat misunderstood - despite being known as "Homeless Central," about 70% of San Francisco's homeless population became homeless while already living in the city.* Solutions require addressing systemic poverty - Fagan argues that homelessness is fundamentally a poverty problem in America, requiring broader economic solutions beyond what individual cities can accomplish alone.Kevin Fagan is a longtime, award-winning reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle, specializing in homelessness, enterprise news-feature writing, breaking news and crime. He has ridden with the rails with modern-day hobos, witnessed seven prison executions, written extensively about serial killers including the Unabomber, Doodler and Zodiac, and covered disasters ranging from the Sept. 11 terror attacks at Ground Zero to California's devastating wildfires. Homelessness remains a core focus of his, close to his heart as a journalist who cares passionately about the human condition. His book on the rescue of two homeless people, “The Lost and The Found,” is available everywhere books are sold.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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 do Fareed Zakaria, Nikki Haley, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Vinod Khosla and Kamala Harris all have in common? They are all, of course, highly successful Americans of Indian descent. According Meenakshi Ahamed, author of Indian Genius, one reason for what she calls the “meteoric rise” of Indians in America are their humble beginnings here. Arriving with minimal resources (what she calls the "$8 club"), Ahamed attributes their success to "jugaad" (resourcefulness), competitive spirit, family values, and an emphasis on education. She notes Indians are America's fastest-growing immigrant group, with traditionally Democratic voting patterns, though a 10% shift toward Republicans occurred in recent elections. So what are the chances that Trump will read Indian Genius to understand the upside of immigration to America? Less than zero, of course. 5 Key Takeaways * Successful Immigration Counter-Narrative: Ahamed's book presents a counter-narrative to anti-immigrant rhetoric, showcasing how Indian Americans have made significant contributions to American society, particularly in medicine, technology, and business.* The "$8 Club" Phenomenon: Many successful Indian immigrants came to America with extremely limited resources (just $8 due to India's currency restrictions) yet achieved remarkable success through determination, education, and hard work.* "Jugaad" Mindset: Ahamed attributes much of Indian immigrants' success to "jugaad" - a resourcefulness and ability to create something from nothing, developed in India's competitive environment where people must constantly find ways to get ahead.* Generational and Class Dynamics: Earlier Indian immigrants (1965-2010) typically came from upper castes with access to education, though this is changing. Additionally, Ahamed notes differences between first-generation immigrants like Vinod Khosla and later arrivals like Nadella and Pichai.* Shifting Political Allegiances: While Indian Americans traditionally voted 75% Democratic, Ahamed notes a recent 10% shift toward Republicans, particularly among younger Indian American men born in the US, reflecting broader demographic voting patterns.Meenakshi Ahamed was born in 1954 in Calcutta, India. After finishing school in India, she obtained an MA from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1978. She has had a varied career as a journalist, and prior to that, as a development consultant. She has worked at the World Bank in Washington, DC, as well as for the Ashoka Society. In 1989, she moved to London and became the foreign correspondent for New Delhi Television (NDTV). After returning to the United States in 1996, she worked as a freelance journalist. Her op-eds and articles have been published in the Asian Age, Seminar, Foreign Policy, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. She has served on the board of Doctors Without Borders, the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, and Drugs for Neglected Diseases. She divides her time between the United States and India.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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