Model Citizen

This is my question: can we YIMBY harder? Many people are awakening to the enormous costs of restrictive municipal land use and zoning. But what can we do about it? Most assume that restrictive zoning and skyrocketing housing costs are local issues that require local solutions. But as my guest, David Schleicher, makes clear, that's not really true. A few superstar cities choking off housing supply has huge national implications. It creates massive distortions in labor markets and patterns of interstate labor mobility. This has left us a lot poorer than we'd be if our most productive cities were more relaxed about zoning. But as David points out in his terrific paper, “Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability,” these distortions also screw up the effectiveness of federal macroeconomic policy, which does additional damage to growth. I'm writing a paper about this stuff and I've actually become more rather than less confused about why the federal government can't directly intervene to remedy a problem that has immense national implications. That's why I wanted to talk to David, my favorite YIMBY law professor. If anybody would know, it'd be him. Along the way we talk about the weirdness of American single-family residential zoning, the “homevoter hypothesis,” and whether the pandemic means that telecommuting is here forever. David Schleicher is Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a New Yorker, and a hell of a nice guy.Readings“Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability” by David Schleicher“City Unplanning,” by David SchleicherThe Homevoter Hypothesis by William FischelZoning and Property Rights by Robert Nelson“Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis,” by Robert EllicksonSegregation by Design by Jessica TrounstineZoned in the USA by Sonia Hirt“America’s racist housing rules really can be fixed” by Jerusalem Demsas“Federal Grant Rules and Realities in the Intergovernmental Administrative State: Compliance, Performance, and Politics” by Eloise Passachoff—© Model Citizen Media, LLC 2021

This is my question: can we YIMBY harder? Many people are awakening to the enormous costs of restrictive municipal land use and zoning. But what can we do about it? Most assume that restrictive zoning and skyrocketing housing costs are local issues that require local solutions. But as my guest, David Schleicher, makes clear, that's not really true. A few superstar cities choking off housing supply has huge national implications. It creates massive distortions in labor markets and patterns of interstate labor mobility. This has left us a lot poorer than we'd be if our most productive cities were more relaxed about zoning. But as David points out in his terrific paper, “Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability,” these distortions also screw up the effectiveness of federal macroeconomic policy, which does additional damage to growth. I'm writing a paper about this stuff and I've actually become more rather than less confused about why the federal government can't directly intervene to remedy a problem that has immense national implications. That's why I wanted to talk to David, my favorite YIMBY law professor. If anybody would know, it'd be him. Along the way we talk about the weirdness of American single-family residential zoning, the “homevoter hypothesis,” and whether the pandemic means that telecommuting is here forever. David Schleicher is Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a New Yorker, and a hell of a nice guy.Readings“Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability” by David Schleicher“Planning an Affordable City,” by Roderick Hills and David Schleicher “City Unplanning,” by David Schleicher The Homevoter Hypothesis by William FischelZoning and Property Rights by Robert Nelson“Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis,” by Robert Ellickson Segregation by Design by Jessica TrounstineZoned in the USA by Sonia Hirt“America’s racist housing rules really can be fixed” by Jerusalem Demsas“Federal Grant Rules and Realities in the Intergovernmental Administrative State: Compliance, Performance, and Politics” by Eloise Passachoff—© Model Citizen Media, LLC 2021 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit modelcitizen.substack.com

Nearly everyone agrees that the American system is, in some sense, rigged. If it is, then how did it get that way. Mike Konczal, Director of Progressive Thought at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, argues that America has come to rely too heavily on markets. In his new book, Freedom from the Market: America's Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand, Konczal pushes back against the idea that "neo-liberal" market dependency is natural, inevitable, or even especially American. Drawing on the history of American policy from the founding up to now, he argues that markets are inseparable from politics -- that they are, effectively, government programs. But markets don't necessarily give people what they need, can't provide essential goods to people who can't pay, and can leave us subject to domination from the economically powerful. In a wide-ranging conversation, we touch on the appeal and implications of the republican conception of freedom as non-domination, World War II-era government daycares, the function that Medicare played in desegregating hospitals, the nature of so-called neoliberalism, and a lot more. When Mike sent me his book, he included a note expressing his intention to turn me into a social democrat. I'm not sure that he succeeded, but one thing our chat made clear to me is that once you're willing to accept that markets are essentially political and that market structure is a policy choice, it's possible to have a constructive conversation free of dogmatic ideological table-pounding.  ReadingsFreedom from the Market: America's Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike KonczalFrom Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century  by Alex GourevitchLand-grab universities by Robert Lee and Tristan Ahtone, High Country NewsSocial Insurance: With Special Reference to American Conditions by I.M. Rubinow (1918)The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? by Gerald RosenbergKludgeocracy in America by Steven Teles, American Affairs“Neoliberalism” isn’t an empty epithet. It’s a real, powerful set of ideas by Mike Konczal, VoxThe Submerged State: How Invisible Policies Undermine American Democracy by Suzanne MettlerFamily Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism by Melinda Cooper--© Model Citizen Media, LLC 2021

Nearly everyone agrees that the American system is, in some sense, rigged. If it is, then how did it get that way. Mike Konczal (@rortybomb), Director of Progressive Thought at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, argues that America has come to rely too heavily on markets. In his new book, Freedom from the Market: America's Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand, Konczal pushes back against the idea that "neo-liberal" market dependency is natural, inevitable, or even especially American. Drawing on the history of American policy from the founding up to now, he argues that markets are inseparable from politics -- that they are, effectively, government programs. But markets don't necessarily give people what they need, can't provide essential goods to people who can't pay, and can leave us subject to domination from the economically powerful. In a wide-ranging conversation, we touch on the appeal and implications of the republican conception of freedom as non-domination, World War II-era government daycares, the function that Medicare played in desegregating hospitals, the nature of so-called neoliberalism, and a lot more. When Mike sent me his book, he included a note expressing his intention to turn me into a social democrat. I'm not sure that he succeeded, but one thing our chat made clear to me is that once you're willing to accept that markets are essentially political and that market structure is a policy choice, it’s possible to have a constructive conversation free of dogmatic ideological table-pounding.   ReadingsFreedom from the Market: America's Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike KonczalFrom Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century  by Alex GourevitchLand-grab universities by Robert Lee and Tristan Ahtone, High Country NewsSocial Insurance: With Special Reference to American Conditions by I.M. Rubinow (1918)The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? by Gerald RosenbergKludgeocracy in America by Steven Teles, American Affairs“Neoliberalism” isn’t an empty epithet. It’s a real, powerful set of ideas by Mike Konczal, VoxThe Submerged State: How Invisible Policies Undermine American Democracy by Suzanne MettlerFamily Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism by Melinda Cooper--© Model Citizen Media, LLC 2021 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit modelcitizen.substack.com

This episode marks the beginning of a new chapter for Model Citizen. With the power of a single mighty tweet, I've broken off the shackles of formal institutional affiliation. So we're on our own. Let's just say it's been a hell of a week. In that time, I've launched a daily newsletter, also called Model Citizen, which I've integrated with this podcast. If you'd like to support me, and the burgeoning Model Citizen media empire, please consider subscribing at modelcitizen.substack.com. It's just $5.99 a month. In addition to thought-provoking writing delivered straight to your inbox, subscribers get audio versions of articles, special episodes of the Model Citizen podcast and more. But on with the show!This week's guest, Richard Florida, is one of our leading authorities on cities and urban life. Richard is author of a shelf of books, including the Rise of the Creative Class and, most recently, the New Urban Crisis. In this episode, we talk about the extent to which work-from-home arrangements will or won't stick after the pandemic, whether San Francisco faces the fate of urban powerhouses of yesteryear, like Pittsburgh and Detroit, how self-reinforcing selection effects have made academia stifling, and more. Richard Florida is University Professor at the University of Toronto's School of Cities and Rotman School of Management, as well as a Distinguished Fellow at NYU's Schack School of Real Estate. And, as you'll see, he's also a hell of a nice guy.ReadingsThe Rise of the Creative Class by Richard FloridaWho’s Your City by Richard FloridaJason Rentfrow’s Google Scholar pageTriumph of the City by Ed GlaeserJonathan Miller on Real Estate after the Pandemic, Bloomberg Masters in Business podcastPrison Notebooks by Antonio GramsciSubscribe to the Model Citizen newsletterhttp://modelcitizen.substack.com/subscribeCreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Music: Dig Deep by RW Smith

This episode marks the beginning of a new chapter for Model Citizen. With the power of a single mighty tweet, I've broken off the shackles of formal institutional affiliation. So we're on our own. Let's just say it's been a hell of a week. In that time, I've launched a daily newsletter, also called Model Citizen, which I've integrated with this podcast. If you'd like to support me, and the burgeoning Model Citizen media empire, please consider subscribing at modelcitizen.substack.com. It's just $5.99 a month. In addition to thought-provoking writing delivered straight to your inbox, subscribers get audio versions of articles, special episodes of the Model Citizen podcast and more. But on with the show! This week's guest, Richard Florida, is one of our leading authorities on cities and urban life. Richard is author of a shelf of books, including the Rise of the Creative Class and, most recently, the New Urban Crisis. In this episode, we talk about the extent to which work-from-home arrangements will or won't stick after the pandemic, whether San Francisco faces the fate of urban powerhouses of yesteryear, like Pittsburgh and Detroit, how self-reinforcing selection effects have made academia stifling, and more. Richard Florida is University Professor at the University of Toronto's School of Cities and Rotman School of Management, as well as a Distinguished Fellow at NYU's Schack School of Real Estate. And, as you'll see, he's also a hell of a nice guy.ReadingsThe Rise of the Creative Class by Richard FloridaWho’s Your City by Richard FloridaJason Rentfrow’s Google Scholar pageTriumph of the City by Ed GlaeserJonathan Miller on Real Estate after the Pandemic, Bloomberg Masters in Business podcastPrison Notebooks by Antonio GramsciSubscribe to the Model Citizen newsletterhttp://modelcitizen.substack.com/subscribeCreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Music: Dig Deep by RW Smith This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit modelcitizen.substack.com

I never thought I'd see a seditious mob of Americans sack the Capitol building as Congress counted electoral votes. But, then again, I never thought the president of the United States would turn out to be a malignant narcissist who lies about everything all the time. The insurrectionists who sacked the capitol were fueled by lies. One thing that struck me when Trump became president was how other Republican officials didn't seem to care all the much that he lied all the time. By the end of his presidency, practically the entire GOP was willing to enthusiastically embrace Trump's biggest lie yet: that he'd won an election he obviously lost. And, of course, right wing media was there the entire time, amplifying and spreading Trump's lies, whether they were petty vanities or outright seditious. Partisan bias is one thing. Blaring propaganda like a foghorn, completely indifferent to the truth, is different animal altogether. That's why I wanted to talk to my old friend Matthew Sheffield. Matthew was one of the founders of Newsbusters, one of the first conservative sites to devote itself entirely to the exposing liberal media bias and left-wing "fake news." At a certain point, the scales fell from Matthew's eyes and he realized that the mainstream media was at least trying to tell truth, but the right-wing media wasn't trying to do anything at all but stick it to left. I think the inside perspective is critical here. One of the biggest biases of the mainstream media is ignorance of the way the conservative media and messaging machine actually works. Matthew really knows what he's talking about. In addition to founding Newsbuster, he was the founding online managing editor of the Washington Examiner. More recently, he's covered the right and rightwing media for Salon, hosts a podcast called Theory of Change and has written a series of penetrating Twitter threads about the conservative media ecosystem that have earned him interviews on a bunch of radio shows as well as the New York Times. ReadingsNYT interview with Matthew Sheffield Twitter thread on right-wing mediaTwitter thread on meaning, loss and Christian supremacism  in modern conservatismHow Right-Wing Media Fuels the Political Divide, On Point, WBUR - BostonMatthew Sheffield's Theory of Change PodcastCreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate 

This week's guest, Christopher Federico, is co-author (along with Christopher Johnston and Howard Lavine) of one of the most illuminating books I've ever read in the field of political psychology, "Open Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution." The American electorate is divided by geography, but also personality. "Open Versus Closed" explores the ways in which personality differences do and don't predict our political views. Christopher and I talk about all that good stuff an more, including a discussion that I found really interesting about the extent to which rising prosperity is inherently polarizing because it reveals and amplifies our natural differences simply by making it easier for us to realize our capacities and select into professions and communities filled with people like us. We also explore whether its easier to extend respect and empathy across ideological and partisan lines when you believe that people generally aren't personally responsible for their personalities or political opinions. Christopher Federico is Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Minnesota. He's the Director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for the Study of Political Psychology and Vice President of the International Society of Political Psychology.    ReadingsOpen Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution by Christopher Federico, Christopher Johnston and Howard Lavine"The Personality Basis of Political Preferences" by Christopher Federico"The contingent, contextual nature of the relationship between needs for security and certainty and political preferences: Evidence and implications" by Christopher Federico and Ariel MalkaChristopher M. Federico at Google ScholarUncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity by Lilliana Mason"How racially resentful working-class whites fled the Democratic Party — before Donald Trump" by Michael TeslerCreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

In my most philosophical moods (and I'm usually in a pretty philosophical mood) I tend to see pretty much anything as a window onto the cosmos. But I'd never considered my cotton slacks as a window onto the forward march of human progress. That is, until I read Virginia Postrel's new book, "The Fabric of Civilization: How Textiles Made the World." Did you know that the microbial theory of disease starts with silkworm farming? That the origins of computing have something to do with the algorithmic nature of weaving? That double-entry bookkeeping and modern finance are creatures of the textile trade? Well, I do now, thanks to Virginia's fascinating new book. We talk about all that, as well as the nature of the human desires for protection, comfort, pleasure, novelty and status that drive the whole story forward. Could whatever you're listening to this on now even exist if we didn't care about so much about pants? I don't know, but "The Fabric of Civilization" got me wondering. In addition to this book, Virginia Postrel is author of The Future and Its Enemies, the Substance of Style, and the Power of Glamour. Reason magazine under her editorship in the late '90s and early Oughts was a big formative influence on me and I count myself lucky to have her as a friend. She is also, I should mention, a member of the Niskanen Center's board of advisors.  ReadingsThe Fabric of Civilization: How Textiles Made the World by Virginia PostrelCreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

The presidential election once again made clear that there is a striking and surprising relationship between population density and party vote share. The salience of the American electorate's polarization on density  renewed interest in my 2019 paper, The Density Divide: Urbanization, Polarization, and Populist Backlash, which explores how the logic of long-term urbanization explains the density divide by spatially segregating the national population along the lines of ethnicity, personality, and education.  A few listeners mentioned that they'd like to hear me talk about the paper on the podcast, and discuss whether there are new insights to be gleaned from Biden's win in the 2020 election, so here it is: an improvised two-hour monologue on the Density Divide.  ReadingsThe Density Divide: Urbanization, Polarization, and Populist Backlash by Will WilkinsonAudio Version of the Density Divide by Will WilkinsonWho's Your City by Richard FloridaJason Rentfrow on Google ScholarWhy Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide by Jonathan RoddenThe New Geography of Jobs by Enrico Moretti CreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

American democracy has gone more than a little awry. Nearly 300,000 Americans are dead in no small measure due to the failure of Congress to implement a nationwide testing and tracing regime. But this failure hasn't much hurt the incumbent Republican Party. The GOP gained ground in the House. They may hold their Senate Majority. Trump wasn't repudiated nearly as decisively as many of us wish, and he's still out there spreading outrageous lies about the credibility of the election he lost. I think there's a connection between the brokenness of our democracy and the deadliness of the pandemic. That's what I talk about in this episode with Danielle Allen -- though I never quite managed to put it that way. I got to know Danielle by working on pandemic response policy with a group she was leading. This is how I discovered that Danielle Allen is no mere mortal. She's a distinguished classicist, political philosopher, and theorist of democracy. I knew that already. What I didn't know is that she's also an exemplary practitioner of the art of collective self-government. Within weeks of the pandemic's onset, Danielle had assembled a working group of epidemiologists, economists, computer scientists, entrepreneurs, and policy experts through the auspices of Harvard's Safra Center for Ethics, which she runs. Danielle seemed to immediately assimilate everything everyone else had spent a lifetime learning. She was able to get everybody to happily work together in complementary roles. And she motivated us to turn out a set of impressive practical pandemic response plans at an incredible pace. Her effortless intelligence, openness to others' views, easygoing but authoritative leadership, and inspiring level of energy and drive made me feel a little like I was in a pick-up game with LeBron James. I guess that's how you get to be the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard, which is what she is. In this episode we touch on why we couldn't get the Senate to take up legislation funding the sort of testing regime that works,  what we can do to make our democracy more responsive and less dysfunctional, and why Danielle loves the U.S. Constitution, despite the concessions to slave states that continue to plague our political system. I regret that we didn't have time to go longer and deeper, but we should all be grateful that Danielle is working overtime trying to save our lives and democracy ... which means that she always has another meeting.     ReadingsRoadmap to Pandemic Resilience by Danielle Allen, et al.  Pandemic Resilience: Getting It Done by Danielle Allen, et al. The best way out of this pandemic is to massively scale up testing. Here’s how to do it by Danielle Allen, Washington PostThe Brutal Clarity of the Trump-McConnell Plan to Protect Businesses by Will Wilkinson, New York TimesWe Know How to Beat the Virus. This Is How Republicans Can Do It. by Puja Ohlhaver and Will Wilkinson, New York TimesOur Common Purpose: Reinventing Democracy in the 21st Century by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Commission for the Practice of Democratic Citizenship The Flawed Genius of the Constitution by Danielle Allen, The Atlantic CreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

Donald Trump may be going away, but the coalition, movement, and intellectual tendencies that grew up around him aren't. For many, Trump seemed to herald a new dawn for reactionary conservative nationalism political thought aligned against pluralism, social justice and even liberal democracy itself. In a fascinating series of essays for Niskanen and the Bulwark, political theorist Laura Field has been probing to the philosophical underpinnings of the emerging illiberal right more insightfully than just about anyone. In this episode, we discuss the underlying assumptions animating thinkers like Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermuele, Yoram Hazony and Attorney General Bill Barr, among others. Why do they think liberal democracy is self-undermining? Why are they hostile to multicultural liberal pluralism. How do they think they know that liberalism leaves us empty, alienated and estranged from a profound human need for deep social connection? Are these guys like Captain Ahab on a deranged and futile hunt to destroy meaninglessness? We talk about all that and lots more, including whether left-wing postmodern thought is destroying liberal education. (Hint: It isn't.)Laura field is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and has taught political theory and the history of political thought as faculty at Rhodes College, Georgetown and American University, where she is currently a scholar in residence.ReadingsMeet the Reocons by Laura FieldWhat the Reactionary Right Gets Dead Wrong about Liberal Democracy by Laura FieldLove and Loyalty in the "Liberalocracy" by Laura FieldDear Republicans: Welcome to the New Establishment by Laura FieldWhy Liberalism Failed by Patrick DeneenMoby-Dick; or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleCreditsHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

Successful societies run on trust, but trust in America's institutions and electoral system is in the pits. Partisans distrust each other and polarization has turned politics into war. Kevin Vallier's new book Trust in a Polarized Age applies empirical research on the causes and consequences social and political trust to develop a distinctive conception of liberalism. He offers a novel argument for a number of core liberal rights, free markets, the welfare state, and democratic institutions on the basis of their contribution to trust and its benefits. I'd like to say Kevin and I discussed his book in detail, giving you a clear overview of his argument, but that's not really what happened. Kevin and I are old philosophy buddies, our thinking has developed quite a bit over the decade or so we've known each other, and we're both pretty digressive. So what we ended up doing here is sort of catching up through a meandering conversation that always hovers near the themes of his excellent book, but leaves the exact contours of its original, rigorous argument a bit vague. Personally, I prefer to listening to smart people think out loud over a book report, so maybe it's for the best. This one's pretty long and and it's hard to summarize. But if you'd like to listen to a pro-life Christian political philosopher and a pro-choice atheist policy wonk speculate about what would happen if Roe v. Wade were struck down while agreeing that our acrimonious politics owes something to the anti-democratic nature of the Supreme Court, you'll have to stick around for awhile. We also take a bit of time to remember the great political philosopher Jerry Gaus, who recently passed away and meant a lot to both of us. Kevin Vallier is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University and the director of Bowling Green's program in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law. Trust in a Polarized Age by Kevin VallierThe Order of Public Reason by Gerald GausThe Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society by Gerald GausHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

PRE-ELECTION SPECIAL EPISODE! Opposition to Donald Trump has been a unifying force for Democrats. Progressive and moderate factions of the party set aside their differences during the race, but what happens if Joe Biden wins? How do Democrats maintain cohesion when progressives are gaining strength and formerly Republican college-educated whites stream into the party? What happens to a post-Trump GOP? Does it continue to hang together or split up into rival factions vying for control of the party? Steven Teles, a Johns Hopkins political scientist and Niskanen senior fellow, argues we're heading for a de-polarizing era of party factionalization. In this episode we talk about Teles' essay in National Affairs, "The Future is Faction" and the final chapter of his new book "Never Trump: The Revolt of the Conservative Elites" (both with co-author Robert Saldin), both of which analyze the prospects of intra-party division, weakening control by leadership, and the renewed possibility of bipartisan coalitions and moderation in policymaking. "The Future is Faction" by Steven Teles and Robert Saldin, National AffairsNever Trump: Revolt of the Conservative Elites  by Steven Teles and Robert SaldinHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

If winning the most votes made you president, Joe Biden would have it in the bag by now. But voters don't get to pick the president here in America. The Electoral College does. Which is why Biden's supporters can't rest easy, even though it's a lock that he'll win the popular vote. Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, owes his presidency this baffling, archaic kludge of an institution and he's still got an outside shot at a second term because of it. So why did our blessed Founders saddle us with the Electoral College? Why is it still there, despite many efforts through the years to reshape or kill it? This week's guest, Alexander Keyssar wrote a book, "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?" to answer precisely this question. We discuss how the Electoral College was a makeshift afterthought compromise at the Constitutional Convention, how its half-baked rules of the Electoral College almost immediately threw presidential elections into disarray, how it spurred the creation of political parties (despite the Founder's intentions), why the states converged on winner-take-all rules for the allocation of electoral votes rather than settling on district-based or proportional schemes, and much more. Why did later attempts to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote fail? Are future attempts incredibly unlikely, or is it much more likely than you think? We talk about that, too. Alexander Keyssar is the Matthew W. Stirling Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy school for government. He's the author of many distinguished works of history, including the "The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States," a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.   ---Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College by Alexander KeyssarHost: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)Audio engineer: Ray IngegneriMusic: Dig Deep by RW SmithModel Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

"Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy" by Brink Lindsey and Samuel Hammond    

What do people really mean when they say they want to "defund the police," and who wants to do it? In a new paper, "Reconstructing Justice: Race, Generational Divides, and the Fight Over 'Defund the Police'" this week's guest, Michael Fortner, shows, among other things, that differences in opinion over police reform reflect age differences more than racial differences. We talk about how living through the crime wave of the '80s and '90s continues to affect the views of older Americans, black and white alike. We also explore how the logic of negative partisanship combined with Donald Trump's overt racism has pushed white liberals toward wokeness. And we dig into proposals for fixing law enforcement that are, unlike proposals to defund or even abolish the police, actually popular. Michael Fortner teaches political science at the CUNY Graduate Center and is the author of the prize-winning "Black Silent Majority: The Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Politics of Punishment." He's also, it's worth mentioning, a newly minted Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center.

In cities around the country, citizens assembled to demand racial justice and an end to police brutality have been met with ... border patrol agents? Why are CBP agents clubbing and gassing peaceful citizen protesters many, many miles from any border? Why are tens of thousands of completely innocent migrants, who pose no danger to anyone, imprisoned in abusive and subhuman conditions in a sprawling network of camps and detention centers? In her new book, "Illegal: How America’s Lawless Immigration Regime Threatens Us All," political theorist Elizabeth Cohen explains how out-of-control federal immigration enforcement agencies came to not only pointlessly terrorize and persecute immigrants, but to pose a clear and urgent danger to the safety and basic liberties of American citizens. We explore the roots of restrictive American immigration policy in skull-measuring eugenic pseudoscience, whom the Northeastern WASP elite did and did not consider to be white, and how every attempt to engineer the ethnic composition of the population through immigration policy has backfired. Elizabeth tells the story of her mother and grandparent's escape from the Nazis, their perilous statelessness, and eventual settlement in the U.S. as refugees. I talk about being a pompous descendant of old American stock who makes fun of his wife for being Irish-Italian. (I promise there's a good point in this.) And we talk about what should be done to fix our broken and dangerous immigration system. Elizabeth F. Cohen is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University. In addition to "Illegal," she is author of "The Political Value of Time" and many other fine works of scholarship.

About 330 million people inhabit the good ol' US of A. Seems like a lot. But is it enough? Policy journalist and Vox.com co-founder Matthew Yglesias argues it's not even close. In his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger," Yglesias argues that if America's going to remain top dog on the geopolitical block and stay a step ahead of rising giants with 10-figure populations, like China and India, we need to double our numbers ... and then some. That means boosting birthrates and welcoming scads of new immigrants. The book is a detailed examination of the policies we'd need to make this happen. Matt and I explore the under-appreciated virtues of population density and specialized clusters, which turns into a sort of digressive case study of the beneficial long-term effects of our old early-oughts wonk-blogger DC poker game. We talk about whether we really ought to care if America remains king of the mountain, how to encourage larger families in a non-creepy way, and much more. We didn't get to a bunch of stuff I wanted to chat about, but we did cover a lot of ground. I always find talking to Matt fun, stimulating, and oddly relaxing. This conversation is no exception and I hope you enjoy it.

Here's a question we rarely explicitly ask: Who should we honor, celebrate, and remember ... and why? What's the point of it? Scores of statues to confederate soldiers, slaveowners, and other dubious but celebrated characters have been recently toppled from their pedestals. Was this a good idea? Should we worry that we'll forget our history? This week's guest, Jacob T. Levy, argues that the greater risk is that we won't go far enough. We might need to topple a few more statues. We discuss Levy's two-part essay "Honoring the Dishonorable," one on the living and one on the dead. Both turn on an intriguing idea from Adam Smith: that we humans are saddled with a deep-seated bias toward over-praise and over-honor and over-identify with the great, powerful, and famous, even if they're objectively vile. Levy ingeniously applies Smith's idea to question of statue toppling, but also to the question of what to do about notable and notorious Trump administration cronies and collaborators after they return to private life. In addition, we talk about why we both stopped worrying and started to love democracy. We also dig into the question of why we should believe that old dead guys like Adam Smith could be good guides to human nature and the nature of moral truth? Jacob T. Levy is Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory at McGill University. He is the author of "The Multiculturalism of Fear" and "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom." He's a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and the Institute for Humane Studies.

A freestyle introduction to Model Citizen with host Will Wilkinson.