Podcasts about american politics

Do you know the history of Catholicism in America? Do you know where the term "social justice" originated, and how that differs from its usage today? In today's episode of Let's Talk about This, Father McTeigue walks us through the answers to these questions. Father finishes with Weekend Readiness to prepare you for Sunday Mass. Show Notes iCatholic Mobile The Station of the Cross Merchandise - Use Coupon Code 14STATIONS for 10% off | Catholic to the Max Read Fr. McTeigue's Written Works! "Let's Take A Closer Look" with Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J. | Full Series Playlist Listen to Fr. McTeigue's Preaching! | Herald of the Gospel Sermons Podcast on Spotify Visit Fr. McTeigue's Website | Herald of the Gospel Questions? Comments? Feedback? Ask Father! The Broken Path: How Catholic Bishops Got Lost in the Weeds of American Politics Christendom Lost and Found: Meditations for a Post Post-Christian Era: McTeigue .S.J., Fr. Robert What Is the Heresy of Americanism? (Jerome German) 2/8/23 The Heresy of Americanism: Then and Now (Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J.) 7/5/24 Victor Reacts: Liberals Claim Scripture Justifies Illegal Immigration - Debunked (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit  A Catholic Lawyer Responds to the Bishops About Mass Immigration - Crisis Magazine

This week: Beth joins us as we deep dive into the messy landscape of American Politics, as well as looking into British Ren Faires! We also ask the age-old question, “Who Asked for This?”, blind rank the best British sweetsm set new weekly goals for Accountabilibuddies, AITA, and much more!Join us for book club; this month we're reading If I see You Again Tomorrow by Robbie Couch. Find it on our book shop at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bookshop.org/shop/wearedoingfine⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Send in your thoughts, questions and recommendations to wearedoingfine@gmail.com.Instagram: @wearedoingfine

I'm honored to welcome back Mr. Donald Jeffries, journalist, commentator, news analyst, and author of multiple articles and books including Hidden History and Crimes and Cover-ups in American Politics.Find More about Donald Jeffries here:https://substack.com/@djeffrieshttps://www.youtube.com/@donaldjeffries802https://www.donaldjeffries.media/https://SemperFryLLC.comPods & Exclusives AD-FREE! Just $5/mohttps://patreon.com/c/DisguisetheLimitsDaughter's Piggy Bankhttps://givesendgo.com/BaalBustersSUBSCRIBE HERE:https://www.instagram.com/drgliddenclips/https://www.tiktok.com/@dr.glidden.clipshttps://www.youtube.com/@baalbustershttps://rumble.com/c/BaalBustershttps://www.brighteon.com/channels/baalbusters/videos/allBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ba-al-busters-broadcast--5100262/support.

Bob speaks with UNC-Chapel Hill historian Molly Worthen about her new book Spellbound: How Charisma Shaped American History from the Puritans to Trump. Gary Fletcher edited this episode.

Dr. Nownes is an internationally renowned scholar on American Politics. His research focuses upon interest group politics in the United States. His book, Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and How They Try to Get It) was published by Cambridge University Press in 2006. He is currently working on a number of projects, including one that examines the role of lobbyists in the government procurement process.

PLUS: A Latino Angelino on the crackdown in LA; remembering pop-funk icon Sly Stone; what's behind a global shortage of hormone replacement therapy; a new documentary chronicles a year of life in Gaza through the eyes of a young photojournalist; and Riffed from the Headlines, our weekly musical news quiz.

Joyce discusses how immigration, DOGE, and securing the border are critical elements when it comes to preventing election fraud. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Has civility and empathy been eroded from American politicstoday? With so many people taking divided and fractured stands when it comes tothe state of the government. Well, if you take a deeper dive into the numbers,they will tell a compelling and interesting story. According to Gallup News, Arecord-high 80% of U.S. adults believe Americans are greatly divided on themost important values, while 18% believe the country is united. The percentageseeing the nation as divided has ticked up from 77% the last time Gallup askedthe question in 2016. It is more than 10 percentage points higher than in the prior2004 and 2012 measures.Public skepticism about national unity isn't new. Surveys byGallup and others dating back to the 1990s show that Americans typically haveseen the country as divided on key values. Only in 2001 and 2002, in theaftermath of 9/11, did Gallup find most Americans perceiving the opposite, withover two-thirds of U.S. adults believing the nation was united. For someinsightful answers regarding the current state of play in American politics today,I enlisted the expertise of Brent Giannotta.  Brent was a CIA counterterrorism analyst from 2010 to 2015,tracking ISIS foreign fighters, external operations, and extremist psychology.After resigning, he became an award-winning journalist and ghostwrote op-edsfor political figures published in the Washington Post and Foreign PolicyMagazine. He then transitioned to mental health, joining a psychiatric crisisresponse team and counseling callers to the 988-suicide crisis hotline. He leftthose jobs in 2024 when he was invited to join the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign inPittsburgh. Born and raised in Los Angeles and educated in internationalrelations, Spanish, and Arabic at the University of Southern California, Brentwon a Rotary scholarship to study Middle East studies at the AmericanUniversity in Cairo, Egypt. He's worked in Congress, edited reports for HumanRights Watch, worked on AOC's first campaign, has published op-eds in the LATimes, and guest lectured at USC, UCLA, and Harvard Extension School. Brent nowlives in Las Vegas, where he authors the Substack newsletter, Sleeping Giant.    Subscribe: https://brentgiannotta.substack.com/Follow: @BrentGiannotta 

Gavin vs Trump: Why Newsom Stands Alone Against MAGA Madness | Karel Cast 25-78 Description: Why is Gavin Newsom the only one standing up to Trump and the MAGA machine? Today, House Speaker Mike Johnson invoked a vile image—saying Newsom should be “tarred and feathered,” a punishment once used on runaway slaves. The attack is more than words—it's a dangerous escalation. As Trump's authoritarian grip tightens, where is the resistance? Why does it feel like Newsom is fighting alone while the rest of the country spirals into chaos under MAGA control? In this episode of the Karel Cast, we break down: • The disturbing language from GOP leaders • Why Newsom's defiance matters more than ever • How Trumpism continues to fail Americans: rising costs, broken systems, and growing division • And most importantly—why we must ask: Where is everyone else?

In this episode, we dive deep into the constitutional showdown between President Trump and California Governor Newsom over the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles without state consent. We break down the complex legal battle involving Title 10 authority, the Posse Comitatus Act, and the 10th Amendment, featuring insights from top constitutional scholars and legal experts who are split on whether Trump has the authority to override a sitting governor. We also explore the dramatic political breakup between Trump and Elon Musk over a $2.4 trillion spending bill, the escalating immigration raids that sparked violent protests in LA, and the broader implications for federal-state relations. From Trump praising the National Guard hours before they even arrived, to threatening to arrest Governor Newsom, to the Justice Department's push to unwind decades-old desegregation orders - we examine how multiple constitutional crises are unfolding simultaneously. Plus: TikTok star Khaby Lame's surprise ICE detention, new military zones at the border, sanctions on International Criminal Court judges, and Russia's massive drone attack on Ukraine. Join us for "Research on a Dime" as we unpack the precedents being set that will echo far beyond this administration.https://linktr.ee/purplepoliticalbreakdown

On this edition of Parallax Views, journalist Jacob Silverman returns to Parallax Views to unpack his new article, “Coin Operated: The Crypto Industry's Takeover of American Politics,” a timely investigation into how cryptocurrency has gone from financial sideshow to political powerhouse. We explore how the crypto industry—despite a track record of scams, collapses, and regulatory defiance—has embedded itself at the heart of U.S. politics. From Donald Trump's embrace of memecoins and bipartisan failure against the crypto lobby to the harassment of Biden-era SEC officials, Silverman traces what many see as the troubling rise of the crypto industry's political power and its potential consequences for democracy. Jacob also shares insights from a recent Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas, offering a glimpse into how crypto culture is merging with MAGA politics, shedding its cypherpunk roots, and reshaping the conversation around money, power, and regulation. If you want to understand how this segment of the tech sector seized political influence—and what it means for the future of democracy and finance—this episode is essential listening. Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

In today's episode, we examine the intensifying public rift between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. The catalyst? Trump's recently proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” which notably removes federal subsidies that have historically benefited Musk's ventures. Elon has not remained silent, and tensions escalated further when he retaliated by implying that Trump is listed among Jeffrey Epstein's known associates, suggesting this as the reason the full client list remains sealed.Major accusation.Is this an authentic ideological clash, or a calculated distraction? What are the political implications, and who truly benefits from this spectacle? Let's dissect the rhetoric, analyze the deeper motives, and apply biblical clarity in the midst of all of the chaos.—https://www.thebrandsunday.com/products/the-bible-study-physical?srsltid=AfmBOopJ1q_VkwFOO-Q2RCLoc1uzsHwAP4yh-_ZFG-r8_S9idICTj6nR

In this episode, Tudor is joined by Hayley Caronia to discuss the shifting political landscape, particularly the trend of politicians declaring independence from the Democrat Party. They explore the implications of identity politics, the challenges faced by men within the party, and the future of American politics. The conversation also touches on the influence of figures like Elon Musk and the importance of food security in shaping public health and policy. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com Check out Hayley's show on RumbleSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

We share the recent addition of our 4th grandbaby and our thoughts about the downfall of our beloved country.

In this weekend's episode, three segments from this past week's Washington Journal. First, a discussion with former Republican Congressman Chris Gibson on his new book "The Spirit of Philadelphia" – about reviving bipartisanship and civic engagement in American politics. Then, Dr. Richard Besser from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation joins us– to talk about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior's "Make American Healthy Again" agenda - and changes to public health policy. Finally, NAACP president & CEO Derrick Johnson discusses the 5th anniversary of the killing of George Floyd – and reaction to Trump administration policies so far. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the sixty-first episode, Shane and Ben are joined by Joseph Natali, a Ph.D. student at Baylor University dissertating on the constitutionalism of bureaucracy and how Presidents succeed or fail in exercising control over the executive branch. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Happy Emmajority Report Thursday to all who celebrate. Trump's tariffs are halted by a court ruling, and he is is big mad about that and the new term TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) that's been ascribed to his tariffs by a Financial Times columnist. After that, Taylor Lorenz is with us to talk about the persistent political impact of the COVID pandemic and the government's response to it. Check out her video we play a part of (and the rest of her YouTube page for that matter) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXrjlOE9e50&t=781s  In the Fun Half, we are joined by Thursday regulars Matt Binder and Brandon Sutton to try to decipher Eric Adams' comparison of Betsy Ross to Bitcoin. It's a head scratcher. A new poll shows the Abundance Agenda is not as popular as public policy that would fight corruption and get money out of politics. Pretty f-ing granular! And Texas is about to pass a draconian anti-trans bill. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: EXPRESS VPN: Get an extra 4 months free. Expressvpn.com/Majority  LIQUID IV: Get 20% off your first order at LIQUIDIV.COM Use code MAJORITYREP at checkout • JUST COFFEE: Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code MAJORITY for 10% off your purchase! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

On the sixtieth episode, Matthew and Ben are joined by Shilo Brooks, Executive Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to discuss his immensely popular course "The Art of Statesmanship and the Political Life." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

We go behind-the-scenes with the team from Americast, the show that gives you an insight and analysis on what is happening in American politics and beyond. We talk to presenter Justin Webb and the series editor Purvee Pattni and hear your feedback.Presenter: Rajan Datar Producer: Howard Shannon A Whistledown production for the BBC World Service

The thing about social media when it was created was that it was public. Ideas shared were debated for all to see. Today much of that is happening behind closed doors—in group chats. Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of the media outlet Semafor and co-host of the podcast Mixed Signals, speaks with Endless Thread about the elite group chats on Signal and WhatsApp that are shaping American politics. ***** Credits: This episode was produced by Dean Russell. Mix and sound design by Emily Jankowski. The co-hosts are Ben Brock Johnson and Amory Sivertson.

Judge Jeanine Pirro is TAKING CHARGE. Now serving as D.C. District Attorney, she’s leading a powerful new DOJ investigation into Andrew Cuomo’s alleged COVID nursing home cover-up. The walls may finally be closing in on the former New York Governor.Meanwhile, powerhouse attorney Alina Habba isn’t done yet—she’s reportedly preparing more legal action against Democrats accused of obstructing law enforcement at the New Jersey ICE facility. Another Democrat Rep is now meeting with Habba today over possible charges.And Letitia James? She’s on defense. Caught trying to explain away her alleged mortgage fraud, the New York AG was grilled last night—just as President Trump dropped new bombshell comments about her.All this and more in today’s LIVE edition of The Trish Regan Show. Subscribe now: https://youtube.com/TrishReganChannel✅ Become a TEAM MEMBER for exclusive access & perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join

Welcome back to Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu. In this episode, Drew and I take you through a whirlwind week where politics, world affairs, and tech innovation collide. We dissect Biden's shocking cancer diagnosis and what it means for the country, dig into Bernie Sanders' eyebrow-raising admission about the Democratic Party, and go deep on just how broken the government really is—and how (or if) it can ever be fixed. We tackle the big questions: What does it take to create a thriving middle class? Should we trust the government to spend more and do more, or do we need to completely rethink the machine? Are we living through a crisis of vision, where our leaders offer no North Star to inspire the country? And with news breaking on both the NIH's gain-of-function research and China's clampdown on gene editing, are we prepared for the next wave of scientific disruption? SHOWNOTES 00:00 – Biden's Cancer Diagnosis: Personal Impact & Political Fallout 03:14 – Are Our Leaders Too Old? The Real Problem with Political Power 07:08 – Lincoln's Legacy and the Ugly Truth Behind Political Narratives 10:58 – Why America Needs a New Vision (and Why We Don't Have One) 12:59 – Bernie Sanders & the Democratic Party: A Threat to Democracy? 15:39 – Can We Fix the System, or Is It Rigged Beyond Repair? 21:19 – Why Government Spending Is Broken (and How It Could Be Fixed) 27:00 – Positive Visions, Populism, and the Future of American Politics 32:03 – NIH, Wuhan Lab, and the Danger of Silencing Truth Seekers 43:31 – China, Gene Editing, and a New Age of Scientific Heresy 53:02 – Agentic AI: The Next Phase, What It Means, and How to Win 57:56 – Which Jobs Are Disappearing, and Which Will Survive the AI Revolution? 1:02:17 – Business in the Age of Hyper Turnover: What You Need to Know 1:09:36 – Ukraine, Russia, and Trump's Latest Negotiation: A Real Path to Peace? 1:10:13 – The Epstein Files: Government Secrecy and Conspiracy Theories CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS Vital Proteins: Get 20% off by going to ⁠https://www.vitalproteins.com⁠ and entering promo code IMPACT at check out Monarch Money: Use code THEORY at ⁠https://monarchmoney.com⁠ for 50% off your first year! Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at ⁠https://shopify.com/impact⁠ Netsuite: Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning at ⁠https://NetSuite.com/THEORY⁠ iTrust Capital: Use code IMPACTGO when you sign up and fund your account to get a $100 bonus at ⁠https://www.itrustcapital.com/tombilyeu⁠  Mint Mobile: If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at ⁠https://mintmobile.com/impact.⁠  DISCLAIMER: Upfront payment of $45 for 3-month 5 gigabyte plan required (equivalent to $15/mo.). New customer offer for first 3 months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes & fees extra. See MINT MOBILE for details. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business:⁠ join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER⁠ SCALING a business:⁠ see if you qualify here.⁠ Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox:⁠ sign up here.⁠ ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast,⁠ Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook⁠ —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** LISTEN TO IMPACT THEORY AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS:⁠ apple.co/impacttheory⁠ ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram:⁠ https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/⁠ Tik Tok:⁠ https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en⁠ Twitter:⁠ https://twitter.com/tombilyeu⁠ YouTube:⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.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

Send us a textDemocracy hinges on transparency, but what happens when those in power deliberately withhold crucial information? This episode delves into the explosive allegations that President Biden's team orchestrated a cover-up of his cognitive decline—a revelation that casts a shadow over the integrity of American governance.Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's newly released book "Original Sin" presents compelling evidence that Biden's inner circle knowingly concealed his deteriorating mental state from voters. The most troubling aspect? This apparent deception occurred in our hyper-connected digital age, where presidential actions face constant scrutiny. How could something so significant remain effectively hidden? The answer reveals uncomfortable truths about institutional power, media complicity, and political expediency trumping democratic principles.The episode explores historical precedents of presidential health cover-ups, from Woodrow Wilson's incapacitation to Ronald Reagan's later-diagnosed Alzheimer's. But Biden's case stands apart—occurring in an era of unprecedented information access yet still managed through coordinated efforts. The recent revelation about Biden's "aggressive prostate cancer" adds another disturbing layer to what voters weren't told. As one commentator poignantly notes, "They lied to the American people...all for power."Beyond presidential health, we examine how financial interests shape everything from tax policy to foreign affairs. Senator Bernie Sanders' candid admission that "money" prevents politicians from speaking honestly about controversial issues like Gaza reflects a broader crisis in representation. When public opinion consistently fails to translate into policy despite overwhelming support, we must question who truly governs.This thought-provoking episode challenges us to consider the disconnect between democratic ideals and political reality. When powerful figures can manipulate narratives and silence dissent through financial leverage, what recourse do ordinary citizens have? As one guest laments, "Sometimes what we want doesn't matter." In these challenging times, independent voices speaking truth become more essential than ever.Join the conversation and help us continue providing independent perspectives that look beyond partisan divisions. Your support makes it possible for us to remain a voice of reason in increasingly tribal times. Support the show

On this episode of The Nation Podcast, Jacob Silverman joins the show to discuss how the cryptocurrency industry has long evaded regulation, and how it's now deeply enmeshed with the Trump administration's most corrupt dealings. Silverman's feature, “Coin-Operated: The Crypto Industry's Takeover of American Politics,” appears in the June issue of The Nation.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

If you've ever thought, “I need to get out of this country because of the crazy politics,” this episode is for you.For many Americans, political burnout, polarization, and frustration are part of the reason they consider moving abroad. In this episode, we explore how U.S. politics continues to affect you after you leave—and how it doesn't.We cover:Why politics drives people to leave the U.S.What actually changes (and doesn't) once you're living abroadEmotional and identity shiftsThe political landscape in your new countryHow distance can bring clarityLiving abroad doesn't erase your connection to the U.S.—but it might give you the peace of mind you've been craving.

Americans hate when foreign leaders get involved in American politics, and they'll use the fact that the holy father is an American to justify it, despite his being head of state of Vatican City.Sources:https://www.returntotradition.orgContact Me:Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.comSupport My Work:Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStineSubscribeStarhttps://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-traditionBuy Me A Coffeehttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStinePhysical Mail:Anthony StinePO Box 3048Shawnee, OK74802Follow me on the following social media:https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/https://twitter.com/pontificatormax+JMJ+

Americans hate when foreign leaders get involved in American politics, and they'll use the fact that the holy father is an American to justify it, despite his being head of state of Vatican City.Sources:https://www.returntotradition.orgContact Me:Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.comSupport My Work:Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStineSubscribeStarhttps://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-traditionBuy Me A Coffeehttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStinePhysical Mail:Anthony StinePO Box 3048Shawnee, OK74802Follow me on the following social media:https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/https://twitter.com/pontificatormax+JMJ+

May 16th, 2025 - We welcome back Michael Matt, editor of the Remnant, to talk Pope Leo's potential to heal old wounds. Then we're joined again by Dr. Anthony Stine to catch up on the past week of news and discuss whether American political issues influenced the papal conclave. TheStationOfTheCross.com/ACT  

On the fifty-ninth episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on the omnipotence of the majority. They discuss Tocqueville's warnings of the detrimental effects of democracy on the citizen. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Chuck Todd opens with a personal reflection on his father's connection to Vietnam before welcoming distinguished guests Ambassador John Negroponte and filmmaker Brian Knappenberger to discuss the new documentary series Turning Point and the lasting impacts of the Vietnam and Iraq wars on American politics and society. The conversation explores how Vietnam fundamentally shifted America's perception of itself, with Ambassador Negroponte sharing his firsthand experiences from the conflict. They examine how televised coverage transformed public perception of war, debate whether Vietnam was "worth it" in the context of the Cold War, and analyze why America ultimately lost the conflict. The discussion dives deep into how Vietnam became the Baby Boomers' defining generational experience, shattering trust in government institutions.They explore the military's evolution into a predominantly Republican constituency, the long-term political fallout of pardoning draft dodgers, and the devastating impact of drug use among soldiers during the conflict. The guests offer a rare perspective on how the Vietnamese people recovered from the war's effects and draw striking parallels between the withdrawals from Saigon and Afghanistan. They reflect on how these historical conflicts continue to shape modern American politics, noting that despite multiple Vietnam veterans running for president, none have ever won the office. They conclude with a thought-provoking consideration of how future generations might commemorate the 75th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, leaving listeners with a deeper understanding of how America's past military engagements continue to influence its present and future.Timeline:00:00 Introduction00:30 Chuck's personal connection to Vietnam was his dad02:30 Vietnam + Iraq still haunt American politics04:10 John Negroponte and Brian Knappenberger join the Chuck Toddcast! 06:35 What do you hope people take away from Netflix's Turning Point?08:55 Vietnam's shadow loomed over the Iraq wars 10:55 We rarely talk about the war itself, mostly just the fallout 12:40 Vietnam shifted America's perception of itself 13:25 Ambassador Negroponte's experience of being in Vietnam 16:55 Was Vietnam viewed as a proxy war at the time? 20:00 The Iraq war has the same effect on our political psyche as Vietnam23:00 How did daily press coverage affect the ability to control the narrative 25:00 Vietnam being televised drastically changed the public's perception 27:00 Embedded reporters caused new challenges for managing the narrative 28:15 Was Vietnam worth it since we won the cold war? 30:05 Why did we lose the war? 32:45 Watergate ruined historians ability to document presidents 34:15 Vietnam was the boomer's coming of age story, shook their trust in government 35:30 Many January 6th rioters were Vietnam vets37:40 The importance of equipping and training local forces 39:10 Why did the military become a Republican constituency? 40:40 Pardoning the draft dodgers had long term political impacts 42:40 The horrible impact of drug use by soldiers in Vietnam 47:40 The perspective from the side of the north? 49:10 When did the Vietnamese recover from the effects of the war? 52:25 No Vietnam vet has ever been president 55:10 The military is America's only institution that has bipartisan support 58:35 How similar/different were the withdrawals from Saigon and Afghanistan? 59:25 What will the retrospective be on the 75th anniversary of the fall of Saigon1:02:35 Chuck's thoughts on the interview

Some of those publicly pontificating about our new pope are understanding him through only a secular lens, then they are adding partisanship and distorting moral doctrine. Let's take a closer look. Watch on YouTube: The Pope and Sloppy American Politics

For the first time, the leader of the Catholic Church is from the United States. We discuss how Pope Leo XIV's election may play a role in U.S. politics, both for Catholics and others. This episode: political correspondent Sarah McCammon, religion correspondent Jason DeRose, and senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for Donald Trump is slipping lately, at least in part because of the President's violations of democratic rules and norms. In a New York Times/ Sienna College poll, a majority of respondents disapproved of Trump's recent actions, including moves to eliminate government programs enacted by Congress, deport legal immigrants who have protested Israel, and ignore Supreme Court rulings. This episode we're joined by Suzette Brooks Masters, a thought leader, political strategist and Senior Fellow at the Democracy Funders Network. She says that for American democracy to thrive, it's not enough to defend the existing system against attack, because the system doesn't work well for most people. She's been researching ways to invigorate democratic practice, including citizen's assemblies and participatory budgeting – frameworks that give ordinary people a bigger say in government. And she advocates for storytelling that envisions positive, possible futures. 00:00 Introduction and Current Political Climate00:40 First 100 Days of the New Administration01:35 Guest Introduction: Suzette Brooks Masters02:08 Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy03:36 Challenges and Opportunities in Democracy05:57 Why the Right Sees Democracy as Under Attack 11:31 Bridge Building and Civic Engagement16:44 Innovations in Democratic Processes22:59 Telling a Different Story About the Future30:57 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsLEARN MORESuzette Brooks Masters' articles for The FulcrumImagining Better Futures for American Democracy reportBecoming Futures Ready: How Philanthropy Can Leverage Strategic Foresight For Democracy report  ABOUT THE SHOW The Making Peace Visible podcast is hosted by Jamil Simon and produced by Andrea Muraskin. Our associate producer is Faith McClure. Learn more at makingpeacevisible.orgSupport our work Connect on social:Instagram @makingpeacevisibleLinkedIn @makingpeacevisibleBluesky @makingpeacevisible.bsky.social We want to learn more about our listeners. Take this 3-minute survey to help us improve the show!

On the fifty-eighth episode, Shane, Matthew, and Ben are joined by William B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University, to discuss Montesquieu's political philosophy and its influence on the American Founding and eighteenth-century British politics. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.