Podcast appearances and mentions of David Goodhart

We vote in our self interest, right? So how come people living on islands disappearing because of climate change - and they know it - keep voting for Donald Trump? The answer to that goes to the heart of our climate politics. But it also tells us something very important about how different people think about climate change and what should be done about it, even when they can see it literally killing the place they love. This episode is a fascinating chat with anthropologist Dr Karl Dudman. He talks all about his time spent with the unique communities of Down East, North Carolina - a fiercely proud,  strongly Republican, and very maritime patch of the US Coast. Karl explains with empathy how Down Easterners talk about the sea level rises, hurricanes and changing fishing patterns that feels like the last straw in a community whose centuries-old identity is falling apart.  Let me know your thoughts on the show - hello@yourbrainonclimate.com. Please rate, review and subscribe, and share the show on socials. Please consider chucking this humble indie podcaster a few quid at www.patreon.com/yourbrainonclimate. Owl noises = references: 04:33 - Karl's brilliant blog on the Conversation.07:53 - Yale's climate opinion maps. 09:33 - Google Maps link to Down East, as if you can't find it yourself. 23:48 - Miranda Fricker's epistemic injustice. 33:34 - Danna Young's appearance on YBOC.34:18 - more on affective & negative polarisation40:19 - the original paper on solastalgia by Glenn Albrecht et al.40:55 - Arlie Russell Hochschild's majestic Strangers In Their Own Land41:23 - OK I can't find a great link for the aesthetics of embodiment. A bloke explained it to me. 42:40 - Revisionist History episode on country vs rock music.  44:04 - some stuff about methodological symmetry in here.51:25 - my chat on YBOC with Jonathan Rowson. 52:17 - the not uncontroversial original essay by David Goodhart on somewheres vs anywhere. The show is hosted and produced by me, Dave Powell. You can follow the show on instagram @yourbrainonclimate, and I occasionally put up a Substack. YBOC theme music and iterations thereof, by me.  Show logo by Arthur Stovell at https://mondial-studio.com/. 

'Is Britain Broken?' Recent elections and opinion polls show low levels of support for both the ruling Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party, with a widespread belief that British politics and society are not working as they should. In the next edition of IIEA Insights, David Goodhart, Finn McRedmond, and Thomas Prosser discusses the reasons for British declinism and what is needed to turn the country around. About the Speakers: David Goodhart is Head of the Demography, Immigration, and Integration Unit, and Director of the Integration Hub website at Policy Exchange. He has authored a number of books, including most recently, The Care Dilemma: Caring Enough in the Age of Sex Equality. He is a former Director of Think Tank Demos, and former Editor of Prospect magazine, which he founded in 1995. Finn McRedmond is a Commissioning Editor and Staff Writer at the New Statesman. She also writes a weekly opinion column in the Irish Times. Thomas Prosser is Professor of Political Economy at Cardiff University. He researches subjects such as European social democracy, party and trade union support bases, and European social dialogue. He is also a keen essayist and writes The Path Not Taken Substack.'  

Few books are timelier than Ian Goldin's new The Shortest History of Migration. Drawing from his personal history as a South African emigrant and his experience working with Nelson Mandela, the Oxford based Goldin explores the when, why and how humans move - from the prehistoric peopling of the planet to today and tomorrow's migrants. He addresses current political tensions, including J.D. Vance's recent criticisms of European migration policies and Elon Musk's controversial stance on immigration. Goldin argues that migration has been fundamental to human progress and economic growth, while acknowledging that there are legitimate questions about unregulated immigration policy. Here are the five KEEN ON take-aways from our conversation with Goldin* Migration patterns have remained remarkably consistent (about 3% of global population) over the past century, though absolute numbers have increased with population growth. However, what has changed dramatically is the creation of formal borders, passport controls, and our perception of migration.* There's a growing disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality. While many politicians take strong anti-immigration stances, economies actually need migrants for their dynamism, particularly in aging societies. This is evidenced by Silicon Valley's success, where over half of tech entrepreneurs are migrants.* The distinction between economic migrants and refugees is crucial but often conflated in public discourse. Goldin argues that different policies are needed for each group - economic migration can be managed through choice, while refugee protection is a humanitarian obligation.* Local pressures versus national benefits create tension in immigration debates. While immigration's economic benefits often accrue nationally and long-term, the immediate pressures on housing, public services, and infrastructure are felt locally, leading to public resistance.* Future migration patterns will be dramatically reshaped by demographic changes, climate change, and automation by 2050. Goldin predicts that current debates about keeping people out may reverse as developed countries compete to attract migrants to address labor shortages and maintain economic growth.Full transcript of the Goldin interviewKEEN: Migration is back in the news. A couple of days ago, J.D. Vance was in Europe, in Munich, attacking Europe over its migration policy. Meanwhile, European politicians have slammed France's call to be inclusive of far-right parties which are hostile to immigration. Immigration is really one of the most controversial issues of our age, perhaps of any age, as is underlined by my guest Ian Goldin, one of the great thinkers on globalization. He has a new book out this week in the U.S., "The Shortest History of Migration." Ian is joining us from Oxford, where he lives and teaches. Ian, what do you make of this latest violent spat in Europe? Is it something new or just more of the same?GOLDIN: I think it is an escalation of previous trends. For the U.S. to come to Europe and talk about domestic policies represents a change not only in tone and intensity but also in diplomacy. Politicians don't tend to go to other countries—UK and European politicians don't go to the U.S. and tell the U.S. how to run itself. So it is different when the vice president of the U.S. comes to Europe and comments very directly about individuals, meets with far-right leaders, and basically tries to advise Europe on what to do. It's a big step up from what we've seen before, and it's very polarizing.KEEN: This term "far right"—and it's not a term that I know you invented, you just used it—is it appropriate to describe these anti-immigrant parties in Europe and indeed in the U.S.? The AfD in Germany, the Reform Party in the UK, the MAGA movement in America. Are they all premised on hostility to immigration?GOLDIN: Immigration unites parties across the political spectrum, and anti-immigration is certainly not the preserve of far-right parties. Even the Labor Party in the UK at the moment has come out as very hostile to immigration. But what's different about Vance's visit to the UK is that he met with the AfD leader in Germany, didn't meet with the leader of the government. He's the only major global leader who's met with the AfD. Similarly, we've seen members of Trump's cabinet, like Elon Musk, endorsing the Reform Party in the UK and pumping up what I think are legitimately described as far-right parties on the political spectrum in Europe. But as you say, it's not the exclusive domain of the far right to be anti-immigrant. This is sweeping the board across the spectrum in many European countries and in the U.S. The Democrats are also pretty anti-immigration.KEEN: You brought up Musk. You have something in common with him—you're both South African migrants who've made good in the West. There's something very odd about Musk. Maybe you can make more sense of it, particularly given what you have in common. On the one hand, he is the poster child for globalization and migration. He was brought up in South Africa, came to the U.S., made a fortune, and now is the richest man in the world. On the other hand, he seems to be the funder of all these reactionary, anti-immigrant parties. What's going on here?GOLDIN: There's a lot to be said. Musk was an immigrant himself, just like Trump's grandfather was to the U.S., just like many members of the Cabinet's forebears were. So there's a contradiction of people who really owe their histories and where they are to immigration being so anti-immigrant. Personally, I not only come from the same town and went to the same high school in Pretoria, South Africa, but I've met him. He came to Oxford—if you look on the Oxford Martin School website, you'll see a conversation we had when he brought the first Tesla up to Oxford. I think he's moved a long way in the last years. It's difficult to explain that, but clearly what he's saying today is not the same as he was saying 5 or 10 years ago.He and others like Peter Thiel are very strong supporters not only of MAGA but of similar parties in Europe. I think it represents a new force—the amount of money these people have is very significant, and they do make a real impact on politics. Indeed, it's likely that Musk directly through his giving had material impact on the U.S. presidential election. Rich people have always given to political parties and owned media, but this is a whole new level of engagement where extremely rich people can influence outcomes.KEEN: The subtitle of your book, "The Shortest History of Migration" is "When, Why, and How Humans Moved from the Prehistoric Peopling of the Planet to Today and Tomorrow's Migrants." It's an ambitious book, though short. Has something changed over the last 50 or 100 years? Humans have always been on the move, haven't they?GOLDIN: There have been dramatic changes. One change is the creation of borders as we know them today and passports, border controls. That's relatively recent—before the First World War, people could basically move around without the controls and identity documents we know today. Secondly, there are many more countries now, well over 100 countries. The number of borders has greatly increased.The cost of travel and the risk associated with travel—I don't mean dangerous crossings across the Rio Grande or the Sahara, but air travel, ship travel, and motor vehicles—has gone down dramatically. The world population has increased significantly. Although the share of people migrating hasn't budged over the last hundred years—it's about 3% of the world's population—the absolute numbers have increased because 3% of 8 billion people is clearly a much bigger number than 3% of what it was around 2 billion 100 years ago.The big change has really been in the way we think about migrants today compared to, for example, the age of mass migration when 20-25% of the U.S. was migrant in the period 1850-1892, before the First World War.KEEN: But wasn't that also fair to say in the U.S. that there have been cycles of anti-immigrant politics and culture where at points the border was open and then got slammed shut again?GOLDIN: Yes, very much so, particularly in the post-Second World War period. We have what we might see again now, which is this two-handed approach. On one hand, politicians trying to be very strong on migration and saying things which they feel appeal to voters, and at the same time in practice very different things happening.We've seen that in many countries where the rhetoric on migration is very strong, where there are attempts to show that one is doing a lot by policing, by deporting, by building walls, etc. But the numbers of migrants actually go up because of the need for migrants. The stronger the economy, the more migrants you need; the older the economy, as the workforce ages, the more migrants you need.GOLDIN: Migrants are a source of economic dynamism. They are much more likely to create startups. It's no accident that Musk is a migrant, but well over half of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs are migrants. It's a characteristic of migrants that they are much more productive, typically. They're much more likely to invest and to start up businesses. So if you want to have a dynamic economy and if you want to look after the elderly and pick your agriculture, you need migrants. I'm sure that even those in the government of the U.S. that are violently anti-immigrant recognize these things. That's where the tension will be played out.KEEN: You argue today's rich countries owe much of their success to the contributions of migrant workers. Is there any argument against migration? You're clearly on one side of the debate. What's the best argument against allowing migration into your country?GOLDIN: I'm not utopian in the sense that I do believe we need border controls and need to regulate the number of migrants who can come in. Clearly, we need to keep some people out—criminals and sex traffickers, for instance. But where we get real problems is that migrants can put a lot of pressure in the short term on resources. You see this in housing markets. People are feeling a lack of affordability of homes in dynamic cities—San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, New York, London, and many others. And it is true that in part this is because of the number of immigrants in these cities.Now, the immigrants also contribute and make these places dynamic. So it's a virtuous circle, but one has to address the concerns of citizens who say they cannot afford a home or public transport is too crowded, or that the lines are too long at hospital emergency services. These are real concerns. The challenge we face is that investment in resources, in public services, in housing, in transport and so on hasn't kept pace with population growth in dynamic cities particularly, and people are feeling the pinch.There's not much truth to the claim that immigrants undermine wages. In fact, there's quite a lot of evidence that they create jobs and lift wages. But there's also a short-term and long-term issue. The costs are often local, so people feel in a particular locality that they're overwhelmed by the number of immigrants, while the benefits are national and long-term. The immigrants build the houses, work in the hospitals, demand goods and services. They're buying things, building things, creating things. But that doesn't all happen at the same place at the same time.The other important thing is to distinguish between migrants and refugees. A lot of the problems that societies have is because these things are conflated. When I think of migrants, I think of economic migrants, of students, of people coming that are going to benefit themselves and the countries, but have a choice. Refugees are different. Refugees have a legitimate fear for their lives if they do not get refugee status. Governments need very different policies for refugees than they do for migrants.KEEN: You've mentioned the US, the UK—your book breaks down immigration around the world. You argued that the US is home to the largest absolute numbers of migrants, 51 million. Is the US still symbolically the place where the pro-anti migration argument gets played out? Trump, of course, has been outspoken and arguably it was really the reason why he was elected president again.GOLDIN: Yes, I think it is the place where it's being played out. It has the most migrants. It's a society we've always thought of historically as being constructed by migrants. It's an immigrant country—of course, it displaced an indigenous people that were living there before. But it is a society now that's basically come from elsewhere. The future dynamism of the US, where the US is going to be in ten, 20, 30 years' time, is going to depend to a large extent on its policies on immigration. If it throttles the source of its lifeblood that created the country that we know as a dynamic world-leading economy, it's going to fall back.KEEN: Musk is, as always, a little bit more complicated than he seems on immigration. On the one hand, he's obviously opposed to mass immigration. On the other hand, as a tech billionaire, he's sympathetic to qualified people coming into the country. And there seems to be a division within the Republicans between Musk and people like Steve Bannon, who seem to be opposed to all forms of immigration. Is this an important debate that you think will be played out on the American right?GOLDIN: Yes, I think it's extremely important. Both Musk and Steve Bannon have said pretty harsh things about the other side of this debate. Musk gets that the US needs tech workers. The tech industry is dependent on Indian and many other programmers. He's aware that the leaders of many firms, including Microsoft and Google, are immigrants, as is he. He's been focusing on the need for high-skilled immigrants. Steve Bannon is taking the fundamentalist MAGA line, claiming immigrants will take jobs—of course, they don't take jobs, they create jobs.My own guess is that Musk is going to win this particular debate, both because he's right at the center of power and because the businesses around him also get it. For agriculture, it's absolutely essential to have immigrants across the economy. Business will be crying out. And interestingly enough, as I highlighted in my Project Syndicate piece, a lot of Republican governors have been asking for immigration.KEEN: You mentioned you and Musk were born in the same South African town. You worked for Mandela. How do you place the colonial experience in your history of migration—where the white Europeans who showed up and conquered Africa, were they migrants, or something different?GOLDIN: They were migrants—migrant armies, migrant businesspeople, migrants, settlers. Some of them, particularly in Australia, were convicts shipped out. They often were underdogs doing it out of desperation. My grandparents migrated to South Africa because they were in that state. My grandfather on my father's side was from Lithuania, in Russia, where those who remained were all killed. Those of my mother's side who stayed in Austria and Germany were all killed. These were migrant refugees.The impact of colonialism was devastating. This goes back to the first settlers in the Americas—600 Spaniards who landed probably led to the death of over 20 million Native Americans through guns, germs, and steel, but mainly through germs. And before the colonial period, there was slavery, which is a terrible stain on humanity. Over 20 million people were forced into this absolutely inhumane system across the Atlantic. Slavery wasn't new—it had existed from before the first millennia. But the industrialization of it, the scale and horror of it, and the number of people who died in transit, that was new.I emphasize in the book that not all migration is good, and that migration is often a very unhappy experience, a brutal experience. But we need to try and understand this historical context. Certainly with immigration today, we need to make it more humane, better, and recognize that often what migrants do, they're doing to support their families, to create better opportunities for themselves and future generations. And the recipient countries need it too. The question is, can we better manage it?KEEN: Should the two histories be seen side by side—the images of North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans coming to Europe, children dying on beaches—should we be thinking about this as a counter-migration, a consequence of the European colonization of Africa?GOLDIN: There are clearly some links, but Africa is where it is today as a result not only of its colonial history and slavery, which often was driven by African slave kings before Africa was colonized. There are much more recent explanations as well—massive mismanagement of resources in Africa, the despotic actions of governments. The refugees coming to Europe are often in fear for their lives, whether it's being called up into the Eritrean army or what's happening in Somalia and Sudan. These people are escaping to protect their lives and to sustain people left behind through remittances.KEEN: Your book is very personal. You dedicate it to your grandparents. You write with the sensibility of a relative of migrants and a man who's migrated himself. You seem to be a citizen of the world. This is a labor of love, isn't it?GOLDIN: It is. I wrote another book on migration in 2012, "Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future." When the publishers came to me with this series, I leaped at it. I learned an enormous amount doing it. It's difficult to compress the whole history of migration, which is everything about humanity really, into 250 pages. But the main aim was to raise a sensibility that we're all migrants and that we need to better understand the role of migrants in our own personal histories and our countries' histories. These migrants are not "other people"—they are where we come from. I believe fundamentally that migration is what makes humans an exceptional species. It's the reason we've thrived. If we hadn't migrated, we would have died out.KEEN: So you don't buy the argument that the world is divided into the "somewheres" and the "everywheres"—the thesis that some people are locked into a place for generations, and others like yourself move around all the time?GOLDIN: I've debated that with David Goodhart. I think what he's picked up on, which I empathize with, is that people have an identity based on place. It's important not to deny that identity. But what his argument completely fails to pick up on is that firstly, that can be threatened. My mother's parents thought they were absolute Viennese—my grandfather was on the Viennese Opera Committee. It didn't help him when they decided to kill all the Jews in Vienna. My grandparents on my father's side were upright members of the Lithuanian community running a small business—that didn't help them.There's no evidence that having immigrants in your society makes you weaker or threatens your community. Indeed, if you want your community to thrive, you're going to need immigrants—not only to do the work that your community doesn't want to do, whether it's picking fruit or cleaning hospital floors, but to keep the place dynamic. That's what these governors in the US who are calling for more immigrants have recognized about their dying towns in the Midwest. They need immigrants to keep their communities alive.Dynamic cities are great examples of places which thrive on being melting pots. The magnetism of them is quite phenomenal. Look at Dubai, which I was in last week—90% immigrant.KEEN: Let's cast our eyes forward. What might the future hold for migration? Are there conceptual differences as the 21st century evolves? By 2050, will the debate be the same? Could technology change it? Musk is trying to settle on Mars—might that be the difference in 25 years' time?GOLDIN: It would be easier to settle at the North or South Pole than on Mars. I think there will be major differences by 2050. One of the major drivers is going to be demographic change. We're seeing a very rapid reduction in birth rates in well over half the countries of the world. We're going to see big labor contractions in labor markets in North America, Europe, and across Asia. As societies age and people live longer lives, we're going to see great shortages of labor.I think the fragility of different places is also going to be played out. Extreme climate and weather will lead to very different migration patterns. Oceans are going to rise, there'll be flood plains, intense weather, extreme droughts, lack of water by 2050. A place like Miami is going to be very threatened.AI will likely take over repetitive jobs, manufacturing, call centers. But the jobs that people will want in our wealthier societies—hospitality, elderly care, massages—these are what economists call non-tradable services. We'll need more of these, and they cannot be done remotely. They are unlikely to be done by machines by 2050. We're not going to want machines giving us massages or meals.So I think we're likely to see Europe, North America, and many parts of Asia turn the current debates on their head—from keeping people out to how we get more people into our societies. Population will start declining very rapidly, and workforces will decline before populations decline.KEEN: Finally, Ian, you write about the history of passports. You say they began in the early 20th century. With our increasingly sophisticated technology of data, how will that play out in your future history of migration?GOLDIN: I think it's going to play out differently in different places. The big question is how much we trust those who have the information. How we feel about it in Europe will be different from how people feel about it in China. One of the amazing experiments of the late 20th century is that within 27 countries in Europe, there are no passport controls. It's proved to be a remarkable, successful experiment.I hope increased surveillance becomes part of a bigger bargain in which we accept more people into our societies, treat them more fairly, protect them, and give them rights. But we also say we don't want some people to come, and we are able to control this. It gives people confidence that they don't feel out of control. So I do see a silver lining if it's used in a humane and effective way. The risk is that it's not, and people are continually forced into dangerous passages across the Mediterranean or the Rio Grande. That's what we need to work against.KEEN: There you have it. Amidst all this controversy about migration, some wisdom from Ian Goldin. Thank you so much.GOLDIN: Thank you so much for having me and all the best to you and to all your listeners.Ian Goldin is the Oxford University Professor of Globalization and Development and founding director of the Oxford Martin School, the world's leading center for interdisciplinary research into critical global challenges, where he has established forty-five research programs. Previously, he was vice president of the World Bank and its Head of Policy, responsible for its collaboration with the United Nations and key partners. He served as adviser to President Nelson Mandela, has been knighted by the French government, and is the author of three BBC series. Ian has been an advisor to numerous businesses, governments, and foundations and is a founding trustee of the International Center for Future Generations and Chair of the CORE Econ initiative to transform economics. He is the author of twenty-five books, including Age of the City, which was selected by the Financial Times as one of its best books of 2023.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On 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

Både högern och vänstern har länge arbetat för att frigöra individen, men har det gått för långt? Den brittiske samhällskritikern David Goodhart vill i sin nya bok i stället rikta fokus mot familjen som håller ihop. Anna-Karin Wyndhamn har läst den. Behöver det vara ett förtryck om kvinnan är hemma med barnen längre än vad mannen är? Inläsare: Magnus Thorén

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ed is the co-founder and CEO of the London Interdisciplinary School (LIS), a new university in east London that offers BASc and MASc which oriented around complex problems, not disciplines. In 2012 Ed co-founded School 21 in Stratford with Peter Hyman and Oli de Botton. In 2017 the first GCSE class achieved grades that placed them in the top 5% of the country for attainment, and the school was awarded an Outstanding Ofsted. In 2014 Ed led the launch of Voice 21 to raise the status of oracy in schools.  Ed has also advised the leaders of several education institutions including Cambridge University, LSE, Teach First, Teach for All, Ark Schools and Eton College, as well as over 30 other clients in the private sector and government. Previously Ed ran a theatre production company with the screenwriter Matt Charman and was a consultant at McKinsey & Co. He has served on the boards of Ashoka UK and Big Education.Nick and Ed talk about Ed's career and how Ed's see the future of education with the LIS. Ed's book choice where: The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucatohttps://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/products/entrepreneurial-state-book-mariana-mazzucato-9780141986104The Rise of the Meritocracy by Michael Younghttps://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=32040280938&dest=gbrThe Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics by David Goodhart https://onlineshop.oxfam.org.uk/the-road-to-somewhere/product/HD_302420608?sku=HD_302420608 , Ed's music choice was: The Streets, Don't Mug Yourself https://open.spotify.com/track/2phF2CRhoSnpJUxxvHUf8ZThis content is issued by Zeus Capital Limited (“Zeus”) (Incorporated in England & Wales No. 4417845), which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) for designated investment business, (Reg No. 224621) and is a member firm of the London Stock Exchange. This content is for information purposes only and neither the information contained, nor the opinions expressed within, constitute or are to be construed as an offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities or other instruments mentioned in it. Zeus shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, including lost profits arising in any way from the information contained in this material. This material is for the use of intended recipients only.

David Goodhart – head of demography at Policy Exchange – returns to The Brendan O'Neill Show to discuss his new book, The Care Dilemma: Caring Enough in the Age of Sex Equality. David and Brendan discuss the family in crisis, society's abandonment of the elderly and why we can't afford to ignore the fertility crisis. Donate £50 or more to spiked and get a signed copy of Brendan O'Neill's new book, After the Pogrom. We'll also throw in a year's membership to spiked supporters: https://www.spiked-online.com/donate/

Joining Iain Dale on Cross Question this evening are Conservative peer and 'bionic lord' Craig Mackinlay, Labour MP Sarah Smith, Lib Dem MP Pippa Heylings and commentator David Goodhart.

Will the Budget leave you worse off? And how bad is your social housing?Joining Iain Dale on Cross Question this evening are Conservative peer and 'bionic lord' Craig Mackinlay, Labour MP Sarah Smith, Lib Dem MP Pippa Heylings and commentator David Goodhart.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.louiseperry.co.ukMy guest today is David Goodhart, founder of Prospect magazine and Head of Demography, Immigration & Integration at Policy Exchange. David's new book, 'The Care Dilemma: Caring Enough in the Age of Sex Equality,' is the final instalment of a trilogy of books on class, economics, and the family that began with 'The Road to Somewhere' and 'Head Hand Heart…

Adam Rutherford gets to grips with the crisis in adult social care and asks, whose responsibility is it to fix it? David Goodhart, from the Policy Exchange think tank, writes about the huge changes that have been wrought on family life over the past 60 years and how they have impacted the way in which we live and care for each other. In his new book, The Care Dilemma, he argues that we are in desperate need of a new policy settlement that not only supports gender equality, but also recognises the importance of strong family and community bonds, and the traditional role women have played as carers. Bringing us her own personal story from the frontline of adult social care is Kathryn Faulke. She worked for years in a senior role at the NHS and then became a home care worker. In Every Kind of People she tells the stories of individuals who are part of the system, the cared-for and the carers, and shows how these issues affect us all. This is a story about real lives and real people, revealing the challenges, and the benefits, of working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Every Kind of People will be Radio 4's Book of the Week, starting on Monday 28th October.So how can we improve the lives of those who require care and also support the carers themselves? Anna Coote is Principal Fellow at the New Economics Foundation and has written extensively on public health policy, public involvement and gender and equality. She believes in taking practical action to change the way we work and value time and believes in our ability to build a fairer and more sustainable social security system – both for ourselves and for future generations.Producer: Natalia Fernandez

See the full conversation at AporiaMagainze.com This piece was previously published at Aporia.

David Goodhart says that with 40% of universities facing deficits and, he believes, too many graduates chasing too few graduate jobs, it's time for a rethink on universities.And he has a reassuring message for those who didn't make the grade in Thursday's A level results. Producer: Adele Armstrong Sound: Jonathan Glover Production coordinator: Sabine Schereck Editor: Tom Bigwood

British journalist David Goodhart on the Anywhere-Somewhere divide challenging national unity abroad and at home. --- Is Australia polarised?   The country is no UK roiled by Brexit, or US torn apart by the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency in 2016. But we've had our own brushes with polarisation – most recently on the question of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.  On this episode of Life & Faith, we look at the issue of national division from a sideways angle: could the Anywhere-Somewhere divide explain contemporary polarisation and the gulf in people's instincts?  The terms belong to David Goodhart, author of The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics and Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century.   People in the Anywhere class, Goodhart says, tend to be well-educated, mobile, and cosmopolitan, making up about 20-25% of the national population. Their Somewhere counterparts, on the other hand, tend to be more rooted in their local communities, perhaps more conservative and communitarian, and make up 50% of the population.  Neither worldview is better or worse, he argues, but Anywheres tend to run the country, and don't reliably read the national room. For Goodhart, this explains the cry for recognition of recent populist movements – and raises the question of where someone might seek what Goodhart calls “unconditional recognition”.  “The institutions that gave people unconditional recognition like the family, like the church or indeed the nation, all of these things are weaker and the weakening of that unconditional recognition bears most heavily on the people who are the lowest achievers, as it were, in modern liberal democracies.”  --  Explore  David's book The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics  David's book Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century  David's “Too Diverse?” essay for Prospect   Brigid Delaney's piece in The Guardian after the 2019 federal election  The LSE blog post on British Parliament's “class problem”  The SMH report on the backgrounds of Australia's federal MPs 

Under lång tid har Västvärlden satsat ensidigt på högskolan som väg in i vuxenlivet och det har blivit ett självändamål att så många unga som möjligt ska gå långa teoretiska utbildningar. Men det är varken bra för samhälle eller enskilda, menar journalisten David Goodhart vars uppmärksammade bok Head Hand Heart nu finns översatt till svenska som Huvud Hand Hjärta. Utan personer med praktiskt handlag och känsla för omsorg om människor byggs inga goda samhällen. Akademiker allenast är inte nog. Alla sorters talang behöver uppmuntran och goda villkor. David Goodhart samtalar med programledaren PJ Anders Linder.

Finding a new settlement between the Anywheres and the Somewheres is now the central task of modern politics. Read by Leighton Pugh. Image: Poverty in London, 1919. Credit: Classic Picture Library / Alamy Stock Photo 

This week Winston speaks to David Goodhart, author of The British Dream: Successes And Failures Of Post-War Immigration, which celebrates its 10 year anniversary this year. On the podcast they discuss the state of immigration in the UK. Is home secretary Suella Braverman right to suggest that immigration an existential threat to the West? Has multiculturalism failed?

This week Winston speaks to David Goodhart, author of The British Dream: Successes And Failures Of Post-War Immigration, which celebrates its 10 year anniversary this year. On the podcast they discuss the state of immigration in the UK. Is home secretary Suella Braverman right to suggest that immigration an existential threat to the West? Has multiculturalism failed?

 A good society is one with a proper balance between the aptitudes of ‘head', ‘hand' and ‘heart'. The modern knowledge economy, however, has delivered higher and higher returns to the cognitive elite and reduced the relative pay and status of manual and caring jobs. Read by Leighton Pugh. 

Both the government and the refugee advocacy sector are calling for more safe routes for people seeking asylum to enter the UK. But tens of thousands of refugees continue to arrive by unsafe means every year because they are unable to access safe passage. For this conversation in our series ‘Voices from a broken system: Rethinking refugee integration in the UK', we will focus on how to ensure safe passage for refugees from different countries looking to find sanctuary in the UK. Our panel features Jacqueline Broadhead,  Director of the Global Exchange on Migration and Diversity at the University of Oxford; Lord David Blunkett, former Home Secretary; David Goodhart, Head of Policy Exchange's Demography, Immigration, and Integration Unit and Enver Solomon, CEO of Refugee Council. The discussion was moderated by Martine Dennis, international news anchor. This episode was recorded as part of a live webinar on 7 June 2023. 

After more than a decade of Conservative promises, targets and legislation to cut the rate of net migration, official figures are expected to show it has more than doubled from pre-Brexit levels. Matt discusses the impact of migration with guests including Madeleine Sumption, David Goodhart and James Kirkup.Plus: Columnists Daniel Finkelstein and Henry Zeffman discuss whether Dominic Raab says stupid things, Rishi Sunak's headache over what to do about Suella Braverman and the latest 'anti-woke' faction in the Tory party. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia.

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andrew uses research to drive brand strategy. His career in media includes stints at Channel 4, the BBC and Reach. Andrew also writes for Marketing Week. In this episode we discuss: The infamous Microsoft study of attention (and why it's bum gravy) What the research into social purpose gets wrong (thanks to Marc Pritchard) How to spot and avoid bad research Why ‘straight line thinking' doesn't always get the right answer Does more research = better research? The post big data era The drawbacks of Ofcom's Communications Market Report (which was new to me – I'm a superfan of this work) Social media and they data harvesting problems Andrew's career and publishing of the Empathy Delusion & Aspiration Window Learn Inbound Monday 13 March, The Alex Hotel, Dublin Tickets from €249 although if you use this link you'll get 25% off! https://ti.to/learn-inbound/learn-inbound-october-2022/discount/EXJ1025 Andrew Tenzer Andrew is an award winning insight and brand strategist with over 10 years' media experience working at some of the world's most iconic brands including Channel 4 and the BBC. Most recently, he spent six years as the Director of Market Insight and Brand Strategy at Reach (the largest commercial publisher in the UK) where he was responsible for delivering insight, driving brand strategy and leading on new brand launches. Andrew is the co-author of a number of industry acclaimed papers, including The Empathy Delusion and The Aspiration Window. Andrew also writes a regular column for Marketing Week. Socials LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-tenzer-04919657/ Twitter https://twitter.com/thetenzer TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@thetenzer Everything Else The Road to Somewhere: The New Tribes Shaping British Politics by David Goodhart https://amzn.to/3jWpQYj Andi Jarvis If you have any questions or want to talk about anything that was discussed in the show, the best place to get me is on Twitter or LinkedIn. If you don't get the podcast emailed to you (and a monthly newsletter) you can sign up for it on the Eximo Marketing website. Make sure you subscribe to get the podcast every fortnight and if you enjoyed the show, please give it a 5* rating. Andi Jarvis, Eximo Marketing.

In today's episode I talk to journalist and author David Goodhart. He first became famous, or infamous to some, when he wrote an essay in 2004 – “Too diverse?” –about how diversity can come in conflict with solidarity within a nation state. It sparked a huge debate in Britain, which also reverberated here in Sweden. Since then he's been a public intellectual with an almost absolute pitch for noticing changes in society and in people's attitudes. His latest book – Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century (Allen Lane 2020) – concerns the way in which cognitive labour has received most of the economic rewards during the last decades, and also most of the status. People who work in cognitive-heavy sectors have shaped society in their image. The huge expansion of higher education is a case in point. This has laid too much of an emphasis on academic achievement, and too little on other areas which are equally if not more important. The hand and the heart are obviously metaphors, but they correspond to sectors of the job market that tends to be looked down on, or seen as out-dated. It's the people that might not have gone to university, which didn't mean that much when only 15 percent did so. But when 50 percent go to higher education it creates a completely different dynamic, where they themselves get blamed for not going. It's not a classless society, but a society where class has morphed into something different. It's a followup on his book – The road to somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Hurst 2017) – which had more to do with how different people relate to openness, borders and their identity. It got published right after both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump, and provided a much needed analysis of how that came to be. Many have by now heard the dichotomy anywhere versus somewheres, which David Goodhart came up with in that book. Basically the anywheres tend to be focused on the head, and the somewheres tend to work more with the hand and the heart. The anywheres are less rooted in place, and tend to have more achieved identities which has to do with merit, education, profession etcetera. Somewheres tend to have more ascribed identities, which are beyond the individuals control, such as nationality, locality, sex.We talk about this in the podcast, and also his forthcoming book which will be the third installment of this trilogy. The preliminary title is Who cares? and will take off where Head, hand, heart left the reader. The focus is on the care sector, family life and why we need to rebalance our aging societies towards the heart. I highly recommend reading David Goodharts books, if you haven't already. He's been an influence on my thinking for a long time. And I hope you find the interview as interesting as I did. Rak höger med Ivar Arpi is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Guest on Matt Goodwins subcastI was recently a guest on. I suggest giving him a follow on his Substack if you like the interview. He's one of my go to sources for British politics, among other subjects. Here's the full audio:Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit ivararpi.substack.com/subscribe

David Goodhart argues that our politics is stuck, not for want of clear ideas about what to do, but because of the inability to get important things done. 'Politics has always been about herding cats', he writes, 'but is the current generation of politicians less good at herding? Or perhaps the cats are even less herdable than usual.' Producer: Adele Armstrong Sound: Peter Bosher Production coordinator: Iona Hammond Editor: Richard Fenton-Smith

In this archive debate, we revisit a discussion from 2018 when an assembled panel of smart thinkers gathered to reflect on the concept of nationhood, nationality and the impact of former UK Prime Minister Theresa May's infamous 2016 speech that proclaimed, “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.” The discussion featured guests including the commentator and author David Goodhart, award-winning novelist Elif Shafak, former diplomat David Landsman and historian Simon Schama. Hosting the the episode was journalist and broadcaster Kamal Ahmed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

He’s in the news again this week — after persuading Joe Manchin that the climate and healthcare bill he’s pushing isn’t inflationary. Larry Summers has had a storied career, as the chief economist of the World Bank, the treasury secretary under Clinton, and the director of the National Economic Council under Obama. He also was the president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006 and remains there as the Charles W. Eliot University Professor. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — on how the US government spent way too little during the Great Recession and way too much during the pandemic, and how we can help the working class cope — pop over to our YouTube page.The episode has a lot of thematic overlap with our recent discussion with David Goodhart, author of Head, Hand, Heart: Why Intelligence Is Over-Rewarded, Manual Workers Matter, and Caregivers Deserve More Respect. Here’s a new transcript. And below is a clip from that episode on how our economy overvalues white-collar brain power:Back to inflation talk, here’s a dissent:I’ve been reading your blog for a little over a year now, and listening to Dishcast, which is great. I’ve noticed a few things, however, that I would like you to perhaps respond to, or at least consider. First, what you refer to as “wokeness” on the left is, I agree, an obnoxious problem that has been exacerbated by social media. But I think your recent guest Francis Fukuyama has it mostly correct in his new book, Liberalism and Its Discontents, when he identifies illiberal trends on the political left as being more of an annoyance, or at the very least, far less of a threat to the republic than illiberal trends on the right. Second, I completely disagree with this rather lazy salvo from you: “Biden’s legacy — an abandonment of his mandate for moderation, soaring inflation, an imminent recession, yet another new war, and woker-than-woke extremism — has only deepened it.” It simply is not the case that Biden has not, especially when forced to, hewed towards moderation. Yes, he is attempting to respond to a leftward shift in the Democratic Party by trying to govern more from the left, but this is simply a reflection of political reality. In addition, much of his agenda has been batted down, but more on that in a moment. Next, inflation and an imminent recession have a lot more to do with what the Fed has done over the last four decades — and definitely since the financial crisis of 2008 — than with Joe Biden. On this theme of a highly financialized economy nearing the end of the neoliberal era, I recommend Rana Foroohar on Ezra Klein’s latest podcast, where she talks about the popping of the “Everything Bubble.” Asset-value inflation, deindustrialization, a perverse focus on shareholder value rather than investing in Main Street or even R&D, and an utter lack of policy solutions, have caused this. In addition, as Foroohar herself says, the changes we need to make in our economy are going to be, in the short-to-medium term, inflationary. This means policymakers have to start making policy that actually helps both people and infrastructure, which means spending money. Unfortunately, the garden has gone untended for so long that we’re teetering on the brink of becoming a really shitty country if we don’t take more aggressive action. In addition, with regard to an upcoming recession, Noah Smith wrote on his Substack recently that Keynesian economics would suggest that a quick recession now in order to stomp out inflation would be better in the long run than milquetoast attempts to curb it by raising interest rates too slowly. The idea is that recessions — especially fast and somewhat shallow ones — can be weathered, but inflation that goes on for too long leaves lasting scars on the economy. (Smith identifies the Volker recessions as probably permanently damaging the Rust Belt.) Personally, what I worry about more on the left is not “woke-ism,” but the trendy socialist/ironic/weird outlets like Jacobin or Chapo Trap House, which seem to be doing their damndest to convince younger, more impressionable and less educated people that the whole country is fucked; it’s designed to be fucked because capitalism is fucked; and only its imminent collapse will allow for problems to be solved through revolution/redistribution. Believe me, that sentiment is becoming a real problem, and the people who buy into it are every bit as ideologically rigid, illiberal, and closed to inquiry as those on the rabid right.Next up, listeners sound off on last week’s episode with Fraser Nelson, the British journalist who sized up the prime minister race. The first comment comes from “a long-time libertarian in Massachusetts”:I’ve been reading the Dish for about a year and finally subscribed thanks to your fascinating interview with Fraser Nelson. I was particularly glad to be alerted to Kemi Badenoch.It’s taken awhile to pull the trigger on subscribing to the Dish because of your Trump bashing, since you sound more like Hillary Clinton than William Buckley. I’m perfectly fine with bashing Trump, but I prefer to see it paired with an acknowledgment of the forces that created him, i.e. the abandonment of the middle class by the two major parties, particularly the Democrats. I do think half the country would lose its mind if Trump runs again, so in that sense I sympathize with your sentiments. But the larger context is essential.Some episodes our listener might appreciate — ones sympathetic to the concerns of middle-class Trump voters — include Michael Anton, Mickey Kaus, Ann Coulter and David French. More on the Fraser Nelson pod:Thank you for an outstanding episode. Nelson has almost persuaded me to take out a Spectator subscription! I thought he summed up eloquently and fairly the state of the Conservative Party, Johnson, Sunak and Truss, and the challenges that lie ahead.Like many Brexiteers — and Nelson half-acknowledges this — the Tories have not grappled with the realities of Brexit. The most obvious lacuna in your discussion was the economy. You cannot leave the EU and not increase the size of the state. You have to have more customs arrangements (as we have recently seen at Dover), more vets, more checks and so on, ad nauseam. It’s all very well for conservatives to argue for a smaller state, but they haven’t defined what that will look like and how the services people use now (education, transport, local government, the legal system etc) will be improved, i.e. funded to a better extent than now. Underfunding is obvious and no amount of arguing “we can do it more efficiently” will cut it — the Tories have had 12 years to fix this.Moreover, picking fights with the EU has meant less investment, reduced business confidence and increased uncertainty — except of course in Northern Ireland, which has access to the single market and where business is booming. Listen to NFU President Minette Batters talk about the issues surrounding Truss’s free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, or fishermen now dealing with the consequences of Brexit. They were once fans. Not so much now.James Carville once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Promising tax cuts now when much of the Western world is likely to enter a recession is ridiculously irresponsible, but hey ho, it’s a political campaign and reality will bite once we have a new prime minister, whoever she is.Also, I look forward to hearing Marina Hyde on the Dishcast!This next listener takes issue with some of my phrasing:I enjoyed the Nelson episode overall! But I have to take issue with a rare faux pas from you, where you said that Rishi Sunak is “himself obviously a globalist, just by his very career and nature.” I can’t really understand how you came to this conclusion. Is anyone who worked overseas for some time a “globalist”? Are you a “globalist” because your moved to America? What about Sunak’s “nature” makes him so?Back in 2016, Sunak supported Brexit, which was seen as the losing bet, despite much pressure from David Cameron. And he has set out very clearly in his leadership campaign that he thinks, for example, we need to be tougher on border control. Neither of these things strike me as globalist, nor a return to the Cameron era.On the other hand, I agree with your characterisation of Truss — who voted Remain before undergoing a miraculous and instantaneous change of heart the day after her side lost — as a “dime-store Thatcher.”Speaking of border control, here’s David Goodhart — also from a British perspective — on why elites favor open borders:One more listener on Fraser pod:As a Spectator subscriber (and Glasgow Uni man), I very much enjoyed Fraser Nelson. Mishearing (I think) at around the 37 minute mark when he seemed to refer to Boris getting a first at Oxford, I was reminded of this fine b****y exchange with David Cameron in the Sunday Times back in the day:Surely Boris has been the man Cameron had to beat, ever since they were at school together. 'This is one of the great myths of politics', says the PM [Cameron]. 'These things grow up and it's so long ago no one challenges them, but I don't think we really knew each other at school, he was a couple of years ahead of me. He was very clever.'Then Cameron explodes into a beaming grin. 'But', he says exultantly. 'Boris didn't get a First! I only discovered that on the Panorama programme the other night... I didn't know that'. He is suddenly lit up, almost punching the air with joy.And in that outburst of public-schoolboy competitiveness — Cameron, of course, did get a First — he reveals everything we've always thought about him.Also, when Boris was described as believing the untrue things he said at the time he said them, I’m reminded of George Costanza’s credo that “it’s not a lie if you believe it!” (which, for a fairly left liberal Tory, you’d perhaps take over a Trump analogy).Lastly, a listener looks to a potential guest:If you wish to continue to mine the vein of the global power landscape, its recent evolution this century, and its implications: Condoleezza Rice. She has an interesting perspective from one whose expertise is Russia and is a past practitioner of American statecraft with Russia and China.Thanks, as always, for the suggestion. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

In unserer Gesellschaft werden kognitive, analytische Fähigkeiten am höchsten bewertet, immer mehr Menschen erreichen höhere Bildungsabschlüsse. An den Schalthebeln der Macht sitzen überwiegend akademisch Ausgebildete, die den Kurs nach ihren Interessen bestimmen. Doch das hat seinen Preis: Der Kopf hat zu viel Einfluss erlangt, meint David Goodhart. Im Gespräch mit Alev Doğan erläutert der Autor, warum es problematisch ist, dass viele Gesellschaften, “Berufe der Hand und des Herzens” – Handwerk und soziale Berufe – geringschätzen und schlecht bezahlen und wo wir ansetzen müssen, um die Gesellschaft wieder ins Gleichgewicht zu bringen.

In unserer Gesellschaft werden kognitive, analytische Fähigkeiten am höchsten bewertet, immer mehr Menschen erreichen höhere Bildungsabschlüsse. An den Schalthebeln der Macht sitzen überwiegend akademisch Ausgebildete, die den Kurs nach ihren Interessen bestimmen. Doch das hat seinen Preis: Der Kopf hat zu viel Einfluss erlangt, meint David Goodhart. Im Gespräch mit Alev Doğan erläutert der Autor, warum es problematisch ist, dass viele Gesellschaften, “Berufe der Hand und des Herzens” – Handwerk und soziale Berufe – geringschätzen und schlecht bezahlen und wo wir ansetzen müssen, um die Gesellschaft wieder ins Gleichgewicht zu bringen. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As the Tory leadership election highlights questions of social mobility, David Goodhart looks at why some people seem to have more luck than others. To what extent can we create our own opportunities, regardless of background? What role does personality play? And is it really possible to engineer and cultivate our own luck by being open to chance encounters? Producer: Adele Armstrong Sound: Peter Bosher Production coordinator: Gemma Ashman Editor: Richard Fenton-Smith

Jill is a journalist, academic, and the author of five books. She’s best known as the first woman to become executive editor at the New York Times, from 2011 to 2014. She’s currently a professor in the English department at Harvard. We’ve been friends forever.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two clips of our convo — on whether women are better observational reporters, and looking back at the Supreme Court saga of “Long Dong Silver” — head over to our YouTube page.We have a new transcript posted for posterity: Jamie Kirchick on his new history of gay Washington, recorded in front of a live audience at Twenty Summers in Ptown. If you missed it, here’s a teaser:With Pride still marching along this month, a reader writes:You frequently cover the takeover of the gay rights movement by transgender ideology, and how that can be at odds with the sex-based rights our generation fought for. I want to share a glimpse that I got at another under-discussed appropriation of the movement that’s significantly less threatening, but still leaves me feeling a bit out in the cold as a gay man: Pride going mainstream.I live in a small Midwestern exurb that recently began hosting its own Pride parade. This is not a small event — the banners go up well before June and stick around much of the summer, and it draws a crowd on par with our largest town festivals. I’ve generally avoided it, assuming it would be chock full of pink-and-blue flags and wanting to spare myself the political frustration. I also figured that a Pride parade in a town like mine indicated how unnecessary Pride parades have become.But this year I found out my (straight) brother was bringing his family, including my very young nieces and nephews. I wanted to see the kids, and I hoped my presence might provide some contrast to whatever left-wing antics they saw there. I was also curious how a Pride parade could possibly be family friendly enough for elementary school kids.Long story short, the whole thing was incredibly anodyne. I saw a couple drag queens and exactly one trans flag, but otherwise you would think it was a parade to celebrate rainbows. There were a few other older gay men wandering around, looking as awkward as I was. I had been worried about how to explain things to the kids, but I don’t think they even realized there was any connection to myself or my husband — they were in it mainly to catch candy. I don’t even recall seeing the words “rights” or “equality” mentioned. The messages were along the lines of “Be Yourself” and “Love Wins!”Afterwards, I learned that this event had been founded not by a homosexual, nor by a trans person, but rather by someone’s mother. Her daughter came out to her (I’m not even sure as what) and the mother decided she needed to show her daughter she was loved no matter what. And it all suddenly made sense. This was what a well-meaning mom wants to see when she sees gay pride. Be yourself! Love wins!I don’t want to say this kind of thing should stop. It was a nice enough time, and I don’t disagree with the message. But, I do wish more people understood exactly how unrooted “Pride” has become from the gay culture that started it and the reasons it was necessary. As I explained to my own mother afterwards, I don’t know of any man who had ever been imprisoned or assaulted just for loving another man. It was always about sex, and it’s still about sex. We just can’t mention that at Pride anymore, I guess.I suspect a great deal of this is a function of getting what we asked for — and the consequences of that taking root. Pride now is for straights as much as for gays — just as all the old super-gay events — like the High Heel Drag Race for Halloween in DC - went from being broken up by the cops (in my adult lifetime) to being packed with countless young straight women trying to be cool — and parents and all the letters of the alphabet. I’m made uncomfortable by some of this mass cultural appropriation — but that’s just my nostalgia for an era which I’m glad is now gone. We need to take yes for an answer, and as I wrote nearly 20 years ago, a very distinctive gay culture will end because of it.If you missed last week’s pod with David Goodhart, here’s a primer:This listener enjoyed the episode:On the conversation with David Goodhart, I want to chime in about your argument that one of the great contributions of Christianity, historically, has been reminding smart people that they aren’t any better than anyone else — and might indeed be worse, because of the arrogance and ambition that often accompanies that trait. It reminded me of a seminal moment in my childhood. I was 10, and I had just lost the regional spelling bee in a hard-fought match in which the last kid and I went several rounds before I made an error that he capitalized on. I turned to shake his hand. My dad told me later that night, “When you shook that boy’s hand, I don’t think I’ve ever been prouder of you. You showed graciousness in a bitter moment, and it’s one of the hardest things to learn to do. I’m never going to be proud that you’re smart. That was a genetic luck of the draw and you had no more to do with it than you did with having brown hair or being a little scrawny. But how you responded is your character, and I DO care about that, and I am immensely proud of you.”I think the fact that that was a consistent message at home when I was getting a lot of accolades at school probably made me marginally less unbearable than I would have been otherwise. I should say that my family is Southern Baptist; our faith was part of the warp and woof of daily life and the lens through which my parents interpreted life and what was worthy and valuable. Being smart was nice, but not nearly as important as being kind and generous and forgiving. I’m very grateful to have been raised like that.Me too. Another listener also took the convo personally:I’m so grateful for your episode with David Goodhart, which covered a topic that is both intensely personal and professionally important to me. My father is one of seven children of an Italian immigrant who was a short-haul truck driver. He almost flunked out of high school and only finished because his father threatened to kick his ass if he didn’t. Talking to my dad, any highly educated person would instantly dismiss his opinions and observations. But he wouldn’t care. After high school he started his own business — a car repair and towing company. After 40 years he retired with one million dollars, having bought our family home outright and having sent both my sister and myself to college, and me to law school.  Yes, he did this through hard work and persistence, but he also did it through extremely competent business management and strategic savvy. He survived the shutdown of a local mine (70% of his business at the time), the recessions and gas shortages of the 1970's, cyclical recessions and more.  You don’t do that unless you know how to identify risks and opportunities and exploit them to your own advantage. If that isn’t intelligence, I don’t know what is.  I myself work at a talent firm. My job entails creating a business model to help move junior enlisted veterans without college degrees into good-paying jobs with our skilled-manufacturing clients. It’s been fascinating to talk to companies who are still resistant to paying living wages at entry-level positions in the face of literally one million-plus competing job openings. I agree with Goodhart that reality is going to force a lot of rethinking about the value of labor of all kinds. It may take a while, but we are already seeing a few companies that are all-in on paying enough to attract this talent. They are far less nervous about the future.Thank you for this episode, and please find more guests who want to discuss this topic: How to recognize and reward everyone’s strengths, and how to measure success in new ways.  Another listener recommends a guest:I’d love to see you interview Greg Clark, economic historian at UC Davis. His work on the heritability of social status is fascinating. Using surname data from England, he’s found that social status is strongly heritable but that it drifts back to the mean over many generations. So everyone’s ancestors will be elite or downtrodden eventually, but it might take 400 years. The key factor is assortative marriage and mating. Even before women had careers and got educations, you could predict the type of person a woman would marry by looking at the social status of her brother. Clark has shown how the same phenomenon exists in Scandinavia, China, etc. Most interestingly the data show that although income inequality is less in Scandinavian countries because of redistribution, educational and other achievements like admission to scientific societies, it’s just as unequal as other countries. They also show that even communist revolutions in China and Hungary didn’t prevent people with high social status names from reasserting dominance within a generation or two.Twin studies and data where unexpected parental deaths happen show that the differences can’t be environmental. It’s just amazing and totally under reported for obvious reasons, but I do think this data will blow the lid off our current debate. It’s also great that Clark’s data is about white English people and doesn’t involve race at its core. (Here’s a link to one of his key research papers.)I’ve been impressed with Clark since his book, A Farewell To Alms. It’s a great reader suggestion. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

David Goodhart is a British journalist. In 1995 he founded Prospect, the center-left political magazine, where he served as editor for 15 years, and then became the director of Demos, the cross-party think tank. His book The Road to Somewhere coined the terms “Anywheres” and “Somewheres” to help us understand populism in the contemporary West. We also discuss his latest book, Head Hand Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two clips of our convo — on why elites favor open borders, and why smart people are overvalued — head over to our YouTube page. Early in the episode, David discusses how his adolescent schooling in Marxism was “a bit like how people sometimes talk about the classics as a sort of intellectual gymnasium — learning how to argue.” Which brings to mind the following note from a listener:I feel compelled to tell you how much I enjoyed listening to your episode with Roosevelt Montás. I’m a retired lawyer in my 60s, and although I had a decent education growing up, my experience did not involve a full immersion in the classics. Hearing you two talk was like sitting in a dorm room in college — except the people talking are older, wiser, actually know what they were talking about. What a treat. I’m a pretty regular listener of the Dishcast, and this was the best yet in my opinion.Much of this week’s episode with David centers on how our capitalist society ascribes too much social and moral value to cognitive ability. That theme was also central to our episode last year with Charles Murray, who emphasizes in the following clip the “unearned gift” of high IQ:The following listener was a big fan of the episode (which we transcribed last week):I must tell you that your conversation with Charles Murray was the single best podcast I’ve ever heard. So deep, broad, and thought provoking. Thank you both for your willingness to explore “unacceptable” ideas so thoughtfully and carefully.I have read two of Charles’ books — Human Diversity and Facing Reality — and, among other things, I am stunned by how ordinary a person he seems to be. That sounds odd. What I mean to say is that, while few people could analyze and assemble so much data and present it so compellingly, his conclusions are what the average person “already knows.” I suspect that most people couldn’t plow through Human Diversity, but given a brief synopsis, they would say “duh.”When you mentioned your deep respect for black culture in America, you touched on something I wish had been more developed in Charles’ books: the option we have of celebrating human diversity rather than resigning ourselves to it or denying it. I would like to develop that idea a bit further:Conservation biologists understand (celebrate) the value of genetic diversity in nonhuman species, because each population potentially brings to the species genes that will allow it to flourish under some future environmental challenge, whether that be disease outbreak, climate change, competition from invasive species, etc. Humans too, as living organisms, have faced and will undoubtedly continue to face many unforeseen challenges, whether environmental, cultural, economic, etc. Hopefully, we will continue to rise to these challenges, but we have no way of knowing which genes from which populations will carry the critical traits that will allow us to do so. So, all the better that races DO differ and ARE diverse — in the aggregate, on average. Population differences are GOOD for a species because they confer resilience!Oh, and for the record, I tend to be center-left, with most of my friends leaning further to the left, so the ideas you presented are forbidden fruits. I cannot discuss them with anyone other than my husband, who can hardly bear to listen because they are so taboo in our circle.Here’s another clip with Charles, bringing Christianity into the mix:This next listener strongly dissents:Charles Murray, and you as well, seem to believe that you can magically separate out the effects of culture and poverty, and determine the effect of “race” on intelligence, which you define as IQ. The problem is, everything you’ve discussed here is nonsense.First, you assume that the term “race” describes a shorthand for people who share a common genetic background, and I suspect this is garbage. Most American Blacks have multi-ethnic backgrounds, with skin melanin being the main shared genetic feature. So, there’s little reason to believe that there’s a correlation between melanin content and other genetic features.Second, you assume that IQ describes general intelligence, that G factor Murray talks about. But intelligence is clearly multi-dimensional. My wife and youngest daughter have a facility with Scrabble, and general word enumeration games, that is way beyond me, and they’re better writers than I am. On the other hand, I have a general facility with mathematics that they can’t match (though my oldest daughter might be able to). And that’s just two dimensions; I’d bet there are many more, encompassing things like artistic talent, architectural design and talents in other arenas. You yourself are an excellent writer and interviewer, but I’ve read your writings for years, and I’d bet your understanding of statistics is elementary at best.Finally, you have no answer to the remarkable changes in IQ in Ashkenazi Jews over the past century. Supposedly IQ is supposed to represent an innate and unchangeable measurement of intelligence. And if you believe that average IQ of an ethnic group is a meaningful measurement, then you have to explain the changes in average IQ among American Jews over the past century. Goddard in the early 20th century claimed that 83% of tested Jews were feebleminded, while today, the great grandchildren of those feebleminded Jews now have IQs 1/2 to a full standard deviation above their co-nationalists. There’s an obvious answer here: IQ tests simply don’t test anything fundamental, but instead test how integrated into American culture the tested subjects were at the time.These are serious challenges to the idea that specific ethnic groups have unchangeable intellectual talents: some of your ethnic groups are non-homogeneous genetically, your definition of intelligence is simplistic, and there’s clear evidence that social integration greatly overwhelms any inter-group average differences. It is obvious that some people are more talented in one area than another, and that a significant amount of these differences are determined genetically. But when you move from the case of individuals to trying to correlate American racial groups with intelligence, I truly believe you’re just making a big mistake. Many Blacks in this country have grown up with the expectations that they simply can’t succeed on their own. I find it impossible to believe that we can filter out the effect of being raised with the expectation of failure. I work in tech, and it seems that a seriously disproportionate number of Blacks at my Gang of Five company come from the Caribbean — where, of course, Blacks are a majority and don’t face the same expectations of failure. We had a panel discussion on race and all the panelists came from the Caribbean, and all had stories of parental expectations that you’d expect from a stereotypical Asian-American family today.That said, right now, the Woke are acting more patronizing (and in my view, racist) than anything since the ‘60s. At this point, the Woke (I refuse to apply this label to the whole Left) treat Blacks as incredibly fragile beings who can’t handle any discussions of problems that aren’t laid at the feet of white people’s racism. It’s pretty disgusting.Instead of going point for point with my reader, here’s a comprehensive list of Dish coverage on the subject from the blog days. Another listener recommends a related guest for the Dishcast:After ruminating on some of your recent podcasts, I’d like to suggest a future guest: Paige Harden, author of The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality and professor of behavioral psychology at the University of Texas-Austin. I imagine you’ve read her profile in The New Yorker. Since your conversation with Briahna Joy Gray, the tension between matters of structure and personal agency have been echoing in my head.When I listen to other guests of yours, other podcast hosts, other conservatives, I see everywhere the tension between structure and personal agency. And having read Harden’s book this fall, I’ve been thinking of her work more and more as a bridge between these seemingly divergent world views. She swims in the same research waters as Charles Murray and Robert Plomin — but she (a) is explicitly clear that this research has, as of yet, no value in studying ethnic groups and (b) treats environmental factors differently than they do. On the latter, Harden makes some compelling arguments about the interplay between environment and expression of individuals’ genes (and thus abilities). It’s easy to see the corollaries in personal ability and responsibility (both with strong roots in genetics) versus the leftist tendency to dismiss people’s actions vis a vis blaming structural inequalities.Harden sometimes trades in some language verging on woke, for lack of a better term, but her more nuanced philosophical references are to John Rawls, not neo-Marxists. She’s really quite convincing. Also, I’ve always appreciated that you ask your guests to reflect on their upbringing and how they got where they are. Having read that New Yorker piece and her book, I think hers is an interesting story in and of itself.It is indeed. Harden is a great idea for a guest. I’ll confess that I felt I needed to read her book thoroughly to engage her, and didn’t have the time so put it off. Thanks for the reminder.A reader responds to a quote we posted last week praising Mike Pence for standing up to Trump after the assault on the Capitol:Pence had innumerable chances over years to expose Trump for exactly what he was. Besides one forceful speech since, there hasn’t been much else from the MAGA-excommunicated, nearly-executed veep. How about a live appearance before the Jan 6 Commission, Mr Vice President? Probably not. While I agree that Mike Pence may have saved the republic on Jan 6, he only did so with a gun to his head — with an actual gallows erected for him, while the Capitol was being stormed and people were dying. Better late than never, but he really cut it close, no?Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are the profiles in courage here, along with all those Capitol police. Pence doesn’t deserve this lionization … at least not yet.Points taken. But to be honest, any mainstream Republican who opposed the attempted coup is a hero in my book. Another reader quotes me and dissents:The early Biden assurance that inflation was only a blip has become ridiculous, as Janet Yellen herself has conceded. No, Biden isn’t responsible for most of it. But some of it? Yep. A massive boost to demand when supply is crippled is dumb policy making. And imagine how worse it would be if Biden had gotten his entire package. Larry Summers was right — again.European countries did not have stimulus like we did, yet they are experiencing similar levels of inflation. This would indicate that inflation is a world-wide phenomenon and not tied to our particular stimulus packages. Also, Larry Summers has been pretty much wrong on everything — here’s a synopsis from 2013 (or just google “larry summers wrong on everything” and see the articles that pop up). Money quote:And Summers has made a lot of errors in the past 20 years, despite the eminence of his research. As a government official, he helped author a series of ultimately disastrous or wrongheaded policies, from his big deregulatory moves as a Clinton administration apparatchik to his too-tepid response to the Great Recession as Obama's chief economic adviser. Summers pushed a stimulus that was too meek, and, along with his chief ally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, he helped to ensure that millions of desperate mortgage-holders would stay underwater by failing to support a "cramdown" that would have allowed federal bankruptcy judges to have banks reduce mortgage balances, cut interest rates, and lengthen the terms of loans. At the same time, he supported every bailout of financial firms. All of this has left the economy still in the doldrums, five years after Lehman Brothers' 2008 collapse, and hurt the middle class. Yet in no instance has Summers ever been known to publicly acknowledge a mistake.Sorry, but the EU provided a Covid stimulus of $2.2 trillion. And Summers was clearly right in this case, and Janet Yellen wrong. Another reader also pushes back on the passage I wrote above:I have a bone to pick with you when you discuss the Biden economic policy. Your contention is that the American Rescue Plan was “dumb policy making” because it exacerbated inflation. Fair enough — but if we are going to discuss the economy, then we need to have a full exploration of the policy choices and their implications. Yes, we have had six months of multi-decade high inflation, but we also have had about a year of near-record lows in unemployment and record-high job creation. Before you dismiss that as simply due to the reopening of the economy post-COVID, it’s worth noting that the American economic recovery has vastly outperformed all prognostications, as well as other Western economies. So in sum, the result of Biden’s policy is high inflation, high growth, high job creation, low unemployment. Let’s be clear then: when you criticize the ARP as too big and thus causing inflation, you are advocating for stable prices at the cost of a low growth, high unemployment environment. It’s a fair argument, I suppose. But after having lived through the weak economic recovery engineered by Larry Summers during the Obama administration, one that choked the early careers of many millennials, I’m not sure Biden’s choice was particularly egregious. But what we may well be about to get is stagflation — as interest rates go up even as inflation continues. It’s possible we fucked up both times: in 2009 with too little stimulus and in 2020 too much. I understand why those decisions were taken and the reasons were sane. But they were still wrong. Tim Noah has been doing great work lately on these questions of inflation and recession, including an interview with Summers. This next reader defends Biden’s record on the economy and beyond:The pragmatic counter-argument to your criticism of Biden is this: his economic program, while inflationary, produced unprecedented job growth after a recession, reductions by 50% in child poverty, more than five new business startups, and increases in business investment and personal bank balances of more than 20%. It’s among the reasons the American economy is outperforming China’s for the first time in two generations.Biden’s signature foreign policy achievements in Central Europe have led to the enlargement of NATO and awakened Europe to its responsibilities to its own security, all of which will contain Russia over the long term. This precedent, coupled with the Aussie-Brit nuclear deal, opens real possibilities for containing China’s potential regional expansion in Asia. At home, Biden’s Justice Department, like Gerald Ford’s, is fumigating the fetid stench of politics it inherited. The Biden White House has re-opened the doors to governors and mayors who need help from Washington in a disaster, regardless of partisan affiliation or views of Dear Leader; and it is laying the groundwork for a much-needed affordable-housing boom in our cities. Your hopes for a politics of dynamic centrism, which I share, does not take into account that as many as 10 million of our fellow citizens are prone to political violence due to the real-world influence of Great Replacement Theory, according to Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. There is no comparable threat from the illiberalism on the left — which is a problem, nonetheless. In the wake of Trump’s loss in 2020, leading Republicans, including the governors of Florida and Texas, are competing for those constituents. That’s a movement my fellow classical liberals and I — stretching from the center-left to the center-right — can and should live without. Bill Buckley wouldn’t have sucked up to them. In the real world, the GOP wooing of the violent right poses an existential threat to our quality of life. It’s why I am voting straight Democratic in 2022. And it is why I would gladly vote for Biden, again in 2024, if he sought re-election.Happy to air your perspective. This next reader is bracing himself for Trump 2024:I know it gives you a warm feeling all over to write a column about the revolt against the woke, but it won’t be wokism that propels Republicans into office in 2022 and returns Trump to power in 2024 — something I agree will be a disaster for the republic. Trump’s return to power feels inevitable to me today. The January 6th hearings will make no difference to Trump supporters.Don’t get me wrong; I think wokism is annoying and stupid, but it is not the threat to the nation that you believe it is, and it never was. Wokism has destroyed the left and that is the real tragedy. Instead of a populist left railing against the rich, we have a bourgeois left railing against heterosexual white men, leaving the working class in the thrall of an American Orban. The working class now feels that the left and Democrats have failed them; and they are right, they have.Americans will vote for Republican for one reason: inflation. It should be no surprise that inflation is out of control, but both Biden and Trump spent billions helping people who were unable to work during Covid (the right policy) without raising taxes (the wrong policy). Now, to fight inflation we need to raise taxes and that is impossible; there aren’t the votes in the Senate. American tax policy is insane. You can have low taxes, or you can solve social problems like helping people who can’t work because of a pandemic, an inadequate public health system still unprepared for the next pandemic, homelessness and addiction, and crime. But you can’t have both. It really isn’t that complicated.Grateful as always for the counterpoints, and you can always send your own to dish@andrewsullivan.com. Another dissenter gets historical:I agree wholeheartedly with your clarion condemnation of the odious Trump. But you are wide of the historical mark when you state that Trump is “the first real tyrannical spirit to inhabit the office since Andrew Jackson.” Jackson was authoritarian in character. He was a product of the trauma of the Revolution and he brought his military identity to the White House. But he was not a tyrant or dictator. (There is more historical evidence for Lincoln as dictatorial than Jackson.) More appropriate — if non-American — comparisons for Trump would be Henry VIII, Wilhelm II, Mussolini and Nixon.Mind you, an interesting Dishcast guest would be Jon Meacham to discuss US presidents with authoritarian tendencies: Adams Sr., Polk, Andrew Johnson, Teddy R and Wilson. All expressed some form of authoritarianism, but sometimes the presidency and the nation derived benefitAnother digs deeper into the Jackson comparison:I suggest you interview W.H. Brands, who wrote a biography of Andrew Jackson. There are many ways to judge a history book, but to me an important criterion is, did I learn anything I did not already know?  Reading this book I did.I am only going to mention one of a good number events in Jackson’s life that Brands brings to the forefront. After the Battle of New Orleans, Gen. Jackson had ordered that a curfew remain in effect and that the city was to remain under martial law. For good reason: while the British offensive on one flank was a disaster, they had relative success on the other flank, and their remaining commander could have ended the truce and ordered another attack. But the British never did a follow-up attack. One New Orleans business man then took Andrew Jackson to court, claiming he endured an unnecessary economic loss on account of the military curfew. The court ruled in the businessman’s favor. AND, incredibly, Andrew Jackson paid the fine! Now stop and think, what must have been on Old Hickory’s mind. Here he risks life and limb to save the city from British domination, and he’s fined. Andrew could think, why should I pay?  I’ve got the Army in my control, I’m not just a commander whom soldiers fear, but also one that has the adulation and respect of my soldiers and the populace at large.   To me, that episode reveals that Jackson was hardly the tyrant he is portrayed to be by most modernists steeped in presentism. He should never be placed in the same sentence as Trump unless the word “contrast” or “opposite” is used. Let's keep Old Hickory away from any such comparisons and let his image remain on that $20 bill!Well I learned something from that email — so many thanks. Meacham is a good idea too. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

”The Somewheres” fick nog och protesterade vid valurnorna. Och samhällena i Väst börjar få ett överskott på intellektuella, konstaterar den kände brittiske författaren David Goodhart. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

”The Somewheres” fick nog och protesterade vid valurnorna. Och samhällena i Väst börjar få ett överskott på intellektuella, konstaterar den kände brittiske författaren David Goodhart. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nearly three million people have fled Ukraine since the Russian tanks crossed the border at the end of February. Some say the UK was slow to respond but many thousands of people are now signed up to a government scheme to turn their houses into homes for Ukrainian refugees - the first should arrive soon. There has been an outpouring of generosity and goodwill toward those suffering in this conflict, but uncomfortable questions remain. Are we really doing enough? Why such generosity now, when we have spent years discussing how to keep migrants out? Is it morally acceptable to feel more comfortable welcoming large numbers of Ukrainian - rather than Syrian or Afghan - refugees? Is racism a factor, or is it simply that these people are fleeing an enemy who threatens us too? Shortly the Nationality and Borders Bill will return to be voted on in Parliament. Campaigners say the bill is at odds with rhetoric about welcoming refugees as it could criminalise those who arrive to seek asylum in the UK without first filling in the correct forms. Is it right to put up yet more barriers? Perhaps it is a failure of moral imagination to turn away any individual who wants to make a better life? Some economists argue that the free movement of workers makes nations prosperous, but there's more to Britain than its economy, and not everyone wants to do away with borders. How, without fierce gate-keepers, can we protect the places where we feel at home? With the human rights campaigner Bella Sankey; David Goodhart, who researches integration at the centre right think-tank Policy Exchange; the Chair of Britain's oldest Immigration Museum, Susie Symes; and the former MEP and journalist Patrick O'Flynn. Produced by Olive Clancy

How do you define your place in the world? The theory of "Somewheres" and "Anywheres" was devised by British journalist and commentator, David Goodhart. It suggests some people are grounded to the place they're born, and others see themselves as a citizen of the world. Tim Dean, philosopher and author from the University of Sydney explains the theory.

How do you define your place in the world? The theory of "Somewheres" and "Anywheres" was devised by British journalist and commentator, David Goodhart. It suggests some people are grounded to the place they're born, and others see themselves as a citizen of the world. Tim Dean, philosopher and author from the University of Sydney explains the theory.

Nick Cater talks to David Goodhart about his latest book, Head Hand Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century which argues that the explosion in higher education has created a global elite who are convinced they are not just better educated than their fellow citizens, but better full stop.

We all can see we live in a world of misallocated capital. But we also live in a society of misallocated labour. We disproportionately praise and pay those who work with their heads yet when it comes to people who work with their hearts or with their hands they end up with crumbs in comparison – so how did the cult of the knowledge worker become so pervasive? Host Ross Ashcroft is joined by journalist and author David Goodhart to discuss.

In this episode of SDP Talks, SDP leader William Clouston is joined by journalist, commentator, and author David Goodhart. William and David discuss how Britain's education system focuses too much on generating cognitive elites, the societal ramifications of this, and why we should turn away from this mentality. Buy "Head Hand Heart": https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0863BSRXF Learn more about the SDP at: https://sdp.org.uk/ The opening and closing music for SDP Talks is "Prelude in C (BWV 846)" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Why is patriotism increasingly a partisan issue, divided by party affiliation? Writer Siddak Ahuja has some theories on why certain political demographics are less patriotic than others.The Case for a Left Patriotism, by Siddak AhujaWhy Are Poor Americans More Patriotic Than Their Wealthier Counterparts? - The GuardianThe Left Case Against Open Borders - American Affairs JournalThe Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart – a Liberal's Rightwing Turn on Immigration - The GuardianHow Race Politics Liberated the Elites - UnHerdThorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class—A Status Update - QuilletteA Left-Right Populist Agenda to Take Jobs Back From China, by Siddak Ahuja@SiddakAhuja----------Email: newliberalspodcast@gmail.comTwitter: @NewLiberalsPod

For decades society has awarded social prestige and financial benefits to those who acquire a college degree and enter the so-called “knowledge economy”. Skilled manual labor and the caring professions, however, have too often been left behind. Why are these workers not as valued as they should be? And how do we create a more equitable labor force to ensure that all workers are respected for the value they provide to our society? Brent talks to David Goodhart, the author of “Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21stCentury”, about the markers of a successful life, the value of skilled crafts and the caring professions, and the need to reconsider our priorities in training and educating students and workers. 

The coronavirus pandemic taught us something we ought already to have known: that care workers, supermarket shelf-stackers, delivery drivers and cleaners are doing essential work that keeps us all alive, fed and cared for. Until recently much of this work was regarded as menial by the the same society that now lauds them as 'key workers'. Why are they so undervalued?In Head, Hand, Heart, British journalist and author David Goodhart tells the story of the cognitive takeover that has gathered pace over the past forty years. As recently as the 1970s most people left school without qualifications, but now 40 per cent of all jobs are graduate-only. A good society must re-imagine the meaning of skilled work, so that people who work with their hands and hearts are valued alongside workers who manipulate data. Our societies need to spread status more widely, and provide meaning and value for people who cannot, or do not want to, achieve in the classroom and the professions. This is the story of the central struggle for status and dignity in the twenty-first century. (Penguin.co.uk) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's episode, we talk about Theresa May's impossible situation, and ask, how can she get out of this bind created by her friends and enemies? We also discuss the hostile environment policy, and ask, is Ireland going to repeal its Eighth Amendment? With James Forsyth, Chris Wilkins, David Goodhart, Ash Sakar, Melanie McDonagh, and Una Mullally. Presented by Isabel Hardman.

Dr Foster writer Mike Bartlett on his new play Albion. Alex Clark reports from the Man Booker prize ceremony. And former SNP MP George Kerevan, David Goodhart and Marián Arribas-Tomé from UEA discuss whether the 21st century is set to be a century of small nations. The Man Booker Prize shortlist 2017 is : 4 3 2 1 by Paul Auster History of Wolves by Emily Fridlund Exit West by Mohsin Hamid Elmet by Fiona Mozley Lincoln in the Bardo by George Saunders Autumn by Ali Smith Mike Bartlett's play Albion runs at the Almeida Theatre in London from October 10th to November 24th. David Goodhart is Head of Demography, Immigration & Integration at Policy Exchange and author of The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of PoliticsProducer: Torquil MacLeod.