Podcast appearances and mentions of matt yglesias

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast This abundance panel -- which been weeks in the making -- is well-timed: A new poll shows that voters prefer populist messaging to "abundance" messaging by a significant margin, throwing advocates of Abundance, a new book by Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson, into a tizzy. So what is "Abundance" anyway, & why has Left Twitter been so antagonistic to the ideology? Are pro-Abundance advocates like Klein, Thompson, and Matt Yglesias right when they say the left's critiques are only vibe-based, or is the left raising legitimate concerns about a corporate-backed, astro-turfed campaign intended to syphon off genuine populist anger? We've assembled the authors of three of the best abundance-critical op-eds to discuss: economist Isabella Weber, legal director at Open Markets Institute Sandeep Vaheesan, and former Rhode Island State Rep. Aaron Regunberg. It's the most comprehensive and specific explanation of why the left should reject the "abundance" framing you're likely to hear. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

Dive into the chaotic world of right-wing media with Matt Lewis and Will Sommer, senior reporter at The Bulwark, author of the 'False Flag' newsletter, and author of the book, 'Trust the Plan.'In this explosive podcast, they unpack:-- Semaphore's exposé on secret right-wing Signal chats, revealing how tech billionaires like Mark Andreessen and media stars like Tucker Carlson shape online narratives.-- Tucker Carlson vs. Megyn Kelly: A heated clash over Pete Hegseth's Pentagon purge and competing MAGA narratives.-- Joe Rogan's controversial guests: From 9/11 truthers to WWII revisionists, why Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray are calling out Rogan's “reckless” platform.-- Trump's war on the press: The chilling resignation of 60 Minutes' executive producer amid CBS's capitulation to Trump's lawsuits.-- Elon Musk vs. Steve Bannon: Inside the ideological and personal battles defining the MAGA movement's future.-- Dan Bongino's 'Streisand Effect': How the deputy FBI director's tweets backfired, spotlighting his FBI sparring mishap.* Note: During the conversation, Will said Matt Yglesias was in the Marc Andressen group chat, While Matt's name is mentioned in the story, it doesn't say he was in the chats. #RightWingMedia #Maga #TuckerCarlson #MegynKelly #JoeRogan #Trump #WillSommer #MattLewis #TheBulwark #PoliticalPodcastSupport "Matt Lewis & The News" at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattlewisFollow Matt Lewis & Cut Through the Noise:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MattLewisDCTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattklewisInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattklewis/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVhSMpjOzydlnxm5TDcYn0A– Who is Matt Lewis? –Matt K. Lewis is a political commentator and the author of Filthy Rich Politicians.Buy Matt's book: https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Politicians-Creatures-Ruling-Class/dp/1546004416Copyright © 2024, BBL & BWL, LLC

Interview with Matt Yglesias about reading classic novels, like Middlemarch, and some discussion of his favourite movies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our entire premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Screenwriter Josh Olson returns to Bad Faith with Champagne Sharks host Trevor Beaulieu to preview their new culture podcast The White Canon, in which they break down movies that are near-universally loved among white viewers but relatively unknown among Black ones. The duo then get into a deep dive into the latest press from Matt Yglesias and the Democratic machine rationalizing their failure to learn a single lesson about anything. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

Atlas Shrugged seems to be everywhere today. Randian villains are in the news. Rand remains influential on the right, from the Reagan era to the modern libertarian movement. Perhaps most significantly, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen who are moving into government with DOGE, have been influenced by Rand, and, fascinatingly, Andreessen only read the novel four years ago. Hollis Robbins (@Anecdotal) and I talked about how Atlas Shrugged is in conversation with the great novels of the past, Rand's greats skills of plotting, drama, and character, and what makes Atlas Shrugged a serious novel, not just a vehicle for ideology. Love it or loathe it, Atlas Shrugged is having a moment. Everyone brings a preconception of Ayn Rand, but she has been opposed by the right and the left ever since she first published. Other than Jennifer Burns' biography, academic study has largely declined to notice Rand. But Rand deserves our serious attention, both as a novelist, and as an influence on the modern world. Here are a couple of excerpts.We talk a lot these days about, “how can I be my best self?” That's what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it's not about earning money, it's not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It's about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they're in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?Also this.What would Ayn Rand think about the influencer economy? Oh, she'd despise it. She would despise it… all these little girls wanting to grow up to be influencers, they're caught in some algorithm, which is awful. Why would you want to spend your life influencing others? Go create something. It's a hard medicine.And.Her aesthetic is very classical, draped. She doesn't wear flowery patterns. She wears draped, clearly close-fitting gowns and gray tailored suits and a minimum of jewelry, though she does have this bracelet chain made of Rearden metal. You don't know when she possibly has time to go shopping, but she's perfectly dressed all the time in the fashion that we would understand as feminist. She wears trousers, she wears suits, but when she goes out, this black velvet cape. I think it's important to see her as that, even though nobody talks about that in terms of this novel, what a heroine she is. I know that when I was reading her as a teenage girl, that's it.TranscriptHenry: Today, I am talking with Hollis Robbins, former dean of the humanities at Utah University and special advisor on the humanities and AI. We are talking about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Hollis, hello.Hollis Robbins: Hello. I'm really glad to have this conversation with you. We've known each other for some years and follow each other's work. I was trained as a scholar of 19th-century American, Victorian, and African-American literature, mostly novels, and love having conversations with you about big, deep novels. When I suggested that we read this book, I was hoping you would be enthusiastic about it, so I'm really happy to be having this conversation. It's hard to know who's interviewing you or what conversation this is, but for you coming at this middle-aged. Not quite middle-aged, what are you?Henry: I'm middle enough. No. This is not going to be an interview as such. We are going to have a conversation about Atlas Shrugged, and we're going to, as you say, talk about it as a novel. It always gets talked about as an ideology. We are very interested in it as a novel and as two people who love the great novels of the 19th century. I've been excited to do this as well. I think that's why it's going to be good. Why don't we start with, why are we doing this?Hollis: I wanted to gesture to that. You are one of the leading public voices on the importance of reading literature and the importance of reading novels particularly, though I saw today, Matt Yglesias had a blog post about Middlemarch, which I think he just recently read. I can credit you with that, or us, or those of us who are telling people read the big novels.My life trajectory was that I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead before I read Dickens, before I read Jane Austen, before I read Harriet Beecher Stowe or Melville or the Brontës. For me, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were foundational novels as novels. I wondered what it would be like to talk to somebody whose experience was flipped.Henry: Right, I'm 38 and I'd never read this book. I was coming at it partly having read all those other books, but partly for my whole life, people have said, "Oh, that's really a bad book. That's so badly written. That book is no good." The number one thing I can say to people is this book is fun.Hollis: It's really fun. I was going to say usually what I forget to do in talking about books is give the summary. I'm going to hold up my copy, which is my dog-eared copy from high school, which is hilarious. It's got the tiniest print, which I couldn't possibly read now. No underlining, which is interesting. I read this book before I understood that you were supposed to underline when you liked passages in the book.It was interesting to me. I'd probably read it five or six times in my youth and didn't underline anything. The story is--- You can help me fill in the blanks. For readers who haven't read it, there's this young woman, Dagny Taggart, who's the heiress of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad fortune. She's a woman. This takes place in about, I think, the '40s, '50s. Her older brother, Jim Taggart, is CEO. She's COO, so she's the operations person. It is in some ways the story of her-- It's not quite a bildungsroman. This is the way I tell the story. It's the story of her coming to the realization of how the world works. There's many ways to come at this story. She has multiple boyfriends, which is excellent. Her first boyfriend, his name is Francisco d'Anconia. He's the head of d'Anconia Copper. He too is an heir of this longstanding copper fortune. Her second is a metals magnate, Hank Rearden, who invents this great metal, Rearden metal.Really, it's also the story of the decline of America, and the ways that, in this Randian universe, these villainous group of people who run the country are always taking and extracting from producers. As she's creating and building this great railroad and doing wonderful things and using Rearden metal to do it, something is pulling all the producers out of society, and she's like, "What is going on?"It turns out there's this person, John Galt, who is saying, "I don't like the way the country is run. I don't like this extractive philosophy. I am going to take all the producers and lure them voluntarily to a--" It's a hero's lair. It's not like a James Bond villain lair. It's a hero lair in Colorado called Galt's Gulch. He is John Galt. It ends up being a battle between who is right in a wrong world. Is it the ethical person, Dagny Taggart, who continues to strive and try to be a producer and hold on to her ethics in this corrupt world, or is it somebody saying, "To hell with this. I am going on strike. You guys come with me and let the world collapse." How's that for summary?Henry: No, I think that's great. I couldn't have done a better job. One thing that we can say is that the role of reason, of being a rational person, of making reason the sole arbiter of how you make choices, be they practical, ethical, financial, whatever, that's at the heart of the book, right?Hollis: That's the philosophy. We could go there in a second. I think the plot of the book is that she demonstrates this.Henry: What she has to learn, like what is the big lesson for Dagny, is at the beginning, she hasn't fully understood that the good guys use reason and the bad guys do not, as it were.Hollis: Right. I think that's right. I like thinking about this as a bildungsroman. You said that the book is fun. Her part of the book is fun, but not really fun. The fun part of the book, and you can tell me because every time you kept texting me, "Oh my God, Jim Taggart. Oh my God, Jim Taggart. Oh my God, Jim Taggart."--Henry: These guys are so awful. [laughs]Hollis: They're so awful. The fun parts of the book, the Rand villains are the government entities and the cabals of business leaders who she calls looters and second-handers who run the country and all they do is extract value. Marc Andreessen was on a podcast recently and was all about these Rand villains and these looters. I think, again, to get back to why are we doing this and why are we doing this now, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged is in the air with the second Trump administration.Henry: Yes. In a way, we're doing this because the question is, is this the novel of the future? Right? What we're seeing is it's very influential on the right. Rand's ideas have long been a libertarian inspiration. Elon Musk's read her. You mentioned Andreessen, Peter Thiel, all these people. It goes back to the Reagan days. People in the Republican Party have been quoting Ayn Rand. Then more broadly, we see all these worries about social collapse today. What happens in the plot of Atlas Shrugged is that society does slowly collapse.Dagny has to realize it's because of these people who are not using their reason and they're nationalizing things and taking resource away from proficient entrepreneurs and stuff. It's all about infrastructure, energy, people doing exploitation in the name of the common good, ineffective political leaders, people covering up lies and misdemeanors, people being accepting of what is obviously criminal behavior because it's in the cause of the greater good. We have free speech, all these topics, energy production. We're seeing this in the headlines. When I was reading this book, I was like, "Oh my God, how did she know?"Hollis: How did she know?Henry: How did she know.Hollis: I think the bildungsroman aspect of this as a novel. It's hard to read it as a novel. I think it's hard. By the way, I have to really I applaud you for not, until you got almost to the end of the book, texting me about this person or that person, or how it's political. I admire you for looking at the book and coming to the book as an expert in novels.What she comes to terms with, and it's a real slowly-- It's not even scales falling from her eyes. She doesn't sit and say, "Oh my God, the world is corrupt." She just is like, "That person's corrupt. I'm not going to deal with them. That person's corrupt. I'm not going to deal with them." She just keeps going, but she doesn't ever accept with a fatalism that she's living in this world where every single person who's in charge is going to let her down.Henry: It's also interesting to me that she doesn't complain.Hollis: No.Henry: Now, that reminded me of I wrote about Margaret Thatcher in my book. She was another big one for however hard it was, however difficult it was, why would you complain? Let's just go to work. A lot of people found her difficult for that reason. When I was reading this, I was like, "Ayn Rand clearly has the same idea. You can nationalize every last inch of the economy. I'm going to get up and go to work and try and beat you. I'm not going to sit around and complain." It's a very stern attitude in a way. She's very strict with herself. I found the book to be-- I know Rand is very atheist, but a very Protestant book.Hollis: Yes, it really is.Henry: Intensely Protestant, yes.Hollis: That's a nice way to think about it. A certain kind of Protestant, a Weberian Protestant.Henry: Sure.Hollis: Not a Southern Baptist Protestant who believes in the absence of reason. I was thinking I was teaching in Mississippi years ago. I was teaching a course on Wordsworth and had to do a unit on Voltaire because you can't really understand Wordsworth unless you understand Voltaire. There was a woman in my class. She was a version of Presbyterian who doesn't believe in reason, believes that in the fall, man lost their reason.Therefore, she asked if she could be excused from class because I was talking about Voltaire and the importance of reason. She said, "This is against my religion. If you believe that man has reason, you are actually going about it wrong, so may I be excused?" Which in all the years I've had people ask for excuses to miss class, that was a memorable one.Henry: That's unique. [laughs]Hollis: It's interesting because, again, I should get back to the novel, the opposition from Rand is as strong on the religious right as it is on the left. In fact, very strong. When Atlas Shrugged came out, William F. Buckley famously had Whittaker Chambers write the review. He hated her. He despised her. He despised the fact that she put reason first.Henry: Yes. I think that's worth emphasizing that some people listening will think, "I'm Rand. These nasty ideas, she's on the right." She's been ideologically described in that way so many times. Deirdre McCloskey in the Literary Review has just in the most recent edition written an absolutely scathing article about Rand. That's libertarian opposition to Rand.McCloskey is saying Hayek is the real thing here and Rand would have hated everything that Hayek did. She got everything wrong. I think the opposition to her, as you say, it's on both sides. One thing that's interesting about this novel is that because she created her own philosophy, which people will have different views on how well that went, but there isn't anyone else like this. All the other people like this are her followers.Hollis: Exactly.Henry: She's outside of the other systems of thought in a way.Hollis: We should talk about Rand. I'm going to quote a little bit from this book on feminist interpretation of Ayn Rand. Let's talk a little bit, if we can, about Dagny as the heroine of a novel, or a hero, because one of the really interesting things about reading Rand at this moment is that she's got one pronoun, he, him, man. She is in this era where man means man and women. That there isn't men and women, he and she, and now it's he, she, and them. She is like, "There's one pronoun." Even she talks about the rights of man or man believes. She means everybody, but she only means man too. It's interesting.I was very much part of the first pronoun wars in the 1980s when women scholars were like, "He and she." Now we're thrown out the window with that binary. Again, we don't need to talk about pronouns, but it's really important to understanding Rand and reading this novel, how much she embraces men and the male pronoun, even while she is using it both ways, and even while her story is led by this woman. She's beautiful. She's beautiful in a very specific way. She's tall, she's slender, she's got great cheekbones, she's got great shoulders, she's got long legs.Her aesthetic is very classical, draped. She doesn't wear flowery patterns. She wears draped, clearly close-fitting gowns and gray tailored suits and a minimum of jewelry, though she does have this bracelet chain made of Rearden metal. You don't know when she possibly has time to go shopping, but she's perfectly dressed all the time in the fashion that we would understand as feminist. She wears trousers, she wears suits, but when she goes out, this black velvet cape. I think it's important to see her as that, even though nobody talks about that in terms of this novel, what a heroine she is. I know that when I was reading her as a teenage girl, that's it.Henry: I want to be Dagny.Hollis: I want to be Dagny. I want to have capes, right?Henry: There's a very important scene, it's not too much of a plot spoiler, where Hank Rearden has invented this new metal. It's very exciting because it's much more efficient and it's much stronger and you can build new bridges for the trains and everything. He makes a bracelet of his new metal. It's a new steel alloy, I think, and gives it to his wife. His wife basically doesn't care.She's not really interested in what it takes to earn the money, she just wants to have the money. You get the strong impression throughout the book that some of the people that Rand is most scathingly disapproving of are wives who don't work. None of those people come out well. When Dagny goes to a party at the Rearden house and she is romantically involved with Hank Rearden, she sees the bracelet.Hollis: She isn't then, right? Isn't she not then?Henry: No, but they have feelings for each otherHollis: Right. Reasonable feelings for each other.Henry: That's right, reasonable feelings, but they're not currently acting on those feelings. She sees the bracelet and she exchanges her, I think, diamonds-Hollis: Diamond bracelet.Henry: -for the Rearden metal bracelet with the wife. It's this wonderful moment where these two opposite ideals of womanhood that Rand is presenting. It's a great moment of heroism for Dagny because she is saying, "Who cares about glittering diamonds when you have a new steel alloy that can make this incredible bridge?" It sounds crazy, but this is 1957. Dagny is very much what you might call one of the new women.Hollis: Right.Henry: I think in some ways, Rand-- I don't like the phrase she's ahead of her time. I've read a lot of 1950s fiction. This is not the typical woman.Hollis: No, this is not Cheever. This is not a bored suburban housewife at a time when the way the '50s are taught, certainly in America, it's like women could work during the war, then they were suburban housewives, there was bored, there were key parties and all sorts of Cheever sorts of things. This is not that. I read this first. I was only 15 years after it was published, I think, in the '60s, early '70s reading it.This, to me, seemed perfectly normal and everything else seemed regressive and strange and whiny. There's a lot to be said for reading this novel first. I think if we can talk a little bit about these set pieces because I think for me reading it as a novel and hearing you talk about it as a novel, that novels, whether we're thinking about-- I want to see if you want to compare her to Dorothea or just to any other Victorian women novel that you can think of. That's the closest, right? Is there anybody that's closest to Dorothea from Middlemarch? Is that there are these set pieces. People think that Rand-- the idea is that she's not a great writer. She is a great writer. She started in Hollywood. Her first book, The Fountainhead, was made into a movie. She understands plotting and keeping the reader's attention. We go forward, we go backwards. There's her relationship with Francisco d'Anconia that we see her now, years after, then we have flashbacks to growing up and how they became lovers.There are big meeting set pieces where everybody's in the room, and we have all the backstories of the people in the room, what is going to happen. There are these big party scenes, as you say. For example, this big, glorious, glamorous party at the Rearden house, Francisco is there. Francisco and Hank Rearden get in a conversation, and she's like, "I want to go see what my old boyfriend is talking to the guy I like about."There are these moments where you're not supposed to come at the book that way in this serious philosophical way. Then later on when there's this wonderful scene where Francisco comes to see Dagny. This is much later. Hank and Dagny are lovers, so he has a key to her apartment. He walks in and everybody sees immediately what's going on. It's as good as any other farce moment of somebody hiding behind a curtain, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: Everything is revealed all at once. She's very good at scenes like that.Henry: Yes, very good. She's very good at high drama. One of the phrases that kept coming back to me was that this book is a melodrama of ideas.Hollis: Yes.Henry: Right? It's not a novel of ideas as such, it's a melodrama of ideas. I think one thing that people who think she's a bad writer will say is it's melodrama, the characters are flat, the prose is not lyrical, all these different things. Whereas when I read it, I was like, "She's so good at melodrama." I feel like, in some ways, it does not feel like a 1950s novel because there's so much excitement about technology, so much feminism, just so many things that I do not associate--Maybe I'm being too English, but I don't read John Cheever, for example, and think, "Oh, he loves the train." Whereas this book is very, very exciting as a story about inventing a new kind of train that goes really fast," which sounds silly, but that's a really Dickensian theme, that's in Middlemarch. Actually, that's what Matt Yglesias was talking about in his excellent piece today. What does feel very 1950s is you've got the Hollywood influence. The dialogue, I think, is not always great, but it is often great.I often would read pages and think, "This would actually be really good in, not an A++ movie, but in a decent crime movie or something. This would be quite good dialogue." There's a comic book aesthetic to it in the way that the scenes play out. Just a lot of these '50s aesthetics actually are present in the book. I'm going to read one paragraph. It's from part one. I think we should read out loud a few bits to give people a sense.Hollis: Yes.Henry: This is when Dagny has built a new train line using grid and metal to make the bridge so that it can go over a valley. I think that's right. The train can do 100 miles an hour. It's this very, very exciting new development. It means that energy can be supplied to factories, and so it's a huge, big deal. This is when she's on the train going at 100 miles an hour and she just can't believe it's happening."Things streaked past a water tank, a tree, a shanty, a grain silo. They had a windshield wiper motion. They were rising, describing a curve, and dropping back. The telegraph wires ran a race with the train, rising and falling from pole to pole, in an even rhythm like the cardiograph record of a steady heartbeat written across the sky. She looked ahead at the haze that melted rail and distance, a haze that could rip apart at any moment to some shape of disaster.""She wondered why she felt safer than she had ever felt in a car behind the engine. Safer here where it seemed as if should an obstacle rise, her breast and the glass shield would be the first to smash against it. She smiled, grasping the answer. It was the security of being first with full sight and full knowledge of one's own course, not the blind sense of being pulled into the unknown by some unknown power ahead."That's not MFA prose or whatever, but it turns the pages. I think she's very good at relating we're on the train and it's going very fast to how Dagny is thinking through the philosophical conundrum that is basically going to drive the whole plot forwards. I was reminded again and again of what Virginia Woolf said about Walter Scott, where she compared Scott to Robert Louis Stevenson. She said that Stevenson had beautiful sentences and dapper little adjectives. It was all jeweled and carefully done. You could marvel over each sentence.She said, "Whereas Scott, it's just page after page and no sentence is beautiful," but she says, "He writes at the level of the page. He's not like Stevenson. He's not writing at the level of the sentence. You have to step into the world." You can say, 'Oh, that wasn't a very good sentence,' but my goodness, the pages keep turning and you're there in the world, right?Hollis: Exactly.Henry: I think she made a really important point there and we just undervalue that so much when we say, oh, so-and-so is not a good writer. What we mean is they're not a Robert Louis Stevenson, they're a Walter Scott. It's like, sure, but Walter Scott was great at what he did. Ayn Rand is in the Walter Scott inheritance in the sense that it's a romance, it's not strictly realistic novel. You have to step into the world. You can't spend your whole time going, "Was that a great sentence? Do I really agree with what she just--" It's like, no, you have to go into this utopian sci-fi universe and you have to keep turning the pages. You get caught up and you go, "Wow, this is this is working for me."Hollis: Let me push back on that-Henry: Yes, good.Hollis: -because I think that was a beautiful passage, one of my favorite passages in this book, which is hard to say because it's a really, really big book. It's a memorable passage because here she is in a place at this moment. She is questioning herself. Isn't she questioning why? Why do I feel safe? Then it strikes her. In this moment, all interior while all this stuff is happening. This whole Rearden metal train bridge set piece is one of the highlights of at least the first half of the book. You come away, even if we've had our entire life up to her, understanding her as a philosophical this woman. How is that different from Dorothea or from Elizabeth Bennet? Yes, Elizabeth Bennet, right?Henry: Oh, no, I agree. My point was purely about prose style, which was to say if you say, "Oh, she writes like a Walter Scott, not like a Robert Louis Stevenson," you're going to deny yourself seeing what you've just said, which is that actually, yes, she has the ability to write philosophical characters.Hollis: When I first read Pride and Prejudice, I read it through the lens of Rand. Now, clearly, these heroines had fewer choices. Dorothea marries Casaubon, I don't know how you pronounce it, because she thinks he's a Randian expert, somebody who's got this grand idea. She's like, "Whoa, I want to be part of this endeavor, the key to all mythologies." Then she's so let down. In the Randian sense, you can see why she would have wanted him.Henry: That's right. I think George Eliot would have strongly disagreed with Rand philosophically. The heroines, as you say, what they're doing in the novel is having to realize that there are social conventions I have to understand and there are things I have to learn how to do, but actually, the key to working all that out is more at the moral philosophical level. This is what happens to Dagny. I think it's on the next page from what I just read. There's another passage where it says that she's in the train and she's enjoying. It's working and she's thrilled that her train is working. She was trying not to think, but she couldn't help herself.She said, "Who made the train. Is it the brute force of muscle? Who can make all the dials and the levers? How is it possible that this thing has even been put together?" Then she starts thinking to herself, "We've got a government who's saying it's wrong to do this, you're taking resources, you're not doing it for the common good." She says, "How can they regard this as evil? How can they believe that this is ignoble to have created this incredible thing?"She says she wants to be able to toss the subject out of the window and let it get shattered somewhere along the track. She wants the thoughts to go past like the telegraph poles, but obviously, she can't. She has this moment of realization that this can't be wrong. This type of human accomplishment can't be against the common good. It can't be considered to be ignoble. I think that is like the Victorian heroines.To me, it was more like Fanny Price, which is that someone turns up into a relatively closed system of ideas and keeps their own counsel for a long time, and has to admit sometimes when they haven't got it right or whatever. Basically, in the end, they are vindicated on fairly straightforward grounds. Dagny comes to realize that, "I was right. I was using my reason. I was working hard. I was being productive. Yes, I was right about that." Fanny, it's more like a Christian insight into good behavior, but I felt the pattern was the same.Hollis: Sure. I'll also bring up Jane Eyre here, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: Jane Eyre, her relationship, there's a lot to be said of both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Rochester with Hank Rearden because Hank Rearden has to come to his sense. He's married. He doesn't like his wife. He doesn't like this whole system that he's in. He wants to be with a woman that's a meeting of the mind, but he's got all this social convention he has to deal with. Rochester has to struggle, and of course, Bertha Mason has to die in that book. He ends up leaving his wife, but too late. If we're going to look at this novel as a novel, we can see that there are these moments that I think have some resonance. I know you don't seem to want to go to the Mr. Darcy part of it.Henry: No. I had also thought about Jane Eyre. My thought was that, obviously, other than being secular because Jane Eyre is very Christian, the difference is that Hank Rearden and Dagny basically agree that we can't conduct our relationship in a way that would be morally compromising to her. They go through this very difficult process of reasoning like, "How can we do this in a good way?"They're a little bit self-sacrificing about it because they don't want to upset the moral balance. Whereas Mr. Rochester, at least for the first part of the book, has an attitude that's more like, "Yes, but she's in the attic. Why does it matter if we get married?" He doesn't really see the problem of morally compromising Jane, and so Jane has to run away.Hollis: Right.Henry: One of the interesting things about Rand, what is different from like Austen and the Brontës and whatever, is that Dagny and Hank are not in opposition before they get together. They have actually this unusual thing in romance and literature, which is that they have a meeting of minds. What gets in the way is that the way their minds agree is contra mundum and the world has made this problem for them.Hollis: I think in a way, that's the central relationship in--Henry: Yes. That was how I read it, yes.Hollis: Yes. The fact as we think about what the complications are in reading this novel as a novel is that here is this great central romance and they've got obstacles. She's got an old boyfriend, he's married. They've got all these things that are classic obstacles to a love story. Rand understands that enough to build it, that that will keep a lot of readers' interest, but then it's like, "That's actually not the point of my book," which is how the second half or the last third of the novel just gets really wiggy." Again, spoiler alert, but Hank is blackmailed to be, as the society is collapsing, as things are collapsing--Henry: We should say that the government has taken over in a nationalizing program by this point.Hollis: Right, because as John Galt is pulling all the thought leaders and the industrialists and all the movers of the world into his lair, things are getting harder and harder and harder, things are getting nationalized. Some of these big meetings in Washington where these horrible people are deciding how to redistribute wealth, again, which is part of the reason somebody like Congressman Paul Ryan would give out copies of Atlas Shrugged to all of his staffers. He's like, "You've got to read this book because we can't go to Washington and be like this. The Trumpian idea is we've got to get rid of people who are covering up and not doing the right thing."They've blackmailed Hank Rearden into giving up Rearden Metal by saying, "We know you've been sleeping with Dagny Taggart." It's a very dramatic point. How is this going to go down?Henry: Right. I think that's interesting. What I loved about the way she handled that romance was that romance is clearly part of what she sees as important to a flourishing life. She has to constantly yoke it to this idea that reason is everything, so human passion has to be conducted on the basis that it's logically reasonable, but that it therefore becomes self-sacrificing. There is something really sad and a little bit tragic about Hank being blackmailed like that, right?Hollis: Yes. I have to say their first road trip together, it's like, "Let's just get out of here and go have a road trip and stay in hotels and have sex and it'll be awesome." That their road trip is like, "Let's go also see some abandoned factories and see what treasures we might find there." To turn this love road trip into also the plot twist that gets them closer to John Galt is a magnificent piece of plot.Henry: Yes. I loved that. I know you want to talk about the big John Galt speech later, but I'm going to quote one line because this all relates to what I think is one of the most central lines of the book. "The damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know yet chose to blank out reality." A lot of the time, like in Brontë or whatever, there are characters like Rochester's like that. The center of their romance is that they will never do that to each other because that's what they believe philosophically, ethically. It's how they conduct themselves at business. It's how they expect other people to conduct themselves. They will never sacrifice that for each other.That for them is a really high form of love and it's what enables huge mutual respect. Again, it's one of those things I'm amazed-- I used to work in Westminster. I knew I was a bit of a libertarian. I knew lots of Rand adjacent or just very, very Randian people. I thought they were all insane, but that's because no one would ever say this. No one would ever say she took an idea like that and turned it into a huge romance across hundreds of pages. Who else has done that in the novel? I think that's great.Hollis: It really is hard. It really is a hard book. The thing that people say about the book, as you say, and the reason you hadn't read it up until now, is it's like, "Oh, yes, I toyed with Rand as a teenager and then I put that aside." I put away my childish things, right? That's what everybody says on the left, on the right. You have to think about it's actually really hard. My theory would be that people put it away because it's really, really hard, what she tried is hard. Whether she succeeded or not is also hard. As we were just, before we jumped on, talking about Rand's appearance on Johnny Carson, a full half hour segment of him taking her very seriously, this is a woman who clearly succeeded. I recently read Jennifer Burn's biography of her, which is great. Shout out to Jennifer.What I came away with is this is a woman who made her living as a writer, which is hard to do. That is a hard thing to do, is to make your living as a writer, as a woman in the time difference between 1942, The Fountainhead, which was huge, and 57, Atlas Shrugged. She was blogging, she had newsletters, she had a media operation that's really, really impressive. This whole package doesn't really get looked at, she as a novelist. Again, let me also say it was later on when I came to Harriet Beecher Stowe, who is another extraordinary woman novelist in America who wrote this groundbreaking book, which is filled--I particularly want to shout out to George Harris, the slave inventor who carried himself like a Rand hero as a minor character and escapes. His wife is Eliza, who famously runs across the ice flows in a brave Randian heroine escape to freedom where nobody's going to tell them what to do. These women who changed literature in many ways who have a really vexed relationship or a vexed place in academia. Certainly Stowe is studied.Some 20 years ago, I was at an event with the great Elaine Showalter, who was coming out with an anthology of American women writers. I was in the audience and I raised my hand, I said, "Where's Ayn Rand?" She was like, "Ha, ha, ha." Of course, what a question is that? There is no good reason that Ayn Rand should not be studied in academia. There is no good reason. These are influential novels that actually, as we've talked about here, can be talked about in the context of other novels.Henry: I think one relevant comparison is let's say you study English 19th-century literature on a course, a state-of-the-nation novel or the novel of ideas would be included as routine, I think very few people would say, "Oh, those novels are aesthetically excellent. We read them because they're beautifully written, and they're as fun as Dickens." No one's saying that. Some of them are good, some of them are not good. They're important because of what they are and the barrier to saying why Rand is important for what she is because, I think, people believe her ideas are evil, basically.One central idea is she thinks selfishness is good, but I think we've slightly dealt with the fact that Dagny and Hank actually aren't selfish some of the time, and that they are forced by their ethical system into not being selfish. The other thing that people say is that it's all free-market billionaire stuff, basically. I'm going to read out a passage from-- It's a speech by Francisco in the second part. It's a long speech, so I'm not going to read all eight pages. I'm going to read this speech because I think this theme that I'm about to read out, it's a motif, it's again and again and again.Hollis: Is this where he's speaking to Hank or to Dagny?Henry: I think when he's speaking to Dagny and he says this."Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he want. Money will not give him a code of values if he has evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose if he has evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent."The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him with his money replacing his judgment ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered, that no man may be smaller than his money."Hollis: That's a good--Henry: Right? It's a great paragraph. I feel like she says that in dozens of ways throughout the book, and she wants you to be very clear when you leave that this book is not a creed in the name of just make money and have free market capitalism so you can be rich. That paragraph and so many others, it's almost biblical in the way she writes it. She's really hammering the rhythms, and the tones, and the parallels. She's also, I think, trying to appropriate some of the way the Bible talks about money and turn it into her own secular pseudo-Aristotelian idea, right?Hollis: Yes.Henry: We talk a lot these days about, how can I be my best self? That's what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it's not about earning money, it's not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It's about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they're in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?Hollis: Right.Henry: The book does not end in a rich utopia, it's important to say.Hollis: It's interesting. A couple of things. I want to get this back since we're still in the novel. Let me say when we get to Galt's great speech, which is bizarre. He says a similar thing that I'll bring in now. He says, "The mother who buys milk for her baby instead of a hat is not sacrificing because her values are feeding the baby. The woman who sacrifices the hat to feed her baby, but really wants the hat and is only feeding the baby out of duty is sacrificing." That's bad. She's saying get your values in order. Understand what it is you want and do that thing, but don't do it because somebody says you have to. She says this over and over in many ways, or the book says this.Henry: We should say, that example of the mother is incidental. The point she's always making is you must think this through for yourself, you must not do it because you've been told to do it.Hollis: Right, exactly. To get back to the love story aspects of the book because they don't sit and say they love each other, even all the great romances. It's not like, "I love you. I love you." It's straight to sex or looks and meetings of the minds. It's interesting. We should deal with the fact that from The Fountainhead and a little bit in this book, the sex is a little rapey. It's a difficult thing to talk about. It's certainly one of the reasons that feminists, women writers don't approve of her. In the book, it's consensual. Whatever one wants to think about the ways that people have sex, it is consensual in the book. Also in The Fountainhead.I'm sure I'll get hate mail for even saying that, but in her universe, that's where it is. What's interesting, Francisco as a character is so interesting. He's conflicted, he's charming, he's her first lover. He's utterly good in every way. He ends up without her. Hank is good. Hank goes through his struggles and learning curve about women prioritizing. If you don't like your wife, don't be married to your wife. It's like he goes through his own what are my values and how do I live them.I know you think that this is bizarre, but there's a lot of writing about the relationship of Hank and Francisco because they find themselves in the same room a lot. They happen to have both been Dagny's lovers or ex-lovers, and they really, really like each other. There's a way that that bonding-- Homosexuality does not exist in her novels, whatever, but that's a relationship of two people that really are hot for one another. There is a lot of writing. There are queer readings of Rand that make a lot of that relationship.Again, this isn't my particular lens of criticism, but I do see that the energy, which is why I asked you which speech you were reading because some of Francisco's best speeches are for Hank because he's trying to woo Hank to happy valley. Toward the end when they're all hanging out together in Galt's Gulch, there's clearly a relationship there.Henry: Oh, yes. No, once you pointed out to me, I was like, "That makes sense of so many passages." That's clearly there. What I don't understand is why she did that. I feel like, and this is quite an accomplishment because it's a big novel with a lot of moving parts, everything else is resolved both in terms of the plot, but also in terms of how it fits her philosophical idea. That, I think, is pretty much the only thing where you're left wondering, "Why was that in there? She hasn't made a point about it. They haven't done anything about it." This I don't understand. That's my query.Hollis: Getting ready to have this conversation, I spent a lot of time on some Reddit threads. I ran Atlas Shrugged Reddit threads where there's some fantastic conversations.Henry: Yes, there is.Hollis: One of them is about, how come Francisco didn't end up with anybody? That's just too bad. He's such a great character and he ends up alone. I would say he doesn't end up alone, he ends up with his boyfriend Hank, whatever that looks like. Two guys that believe in the same things, they can have whatever life they want. Go on.Henry: Are you saying that now that they're in the valley, they will be more free to pursue that relationship?Hollis: There's a lot of things that she has said about men's and women's bodies. She said in other places, "I don't think there'll ever be a woman president because why would a woman want to be president? What a woman really wants is a great man, and we can't have a president who's looking for a great man. She has to be a president." She's got a lot of lunacy about women. Whatever. I don't understand. Someplace I've read that she understands male homosexuality, but not female homosexuality. Again, I am not a Rand scholar. Having read and seen some of that in the ether, I see it in the book, and I can see how her novel would invite that analysis.I do want to say, let's spend a few seconds on some of the minor characters. There are some really wonderful minor characters. One of them is Cherryl Taggart, this shop girl that evil Jim Taggart meets one night in a rainstorm, and she's like, "Oh, you're so awesome," and they get married. It's like he's got all this praise for marrying the shop girl. It's a funny Eliza Doolittle situation because she is brought into this very wealthy society, which we have been told and we have been shown is corrupt, is evil, everybody's lying all the time, it's pretentious, Dagny hates it.Here's the Cherryl Taggart who's brought into this. In the beginning, she hates Dagny because she's told by everybody, "Hate Dagny, she's horrible." Then she comes to her own mini understanding of the corruption that we understand because Dagny's shown it in the novel, has shown it to us this entire time. She comes to it and she's like, "Oh my God," and she goes to Dagny. Dagny's so wonderful to her like, "Yes. You had to come to this on your own, I wasn't going to tell you, but you were 100% right." That's the end of her.Henry: Right. When she meets Taggart, there's this really interesting speech she has where she says, "I want to make something of myself and get somewhere." He's like, "What? What do you want to do?" Red flag. "What? Where?" She says, "I don't know, but people do things in this world. I've seen pictures of New York," and she's pointing at like the skyscrapers, right? Whatever. "I know that someone's built that. They didn't sit around and whine, but like the kitchen was filthy and the roof was leaking." She gets very emotional at this point. She says to him, "We were stinking poor and we didn't give a damn. I've dragged myself here, and I'm going to do something."Her story is very sad because she then gets mired in the corruption of Taggart's. He's basically bit lazy and a bit of a thief, and he will throw anyone under the bus for his own self-advancement. He is revealed to be a really sinister guy. I was absolutely hissing about him most of the time. Then, let's just do the plot spoiler and say what happens to Cherryl, right? Because it's important. When she has this realization and Taggart turns on her and reveals himself as this snake, and he's like, "Well, what did you expect, you idiot? This is the way the world is."Hollis: Oh, it's a horrible fight. It's the worst fight.Henry: Right? This is where the melodrama is so good. She goes running out into the streets, and it's the night and there are shadows. She's in the alleyway. Rand, I don't have the page marked, but it's like a noir film. She's so good at that atmosphere. Then it gets a little bit gothic as well. She's running through the street, and she's like, "I've got to go somewhere, anywhere. I'll work. I'll pick up trash. I'll work in a shop. I'll do anything. I've just got to get out of this."Hollis: Go work at the Panda Express. Henry: Yes. She's like, "I've got to get out of this system," because she's realized how morally corrupting it is. By this time, this is very late. Society is in a-- it's like Great Depression style economic collapse by this point. There really isn't a lot that she could do. She literally runs into a social worker and the social-- Rand makes this leering dramatic moment where the social worker reaches out to grab her and Cherryl thinks, "Oh, my God, I'm going to be taken prisoner in. I'm going back into the system," so she jumps off the bridge.This was the moment when I was like, I've had this lurking feeling about how Russian this novel is. At this point, I was like, "That could be a short story by Gogol," right? The way she set that up. That is very often the trap that a Gogol character or maybe a Dostoevsky character finds themselves in, right? That you suddenly see that the world is against you. Maybe you're crazy and paranoid. Maybe you're not. Depends which story we're reading. You run around trying to get out and you realize, "Oh, my God, I'm more trapped than I thought. Actually, maybe there is no way out." Cherryl does not get a lot of pages. She is, as you say, quite a minor character, but she illustrates the whole story so, so well, so dramatically.Hollis: Oh, wow.Henry: When it happens, you just, "Oh, Cherryl, oh, my goodness."Hollis: Thank you for reading that. Yes, you could tell from the very beginning that the seeds of what could have been a really good person were there. Thank you for reading that.Henry: When she died, I went back and I was like, "Oh, my God, I knew it."Hollis: How can you say Rand is a bad writer, right? That is careful, careful plotting, because she's just a shop girl in the rain. You've got this, the gun on the wall in that act. You know she's going to end up being good. Is she going to be rewarded for it? Let me just say, as an aside, I know we don't have time to talk about it here. My field, as I said, is 19th century African American novels, primarily now.This, usually, a woman, enslaved woman, the character who's like, "I can't deal with this," and jumps off a bridge and drowns herself is a fairly common and character. That is the only thing to do. One also sees Rand heroes. Stowe's Dred, for example, is very much, "I would rather live in the woods with a knife and then, be on the plantation and be a slave." When you think about, even the sort of into the 20th century, the Malcolm X figure, that, "I'm going to throw out all of this and be on my own," is very Randian, which I will also say very Byronic, too, Rand didn't invent this figure, but she put it front and center in these novels, and so when you think about how Atlas Shrugged could be brought into a curriculum in a network of other novels, how many of we've discussed so far, she's there, she's influenced by and continues to influence. Let's talk about your favorite minor character, the Wet Nurse.Henry: This is another great death scene.Hollis: Let's say who he is, so the government sends this young man to work at the Rearden Mills to keep an eye on Hank Rearden.Henry: Once they nationalize him, he's the bureaucrat reporting back, and Rearden calls him the Wet Nurse as an insult.Hollis: Right, and his job, he's the Communist Party person that's in every factory to make sure that everything is--Henry: That's right, he's the petty bureaucrat reporting back and making sure everyone's complying.Hollis: He's a young recent college graduate that, Hank, I think, early on, if it's possible even to find the Wet Nurse early scene, you could tell in the beginning, too, he's bright and sparkly right out of college, and this is, it seems like a good job for him. He's like, "Woohoo, I get to be here, and I get to be--" Yes, go ahead.Henry: What happens to him is, similarly to Cherryl, he has a conversion, but his conversion is not away from the corruption of the system he's been in, he is converted by what he sees in the Rearden plant, the hard work, the dedication, the idealism, the deep focus on making the metal, and he starts to see that if we don't make stuff, then all the other arguments downstream of that about how to appropriate, how to redistribute, whatever, are secondary, and so he becomes, he goes native, as it were. He becomes a Reardenite, and then at the end, when there's a crowd storming the place, and this crowd has been sent by the government, it's a fake thing to sort of--Hollis: Also, a very good scene, very dramatic.Henry: She's very good at mobs, very good at mobs, and they kill, they kill the Wet Nurse, they throw him over. He has a couple of speeches in dialogue with Rearden while he's dying, and he says--Hollis: You have to say, they throw him, they leave him on this pile of slag. He crawls up to the street where Rearden happens to be driving by, and car stops, and so that finding the Wet Nurse there and carrying him in his arms, yes.Henry: That's right, it's very dramatic, and then they have this dialogue, and he says, "I'd like to live, Mr. Rearden, God, how I'd like to, not because I'm dying, but because I've just discovered tonight what it means to be alive, and it's funny, do when I discovered it? In the office, when I stuck my neck out, when I told the bastards to go to hell, there's so many things I wish I'd known sooner, but it's no use crying over spilt milk," and then Rearden, he goes, "Listen, kid, said Rearden sternly, I want you to do me a favor." "Now, Mr. Rearden?" "Yes, now." "Of course, Mr. Rearden, if I can," and Rearden says, "You were willing to die to save my mills, will you try and live for me?"I think this is one of those great moments where, okay, maybe this isn't like George Eliot style dialogue, but you could put that straight in a movie, that would work really well, that would be great, right? I can hear Humphrey Bogart saying these things. It would work, wouldn't it?She knows that, and that's why she's doing that, she's got that technique. He's another minor character, and Rand is saying, the system is eating people up. We are setting people up for a spiritual destruction that then leads to physical destruction. This point, again, about it's not just about the material world. It's about your inner life and your own mind.I find it very moving.Hollis: These minor characters are fantastic. Then let's talk a little bit about Eddie Willers, because I think a lot about Eddie Willers. Eddie Willers, the childhood three, there were three young people, we keep going back to this childhood. We have Dagny, Francisco, because their parents were friends, and then Eddie Willers, who's like a neighborhood kid, right?Henry: He's down the street.Hollis: He lives down the street. He's like the neighborhood kid. I don't know about you. We had a neighborhood kid. There's always neighborhood kids, right? You end up spending time with this-- Eddie's just sort of always there. Then when they turn 15, 16, 17, and when there's clearly something going on between Dagny and Francisco, Eddie does take a step back, and he doesn't want to see.There's the class issues, the status issues aren't really-- they're present but not discussed by Rand. Here we have these two children heirs, and they don't say like, "You're not one of us, Eddie, because you're not an heir or an heiress." He's there, and he's got a pretty good position as Dagny's right-hand man in Taggart Transcontinental. We don't know where he went to college. We don't know what he does, but we know that he's super loyal, right?Then when she goes and takes a break for a bit, he steps in to be COO. James is like, "Eddie Willers, how can Eddie Willers be a COO?" She's like, "It's really going to be me, but he's going to be fine." We're not really supposed to identify with Eddie, but Eddie's there. Eddie has, all through the novel, all through the big old novel, Eddie eats lunch in the cafeteria. There's always this one guy he's having lunch with. This is, I don't know, like a Greek chorus thing, I don't quite know, but there's Eddie's conversations with this unknown person in the cafeteria give us a sense, maybe it's a narrator voice, like, "Meanwhile, this is going on in the world." We have these conversations. This guy he's having lunch with asks a lot of questions and starts asking a lot of personal questions about Dagny. Then we have to talk to-- I know we've gone for over an hour and 15 minutes, we've got to talk about Galt's Speech, right? When John Galt, toward the end, takes over the airwaves and gives this big three-hour speech, the big three-hour podcast as I tweeted the other day, Eddie is with Dagny.Henry: He's in the radio studio.Hollis: He's in the studio along with one of John Galt's former professors. We hear this voice. Rand says, or the narrator says, three people in the room recognize that voice. I don't know about you, did you guess that it was Galt before that moment that Eddie was having lunch with in the cafeteria?Henry: No, no, no, I didn't.Hollis: Okay, so you knew at that moment.Henry: That was when I was like, "Oh, Eddie was talking, right?" It took me a minute.Hollis: Okay, were you excited? Was that like a moment? Was that a big reveal?Henry: It was a reveal, but it made me-- Eddie's whole character puzzles me because, to me, he feels like a Watson.Hollis: Yes, that's nice, that's good.Henry: He's met Galt, who's been under their noses the whole time. He's been going through an almost Socratic method with Galt, right? If only he could have paid a little bit more attention, he would have realized what was going on. He doesn't, why is this guy so interested in Dagny, like all these things. Even after Galt's big speech, I don't think Eddie quite takes the lesson. He also comes to a more ambiguous but a bad end.Hollis: Eddie's been right there, the most loyal person. The Reddit threads on Eddie Willers, if anybody's interested, are really interesting.Henry: Yes, they are, they're so good.Hollis: Clearly, Eddie recognizes greatness, and he recognizes production, and he recognizes that Dagny is better than Jim. He recognizes Galt. They've been having these conversations for 12 years in the cafeteria. Every time he goes to the cafeteria, he's like, "Where's my friend, where's my friend?" When his friend disappears, but he also tells Galt a few things about Dagny that are personal and private. When everybody in the world, all the great people in the world, this is a big spoiler, go to Galt's Gulch at the end.Henry: He's not there.Hollis: He doesn't get to go. Is it because of the compromises he made along the way? Rand had the power to reward everybody. Hank's secretary gets to go, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: She's gone throughout the whole thing.Henry: Eddie never thinks for himself. I think that's the-- He's a very, I think, maybe one of the more tragic victims of the whole thing because-- sorry. In a way, because, Cherryl and the Wet Nurse, they try and do the right thing and they end up dying. That's like a more normal tragedy in the sense that they made a mistake. At the moment of realization, they got toppled.Eddie, in a way, is more upsetting because he never makes a mistake and he never has a moment of realization. Rand is, I think this is maybe one of the cruelest parts of the book where she's almost saying, "This guy's never going to think for himself, and he hasn't got a hope." In a novel, if this was like a realistic novel, and she was saying, "Such is the cruelty of the world, what can we do for this person?" That would be one thing. In a novel that's like ending in a utopia or in a sort of utopia, it's one of the points where she's really harsh.Hollis: She's really harsh. I'd love to go and look at her notes at some point in time when I have an idle hour, which I won't, to say like, did she sit around? It's like, "What should I do with Eddie?" To have him die, probably, in the desert with a broken down Taggart transcontinental engine, screaming in terror and crying.Henry: Even at that stage, he can't think for himself and see that the system isn't worth supporting.Hollis: Right. He's just going to be a company man to the end.Henry: It's as cruel as those fables we tell children, like the grasshopper and the ants. He will freeze to death in the winter. There's nothing you can do about it. There are times when she gets really, really tough. I think is why people hate her.Hollis: We were talking about this, about Dickens and minor characters and coming to redemption and Dickens, except Jo. Jo and Jo All Alones, there are people who have redemption and die. Again, I don't know.Henry: There's Cherryl and the Wet Nurse are like Jo. They're tragic victims of the system. She's doing it to say, "Look how bad this is. Look how bad things are." To me, Eddie is more like Mr. Micawber. He's hopeless. It's a little bit comic. It's not a bad thing. Whereas Dickens, at the end, will just say, "Oh, screw the integrity of the plot and the morals. Let's just let Mr. Micawber-- let's find a way out for him." Everyone wants this guy to do well. Rand is like, "No, I'm sticking to my principles. He's dead in the desert, man. He's going to he's going to burn to death." He's like, "Wow, that's okay."Hollis: The funny thing is poor John Galt doesn't even care about him. John Galt has been a bad guy. John Galt is a complicated figure. Let's spend a bit on him.Henry: Before we do that, I actually want to do a very short segment contextualizing her in the 50s because then what you say about Galt will be against this background of what are some of the other ideas in the 50s, right?Hollis: Got it.Henry: I think sometimes the Galt stuff is held up as what's wrong with this novel. When you abstract it and just say it, maybe that's an easier case to make. I think once you understand that this is 1957, she's been writing the book for what, 12 years, I think, or 15 years, the Galt speech takes her 3 years to write, I think. This is, I think the most important label we can give the novel is it's a Cold War novel. She's Russian. What she's doing, in some ways, is saying to America, "This is what will happen to us if we adopt the system of our Cold War enemies." It's like, "This is animal farm, but in America with real people with trains and energy plants and industry, no pigs. This is real life." We've had books like that in our own time. The Mandibles by Lionel Shriver said, that book said, "If the 2008 crash had actually gone really badly wrong and society collapsed, how would it go?" I think that's what she's reacting to. The year before it was published, there was a sociology book called The Organization Man.Hollis: Oh, yes. William Whyte.Henry: A great book. Everyone should read that book. He is worrying, the whole book is basically him saying, "I've surveyed all these people in corporate America. They're losing the Protestant work ethic. They're losing the entrepreneurial spirit. They're losing their individual drive. Instead of wanting to make a name for themselves and invent something and do great things," he says, "they've all got this managerial spirit. All the young men coming from college, they're like, 'Everything's been done. We just need to manage it now.'" He's like, "America is collapsing." Yes, he thinks it's this awful. Obviously, that problem got solved.That, I think, that gives some sense of why, at that moment, is Ayn Rand writing the Galt speech? Because this is the background. We're in the Cold War, and there's this looming sense of the cold, dead hand of bureaucracy and managerialism is. Other people are saying, "Actually, this might be a serious problem."Hollis: I think that's right. Thank you for bringing up Whyte. I think there's so much in the background. There's so much that she's in conversation with. There's so much about this speech, so that when you ask somebody on the street-- Again, let me say this, make the comparison again to Uncle Tom's Cabin, people go through life feeling like they know Uncle Tom's Cabin, Simon Legree, Eliza Crossing the Ice, without having ever read it.Not to name drop a bit, but when I did my annotated Uncle Tom's Cabin, this big, huge book, and it got reviewed by John Updike in The New Yorker, and I was like, "This is freaking John Updike." He's like, "I never read it. I never read it." Henry Louis Gates and then whoever this young grad student was, Hollis Robbins, are writing this book, I guess I'll read it. It was interesting to me, when I talk about Uncle Tom's Cabin, "I've never read it," because it's a book you know about without reading. A lot of people know about Atlas Shrugged without having read it. I think Marc Andreessen said-- didn't he say on this podcast that he only recently read it?Henry: I was fascinated by this. He read it four years ago.Hollis: Right, during COVID.Henry: In the bibliography for the Techno-Optimist Manifesto, and I assumed he was one of those people, he was like you, he'd read it as a teenager, it had been informative. No, he came to it very recently. Something's happening with this book, right?Hollis: Huge things are happening, but the people who know about it, there's certain things that you know, you know it's long, you know that the sex is perhaps not what you would have wanted. You know that there's this big, really long thing called John Galt's Speech, and that it's like the whaling chapters in Moby-Dick. People read Moby-Dick, you're like, "Oh, yes, but I skipped all the chapters on cetology." That's the thing that you say, right? The thing that you say is like, "Yes, but I skipped all the John Galt's Speech." I was very interested when we were texting over the last month or so, what you would say when you got to John Galt's Speech. As on cue, one day, I get this text and it's like, "Oh, my God, this speech is really long." I'm like, "Yes, you are the perfect reader."Henry: I was like, "Hollis, this might be where I drop out of the book."Hollis: I'm like, "Yes, you and the world, okay?" This is why you're an excellent reader of this book, because it is a frigging slog. Just because I'm having eye issues these days, I had decided instead of rereading my copy, and I do have a newer copy than this tiny print thing, I decided to listen on audiobook. It was 62 hours or whatever, it was 45 hours, because I listen at 1.4. The speech is awesome listening to it. It, at 1.4, it's not quite 3 hours. It's really good. In the last few days, I was listening to it again, okay? I really wanted to understand somebody who's such a good plotter, and somebody who really understands how to keep people's interest, why are you doing this, Rand? Why are you doing this, Ms. Rand? I love the fact that she's always called Miss. Rand, because Miss., that is a term that we

We're back! And this time, we're starting a holy war. Duncan launched an amazing paper on solar (wow, total sleight of hand! Don't you mean GAS BACKUP?) microgrids for data centers with Stripe's climate team and other DERTF OGs like Kyle Baranko, and some big names on Twitter lost their s**t.Tune in to hear about the churches of Matt Yglesias, Mark Z Jacobson, and Alex Epstein, who our maud'dib is, how heat DERvos was, what ‘25 is all about, and so much more! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.dertaskforce.com/subscribe

The origins of the Democratic party's current malaise include ineffective messaging on climate and economic policy, too rigid a tent on cultural issues, and Dem politicians just too scared to speak their mind. Like, Kamala could've turned the trans youth in sports convo into one about parents spending boatloads on sports camps so their kids can get into a good college. Plus, Christopher Wray chose the worst option. Matt Yglesias and Tyler Austin Harper join Tim Miller to hash it out. show notes: Tyler's new piece in The Atlantic Matt's "Common Sense Manifesto #4" from Slow Boring Ben Wittes piece in Lawfare on Chris Wray Book recommended by Tyler, "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America"

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our entire premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Current Affairs editor-in-chief and co-author with Noam Chomsky of new book The Myth of American Idealism Nathan J. Robinson returns to Bad Faith to discuss his latest takedown piece -- this time of Slow Boring centrist writer Matthew Yglesias. But first, Nathan addresses taking heat for his take on health insurance CEO Brian Thompson's assassination, & Brie makes Nathan do unpaid labor as her therapist. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

Over the last four years, President Biden implemented the most ambitious climate agenda in U.S. history. President-elect Trump and his fellow Republicans have pledged to undo the Biden climate agenda when they take control of the House, Senate, and White House in January. This week, Joseph and Quill discuss what the 2024 election taught us about the politics of climate change and the future of climate policy with Matt Yglesias, author of the Slow Boring newsletter.

With fewer than 50 days until Inauguration Day, President-elect Donald Trump spent the long holiday weekend inviting more people to join his administration. But for Democrats, the conversation is still very much backward looking, as the party litigates why it lost the 2024 election despite delivering on a lot of its promises from four years ago. Matt Yglesias, who writes the Substack newsletter ‘Slow Boring,' explains why ‘deliverism' didn't deliver for Democrats in 2024.And in headlines: President Biden pardoned his son Hunter, a new drug to seek authorization to fight the AIDS epidemic, and The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees suspended deliveries into Gaza through a key crossing.Show Notes:Check out Matt's Substack – https://www.slowboring.com/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

My favorite sort of social phenomenon is something that seems normal to modern eyes that is actually incredibly unusual. We take it for granted that every presidential election is a nail-biter these days. But this era of close elections is deeply strange. We used to have blowouts all the time. In 1964, 1972, and 1984, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan, respectively, won by more than 15 points. This never happens anymore. Since the hanging-ballot mess of 2000, we've had historically close contests again and again: in 2004, 2012, 2016, and 2020. This year seems almost certain to continue the trend. National polls have almost never been this tight in the closing days of a presidential contest. In an era of shifting coalitions and weak parties, why is every modern presidential election so close? Today's guest is Matt Yglesias, the author of the ‘Slow Boring' newsletter, and a return guest on this show. We talk about how the era of close elections has, importantly, coincided with an era of racial realignment. We propose several theories for why every election is a nail-biter in the 21st century. And we explain why “it's the internet, stupid” doesn't work to explain this particular trend. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Matthew Yglesias Producer: Devon Baroldi LINKS: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-era-of-close-elections https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-electorate-is-becoming-less-racially Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last week, climate activists disrupted a climate event because one of the speakers, Matt Yglesias, is supportive of fracking for natural gas. Matt joins the New Liberal podcast to discuss why he thinks fracking is a necessary part of our energy policy, what climate protestors get wrong in their approach to politics, and what a more effective form of climate activism would look like.  Read more: https://www.slowboring.com/p/harris-is-right-on-the-merits-about https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/activism-is-not-a-social-club To get bonus episodes, support us at patreon.com/newliberalpodcast or https://cnliberalism.org/become-a-member Got questions? Send us a note at mailbag@cnliberalism.org. Follow us at: https://twitter.com/CNLiberalism https://cnliberalism.org/   Join a local chapter at https://cnliberalism.org/become-a-member/  

Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comThis episode's focus on the (lack of) effectiveness of radical climate activism was perfectly timed. Right after Marshall recorded the intro, activists from Climate Defiance stormed the stage of the Abundance 2024 conference he's MCing in DC. They interrupted Matt Yglesias's interview with The Atlantic's Derek Thompson on the "Abundance Agenda" because of Matt's support for fracking. Today's guest is Foreign Policy's Cameron Abadi, author of Climate Radicals: Why Our Environmental Politics Isn't Working. Marshall and Cameron discuss why doom-centric radical activism isn't advancing the environmental policy agenda in Europe, the state of climate politics in the U.S., and the broader debate over whether it is best to work outside or within the system to enact change.

"Calls for Transforming Police Run Into Realities of Governing in Minnesota," cautioned The New York Times in 2020. "Democrats Face Pressure on Crime From a New Front: Their Base," claimed the paper of record again, in 2022. "How Biden's recent actions on immigration could address a major issue voters have with him," announced PBS NewsHour, republishing the Associated Press, in 2024. There's a common ethos in Democratic politics: Do what's popular. In recent years, a certain class of political pundits and consultants have been championing so-called “popularism,” the principle that political candidates should emphasize the issues that poll well, in everything from healthcare to labor, policing to foreign policy––and deemphasize, or sometimes outright ignore, the ones that don't. It seems reasonable and democratic for elected officials to pay close attention to the will of the public–and, in many cases, it is. But it's not always this simple. Far too often, the leading proponents of popularism, chief among them Matt Yglesias and David Shor, only apply the concept when it suits a conservative agenda, ignoring, for example, that 74% of American voters suppor​t “increasing funding for child care,” 72% of Americans want to expand Social Security 71% of Americans support government funded universal pre-K. 69% of Americans support Medicare for All and so on and so on. More often than not, leftwing agenda items that poll very well are never mentioned meanwhile that which polls well AND aligns with the interests of Wall Street and other monied interests, we are told is of utmost urgent priority. It's a phenomenon we're calling on this show Selective Popularism, the selective use of polling and generic notions of popularity to push already existing rightwing and centrist agendas without needing to do the messy work of ideologically defending them. On this episode, we look at the development and implementation of Selective Popularism, exploring how this convenient political pseudo-analysis launders the advocacy and enactment of reactionary policy as a mere reflection of what the "people" demand. Our guest is journalist, writer and host of Jacobin's The Dig podcast, Daniel Denvir.

Episode 162: Hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada explore the importance of self-awareness and how to strike a balance between adapting to external circumstances and staying true to one's core values.  Kyte emphasizes the challenge of developing an accurate self-identity, noting the powerful influence of self-deception. He suggests that being part of a community with honest, caring friends can help recalibrate one's self-perception.  The discussion delves into the potential negative impact of social media on self-identity, particularly for younger people, and the need to filter out random online opinions in favor of feedback from trusted individuals. The conversation also examines the role of introspection and self-knowledge, drawing on Sigmund Freud's metaphor of the iceberg to illustrate the conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind.  Generational differences in the workplace are also explored, with Kyte explaining how cultural phenomena within certain professions can lead to harsh treatment of newcomers. The experts discuss the sensitivity of younger generations, which they attribute to the decline in robust interpersonal relationships and the impact of social media.  Links to stories discussed during the podcast How to reinvent your self-Identity and live your best life, by Nida Leardprasopsuk, Forbes In defense of soft, weak Zoomers, by Matt Yglesias, Slow Boring About the hosts Scott Rada is a digital strategist with Lee Enterprises, and Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wisconsin. He is also the author of "Finding Your Third Place: Building Happier Communities (and Making Great Friends Along the Way)."  

Freddie deBoer has a post on what he calls “the temporal Copernican principle.” He argues we shouldn't expect a singularity, apocalypse, or any other crazy event in our lifetimes. Discussing celebrity transhumanist Yuval Harari, he writes: What I want to say to people like Yuval Harari is this. The modern human species is about 250,000 years old, give or take 50,000 years depending on who you ask. Let's hope that it keeps going for awhile - we'll be conservative and say 50,000 more years of human life. So let's just throw out 300,000 years as the span of human existence, even though it could easily be 500,000 or a million or more. Harari's lifespan, if he's lucky, will probably top out at about 100 years. So: what are the odds that Harari's lifespan overlaps with the most important period in human history, as he believes, given those numbers? That it overlaps with a particularly important period of human history at all? Even if we take the conservative estimate for the length of human existence of 300,000 years, that means Harari's likely lifespan is only about .33% of the entirety of human existence. Isn't assuming that this .33% is somehow particularly special a very bad assumption, just from the basis of probability? And shouldn't we be even more skeptical given that our basic psychology gives us every reason to overestimate the importance of our own time? (I think there might be a math error here - 100 years out of 300,000 is 0.033%, not 0.33% - but this isn't my main objection.) He then condemns a wide range of people, including me, for failing to understand this: Some people who routinely violate the Temporal Copernican Principle include Harari, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Sam Altman, Francis Fukuyama, Elon Musk, Clay Shirky, Tyler Cowen, Matt Yglesias, Tom Friedman, Scott Alexander, every tech company CEO, Ray Kurzweil, Robin Hanson, and many many more. I think they should ask themselves how much of their understanding of the future ultimately stems from a deep-seated need to believe that their times are important because they think they themselves are important, or want to be. I deny misunderstanding this. Freddie is wrong. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-deboer-on-temporal-copernicanism 

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe Harris-Walz campaign is having a moment. It is polling well. Harris made a good speech at the Democratic National Convention. The Democratic Convention as a whole got better TV ratings than the Republican one. Harris's campaign is all about joy. Even Shadi's parents are feeling the vibes (and using the word, “vibes,” probably for the first time).But Shadi and Damir aren't feeling it. No joy. No vibes. No excitement about the current moment in American politics. What's going on is at best groupthink, at worst, the manufacturing of consent. Our podcast hosts are skeptical about the fact that the media made an abrupt 180-degree turn on Harris: someone who was once considered a political dud is now seen as “the second coming of Barack Obama.”But soon Shadi and Damir start interrogating their assumptions. Is it necessarily a bad thing that large numbers of people are feeling positive emotions? Could large trends and coalitions develop organically, through common affinity, rather than through the machinations of politicians and propagandists? Could a campaign based on good vibes actually be more efficient at creating a Democratic Party platform that appeals to the median American voter? Maybe the Harris-Walz campaign is forcing us, as Damir puts it, to “update our priors on what democratic politics is.”In the bonus concluding section for our paid subscribers, our hosts make a 180-degree turn of their own. They explore learning to love Harris and embracing the vibes. “No one is talking about threats of civil war anymore,” Shadi observes. This is a good thing. “People want to feel good about their country.” Maybe Harris is making that possible for millions of voters.Required Reading:* “Harris has upended years of Democratic dogma. That's good,” by Shadi Hamid (Washington Post).* “The Peculiar Moderation of Donald Trump,” by Shadi Hamid (Washington Post). * Full text of Kamala Harris' speech at the Democratic National Convention (PBS). * Our CrowdSource about “vibes” (WoC).* Noam Chomsky on “manufacturing consent” (YouTube). * Matt Yglesias on “popularism” (Slow Boring).* Matt Yglesias on the “unhinged moderation” of the Republicans (Slow Boring).Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

I. Bentham's Bulldog Blogger “Bentham's Bulldog” recently wrote Shut Up About Slave Morality. Nietzsche's concept of “slave morality” (he writes) is just a dysphemism for the usual morality where you're not bad and cruel. Right-wing edgelords use “rejection of slave morality” as a justification for badness and cruelty: When people object to slave morality, they are just objecting to morality. They are objecting to the notion that you should care about others and doing the right thing, even when doing so doesn't materially benefit you. Now, one can consistently object to those things, but it doesn't make them any sort of Nostradamus. It makes them morally deficient, and also generally philosophically confused. The tedious whinging about slave morality is just a way to pass off not caring about morality or taking moral arguments seriously as some sort of sophisticated and cynical myth-busting. But it's not that in the slightest. No one is duped by slave morality, no one buys into it because of some sort of deep-seated ignorance. Those who follow it do so because of a combination of social pressure and a genuine desire to help out others. That is, in fact, not in any way weak but a noble impulse from which all good actions spring. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/matt-yglesias-considered-as-the-nietzschean 

Is there such a thing as “balancing the ticket”? How much can a vice-presidential nominee influence the election? Host Jerusalem Demsas talks with political commentator and journalist Matt Yglesias about Kamala Harris's recent pick of Tim Walz as her running mate and whether that choice could sway undecided voters. Get more from your favorite Atlantic voices when you subscribe. You'll enjoy unlimited access to Pulitzer-winning journalism, from clear-eyed analysis and insight on breaking news to fascinating explorations of our world. Subscribe today at TheAtlantic.com/podsub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How I Learned To Stop Trusting Prediction Markets and Love the Arbitrage, published by orthonormal on August 6, 2024 on LessWrong. This is a story about a flawed Manifold market, about how easy it is to buy significant objective-sounding publicity for your preferred politics, and about why I've downgraded my respect for all but the largest prediction markets. I've had a Manifold account for a while, but I didn't use it much until I saw and became irked by this market on the conditional probabilities of a Harris victory, split by VP pick. The market quickly got cited by rat-adjacent folks on Twitter like Matt Yglesias, because the question it purports to answer is enormously important. But as you can infer from the above, it has a major issue that makes it nigh-useless: for a candidate whom you know won't be chosen, there is literally no way to come out ahead on mana (Manifold keeps its share of the fees when a market resolves N/A), so all but a very few markets are pure popularity contests, dominated by those who don't mind locking up their mana for a month for a guaranteed 1% loss. Even for the candidates with a shot of being chosen, the incentives in a conditional market are weaker than those in a non-conditional market because the fees are lost when the market resolves N/A. (Nate Silver wrote a good analysis of why it would be implausible for e.g. Shapiro vs Walz to affect Harris' odds by 13 percentage points.) So the sharps would have no reason to get involved if even one of the contenders has numbers that are off by a couple points from a sane prior. You'll notice that I bet in this market. Out of epistemic cooperativeness as well as annoyance, I spent small amounts of mana on the markets where it was cheap to reset implausible odds closer to Harris' overall odds of victory. (After larger amounts were poured into some of those markets, I let them ride because taking them out would double the fees I have to pay vs waiting for the N/A.) A while ago, someone had dumped Gretchen Whitmer down to 38%, but nobody had put much mana into that market, so I spent 140 mana (which can be bought for 14-20 cents if you want to pay for extra play money) to reset her to Harris' overall odds (44%). When the market resolves N/A, I'll get all but around 3 mana (less than half a penny) back. And that half-penny bought Whitmer four paragraphs in the Manifold Politics Substack, citing the market as evidence that she should be considered a viable candidate. (At the time of publication, it was still my 140 mana propping her number up; if I sold them, she'd be back under 40%.) Is this the biggest deal in the world? No. But wow, that's a cheap price for objective-sounding publicity viewed by some major columnists (including some who've heard that prediction markets are good, but aren't aware of caveats). And it underscores for me that conditional prediction markets should almost never be taken seriously, and indicates that only the most liquid markets in general should ever be cited. The main effect on me, though, is that I've been addicted to Manifold since then, not as an oracle, but as a game. The sheer amount of silly arbitrage (aside from veepstakes, there's a liquid market on whether Trump will be president on 1/1/26 that people had forgotten about, and it was 10 points higher than current markets on whether Trump will win the election) has kept the mana flowing and has kept me unserious about the prices. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Donald Trump has made inflation a central part of his campaign message. At his rallies, he rails against “the Biden inflation tax” and “crooked Joe's inflation nightmare,” and promises that in a second Trump term, “inflation will be in full retreat.”But if you look at Trump's actual policies, that wouldn't be the case at all. Trump has a bold, ambitious agenda to make prices much, much higher. He's proposing a 10 percent tariff on imported goods, and a 60 percent tariff on products from China. He wants to deport huge numbers of immigrants. And he's made it clear that he'd like to replace the Federal Reserve chair with someone more willing to take orders from him. It's almost unimaginable to me that you would run on this agenda at a time when Americans are so mad about high prices. But I don't think people really know that's what Trump is vowing to do.So to drill into the weeds of Trump's plans, I decided to call up an old friend. Matt Yglesias is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and the author of the Slow Boring newsletter, where he's been writing a lot about Trump's proposals. We also used to host a policy podcast together, “The Weeds.”In this conversation, we discuss what would happen to the economy, especially in terms of inflation, if Trump actually did what he says he wants to do; what we can learn from how Trump managed the economy in his first term; and why more people aren't sounding the alarm.Mentioned:“Trump's new economic plan is terrible” by Matthew Yglesias“Never mind: Wall Street titans shake off qualms and embrace Trump” by Sam Sutton“How Far Trump Would Go” by Eric CortellessaBook Recommendations:Take Back the Game by Linda Flanagan1177 B.C. by Eric H. ClineThe Rise of the G.I. Army, 1940-1941 by Paul DicksonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact-checking by Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Mixing by Isaac Jones, with Aman Sahota. Our senior editor is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Annie Galvin, Elias Isquith and Kristin Lin. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Sonia Herrero, Adam Posen and Michael Strain.

In this episode Jason discusses the psychological traits and pathways by which the rightwing has shed its principles on its descent into fascism. The Scientific American piece on conspiracy thinking is here, the Matt Yglesias piece on how to help Democrats win in November is here, the Democratic Senate Committee is here, and the DZA website is here.

Do Arab Americans support pro-Palestine protests because of identity politics? What about American Jewish support for Israel? Are both groups being “tribal” or are they fighting for universal values — as they understand them?Recently, policy guru and Ur-Blogger Matt Yglesias pointed out that some of the political thinkers who, just a couple years ago, were aligned in opposition to identity politics today find themselves on opposite sides over Palestine. One of the names Matt mentioned was our own Shadi Hamid. What happened?Matt joins Damir, and Shadi to figure it out. In their conversation, they discuss the demands of pro-Palestine protestors, whether conditioning aid to Israel would be effective, whether global justice claims are “nonsense,” and of course the nature of identity. Why do we believe what we believe, and how do come to hold the positions that we hold? Towards the end of the episode, the conversation gets more personal, when both Shadi and Matt go deeper on how their own religious identities have been affected by the Gaza war. Matt, a liberal Jew who supports a two-state solution, says: “Playing dice with the existence of Israel is dangerous, it's a lot for my heart.” NOTE: We felt the final 20 minutes of the conversation with Matt were fascinating and surprising in the best way possible, capturing something important about this American moment — so we are dropping the paywall and making the full episode available for all subscribers. We hope you enjoy it. Required Reading:* Slow Boring, Matthew Yglesias' Substack. * “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” AKA “The Harper's Letter” (Harper's).* Martin Luther King, Jr. and Israel (Washington Post).* “Israel's Two Wars” by Matthew Yglesias (Slow Boring).* Shadi's tweet, drawing on his book The Problem of Democracy, on how U.S. support for Israel undermines Arab democracy: “Our relationship with Israel distorts U.S. policy in the Middle East. We support Arab dictators in part because they are more likely to accept Israel's dominant position in the region. Democracy, however, would elevate anti-Israel parties to power.”* Matt Yglesias on X: “It's interesting that a bunch of people who I read who four years ago were in agreement about the perils of identity politics now sharply disagree about Israel/Palestine and the disagreements exactly track Jewish vs Arab or Muslim backgrounds.”* The Mexican-American War. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Childhood and Education Roundup #5, published by Zvi on April 18, 2024 on LessWrong. For this iteration I will exclude discussions involving college or college admissions. There has been a lot of that since the last time I did one of these, along with much that I need to be careful with lest I go out of my intended scope. It makes sense to do that as its own treatment another day. Bullying Why do those who defend themselves against bullies so often get in more trouble than bullies? This is also true in other contexts but especially true in school. Thread is extensive, these are the highlights translated into my perspective. A lot of it is that a bully has experience and practice, they know how to work the system, they know what will cause a response, and they are picking the time and place to do something. The victim has to respond in the moment, and by responding causes conflict and trouble that no one wants. Also we are far more willing to punish generally rule-following people who break a rule, than we are to keep punishing someone who keeps breaking the rules all time, where it seems pointless. Study finds bullying has lifelong negative effects. Abstract: Most studies examining the impact of bullying on wellbeing in adulthood rely on retrospective measures of bullying and concentrate primarily on psychological outcomes. Instead, we examine the effects of bullying at ages 7 and 11, collected prospectively by the child's mother, on subjective wellbeing, labour market prospects, and physical wellbeing over the life-course. We exploit 12 sweeps of interview data through to age 62 for a cohort born in a single week in Britain in 1958. Bullying negatively impacts subjective well-being between ages 16 and 62 and raises the probability of mortality before age 55. It also lowers the probability of having a job in adulthood. These effects are independent of other adverse childhood experiences. My worry, as usual, is that the controls are inadequate. Yes, there are some attempts here, but bullying is largely a function of how one responds to it, and one's social status within the school, in ways that outside base factors will not account for properly. Bullying sucks and should not be tolerated, but also bullies target 'losers' in various senses, so them having worse overall outcomes is not obviously due to the bullying. Causation is both common and cuts both ways. Truancy Ever since Covid, schools have had to deal with lots of absenteeism and truancy. What to do? Matt Yglesias gives the obviously correct answer. If the norm is endangered, you must either give up the norm or enforce it. Should we accept high absentee rates from schools? What we should not do is accept a new norm of non-enforcement purely because we are against enforcing rules. The pathological recent attachment to not enforcing rules needs to stop, across the board. The past version, however, had quite the obsession with attendance, escalating quickly to 'threaten to ruin your life' even if nothing was actually wrong. That does not make sense either. Then in college everyone thinks skipping class is mostly no big deal, except for the few places they explicitly check and it is a huge deal. Weird. I think the correct solution is that attendance is insurance. If you attend most of the classes and are non-disruptive, and are plausibly trying during that time, then we cut you a lot of slack and make it very hard to fail. If you do not attend most of the classes, then nothing bad happens to you automatically, but you are doing that At Your Own Risk. We will no longer save you if you do not pass the tests. If it is summer school for you, then so be it. Against Active Shooter Drills New York State is set to pass S6537, a long overdue bill summarized as follows: Decreases the frequency of lock-down drills in schools;...

On today's episode, The UnPopulist's editor-in-chief Shikha Dalmia and senior editor Berny Belvedere are joined by Matt Yglesias. Matt is a journalist, blogger, and podcaster who's written for The Atlantic and Slate. He's also a co-founder of Vox and now writes his daily Substack newsletter Slow Boring, which is dedicated to realizing a better world through rigorous conversations and a spirit of pragmatism.Matt joins us to discuss the media's adversarial role in politics, how polarization and populism foster conflict, and what both the left and right can do to make sure our politics are more productive moving forward. Enjoy. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net

It's every blogger's curse to return to the same arguments again and again. Matt Yglesias has to keep writing “maybe we should do popular things instead of unpopular ones”, Freddie de Boer has to keep writing “the way culture depicts mental illness is bad”, and for whatever reason, I keep getting in fights about whether you can have probabilities for non-repeating, hard-to-model events. For example: What is the probability that Joe Biden will win the 2024 election? What is the probability that people will land on Mars before 2050? What is the probability that AI will destroy humanity this century? The argument against: usually we use probability to represent an outcome from some well-behaved distribution. For example, if there are 400 white balls and 600 black balls in an urn, the probability of pulling out a white ball is 40%. If you pulled out 100 balls, close to 40 of them would be white. You can literally pull out the balls and do the experiment. In contrast, saying “there's a 45% probability people will land on Mars before 2050” seems to come out of nowhere. How do you know? If you were to say “the probability humans will land on Mars is exactly 45.11782%”, you would sound like a loon. But how is saying that it's 45% any better? With balls in an urn, the probability might very well be 45.11782%, and you can prove it. But with humanity landing on Mars, aren't you just making this number up? Since people on social media have been talking about this again, let's go over it one more depressing, fruitless time. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist

Reading List:* “When Liberalism Was at Its Best,” Parts 1 (Isaiah Berlin), 2 (Lionel Trilling), and 3 (Reinhold Niebuhr), by Damon Linker.* “Philosophy and the Far Right”—Part 1 and Part 2* “Conservatism and Skepticism”—Part 1 and Part 2My guest on the show today is Damon Linker, perhaps the nation's most enthusiastic, unapologetic center leftist (he and Matt Yglesias occasionally punch it out for the title in an underground fight club built in the tunnels under the charred timbers of the former headquarters of the New Republic). Damon is a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Notes from the Middle Ground newsletters on Substack, is a senior fellow with the Open Society Project at the Niskanen Center, and is the author of two books, The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege and The Religious Test: Why We Must Question the Beliefs of Our Leaders.I asked Damon on the show to discuss his recent series of essays on three of the seminal thinkers of post-war liberalism, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, the literary critic Lionel Trilling, and the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. We also got into his conflicted feelings about the philosopher Leo Strauss and the movement—Straussianism—that he birthed.Eminent Americans is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Eminent Americans at danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Housing Roundup #7, published by Zvi on March 5, 2024 on LessWrong. Legalize housing. It is both a good slogan and also a good idea. The struggle is real, ongoing and ever-present. Do not sleep on it. The Housing Theory of Everything applies broadly, even to the issue of AI. If we built enough housing that life vastly improved and people could envision a positive future, they would be far more inclined to think well about AI. In Brief What will AI do to housing? If we consider what the author here calls a 'reasonably optimistic' scenario and what I'd call a 'maximally disappointingly useless' scenario, all AI does is replace some amount of some forms of labor. Given current AI capabilities, it won't replace construction, so some other sectors get cheaper, making housing relatively more expensive. Housing costs rise, the crisis gets more acute. Chris Arnade says we live in a high-regulation low-trust society in America, and this is why our cities have squalor and cannot have nice things. I do not buy it. I think America remains a high-trust society in the central sense. We trust individuals, and we are right to do so. We do not trust our government to be competent, and are right not to do so, but the problem there is not the lack of trust. Reading the details of Arnade's complaints pointed to the Housing Theory of Everything and general government regulatory issues. Why are so many of the things not nice, or not there at all? Homelessness, which is caused by lack of housing. The other half, that we spend tons of money for public works that are terrible, is because such government functions are broken. So none of this is terribly complicated. Matt Yglesias makes the case against subsidizing home ownership. Among other things, it creates NIMBYs that oppose building housing, it results in inefficient allocation of the housing stock, it encourages people to invest in a highly concentrated way we otherwise notice is highly unwise and so on. He does not give proper attention to the positives, particularly the ability to invest in and customize a place of one's own, and does not address the 'community buy-in' argument except to notice that one main impact of that, going NIMBY, is an active negative. Also he does not mention that the subsidies involved increase inequality, and the whole thing makes everyone who needs to rent much worse off. I agree that our subsidies for homeownership are highly inefficient and dumb. A neutral approach would be best. Zoning does not only ruin housing. Taylor Swift's Eras Tour skipped New Zealand because there were not sufficient resource consent permits available to let her perform at Eden Park. They only get six concerts a year, you see. With Pink's two shows on March 8 and March 9 and Coldplay's three shows on November 13, 15 and 16, it leaves Eden Park with only one concert slot this year. Considering the Grammy winner is playing seven shows across two Australian venues this February, Sautner says: "Clearly, this wasn't sufficient to host Taylor Swift." … The venue also needs to consider the duration of concerts in any conversations - as the parameters of Eden Park's resource consent means shows need a scheduled finishing time of 10.30pm, something that may have been too difficult for Swift to commit to. A short video making the basic and obviously correct case that we should focus on creating dense walkable areas in major cities. There is huge demand for this, supplying it makes people vastly more productive and happier, it is better for the planet, it is a pure win all around. Jonathan Berk: "Only 1% of the land in America's 35 largest cities is walkable. But those areas generate a whopping 20% of the US GDP." Legalize Housing Wait, is that, yeah, I think it is, well I'll be. Let's go. Elizabeth Warren: 40 years ago, a typical single-fam...

Episode 131: Two popular columnists recently wrote about travel, and they had dramatically different views. Agnes Collard wrote for The New Yorker that travel turns us into the worst version of ourselves, while Matt Yglesias wrote about the many benefits of tourism, especially on the economies of the places that are most-often visited. Hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada discuss the benefits of travel, what behaviors good tourists exhibit and why it’s in fact good to live in a place where people like to visit. About the hosts: Scott Rada is social media manager with Lee Enterprises, and Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wis. His forthcoming book, "Finding Your Third Place," will be published by Fulcrum Books.

In our first crossover pod, Tim queries Yglesias and Beutler about Biden's Gaza response, and why Dems aren't holding Kushner hearings—or raising hell about the GOP's promotion of fake oppo from a Russian spy. Then catch the tables getting turned on Tim on the Politix pod Wednesday. show notes: https://www.politix.fm/podcast

Dr. Paul Springs joins Alan again to talk about journalism, Matt Yglesias and the Gell-Mann effect.  Matt Yglesias wrote an article called "Dentists are bad" on his Substack. Instead of talking about some real "bad" things in our profession, he went straight to the lowest common denominator. Paul and Al talk about how journalism typically talks about dentistry and maybe how they could be more interesting and ask better questions. Matt thinks oral health is important Matt has a very limited understanding about dental disease in our population Matt thinks that regulation that allows dental hygienists to practice independently would fix the high costs of dentistry. Never read the comments. NEVER READ THE COMMENTS. Mead's law: journalism about dentists will inevitably devolve into comments about anecdotes featuring horrible experiences with dentists Health care that's not really health care (Stretch Center/monthly air polish/blow out bar) Primary and secondary health care  The overhead of an independent hygiene office Is there a way to screen for disease before seeing a hygienist or dentist? Gell-Mann amnesia What is informed consent? Al's podcast on communication and trust The informed consent Al got for his surgery The difference between "predatory dentistry" and hindsight The transparency of talking about money They hate us because we give them shots, talk about money and we do surgery on people who are awake "Dentists are rich and often shady" Fibromas R' Us and the regulatory state of dentistry Where do midlevel providers fit? Some links from the show: Matt Yglesias' Substack "Slow Boring" Do we need to take out wisdom teeth so often? How about tongue ties? Join the Very Dental Facebook group using the password "Timmerman," Hornbrook" or "McWethy," "Papa Randy" or "Lipscomb!" The Very Dental Podcast network is and will remain free to download. If you'd like to support the shows you love at Very Dental then show a little love to the people that support us! -- Crazy Dental has everything you need from cotton rolls to equipment and everything in between and the best prices you'll find anywhere! If you head over to verydentalpodcast.com/crazy and use coupon code “VERYDENTAL10” you'll get another 10% off your order! Go save yourself some money and support the show all at the same time! -- The Wonderist Agency is basically a one stop shop for marketing your practice and your brand. From logo redesign to a full service marketing plan, the folks at Wonderist have you covered! Go check them out at verydentalpodcast.com/wonderist! -- Enova Illumination makes the very best in loupes and headlights, including their new ergonomic angled prism loupes! They also distribute loupe mounted cameras and even the amazing line of Zumax microscopes! If you want to help out the podcast while upping your magnification and headlight game, you need to head over to verydentalpodcast.com/enova to see their whole line of products! -- CAD-Ray offers the best service on a wide variety of digital scanners, printers, mills and even  their very own browser based design software, Clinux! CAD-Ray has been a huge supporter of the Very Dental Podcast Network and I can tell you that you'll get no better service on everything digital dentistry than the folks from CAD-Ray. Go check them out at verydentalpodcast.com/CADRay!

Host Andrew Xu sits down once again with Jessica Grose, an opinion writer for The New York Times. They discuss the negative effects of pandemic-induced school closures, the increased prominence of grade inflation in schools, and other contributors to teacher demoralization in the United States.   References "The Rise and Fall of the Teaching Profession" from The Annenberg Institute "Has School Become Optional?" by Alec MacGillis, The New Yorker "People Don't Want to Be Teachers Anymore. Can You Blame Them?" by Jessica Grose, The New York Times "The pandemic's lesson on teacher licensure" by Matt Yglesias, Slow Boring "Don't Ditch Standardized Tests. Fix Them." by Jessica Grose, The New York Times "Congress Isn't a Schoolyard. Time to Deal With Toxic Immaturity." by Jessica Grose, The New York Times

Everyone seems to have decided that it's the phones. That is, they've decided that heavy smartphone and social-media use is to blame for the current wave of mental illness, despair, and depression that's affecting young people - teenage girls in particular.Except… we need to ask how strong the evidence is. What do the studies actually show about what's causing the mental health crisis? And, wait - is there actually a mental health crisis to begin with? In this extra-long episode of The Studies Show (it's a big topic after all), Tom and Stuart attempt to find out.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Do you like reading about science and technology? Do you like learning about the drivers of human progress? Then this is the magazine for you. You can find all their beautifully written and illustrated articles for free on their main website, along with some excellent shorter pieces on their Substack.Show Notes* UK MP calls for a ban on social media “and perhaps even smartphones” for under-16s; Prime Minister is considering it* Jonathan Haidt's upcoming book The Anxious Generation* His November 2023 interview with The Spectator on the “rewiring of childhood”* His big Google Doc of all the relevant studies in this area* Jean Twenge's famous Atlantic article, “Have smartphones destroyed a generation?”* Her book iGen* One of Twenge's studies, which the book is based on: n = 500,000 analysis of depression traits and “new media screen time”* Amy Orben's critique* Flurry of articles by well-respected writers in 2023 expressing some degree of confidence that “it's the phones”: John Burn-Murdoch; Noah Smith; Matt Yglesias (though he's more interested in other reasons)* Haidt's 2023 article arguing we can now say it's a cause, not just a correlation - and “a major cause” at that* Evidence that the US suicide rate is increasing* Evidence that the suicide rate in other countries is not increasing: Norway, Sweden, Denmark; the UK - see below for the heatmap of age-group vs. year and suicide rate for the UK:* 2023 NBER paper cautioning that some of the rise in the US suicide rate might be due to measurement differences* Chris Ferguson et al.'s 2021 meta-analysis that concludes there's a lack of evidence to suggest that screen time affects mental health* Przybylski & Vuorre's 2023 paper - across 168 countries, internet connectivity is correlated with better wellbeing* Orben & Przybylski's 2019 “specfication curve” paper (the “potatoes” one) * Twenge & Haidt's own specification curve paper suggesting social media use is a stronger predictor of poor wellbeing than is hard drug use* Stuart's article for the i going into detail on some of the causal studies of phones/social media and mental health* Dean Eckles criticising the “Facebook arrives at universities” studyCredits & AcknowledgementsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We're grateful to Chris Ferguson and Andy Przybylski for talking to us about their research. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Subscribe on Patreon and hear this week's full patron-exclusive episode here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/96560443/ Bea, Artie, and Phil offer their critique of "We've Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care", a recent book from two economists—and blurbed by the likes of Emily Oster and Matt Yglesias—that promises a bold new vision for US health policy: what if we did universal healthcare, but we intentionally made it really bad? Get Health Communism here: www.versobooks.com/books/4081-health-communism Runtime 1:22:26, 15 January 2024

Al recently read an article by Matt Yglesias called "Dentists are bad." (sic) Even worse...he read the comments.  As these things tend to do, it devolved into a bunch of horrible anecdotes about terrible things that dentists have done to innocent patients.  So, why do they hate us? And more importantly, what are dentists doing wrong to make them hate us?  Al has thoughts. Some links from the show: "Dentists are bad" (sic) by Matt Yglesias (it's probably behind a paywall the Gell-Mann effect Join the Very Dental Facebook group using the password "Timmerman," Hornbrook" or "McWethy," "Papa Randy" or "Lipscomb!" The Very Dental Podcast network is and will remain free to download. If you'd like to support the shows you love at Very Dental then show a little love to the people that support us! -- Crazy Dental has everything you need from cotton rolls to equipment and everything in between and the best prices you'll find anywhere! If you head over to verydentalpodcast.com/crazy and use coupon code “VERYDENTAL10” you'll get another 10% off your order! Go save yourself some money and support the show all at the same time! -- The Wonderist Agency is basically a one stop shop for marketing your practice and your brand. From logo redesign to a full service marketing plan, the folks at Wonderist have you covered! Go check them out at verydentalpodcast.com/wonderist! -- Enova Illumination makes the very best in loupes and headlights, including their new ergonomic angled prism loupes! They also distribute loupe mounted cameras and even the amazing line of Zumax microscopes! If you want to help out the podcast while upping your magnification and headlight game, you need to head over to verydentalpodcast.com/enova to see their whole line of products! -- CAD-Ray offers the best service on a wide variety of digital scanners, printers, mills and even  their very own browser based design software, Clinux! CAD-Ray has been a huge supporter of the Very Dental Podcast Network and I can tell you that you'll get no better service on everything digital dentistry than the folks from CAD-Ray. Go check them out at verydentalpodcast.com/CADRay!  

A GAY SHAME podcast. Emmanuel Yekutiel is a marketing associate for conservative causes and Israel who in 2018, opened a gentrification cafe in the Mission that he named after himself. Since then, Manny's has been a safe space for neoliberal figures to gather, including Dr. Jill Biden, Matt Yglesias, Nancy Pelosi, Sam Bankman-Fried, SFPD chief Bill Scott, and the trio of local politicians Manny dubbed the "Power Gays."  Deeg from Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!) speaks on the boycott of Manny's, and the tradition of queers organizing against Israel's genocide of Palestinians. Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!) BDS Movement "Alive in Limbo" documentary "Pinkwashing Exposed" documentary  Queer Cinema for Palestine "Progressive Coalition boycotts 'woke-washing' of San Francisco event space" "Mark Zuckerberg's Immigration Hustle"

The SubStackLand community gains another valuable member. We welcome him to the NFL SubStackLand:Key Insights:* Bing-AI says “Brian Beutler” is pronounced “Bryan Bootler”—that is, rhymes with “lion shooter”, which shows how far political incorrectness has penetrated Silicon Valley…* Noah has figured out a solution to his problem of losing the screws to his microphone stand: duct tape…* This started with Brad poking Brian on his belief there was a golden age of comity, common purpose, and energy in the left-of-center political sphere back in 2005 to 2008—saying that this misconceived as all mourning for a lost golden age is misconceived…* Noah and Brad today welcome Brian to SubStackLand, he having just created a substack and done 16 substantive posts in two weeks, which is a trult amazing rate of production…* Brian's key insight is that since the start of 2019 Democrats have been amazingly, alarmingly, disappointingly timid in not aggressively going after every corner of TrumpWorld for its corruption, and doing so again and again and again…* Brian is, in a sense, the quantum-mechanical antiparticle to some combination of Matt Yglesias and David Schor…* Brian believes he coined the term “popularism”…* Back in 2005-2008 nobody said that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were sabotaging their own party by encouraging Barack Obama to run in the primaries…* Judging by results, the current strategy of the Democratic Establishment is doing rather well: a plus three standard-deviation outcome in the 2022 midterms, for example…* That midterm result may be because, by our count no fewer than seven of the nine justices had assured senators that Roe v. Wade was “settled law”. And four of those seven then voted to overturn it in Dobbs…* Biden really cares about safeguarding democracy, and his actions should all be viewed with that in mind…* Hexapodia!References:* Brian Beutler: Off Message SubStack * Scattered Thoughts On Israel, Hamas, Gaza, And Related Matters: A possibly ill-advised post* VIDEO: How Trump Normalization Really Works: Why the political media slept on Trump's call for Mark Milley's death and other baffling decisions* Charts To A Gun Fight: How the Fighting Democrats of 2007 became the timid, focus-grouped party of today.* Trump Reaches A Fateful Crossroads: We should welcome it, but acknowledge the peril* Thursday Thread And AMA: Kind of a lot's happened since the last one* "The Most Important Issue In Our Politics": A Q&A with John Harwood on his interview with Joe Biden about threats to democracy* Five Thoughts On Karmic McCarthy: For now, we schadenfreude* VIDEO: How Profit Motive Distorts The News: And why liberals and Democrats should talk about it* The Era Of Hostage Taking And Small Ransoms: Republicans made Ukraine aid the price of avoiding a shutdown. Where does it end?* The Democrats' Lost September: You guys awake?* Breaking Down The GOP Debate: Reaction chats with Matthew Yglesias and Crooked Media's What A Day podcast* Wednesday Debate Thread: Let's watch Republicans be weird and scary together!* Baggage Check: Life disclosures, so readers can know me, and where I come from, a little better* VIDEO: Why The News Struggles To Say Republicans Are Responsible For The Government Shutdown: And why the public is likely to catch on anyhow* Biden Should Work The Media Refs On Impeachment: Everyone knows the impeachment is b.s., so he should say that* Welcome to Off Message: Refuge from a world gone mad* Thomas Babington Macaulay: Horatius at the Bridge * Plutarch: Life of Tiberius Gracchus +, of course:* Vernor Vinge: A Fire Upon the Deep Lost Past Golden Ages:Thomas Babington Macaulay: Horatius at the Bridge: ‘[Then] Romans in Rome's quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, In the brave days of old.Then none was for a party; Then all were for the state;Then the great man helped the poor, And the poor man loved the great:Then lands were fairly portioned; Then spoils were fairly sold:The Romans were like brothers In the brave days of old.Now Roman is to Roman More hateful than a foe,And the Tribunes beard the high, And the Fathers grind the low.As we wax hot in faction, In battle we wax cold:Wherefore men fight not as they fought In the brave days of old…Plutarch: Life of Tiberius Gracchus: ‘Formerly the senate itself, out of goodwill, conceded many things to the people, and referred many things to them for deliberation; and the magistrates themselves, even when they had no need of the people, summoned them to assemblies, and communicated with them on public affairs, not wishing them to feel that they were excluded from anything or insulted. But after the people had made the authority of the tribunes too great, and through them had tasted arbitrary power, then indeed there was no longer any room for deference or concession on the part of the senate; but they were forced to fight for everything as for a prize... Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

Liberals vs. leftists once again, with the principal conclusion being that trying to find and join your tribe by shouting online—Schmittian picking-an-enemy as the core of your identity—is no way to go through life, son. Nor is artfully screenshotting in order to make sure your readers do not see the sentence just below the ones you quote.In which we discuss the positions of “Brianna”, Matt”, and “Ezra”—who are SubTuring concepts in our minds with whom we have parasocial relationships, and are not real persons named Brianna Wu, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein—on where the boundary is between the decent, realistic, progress left on the one hand, and people who need to get a clue and stop making own-goals on the other.Background:Key Insights:* No Schmittposting— trying to find and join your tribe by shouting online—Schmittian picking-an-enemy as the core of your identity—is no way to go through life, son. * Nor is artfully screenshotting in order to make sure your readers do not see the sentence just below the ones you quote.* Don't pick bad and stupid ends to advocate for—anarcho-pastoralism, the elimination of the United States or America, abolishing police, abolishing prisons, degrowth, destroying statues of Ulysses S. Grant, calling for the cancellation of Abraham Lincoln.* Do think, always: will this post advance humanity's collective smartness as an anthology intelligence?* Don't call for throwing public money at nonprofits in urban America.* Advocate for a political focus on social issues only when they are ripe—when the pro-freedom and pro-flourishing position is genuinely popular.* But the Democratic Party and the left can and should focus on both economic and social issues—and should be smart about doing so.* Blue-state politicians should be willing to press the envelope on social issues—witness Gavin Newsom as mayor of San Francisco on gay marriage.* Purple-state politicians should stress that this is a free country for free people, which means:* economic opportunity…* social freedom—you should be able to live your life without the government harassing you, and without neighbors and merchants harassing you by refusing service when their job is to serve the public…* collective wealth…* collective concern—global warming may not be so bad for you in the medium-run, but it is a serious medium-run problem for those SOBs in Florida and Louisiana, and for rural communities at the wildfire edge…* Red-state politicians need our thoughts and prayers.* Policy analysts and legislative tacticians should design and implement policies that are:* successes…* visible, perceived successes…* that build coalitions by the wide of visible distribution of their benefits…* but that do not allow individual coalition partners to become veto point owners: seats at the table, yes; dogs in the manger, no…* Left-wing think-tanks should not take money from “leftists” who want to use procedural obstacles to block green investments in their backyards.* Hexapodia!References:* Preliminary Food for Thought for Þe “Hexapodia” Taping:* Brianna Wu: ‘There's a huge schism… Policy Leftists and Infinite Leftists…* Matt Yglesias: The two kinds of progressives: ‘Moralists vs. pragmatists…* Ezra Klein: The Problem With Everything-Bagel Liberalism: ‘Cost, not just productivity, is a core problem for the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing industry…* Brad DeLong: Pass the Baton…* Noah Smith: Our climate change debates are out of date…* Noah Smith: Degrowth: We can't let it happen here!…* Noah Smith: ‘Once you realize that the animating drive of all NIMBYism on both the left and the right is to be able to live in perpetually-appreciating single-family homes with no poor people nearby, everything they say becomes instantly comprehensible and intensely boring.* Rocket Podcast +, of course:* Vernor Vinge: A Fire Upon the Deep  Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

Matt Yglesias' five-year old son asks: why do we send the top students to the best colleges? Why not send the weakest students to the best colleges, since they need the most help? This is one of those questions that's so naive it loops back and becomes interesting again. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-match-school-and-student-rank  

This week, we're diving in to see what all the fuss around Blue Sky is about. Is it really like Twitter before it got bad and as fun as people are saying? Is the magic temporary or can Blue Sky keep the magic as the platform scales? To talk about that and much more, TechCrunch reporter Morgan Sung joins Katelyn and Oliver for an interesting conversation about news anchors saying skeet on air, cyberbulling Matt Yglesias and endless tittes on the Skyline. A very special thanks to our Cancellation List and above Patreons Megg, Catherine, Dahlia, I Beauregard, Leslie, Adrienne, Diego and Siobhan for making this episode possible. You can submit your requests for out of context cancellations, support our work and join our community by visiting www.patreon.com/CancelMeDaddy.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/change-my-mind-density-increases Matt Yglesias tries to debunk the claim that building more houses raises local house prices. He presents several studies showing that, at least on the marginal street-by-street level, this isn't true. I'm nervous disagreeing with him, and his studies seem good. But I find looking for tiny effects on the margin less convincing than looking for gigantic effects at the tails. When you do that, he has to be wrong, right?

Journalist and author Liza Featherstone is on the show this week to talk about electing union members to political positions. Show Notes: https://jacobin.com/2023/04/brandon-johnson-chicago-electing-union-members-ctu-mayor-working-class Kate and Mohanad can be found on Twitter at @KateWillett and @MohanadElshieky Subscribe to the Patreon here: www.patreon.com/replyguys Hosts: Kate Willett and Mohanad Elshieky Producer: Genevieve Gearity Theme Song: Emily Frembgen and Kate Willett Artwork: Adrienne Lobl

This week we are releasing another talk from our recent Micromobility World - this one with Matthew Yglesias, pioneering political blogger and self-described "ebike dad," on why electric bikes and other small vehicles offer a compelling alternative to the solve the urban mobility dilemma. Matt has a wealth of knowledge about the interplay of politics, Transport and land use and Julia is an excellent host to ask him about it. This was a really compelling and interesting 50 minutes. We hope you enjoy it! They dig into: - His journey to be an ‘e-bike dad' - and a big proponent of electric bikes - The intersection between transport and built urban form - and the overhang of cars. - How people are now getting used to taking the vehicles that are appropriate to the trips - The divide between privately owned and shared systems, and how land use rules interplay with those decisions. - The regulatory drivers helping and hindering EVs and micromobility - The subsidy question - needed or not? - Why he thinks SoCal should be ground zero for a micromobility first city - The importance of making micromobility a positive, accessible brand rather than making it snobby or a ‘poverty option' - The importance of allowing the built environment to innovate to new mobility options. - What should micromobility advocates do to help drive change. - Americans are typically pro-growth, opportunity and innovation. How can those attitudes be harnessed for micromobility, and transcend the left/right divide. Follow Matthew on Twitter and on LinkedIn. And now, here is Matt and Julia. Catch us on Twitter. Horace and Oliver are also active on their personal accounts and would love to hear from you. Catch us on Twitter @MicromobilityCo. Horace and Oliver are also active on their personal accounts and would love to hear from you. Our Micromobility Newsletter is completely free, and you can subscribe to have it in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning. And for those who want more, we offer Micromobility Pro membership that includes exclusive content and conference discounts, as well as live calls with Horace and team. We're also on LinkedIn and Instagram.

In this episode, Natalia, Neil, and Niki discuss the Supreme Court's deliberation over the cancellation of student loan debt. Support Past Present on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pastpresentpodcast Here are some links and references mentioned during this week's show:   ·         The Supreme Court seems poised to strike down President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy. Natalia referred to this CNBC timeline of the recent history of the student-loan cancellation movement and drew on this Washington Post essay about the devaluation of education as a public good. Neil drew on this Slate history about the culture of debt in the United States, and Niki used this explainer to elaborate the “major questions doctrine.”     In our regular closing feature, What's Making History: ·         Natalia recommended Matt Yglesias' post, “Why Are Young Liberals So Depressed?” on his Substack, Slow Boring. ·         Neil shared about a new podcast, Recollecting Carter. ·         Niki discussed Maura Judkis' Washington Post article, “American Girl says the ‘90s are Ancient History. American Girls Agree.”

Pandemic lockdowns isolated people who now report loneliness and inability to get "back to normal." Plus, "Progressives are incentivized to catastrophize" says... Matt Yglesias?!  Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week's depressing episode… Sigh…* A journalist is spat on in a high-profile case. Is it time to tone down the rhetoric? It's probably too late to de-escalate…* The disappearance of Apu. He's probably never coming back.* Matt Yglesias won't come on the podcast. Should Kanye come on instead? He'll probably say no too. Sigh…* Why are young liberals so depressed? Matt Yglesias' new article sparks discussion, but we probably can't fix this. We should just give up…* Katie's shocking stance on solar power. We'll never be able to transition to renewables, will we?* Journalists really messed up with the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch story… Kiwi Farms did the media's job better than the media did… Not again…* 28 TERFS PULLING UP IN BLACK FORD RAPTOR TRUCKS. HELICOPTERS LANDED. UNICORN RANCH IS UNDER SIEGE! UNDER LOCKDOWN!DepressionYglesias' article on why everyone is suddenly so depressedhttps://www.slowboring.com/p/why-are-young-liberals-so-depressedUh… here's the study: “The politics of depression: Diverging trends in internalizing symptoms among US adolescents by political beliefs”https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560321000438The Tenacious Unicorn RanchThe Advocate: Trans Anarchists, Alpacas, and the Beauty of Tenacious Unicorn Ranchhttps://www.advocate.com/exclusives/2021/9/23/trans-anarchists-alpacas-and-beauty-tenacious-unicorn-ranchThe Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot glows harder than Chernobyl in 1986https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/whitmer-kidnapping-trial.htmlBusiness Insider: How the trans alpaca ranchers of Custer County, Colorado, are forging a new frontierhttps://www.businessinsider.com/custer-county-trans-alpaca-ranchers-are-forging-a-new-frontier-2022-8UNICORN RANCH IS UNDER ATTACK. UNDER SIEGE.https://twitter.com/TenaciousRanch/status/1368996977959047168?s=20Unicorn Ranch is “nothing more than a glorified cult”, a 17-part epichttps://twitter.com/EntrancingStars/status/1607478562378088448?s=20The remaining Ranchers respondhttps://twitter.com/TenaciousRanch/status/1608176135187365888/photo/2The "journey of recontextualization"https://twitter.com/EntrancingStars/status/1608270263287939073Kiwi Farms is accused of sending police to the ranchhttps://twitter.com/TenaciousRanch/status/1608907406452588544The current Wikipedia page on the ranchhttps://web.archive.org/web/20230304174335/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenacious_Unicorn_RanchAlpacas and goats are relocatedhttps://twitter.com/EntrancingStars/status/1617697699633192961#mThe Ranch is... scuffed to say the leasthttps://twitter.com/EntrancingStars/status/1630804146227142661?s=20Bonnie's "IRS Report"https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tS4uxqpwOoIf8-PkDTVUvhUsYyoQ4NzT9FLXlG-XJ4/editKindness's statementhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1gBdNSPs0vhV1Qw3eCSb5INrBaOhdwvMF/editFurther ReadingDenver Post: How an anarchist commune for queer people grew a haven in conservative rural Coloradohttps://www.denverpost.com/2021/04/18/tenacious-unicorn-ranch-queer-haven-rural-colorado/High Country News: Meet the gun-toting ‘Tenacious Unicorns' in rural Coloradohttps://www.hcn.org/issues/53.2/south-communities-meet-the-gun-toting-tenacious-unicorns-in-rural-coloradoNPR: A Would-Be Trans And Queer Haven In Rural Colorado Just Wants To Be Left Alonehttps://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/999929259/a-would-be-trans-and-queer-haven-in-rural-colorado-just-wants-to-be-left-alonePBS: Southern Colorado alpaca ranch a safe haven for LGBTQ+ communityhttps://archive.li/PpGIO#selection-689.13-689.77Pink News: Meet the brilliant trans folk who built a community of armed, anti-fascist alpaca farmershttps://www.thepinknews.com/2021/01/17/tenacious-unicorn-ranch-trans-anti-fascism-alpaca-farm-penny-logue/“human behavior is basically a meme” ~ Katie Herzog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.blockedandreported.org/subscribe

Ross Barkan, proprietor of the best newsletter on New York politics, returns to discuss whether Knicks owner James Dolan might go down in flames. But before we get to that, he has a bone to pick with certain anti woke intellectuals. This conversation includes, but is not limited to:* The battle of ideas between Matt Yglesias vs. Wesley Yang* Ross' critique of Yang's recent focus* Can both Yglesias and Yang feel validated by history?* The Wokes, the Anti Wokes, and the Anti Anti Wokes, plus how nobody defines themselves as such* On how the cultural focus on Covid is fading out* Has James Dolan finally messed with the wrong crowd?* Dolan's completely insane media tour This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit houseofstrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Sam and Emma host Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate, to discuss the recent opening arguments that have come in front of the Supreme Court. First, they run through updates on today's Georgia runoff, Ukraine's offensive in Russia, another Fed interest hike, the continuing railway labor fight, and more, before diving into Kevin McCarthy exercising his beautifully weak leadership with Laura Ingraham. Mark Joseph Stern then joins as he dives right into 303 Creative v. Elenis, aka Gay Wedding Cake 2.0, exploring how Alliance Defending Freedom back Lorie Smith and 303's fight to refuse even the possibility of making a website for a same-sex wedding, changing the entire spin of her business to center her argument that allowing the use of one of her templates (not even a personalized website) is the same as a personal endorsement of the marriage. He also dives into the recent debates on the Supreme Court floor, as Alito embarrasses himself attempting to draw a parallel between being queer and being a KKK member. Next, Mark, Sam, and Emma dive into the upcoming Moore v. Harper North Carolina gerrymandering case, outlining who the actors are, how it centers on the radical “Independent State Legislature” theory, and why the GOP is even pretending to think that a state legislature can fully ignore its constitution, courts, and governor when assessing a fair election, before wrapping up with the heartwarming note of why our democracy might come down to a single vote by Amy Coney-Barrett. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma talk with John from San Antonio as he previews today's Georgia Runoff and reflects on the Democrats' shortcomings in the Midterms, also tackling Matt Yglesias becoming the millionth person to ask the same “just asking questions” question about trans healthcare, and talking with Marcus on military vaccinations. Hutt from Manhattan parses through the Squad largely voting against freight rail labor, Sean Row from Chicago discusses the platforming of the right, and Candace Owens responds to the Daily Wire infighting. They also briefly discuss Elon trying to keep up the spark from the Twitter files, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Mark's work at Slate here: https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: ExpressVPN: We all take risks every day when we go online, whether we think about it or not. And using the internet without ExpressVPN? That's like driving without car insurance! ExpressVPN acts as online insurance. It creates a secure, encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet so hackers can't steal your personal data. It'd take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption. And ExpressVPN is simple to use on all your devices! Just fire up the app and click one button to get protected. Secure your online data TODAY by visiting https://www.expressvpn.com/majority That's https://www.expressvpn.com/majority and you can get an extra three months FREE. Shopify: Scaling your business is a journey of endless possibility. Shopify is here to help, with tools and resources that make it easy for any business to succeed from down the street to around the globe. Go to https://shopify.com/majority for a FREE fourteen-day trial and get full access to Shopify's entire suite of features! Givewell: Many of us open our hearts and make donations during the holiday season. But when you donate, how can you feel confident that your donations are really making a big impact? GiveWell spends over 30,000 hours each year researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the HIGHEST-IMPACT, EVIDENCE-BACKED opportunities they've found.If you've never donated to GiveWell's recommended charities before, you can have your donation matched up to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to https://givewell.org/ and pick PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

According to the conventional rules of politics, Democrats should be on track for electoral disaster this November. Joe Biden's approval rating is stuck around 42 percent, inflation is still sky-high and midterms usually swing against the incumbent president's party — a recipe for the kind of political wipeouts we saw in 2018, 2010 and 1994.But that's not what the polls show. Currently, Democrats are on track to hold the Senate and lose narrowly in the House, which raises all kinds of questions: Why are Republicans failing to capitalize on such a favorable set of circumstances? How did Democrats get themselves into this situation — and can they get out of it? And should we even trust the polls giving us this information in the first place?Matt Yglesias is a veteran journalist who writes the newsletter “Slow Boring” and co-hosts the podcast “Bad Takes.” And in recent years he's become an outspoken critic of the Democratic Party's political strategy: how Democrats communicate with the public, what they choose as their governing priorities and whom they ultimately listen to. In Yglesias's view, Democrats have lost touch with the very voters they need to win close elections like this one, and should embrace a very different approach to politics if they want to defeat an increasingly anti-democratic G.O.P.We discuss why Yglesias thinks the 2022 polls are likely biased toward Democrats, how Republicans' bizarre nominee choices are giving Democrats a fighting chance of winning the Senate, why Biden's popular legislative agenda hasn't translated into greater public support, the Biden administration's “grab bag” approach to policymaking, why Yglesias thinks there's been a “regime change” in how Democrats think about elections, how social media has transformed both parties' political incentives, what the Democratic agenda should look like if the party retains both houses of Congress and more.Book recommendations:Famine: A Short History by Cormac Ó GrádaSlouching Towards Utopia by J. Bradford DeLongStrangers to Ourselves by Rachel AvivThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma. Our researcher is Emefa Agawu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld, Sonia Herrero and Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.

Sean is joined by the notorious Kevin Rogan, urbanism blogger extraordinaire and Marxist scourge of landlord Twitter, to talk about how housing, development and rent under capitalism. How do housing markets work? (Hint: not at all) Why are landlords objectively both evil and stupid? (Hint: it's baked in) What do NIMBYs/YIMBYs represent? (Hint: two competing factions of capital) How do we fight the land owners and win? And how do tenant unions fit into the broader struggle against capital? This is part one of an extended discussion. For the second half - a whole hour of takes on Matt Yglesias, intra-petit bourg warfare over the soul of city, and Mr Skanska looking over the back of US building capital - become a patron today at www.patreon.com/theantifada Kevin's Substack: https://kevinrogan.substack.com/ Song: Mirah - Dear Landlord