Podcast appearances and mentions of Nicholas Lemann

As the author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, the Cambridge University historian Gary Gerstle was one of first people to recognize the collapse of neoliberalism. But today, the real question is not about the death of neoliberalism, but what comes after it. And, of course, when I sat down with Gerstle, I began by asking him what the Trump victory tells us about what comes after neoliberalism.Gary Gerstle is Paul Mellon Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Cambridge. Gerstle received his BA from Brown University and his MA and PhD from Harvard University. He is the author, editor, and coeditor of more than ten books.  He is currently the Joy Foundation Fellow at the Harvard-Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, where he is working on a new book, Politics in Our Time: Authoritarian Peril and Democratic Hope in the Twenty-First Century.  He resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Named as one of the "100 most pivoted men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's most pivotal broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the pivotal author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two cats, both called Pivot.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. TRANSCRIPT“It's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world.” -Gary GerstleAK: Hello everybody. As we try to make sense of the aftermath of the US election this week, there was an interesting headline today in the Financial Times. Donald Trump apparently has asked, and I'm quoting the F.T. here, the arch-protectionist Robert Lighthizer, to run U.S. trade policy. You never know with Trump, he may change his mind tomorrow. But nonetheless, it suggests, and it's not a great surprise, that protectionism will define the Trump, presidency or certainly the second Trump presidency. And it speaks of the structural shift in the nature of politics and economics in the United States, particularly given this Trump victory. One man who got this, I think before anyone else, is the Cambridge historian Gary Gerstle. He's been on the show a couple of times before. He's the author of a wonderful book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era. It's a profound book. It's had an enormous impact on everybody. And I'm thrilled and honored that Gary is back on the show. This is the third time he's been on the show. Gary, is that important news? Have we formally come to the end now of the neoliberal order? GARY GERSTLE: I think we have, although there's an element of neoliberalism which may revive in the Trump administration. But if we think of a political order as ordering political life so that all participants in that order have to accept its ideological principles, we have moved out of that order. I think we've been out of it for some time. The critical election in this case was 2016, and the critical move that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders made in 2016, the two most dynamic presidential candidates in that year, was to break with the orthodoxy of free markets, the orthodoxy of globalization, the orthodoxy of a world without borders where everything was free to move and the market was supreme. And the only role of government in the state was to ensure as full access to markets as was possible in the belief that if governments got out of the way of a private capitalist economy, this would spur the greatest growth for the greatest number of people everywhere in the world. This was governing orthodoxy, really from the time of Reagan until 2016. Trump broke it. Sanders broke it. Very significant in this regard that when Biden came into office, he moderated some of the Trump tariffs but kept the tariffs on China substantially in place. So there's been continuity for some time, and now we're going to see an intensification of the protectionist regime. Protectionism used to be a dirty word in American politics. If you uttered that word, you were excluded from serious political discourse. There will be other terms that are used, fair trade, not just because protectionism has a negative connotation to it, but we are living in an era where governments assert the right to shape markets as they wish to in the interests of their nation. So, yes, we are living in a different era, although it must be said, and we may get into a discussion of this at some point, there are sectors of the Trump coalition that want to intensify deregulation in the domestic market, that want to rollback government. And so I expect in the new Trump administration, there is going to be tussles between the protectionists on the one hand and those who want to, at least domestically, restore free trade. And by that I mean the free operation of private capital without government regulation. That's an issue that bears watching.AK: Is that a contradiction though, Gary? Can one, in this post-neoliberal order, can governments be hostile to regulation, a la Elon Musk and his association with Trump, and also be in favor of tariffs? I mean, do the two—can the to go together, and is that the outline of this foggy new order coming into place in the second quarter of the 21st century?GARY GERSTLE: They can go together in the sense that they have historically in the past gone together in the United States. In the late 19th century, the US had very high tariffs against foreign goods. And domestically, it was trying to create as free a domestic market as possible. What was known as the period of laissez-faire domestically went along with a commitment to high tariffs and protection of American laissez-faire against what we might call global laissez-faire. So it has been tried. It did work at that time. But I think the Republican party and the constituencies behind Donald Trump are divided on this question. As you noted, Elon Musk represents one pole of this. He certainly wants protection against Chinese imports of electric cars and is probably going to get that because of all the assistance he gave Trump in this election. But domestically, he wants no government interfering with his right to conduct his capitalist enterprises as he sees fit. So that's going to be one wing. But there's another wing of the Republican Party under Trump that is much more serious about industrial policy that says we cannot leave the market to its own devices. It produces too many human casualties. It produces too many regions of America left behind, and that we must use the government to help those people left behind. We must structure free enterprise industry in a way that helps the ordinary working-class man. And I use the word “man” deliberately in this context. Interestingly, JD Vance, the vice president, embodies both these tendencies, sees, on the one hand, a creature of venture capital, Silicon Valley, close to the Musks and Peter Thiels of the world. On the other hand, he has talked explicitly, as in his vice-presidential acceptance speech, about putting Main Street over Wall Street. And if he's serious about putting Main Street over Wall Street, that's going to involve a lot of government intervention to displace the privileged position that finance and venture capital now has in the American economy.AK: Gary, you're a historian, one of the best around, you're deeply versed in the past, you bring up Vance. He presents himself as being original, even has a beard. But I wonder whether his—I don't know what you would call it—a Catholic or Christian socialism, or at least a concern with the working class. Is it in any way new, for you, historically? I mean, it certainly exists in Europe, and there must be analogies also in American history with him.GARY GERSTLE: Well, if he is a convert to Catholicism, I don't know how well-versed he is in the papal doctrines of years past. Or decades. Or even centuries passed. But there was a serious movement within the Catholic Church in the late 19th and early 20th century to humanize capitalism, to declare that free market capitalism produced too many human casualties. Too many ordinary Catholic workers and workers who are not Catholic were hurt by unemployment, poverty, being thrown out of work in the troughs of business cycles, having no social welfare to fall back on, as a result of injury or misfortune in life. And so there was a profound movement within Catholic churches, in the United States, and in Europe and other parts of the world as well, to humanize capitalism. Whether this very once important Catholic tradition is an active influence on Vance, I don't know, because he's a recent convert to Catholicism, and I don't know how deeply has imbibed its history or its doctrine. But there is a rich tradition there. And it's possible that this is one of the sources that he is drawing on to shape his contemporary politics.AK: We were talking before we ran live, Gary, I said to you, and I think you agreed, that this use of the word "fascism" to describe Trump isn't always particularly helpful. It reflects a general hysteria amongst progressives. But I wonder in this context, given the way in which European Catholicism flirted, sometimes quite openly, with fascism, whether the F-word actually makes a little more sense. Because after all, fascism, after the First World War, was a movement in the name of the people, which was very critical of the capitalism of that age and of the international market. So, when we use the word fascism now, could it have some value in that context as a kind of a socioeconomic critique of capitalism?GARY GERSTLE: You mean fascism offering a socioeconomic critique of U.S. capitalism?AK: Yes. For better or worse.GARY GERSTLE: I'm reluctant to deploy the term fascism, since I think most people who enter the conversation or who hear that word in the United States don't really know what it means, and that's partly the consequence of historians debating its meaning as long as they have, and also suggesting that fascism takes different forms at different times and in different places. I prefer the term authoritarianism. I think that tendency is clearly there and one can connect that to certain traditions within the church. The United States once had a intense anti-Catholic political tradition. It was unimaginable in the 19th century. AK: Yeah, it drove the KKK. I mean, that was the Klan hated the Catholics probably more than they hated the Jews.GARY GERSTLE: It drove the Klan. And the notion in the 19th century—I'm not remembering now whether there are 5 or 6 Catholics who sit on the Supreme Court—but the notion in the 19th century that 5 or 6 Catholics would be the chief custodians and interpreters of America's most sacred doctrine and document the Constitution was simply unthinkable. It could never have happened. There was a Catholic seat. As for a long time, there was a Jewish seat on the Supreme Court, but understood that this would be carefully cordoned off and limited and that, when push came to shove, Protestants had to be in charge of interpreting America's most sacred doctrine. And the charge against Catholics was that they were not democratic, that they vested ultimate power in God and through an honest messenger on Earth, who was the pope. John F. Kennedy, in 1960, became the first Catholic president of the United States. Biden is only the second. Vance is the first Catholic vice president. Before in the campaign that Kennedy was running in 1960, he had to go in front of thousands of Protestant ministers who had gathered in Houston so he could persuade them that if he became president, he would not be handing America over to the pope, who was seen as an authoritarian figure. So for a long time, Catholicism was seen as a carrier of authoritarianism, of a kind of executive power that should not be limited by a human or secular force. And this promoted, in the United States, intense anti-Catholic feeling, which took the country probably 200 years to conquer. Conquered it was, so the issue of so many Catholics on the Supreme Court is not an issue. Biden's Catholicism is not an issue. Vance's Catholicism is not an issue. But Vance himself has said, talking about his conversion, that of his granny—I forget the term he uses to describe his granny—were alive today, she would not be able to accept his conversion because she was so deeply Protestant, so evangelical, so—AK: A classic West Virginian evangelical. So for me, the other contradiction here is that Vance is unashamedly nationalist, unashamedly critical of globalization. And yet, by embracing Catholicism, which is the most international of face, I don't quite understand what that suggests about him, or Catholicism, or even history, that that these odd things happen.GARY GERSTLE: Well, one thing one can say in history is that odd things happen and odd couples get together. I don't know myself how fully Vance understands his Catholicism. I believe Peter Thiel led him to this. Vance is still a young man and has gone through a lot of conversions for a young man. He was—AK: Well, he's a conversion expert. That's the narrative of his life, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Yes. Yes. And he began as being a severe anti-Trumper, almost a Never-Trumper. Then he converted to Trumpism. Then he converted from Protestant to Catholicism. So a lot of major changes in his life. So, the question you just posed is a fascinating one. Does he understand that the church is a catholic church, meaning small c catholic in this case, that it's open to everyone in the world? Does he really understand that? But I would extend my puzzle about religion beyond Catholicism to ask, for all the evangelical supporters of Trump: where is Jesus's message of peace and love? Where did that go? So there are puzzles about the shape of Christian religion in America. And there's no doubt that for its most devout supporters in the United States that has taken a very hard nationalist turn. And this is true among Protestants, and it is true among many Catholics. And so, I think the question that you posed may be one that no one has really confronted Vance with.“What we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine.” -Gary GerstleAK: And I would extend that, Gary. I think that the most persistent and credible critics of Trump also come from the religious community. Peter Wehner, for example, former—I don't know if you're familiar with his work. He writes a lot for the Times and The Atlantic. Very religious man, is horrified—worked in the Bush and the Reagan administrations. Let's go back to—I was looking at the cover of the book, and obviously authors don't pick the covers of their books—GARY GERSTLE: I did. I picked this.AK: Okay. Well, when you look at the—GARY GERSTLE: This is this is not the original cover.AK: Right, so, the book I'm looking at, and for people just listening, I'm going to describe. The dominant picture is of the Berlin Wall being knocked down in the evening of November 1989. It's odd, Gary, isn't it, that...for the rise and fall of the neoliberal order, which is an economic order in a free market era, you should have chosen the image of a political event, which, of course, Fukuyama so famously described as the end of history. And I guess, for you as an economic historian who is also deeply interested and aware of politics, is the challenge and opportunity to always try to disentangle the economics and politics of all this? Or are they so entangled that they're actually impossible to disentangle, to separate?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think sometimes you need to disentangle them, sometimes they move in different directions, and sometimes they move in the same direction. I think to understand the triumph of the neoliberal order, we have to see that politics and economics move in tandem with each other. What makes possible the neoliberal triumph of the 90s is the fall of communism between 1989 and 1991. And no picture embodies that better than the taking down of the Berlin Wall. And that connotes a message of freedom and escape from Soviet and communist tyranny. But the other message there is that tearing down of those walls opens the world to capitalist penetration to a degree that had not been available to the capitalist world since prior to World War One, prior to the war, and most importantly, to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. And where communists came to power everywhere, they either completely excluded or sharply curtailed the ability of capitalist business to operate within their borders. Their message was expropriate private property, which meant expropriate all corporate property. Give it over to the state, let the state manage it in the interest of the proletariat. This was an extraordinary dream that turned into an awful tyrannical outcome. But it animated the world, as few other ideas did in the 20th century, and proposed a very, very serious challenge to capitalist prerogative, to capitalist industry, to free markets. And so the collapse of communism, which is both the collapse of a state—a communist state, the Soviet Union—but perhaps more importantly, the collapse of the belief that any governments could structure the private economy in ways that would be beneficial to humankind. It's what opened the way in the 1990s to the neoliberal triumph. And it's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world. And in the long term—we're in the mid-term—that was going to create inequalities, vulnerabilities to the global financial and economic systems, that were going to bring the global economy down and set off a radically different form of politics than the world had seen for some time. And we're still living through that radically different form of politics set off by the financial crash of 2008/2009, which, in my way of thinking, was a product of untrammeled capitalism conquering the world in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's and communism's collapse.AK: Yeah, and that's the other thing, isn't it, Garry? I mean, it goes without saying that the bringing down of the war fundamentally changed the old Soviet economy, the East European economies, Poland, Hungary, eastern part of Germany. But what no one—I think very, very few people imagined in '89 was that perhaps the biggest consequence of this capitalist penetration wasn't in Warsaw or Moscow or the eastern part of Berlin, but back in West Virginia with guys like JD Vance. How did the bringing down of the wall change America, or at least the American economy? I've never really quite understood that.GARY GERSTLE: Through the mass exporting of manufacturing to other countries that—AK: Wasn't that before? Wasn't that also taking place before '89, or did it happen particularly in the '90s?GARY GERSTLE: It began before 1989. It began during the Great Recession of the 1970s, where the first districts of manufacturing in the U.S., places like Buffalo, New York steelmaking center, began to get hollowed out. But it dramatically intensified in the 1990s, and this had to do with China permitting itself to be a part of this global free market. And China was opened to capitalist penetration from the United States and Europe. And what you saw in that decade was a massive shift of manufacturing to China, a shift that even intensified in the first decade of the 21st century with the admission of China in 2001 to the World Trade Organization. So China was a big factor. Also, the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which rendered the northern half of the Western Hemisphere one common market, like the European Common Market. So, enormous flight of jobs to places like Mexico. And the labor costs in places like China and Mexico, and then East Asia already leaving Japan for Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, parts of the South Asian subcontinent. The flight of jobs there became so massive, and the labor costs there were so cheap, that American industry couldn't compete. And what you begin to see is the hollowing out of American industry, American manufacturing, and whole districts of America just beginning to rot. And no new industries or no new economies taking the place of the industries and the jobs that had left. And this America was being ignored, largely in the 1990s and first decade of the 21st century, in part because the ideology of neoliberalism said, we understand that this global free market is going to increase inequality in the world, it's going to increase the distance between rich and poor, but the distance between rich and poor is okay because all boats will rise. All people will benefit. This is not just an American story, this is also the story of other parts of the North Atlantic economy. Britain certainly, Germany was a partial exception, France, other places, and this was the ideology...growth would benefit everyone, and this was not the case. It was a fallacy. But the ideology was so strong that it held together until the financial crash of 2008/2009. After that crash, it became impossible to make the point that all boats were rising under the neoliberal regime. And this is when the forgotten Americans and the forgotten Brits of the northern part of the of Great Britain. This is when they began to make their voices heard. This is when they began to strike a very different note in politics. And this is where Donald Trump had his beginnings with these forgotten, angry people who felt ignored, left behind, and were suffering greatly, because by the early decades of the 21st century, it wasn't just jobs that were gone, but it was healthy marital life, divorce rates rising, rampant drug use. Two Cambridge economists wrote a book called Depths of Despair.AK: Yeah, that book comes up in almost every conversation. I once went down to Princeton to interview Angus Deaton. Like your book, it's become a classic. So let's fast forward, Gary, to the last election. I know you're writing a book now about politics in our time of authoritarianism, and you're scratching your head and asking whether the election last week was a normal or an apocryphal one, one that's just different or historical. And I wonder, in that sense, correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to have been two elections simultaneously. On the one hand, it was very normal, from the Democrats' point of view, who treated America as if it was normal. Harris behaves as if she was just another Democratic candidate. And, of course, Trump, who didn't. My interpretation, maybe it's a bit unfair, is that it's the progressives. It's certainly the coastal elites who have become, implicitly at least, the defenders of the old neoliberal order. For them, it kind of works. It's not ideal, but it works and they can't imagine anything else. And it's the conservatives who have attacked it, the so-called conservatives. Is there any truth to that in the last election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think the Democrats are certainly seen by vast sectors of the population as being the defenders of an old order, of established institutions controlling the media, although I think that's less and less true because the legacy media has less and less influence and shows like yours, podcasting and rogue Fox Television and all kinds of other outlets, are increasingly influential. But yes, the Democrats are seen as a party of the establishment. They are seen as the party of the educated elite. And one of the factors that determines who votes for who now is now deeply educational in the sense of, what is your level of educational achievement? If you are college educated, you're much more likely to vote Democratic, regardless of your income. And if you're high school educated or less, you're much more likely to vote Republican. I don't think it's fair to say that the Democrats are the last protectors of the neoliberal order, because Biden broke with the neoliberal order in major, consequential ways. If the defining characteristic of the neoliberal order is to free the market from constraints and to use the state only to free up market forces—this was true, to a large extent, of Obama and of Clinton—Biden broke with that, and he did it in alliance with Bernie Sanders, set of task forces they set up in 2020 to design a new administration. And his major pieces of legislation, reshoring CHIPS manufacture, the biggest investment in clean energy in the country's history. $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the biggest infrastructure project since the interstate highway system of the '50s, and arguably since Roosevelt's fabled New Deal. These are all about industrial policy. These are all about the government using its power and resources to direct industry in a certain way so that it will increase general happiness, general welfare, general employment. So this represents a profound change from what had come before. And in that way, the Biden administration can't be seen as the last defenders.“The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims?”AK: And let me jump in here, Gary, there's another really important question. There was a very interesting piece, I'm sure you saw it, by Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker about Bidenomics and its achievements. You talked about the New Deal, the massive amount of investments—it was post COVID, they took advantage of the historical crisis. Trillions of dollars have been invested in new technologies. Is Bidenomics new in any way? Or is it basically just a return to the economics, or the political economy, of FDR?GARY GERSTLE: Well, it certainly draws inspiration from FDR, because at the core of the New Deal was the conviction that you could use government to direct industry to positive uses that would benefit not just the corporations, but the population as a whole. But there was nothing like the Green Energy Project in the New Deal. The New Deal, except for hydroelectric projects, was primarily about prospering on a cheap fossil fuel economy. The New Deal also was very comfortable with accepting prevailing gender and race conceptions of the proper place of women and African Americans in American life in a way that is unacceptable to Bidenomics. So there are redirections under Bidenomics in ways that modify the New Deal inspiration. But at its core, Bidenomics is modeled on the New Deal conviction that you need a strong federal government to point industry in the right direction. And so in that sense, there's a fundamental similarity in those two progressive projects. And I think people in the Biden administration have been quite conscious about that. Now, the particular challenges are different. The world economy is different. The climate crisis is upon us. So, it is going to take different forms, have different outcomes. But the inspiration clearly comes from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.AK: Well, let's go over to the other side and Trump. You scratching your head and figuring out whether this is unusual. And of course, it's the second time he's won an election. This time around, he seems to be overtly hostile to the state. He's associated with Musk, who's promised to essentially decimate the state. In historical terms, Gary, is there anything unusual about this? I mean, certainly the opponents of FDR were also very hostile to this emergent American state. As a historian, do you see this as something new, the pleasure in essentially blowing the state up, or at least the promise of blowing the state up?GARY GERSTLE: That impulse is not new. There have been members of the Republican party who have been talking this language since the New Deal arrived in America in the 1930s and '40s during the '50s and '60s and early '70s, they were marginal in American politics. And then with the neoliberal order coming into being in the '70s and with Reagan as president, their voice has gained enormous traction. One of Reagan's key advisors in the 1980s and 1990s, one of his favorite lines was, “I want to shrink the size of the federal government until we can drown it in the bathtub.” It's a wonderful image and metaphor, and captures the intensity with which conservative Republicans have wanted to eliminate the strong centralized state. But they have not been able to do it to a degree that makes that have satisfied them. It turns out that Americans, for all their possible ideological opposition to big government like big parts of it, like Social Security, like Medicare, like a strong military establishment that's gonna protect the country, like clean air, clean water. So it's proved much more difficult for this edifice to be taken down than the Reaganites had imagined it would be. So, the advocates have become more radical because of decades of frustration. And what we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine, as the abortion issue signifies. What they have in mind is corporate freedom. The freedom of Elon Musk's companies to do whatever they want to do. The freedom of the social media companies to do whatever they want to do. The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims? Peter Thiel has said, very forthrightly, that democracy no longer works as a system, and that America has to consider other systems in order to have the kind of prosperity and freedom it wants. And one thing that bears watching with this new Trump administration is how many supporters the Peter Thiel's and the Elon Musk's are going to have to be free to tear down the edifice and the institutions of the federal government and pursuit of a goal of a reconfigured, and what I would call rogue, laissez-faire. This is something to watch.AK: But Gary, I take your point. I mean, Thiel's been, on the West Coast, always been a convenient punchbag for the left for years now, I punched him many times myself. I wanted to. But all this seems to be just the wet dream of neoliberals. So you have Musk and Thiel doing away with government. Huge corporations, no laws. This is the neoliberal wet dream, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Well, partly it is. But neoliberalism always depended on a structure of law enforced by government that was necessary to allow free markets to operate in a truly free and transparent manner. In other words, you needed elements of a strong government to perfect markets, that markets were not perfect if they were left to their own devices. And one of the dangers of the Elon Musk phase of the Trump administration is that this edifice of law on which corporations and capitalism thrives will be damaged in the pursuit of a radical libertarianism. Now, there may very well be a sense that cooler heads prevail in the Trump administration, and that this scenario will not come to fruition. But one certainly has to be aware that this is one of the possible outcomes of a Trump administration. I should also say that there's another very important constituency in the Republican party that wants to continue, not dismantle, what Biden has done with industrial policies. This is the other half of JD Vance's brain. This is Tom Cotton. This is Marco Rubio, this is Josh Hawley, senator from Missouri. And they want to actively use the government to regulate industry in the public interest. And there's a very interesting intellectual convergence going on between left of center and right of center intellectuals and policymakers who are converging on the importance of having an industrial policy, because if Elon Musk is given his way, how is the abandoned heartland going to come back?AK: It's cheering me up, Gary, because what you're suggesting is that this is a fairly normal moment. You've got different wings of the Republican Party. You've got the Cottons and the Rubios, who were certainly not revolutionary. Why should we believe that this is a special moment then?GARY GERSTLE: January 6th, 2021. That's the reason. Trump remains the only president in American history to authorize an attack on the very seat of American democracy. That being: Congress sitting in the Capitol. And once he authorized the attack, he waited for three hours hoping that his attackers and his mob would conquer this building and compel the legislators inside to do—AK: And I take your perspective. I'm the last person to defend that. But we're talking about 2024 and not 2021. He won the election fairly. No one's debating that. So, why is 2024 a special election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, here's the key. Well, maybe it's a special election in two ways. It may signify the reconfiguration of a genuinely populist Republican party around the needs of ordinary working-class Americans. And we should say, in this regard, that Trump has brought into his coalition significant numbers of Latinos, young blacks. It has the beginning of a look of a multiracial coalition that the Democrats once had, but now appear to be losing. So it may be an epochal moment in that regard. The other way in which it may be an epochal moment is: what if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way? That's how January 6th, 2021, still matters. I'm not saying he's going to do that, but I think we have to understand that that is a possibility, especially since he has shown no remorse for the outcome of the last election. If I read into your comments, I hear you saying: he won this time. He doesn't have to worry about losing. But Trump is always worried about losing. And he is a man who doesn't really know the Constitution, and the parts that he knows and understands he doesn't especially like, because his dream, along with Elon Musk's dream, and this is one reason why I think they are melding so tightly, at the apex of American government should be unbounded executive power. This is not how the country was set up. And as Congress and as the courts begin to push back, will he accept those limits, that there must be bounds on executive power? Or will he try and break through them? I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's something that we have to be concerned about.AK: I wonder, again, wearing your historical cap you're always doing, the more you talk, the more Trump and Trump's Republican party is Nixonian. This obsession with not being responsible for the law. The broadening of the Republican party. Certainly the Republican party under Nixon was less singularly white than it became later. Isn't, in some ways, Trump just a return to Nixon? And secondly, you're talking about the law and Trump ransacking the law. But on the other hand, everything he always does is always backed up by the law. So, he has a love hate relationship with the law himself. He could never have accomplished anything he's done without hiring all these expensive lawyers. I don't know if you saw the movie this year, The Apprentice, which is built on his relationship with what's with Roy Cohn, of course, who schooled him in American politics, who was McCarthy's lawyer. So, again, I'm not trying to defend Trump, but my point is: what's different here?GARY GERSTLE: Well, a key difference from Nixon is that when push came to shove, Nixon submitted to the rule of law, and Trump did not. Nixon did not unleash his people on Congress when a group of senators came to him and said you're going to be impeached if you stay in office, you should resign. He resigned. So the '70s was a moment of enormous assertion of the power of Congress, and assertion of the power and authority of the Constitution. That is not the story of Donald Trump. The story of Donald Trump is the story of the Constitution being pushed to the side. If you ask, is there anything new about Americans and politicians trying to manipulate the law in their favor? There's nothing new about that. And Trump, having made his fortune in New York real estate, knows there's no such thing as perfect markets, knows that judges can be bought and corrupted. And so, he has very little regard for the authority of courts. Everything's a transaction. Everything can be bought and sold. So, he understands that, and he has used the law to his advantage when he can. But let me bring you back to his first inauguration speech. There was no mention of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution in what he had to say that day. I think we'd be hard pressed to find another inaugural speech that makes no reference to the sacred documents having to do with the founding of the American Republic. And so I think in that way, he is something new and represents, potentially, a different kind of threat. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's certainly possible. And let me add one other element that we have to consider, because I'm suggesting that he has a fondness for forms of authoritarian rule, and we have to recognize that hard rights are on the march everywhere in the world right now. The social democratic government of Germany has just fallen. Britain may soon be alone in terms of having a left-center party in control and upholding the values of liberal democracy. The world is in a grip of an authoritarian surge. That is not an American phenomenon. It is an international phenomenon. It is not a phenomenon I understand well enough, but if we're to understand the kind of strongman tendencies that Trump is exhibiting, the appeal of the strongman tendencies to so many Americans, we have to understand the international context in which this is occurring. And these movements in these different countries are fully aware of each other. They draw strength from each other's victories, and they get despairing from each other's defeats. So this is an international movement and an international project, and it's important, in that regard, to set Trump in that historical context.AK: Final question, Gary, there's so much here, we'll have to get you back on the show again in the new year. There's certainly, as you suggested, a great deal of vitality to conservatives, to the Cottons, the JD Vances, the Steve Bannons of the world. But what about on the left? We talked earlier, you sort of pushed back a little bit on the idea that the progressive elites aren't defenders of the neoliberal order, but you kind of acknowledged there may be a little bit of truth in that. In response to this new conservatism, which, as you suggested, is in some ways quite old, what can and should progressives do, rather than just falling back on Bidenomics and reliance on a new deal—which isn't going to happen now given that they had the opportunity in the COVID crisis to spend lots of money, which didn't have any impact on this election, for better or worse. Is there a need to re-architect the progressive politics in our new age, the age of AI, a high-tech age? Or do we simply allow the Bernie Sanders of the world to fall back on 20th-century progressive ideas?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I'm not sure where AI is taking us. AI may be taking us out of democracy altogether. I think one of—AK: You're not giving it any chance, if that's the case.“What if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way?”GARY GERSTLE: Well, there are different versions of AI that will be coming. But the state of the world right now suggests that democracy is on the defensive, and authoritarianism is is on the march. Those who predict the death of democracy have been wrong in the past. So I'm not predicting it here, but we have to understand that there are elements of life, technology, power in in private hands today, that make democracy much harder to do effectively. And so, this is a period of reflection that groups who care about democracy at all points on the political spectrum have to be thinking very seriously about. As for the here and now, and politicians don't think in terms of 10 or 20 years—or you have to be a leader in China, where you can think in terms of 10 or 20-year projects, because you never have to face any election and being tossed out of office—but in the here and now, I think what Democrats have to be very aware of, that the party that they thought they were is the party that the Republican Party has become, or is becoming: a multiracial, working-class party. And if the Democrats are to flourish—and in that regard, it's very significant—AK: It's astonishing, really.GARY GERSTLE: It is astonishing. And it's important to to note that Trump is the first Republican nominee for president since George W. Bush in 2004 to get a majority of votes. And the only person to do it before him in the last 30 years was his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988. Kamala Harris came within 200,000 votes of becoming president of the United States. That's not well enough understood yet. But if 200,000 votes had changed in three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she would be the president elect of the United States. However, she would have been the president elect while losing the popular vote. And one has to go very far back in history to find the Democrats being the beneficiaries of the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. And I think the fact that they lost the popular vote for only the third time in the last 50 years, maybe? I mean, when they elected someone...has to suggest that they have to do some serious thinking about how to reclaim this. Now, Bernie Sanders is coming out and saying, they should have gotten me on the public stage rather than Liz Cheney, that going after suburban Republican women was the wrong route. You should have stuck with me. We had a left/center alliance that worked in 2020. We could have done it again. But that's not my reading of the situation. My reading of the situation is that Bernie-style politics is distinctly less popular in 2024 than it was in 2020. The Democrats have to figure that out, and they have to figure out what they have to do in order to reclaim majorities in American life. And in order to do that, I think their economic programs are actually on the right track, in that respect, under the Biden administration. I think they probably have to rethink some of their cultural policies. There were three issues in this election. The economy was number one. The immigration issue was number two. And then, the trans issue was number three. The Republicans ran an estimated 30,000 ads declaring that the Democratic party was going to take your children away by turning them from boys to girls or girls to boys. The Democratic party has to do some hard thinking about how to have a progressive policy on immigration and how to have a progressive policy on issues of trans matters without losing a majority of the American people, who clearly are, at this moment, not with them on those important issues.AK: It's an astonishing moment, Gary. And I'm not sure whether it's a revolutionary moment or just surreal.GARY GERSTLE: Well, you've been pressing me, on a number of occasions, as to whether this is just the normal course of American politics, and if we look in that direction, the place to look for normality is...incumbents always do badly in high-inflationary times. And Ford and Carter lost in the 1970s. Every incumbent during COVID and during the inflationary period in Europe seems to have lost a recent election. The most normal course of politics is to say, this is an exceptional moment having to do with the enormity of COVID and what was required to shut down the economy, saved people, and then getting started up again, and we will see something more normal, the Democrats will be back to what they normally do, in 2028. That's a possibility. I think the more plausible possibility is that we are in the midst of some pretty profound electoral realignment that is giving rise to a different kind of political order. And the Democrats have to figure out if that political order is going to be under their direction, what they have to do to pull that off. AK: And maybe rather than the neoliberal order, we're talking about, what, a neo-authoritarian order? Is that—GARY GERSTLE: Well, the Trump forces are maybe neo-authoritarian, but we don't have a name for it. Pete Buttigieg—AK: Well, that's why we got you on the show, Gary. Don't you have a name for it?GARY GERSTLE: No. You know—AK: We're relying on you. I hope it's going to be in your next book.GARY GERSTLE: Well, I have till January 20th, 2025, to come up with the name. Pete Buttigieg called it the Big Deal rather than the New Deal. I don't think that cuts it. And there's some other pundits who are arguing about building from the middle out. That doesn't cut it.AK: That sounds terrible. That sounds like—GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's—AK: Designing political parties by committee. It's like an American car.GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's problem. You can't name, effectively, in a positive way, what he's done. One thing that's going to happen—and this may be a sign that things will continue from Biden to Trump, in terms of industrial policy. Do you have any doubt that Trump is going to plaster his name on every computer chips plant, every battery factory? Trump brought this to you, he's got to be there for every opening. He's not going to miss a beat. He'll see this as a grand publicity tour. I think there's a good chance he will take credit for what Biden has started, and that's going to upset a lot of us. But it may also signify that he may be loath to abandon many of these industrial policies that Biden has put in place, especially since the Biden administration was very clever in putting most of these plants, and chip plants, and battery plants, in deep red Republican districts.AK: Well, Gary, I know you're not particularly cheerful. I don't suppose most of our audience are, but you actually cheered me up. I think things are a little bit more normal than some people think. But we will get you back on the show after January—what did you say—January 25th, when you'll have a word to describe the New World Order?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I said after January 20th, 2025, you can expect me to have a name. I probably should—AK: Gary, now, we'll have you back on the show. If you don't have a name, I'm going to report you to Trump.GARY GERSTLE: You'll have to bury me.AK: Yeah. Okay. Well, we're not burying you. We need you, Gary Gerstle, author of Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, a man who makes sense of our present with historical perspective. Gary, as always, a pleasure. Keep well and keep safe. And we'll talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.GERSTLE: Thank you. A pleasure talking with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Higher Ed Spotlight, we speak with Nicholas Lemann, professor of journalism at Columbia University, about his latest book, Higher Admissions: The Rise, Decline, and Return of Standardized Testing. Twenty-five years after his seminal work, The Big Test, Lemann revisits the role of standardized testing in college admissions during a pivotal moment in higher education.  With debates reigniting around the SAT—particularly following the Supreme Court's ruling overturning affirmative action and the reinstatement of the test by some colleges—Lemann explores the SAT's history in shaping the elite academic institutions, and its broader impact on student access to higher education. Lemann also considers the value of standardized scores and the potential move towards evaluating students through curriculum-based mastery. Higher Ed Spotlight is sponsored by Chegg's Center for Digital Learning and aims to explore the future of higher education. It is produced by Antica Productions.  

Do you really deserve the credit for your accomplishments? Should college admissions be determined by lottery? And how did Mike's contribution to a charity auction change his life?  SOURCES:Warren Buffett, investor and philanthropist.James Flynn, political philosopher at the University of Otago.Robert Frank, professor emeritus of management at Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.Rogé Karma, staff writer at The Atlantic.Nicholas Lemann, professor of journalism and dean emeritus at Columbia Journalism School.Daniel Markovits, professor of law at Yale Law School.Charles Munger, investor and philanthropist.John Rawls, 20th-century legal and political philosopher.Guy Raz, creator and host of How I Built This and Wisdom from the Top; founder and C.E.O. of Built-It Productions.Michael Sandel, professor of government at Harvard University.Martin Seligman, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.Ryan Smith, founder and executive chairman of Qualtrics; owner of the Utah Jazz. RESOURCES:The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael Sandel (2020).The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite, by Daniel Markovits (2019)."'The Meritocracy Trap,' Explained," by Rogé Karma (Vox, 2019)."Reflections About Intelligence Over 40 Years," by James Flynn (Intelligence, 2018)."Here's Why Warren Buffett Says That He and Charlie Munger Are Successful," by Emmie Martin (CNBC, 2018).Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, by Robert Frank (2016).The Lottery, film by Madeleine Sackler (2010).The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lemann (1999).“The Psychology of Human Misjudgment,” speech by Charles Munger (1995). EXTRAS:"What's the Point of I.Q. Testing?" by No Stupid Questions (2023)."What's So Bad About Nepotism?" by No Stupid Questions (2022).

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at the New Yorker and a professor of journalism at Columbia. He is the author of four books, the most recent of which is Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream (FSG, 2019). Lemann spoke at the Institute about Transaction Man in 2019. Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'--and the world's--great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope "networks" can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. Since 1977, the New York Institute for the Humanities has brought together distinguished scholars, writers, artists, and publishing professionals to foster crucial discussions around the public humanities. For more information and to support the NYIH, visit nyihumanities.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

528. We talk to Nicholas Lemann, a journalist who grew up in Louisiana, about his book, Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. "Nicholas Lemann opens this extraordinary book with a riveting account of the horrific events of Easter 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana, where a white militia of Confederate veterans-turned-vigilantes attacked the black community there and massacred hundreds of people in a gruesome killing spree. This began an insurgency that changed the course of American history: for the next few years white Southern Democrats waged a campaign of political terrorism aiming to overturn the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and challenge President Grant's support for the emergent structures of black political power. Redemption is the first book to describe in uncompromising detail this organized racial violence, which reached its apogee in Mississippi in 1875" (Goodreads). This week in Louisiana history. June 23 1813 Records show W.C.C. Claiborne used pelican and motto as state seal for first time This week in New Orleans history. One of the lengthiest and most violent transit railway strikes the nation ever experienced began in New Orleans on July 1, 1929. Although an agreement was reached in August, the union members did not agree to go back to work until October. What good fortune could possibly come out of the misfortune just described? It was the beginning of the famous New Orleans sandwich called the po-boy. Benny and Clovis Martin, owners of Martin Brothers Restaurant on St. Claude Street (Avenue), were grateful for the business they enjoyed. Many of those who frequented their place of business were the street railway workers. This week in Louisiana. Rock The Red on the 4th of July Sponsored by City of Alexandria Downtown Amphitheatre, Time:  5 p.m. Tim Turner Band.  6:30 p.m. Keith Frank and the Soileau Zydeco Band.  9 p.m. Fireworks. Cost:  Admission free. Call:  (318) 449-5051.  Monday, July 4, 2023 Website Postcards from Louisiana. 30°/90° on Frenchmen St. Listen on Google Play. Listen on Google Podcasts. Listen on Spotify. Listen on Stitcher. Listen on TuneIn. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook. 

WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL OF EDUCATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE? British Physician, Ben Goldacre, 2013 says “I think there is a huge prize waiting to be claimed by teachers. By collecting better evidence about what works best and establishing a culture where this evidence is used as a matter of routine, we can improve outcomes for children, and increase professional independence.” Watch this interview on YouTube here https://youtu.be/Uh1BZOTGZQc On today's Episode #269 we will cover ✔  Professor Michael S.C. Thomas' new book Educational Neuroscience: The Basics ✔  Where is educational neuroscience NOW? Where it began, and where it's going. ✔ How this book can help students improve how they learn.  ✔ How this look at Educational Neuroscience can help us to become better teachers. ✔ The difference between evidence-based and neuroscience-based. ✔ Where we should ALL begin. What IS the BASICS of Neuroscience? ✔ What makes something forgettable and another thing memorable? ✔ Ways to make learning easier.   Welcome back to The Neuroscience Meets Social and Emotional Learning Podcast where we bridge the gap between theory and practice, with strategies, tools and ideas we can all use immediately, applied to the most current brain research to heighten productivity in our schools, sports environments and modern workplaces. I'm Andrea Samadi and launched this podcast almost 4 years ago, to share how important an understanding of our brain is for our everyday life and results. This season (Season 9) we will be focused on Neuroscience: Going Back to the Basics for the next few months, as we welcome some phenomenal pioneers in the field of Neuroscience, paving a pathway for all of us to navigate our lives with more understanding with our brain in mind. My goal with this next season (that will run until the end of June) is that going back to the basics will help us to strengthen our understanding of the brain, and our mind, to our results, and provide us with a springboard to propel us forward in 2023, with this solid backbone of science.  Today's guest and EPISODE #269, I've been wanting to have on this podcast since I came across his work in the field of educational neuroscience around the time we interviewed Dr. Daniel Ansari, back in June 2021 for EPISODE #138.[i] I saw their Annual Research Review: (called) Educational Neuroscience progress from April 2019, written by Michael S.C. Thomas, Daniel Ansari and Victoria C.P. Rowland that provided a thorough overview of the origins of educational neuroscience, outlining where it began, the challenges it faces as a “translational field” and addressed it's major criticisms.  I immediately wrote down Michael S.C. Thomas' name, along with his email address, to reach out to him to learn more of his perspective in this field. Since I was interviewing Dr. Daniel Ansari, it brought something to light for me that the people who write these research reports that we find on Pubmed.gov, are working hard somewhere, and not completely out of reach if you really want to find them, and ask them some questions about their work.  When I finally emailed him, I was thrilled to hear he had a NEW book Educational Neuroscience: The Basics[ii] and am grateful to have this opportunity to speak with him about this new book. Before we meet our next guest, Michael S.C. Thomas, let me orient you to his work. Michael S. C. Thomas is a Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at Birkbeck University of London. Since 2010, he has been Director of the Centre for Educational Neuroscience, a cross-institutional research centre which aims to further translational research between neuroscience and education, and establish new transdisciplinary accounts in the learning sciences. In 2003, Michael established the Developmental Neurocognition Laboratory within Birkbeck's world-leading Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development. The focus of his laboratory is to use multi-disciplinary methods to understand the brain, including behavioural, brain imaging, computational, and genetic methods. In 2006, the lab was the co-recipient of the Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher Education, for the project “Neuropsychological work with the very young: understanding brain function and cognitive development”. Michael is a Chartered Psychologist, Fellow of the British Psychological Society, Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, and board member of the International Mind Brain and Education Society. Let's meet Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Michael S. C. Thomas, from Birkbeck University of London and see what we can learn about Educational Neuroscience: The Basics. Welcome Michael, thank you for sticking with me as we made this interview happen. I've been wanting to speak with you for so many years that I was trying to change Wednesday yesterday to Thursday to speed up time because I know how important this new book is, and am so very grateful for this chance to learn more about this topic directly from you. Thank you for being here today. INTRO: How did you find your way towards studying the brain as it relates to our educational system and establish the Developmental Neurocognition Laboratory within Birkbeck's Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development? If I look at Unlocke.org[iii] is this where your research is based? Moving towards your NEW book, Educational Neuroscience: The Basics that is the reason we are here today, what can you tell us about writing this new book with Cathy Rogers, who moved to this field of neuroscience after years of producing science television shows. I can only imagine how her background in television and film contributed to this book. Q1: When I first came across your work, it was when I was interviewing Dr. Daniel Ansari, and I found the Annual Research Review[iv] you wrote with him and Victoria Knowland. I don't often sit and read through Pubmed in my spare time, but I was working on a paper for a Neuroscience Certification that required me to know how to navigate through the research,  and after reading your report, this was the first time I was ever aware of criticisms in this field (this was before I learned about the Reading Wars[v]). Then I read Dr. Ansari's review Bridges over troubled waters[vi] and I wonder if you could bring our listeners up to speed of where this field began, where it is now (you say “it's barely out of the gates” and where do you see it going? Q2: This brings us back to your new book with Cathy Rogers, Educational Neuroscience: The Basics that is an introduction to this interdisciplinary field. British physician Ben Goldacre said that there's “a huge prize waiting to be claimed by teachers” with this book. What are your goals with this book, Educational Neuroscience: The Basics, and how do you see it improving outcomes for students, like Ben Goldacre mentioned, while “increasing professional independence” for our next generation of teachers? Q3: I've seen some graphics made over the years that show how Neuroeducation consists of the Pedagogy of Education and Learning, Neuroscience, with the brain and its functioning, and Psychology, combining the mind and behavior. (The 3 circles interconnecting) with Neuroeducation in the middle.  With your research between neuroscience and education, and your background in psychology, how would you draw this diagram? What disciplines would you say make up Educational Neuroscience? Q3B: I loved seeing a book that really does go back to the basics. This is fundamental for all of us, whether we work in the classroom with our students, in sports environments, or in the corporate workplace. I saw some of your testimonials at the start of the book say that “this book is essential reading for anyone who wants to learn how the brain works to enable learning” and after reading Chapter 1, I wonder “why do we need educational neuroscience, how can it help us to understand how we learn, and help us to become better teachers? Andrea thinks that Michael has answered this question, with the idea that we want our students to use movement, manage their emotions, and social interactions, so these don't get in the way of learning, thinking and cognition. Q4: Can we go next to the research. This question would benefit those who create programs for schools, or for those who are selling programs to schools, or even for those who work in schools to understand this difference. I've spent countless hours (from a program creator point of view) trying to figure this out for certain funding buckets. What is the distinction between “evidence-based” and “neuroscience-based and does one provide a more guaranteed outcome for student success?” Q5: When I read of the survey you mentioned of the teachers of Wellcome Trust (Simmonds, 2014) that found a high level of interest in neuroscience and 60% of teachers said they “knew little” about how the brain works, and 82% said they wanted to learn more, it reminded me of why we launched this podcast to help bring together all the leaders in the field like you said to address this “unmet appetite for neuroscience knowledge.” But then when asked about their current use it was noted there were many tools, and products that claimed to boost a student's brain level, without the evidence. I know that CASEL has a program rating system for social and emotional learning programs, but what do you is there a rating systems for neuroscience or evidence- based programs? Q6: I love that you quoted David A. Sousa (Hart, 1999, Sousa, 2011) in Chapter 1 with his quote that “teachers are the only people whose specific job is to change the connections between neurons in their students' brains.”  He's been on our podcast twice, most recently EP197[vii] with his 6th edition of How the Brain Learns was our third most listened to episode of 2022. I've got to say that when I was first handed his books back in 2014, and asked to add neuroscience to the character and leadership programs I had created for the school market, I took one look at the images of the brain, or even how our memory works, and I felt overwhelmed, and almost didn't go in this direction. What would you say to someone who looks at the word neuroscience, and feels the same level of intimidation that I felt in the beginning. Where should someone begin? What are the BASICS of Neuroscience? Plasticity Learning and Altering Neuron Connections Memories/Forgetting Q7: What makes something unforgettable while other things we struggle to remember?   Q8: To sum this all up, In chapter 5, Thinking is Hard, and different types of memories perform different types of functions, or working with memory for specific things or events. Then you cover “We feel, therefore we learn.” (Immordino-Yang & Damasio). What should we all take away to help us to all understand Neuroscience: The Basics and make learning easier?       If thinking is hard, why is learning harder? What makes learning easier?   Michael, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to come on the podcast (all the way from the UK) and for sharing your new book Neuroscience: The Basics with us. For people who want to purchase the book, is the best place https://www.routledge.com/Educational-Neuroscience-The-Basics/Rogers-Thomas/p/book/9781032028552#     CONTACT MICHAEL S.C. THOMAS Email m.thomas@bbk.ac.uk Research Unlocke.org   BUY Educational Neuroscience: The Basics   Educational Neuroscience: The Basics by Cathy Rogers and Michael S.C. Thomas Published November 15, 2022 https://www.routledge.com/Educational-Neuroscience-The-Basics/Rogers-Thomas/p/book/9781032028552#   Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Educational-Neuroscience-Basics-Cathy-Rogers/dp/1032028556   Professor Michael Thomas at Birkbeck University of London https://www.bbk.ac.uk/our-staff/profile/8006159/michael-thomas#overview   Center for Educational Neuroscience http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/   YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMlW1aThiDY5TB8uxS3DU0w       Stay tuned for Michael's NEXT book How the Brian Works.   Thank you!   REFERENCES:   [i] https://andreasamadi.podbean.com/e/professor-and-canada-research-chair-in-developmental-cognitive-neuroscience-and-learning-on-the-future-of-educational-neuroscience/   [ii] Educational Neuroscience: The Basics by Cathy Rogers and Michael S.C. Thomas Published November 15, 2022 https://www.routledge.com/Educational-Neuroscience-The-Basics/Rogers-Thomas/p/book/9781032028552#   [iii] https://www.unlocke.org/team.php   [iv] Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects by Michael S.C. Thomas, Daniel Ansari and Victoria C.P. Knowland (April 2019)  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6487963/   [v] The Reading Wars by Nicholas Lemann  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/11/the-reading-wars/376990/   [vi] Bridges over troubled waters: education and cognitive neuroscience by Daniel Ansari, Donna Coch March 10, 2006 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16530462/   [vii] Neuroscience Meets Social and Emotional Learning Podcast EPISODE #197 with David A Sousa on “What's NEW with the 6th Edition of How Your Brain Learns” https://andreasamadi.podbean.com/e/returning-guest-dr-david-a-sousa-on-what-s-new-with-the-6th-edition-of-how-the-brain-learns/

With the midterms hitting this week, the Democratic party is taking stock of what worked and what didn't. New Yorker staff writer Nicholas Lemann joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the blind spots the party has – like focusing too heavily on college-educated voters – and which policies the Republicans might be messaging in a clearer fashion. His article is called “Only Connect.”

Howard Bryant of ESPN and Meadowlark Media talks with Bomani Jones about his new biography of Hall of Fame OF Rickey Henderson, titled "Rickey" (1:56). They get into Henderson's impact on the sport, how much the culture of the sport has changed, and how the city of Oakland has played a role in all of it. Plus, Howard's take on the NBA Finals thus far (38:22). The Right Time Recommends... “Rickey: The Life and Legend of an American Original” by Howard Bryant “The Warmth of Other Suns” by Isabel Wilkerson “The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and how it Changed America” by Nicholas Lemann

This week on “The Learning Curve,” guest co-host Kerry McDonald talks with Nicholas Lemann, Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Columbia School of Journalism, and author of the books, The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America, and The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. He reviews […]

This week on “The Learning Curve,” guest co-host Kerry McDonald talks with Nicholas Lemann, Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Columbia School of Journalism, and author of the books, The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America, and The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. Source

This week on “The Learning Curve,” guest co-host Kerry McDonald talks with Nicholas Lemann, Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Columbia School of Journalism, and author of the books, The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America, and The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. Source

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases, one involving Harvard and the other the University of North Carolina, that could reshape college admissions. Both schools are being accused of race-based discrimination in their admission practices. In the coming year, the court will examine whether it's lawful for college admissions offices to consider a student's race.These cases and others have brought into focus the role affirmative action plays in higher education, and whether it helps or impedes the overall goal of achieving racial equity on college campuses.So the question Jane debates this week is: Should we end affirmative action?On today's episode, the Opinion writer Jay Caspian Kang sets the stage by sharing with Jane his view that affirmative action policies merely make for “cosmetically diverse” campuses, rather than contributing to broader social justice initiatives.Jay and Jane's conversation is followed by a debate between two guests with starkly different views. Ian Rowe, the former chief executive of Public Prep, a nonprofit charter school network, believes that race-based affirmative action needs to be retired in favor of class-based solutions. Natasha Warikoo, a professor of sociology at Tufts University, believes affirmative action is worth saving, and we should find ways to reframe it.What is your take on affirmative action: end it, or keep it? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on this page once you've listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:Jay Caspian Kang's newsletter on politics, culture and the economy.Natasha Warikoo's book “The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions and Meritocracy at Elite Universities.”“The State Must Provide: Why America's Colleges Have Always Been Unequal — And How to Set Them Right,” by Adam Harris.“Can Affirmative Action Survive?” by Nicholas Lemann in The New Yorker.“Affirmative Action Shouldn't Be About Diversity,” by Kimberly Reyes in The Atlantic.

Henry Chauncey Jr. – better known as Sam – became a dean at Yale during the 1950s when he was still a college senior. He has been affiliated Yale in various capacities ever since. From 1964 to 1971 he was special assistant to Kingman Brewster Jr., Yale's controversial 17th president, who transformed and modernized the university along meritocratic lines while holding the institution together during the turmoil of the 1960s. Chauncey also served as secretary of the university from 1971 to 1981. In this podcast interview, Sam discusses his father, Henry Chauncey Sr., who was a pivotal figure in the history of meritocracy and one of the central characters in Nicholas Lemann's 1999 bestseller The Big Test. The elder Chauncey founded the Educational Testing Service in 1947, the entity that still administers the SAT to college-bound high school seniors. Sam also analyzes the changes in American society that impacted higher education during the 20th century, the shifting composition and priorities of university students and leaders at selective institutions, the threats to free speech on campuses today, and the qualities of effective administrators.

Calls are growing for the dismantling of the meritocracy—educational systems and economic structures that claim to elevate individuals based on merit, but instead favor those with wealth or racial privilege. As elites turn against the very merit-based systems that elevated them, governments, corporations, schools, and other entities are extending old policies—like affirmative action—and embracing new initiatives for equity and inclusion. But as we rid our society of standardized tests, “gifted” schools and programs, and traditional corporate hierarchies, finding new methods of evaluation and promotion is proving difficult. What value, if any, do the ideas of merit and merit-based decision-making retain in this moment of reassessment? What were the origins and intentions of those who created merit-based systems for scholarships and federal employment, and how have those systems fallen short? Do today's profound social inequalities reflect a fundamental failure of the idea of meritocracy, or a corruption of an ideal that needs mending? “The Aristocracy of Talent” author and The Economist political editor Adrian Wooldridge, Columbia University sociologist Jennifer Lee, and Malissia R. Clinton, vice president, general counsel and secretary at The Aerospace Corporation, visited Zócalo to explore whether there is any merit left in meritocracy. This Zócalo event was moderated by New Yorker staff writer Nicholas Lemann. Read more about our panelists here: https://zps.la/3cjL6OA For a full report on the live discussion, check out the Takeaway: https://zps.la/3wX4oor Visit https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/ to read our articles and learn about upcoming events. Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepublicsquare Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepublicsquare/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/zocalopublicsquare LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/z-calo-public-square

Black Intellectual leaders .   Because I think race is the single most critical and most divisive issue in American politics, I always included a unit on Black politics in my course on American government.  And in my course on Revolution.   And in my Honors course.  The approaches in these three courses were very different but they all followed a theme:  resistance to injustice.    There are two podcasts on Black leaders. One is on Political leaders, one on intellectual leaders.  This is the lecture on Intellectual leaders.  These are people who write books and analyze situations.  The other talk is on those who take leadership positions and head organizations.  The goal of this talk is to show how complex the issues are and how various Black intellectuals approach the problems of the Black community in different ways.  In each case I try to follow the Rules of Good Studenting, to explain that person's position to their own satisfaction.  As you listen to these different ideas, please remember that all of these people are trying to make the situation better.  They do not agree with each other on what is the proper approach. Regrettably I did not discuss James Baldwin (The Fire Next Time) or Ta'Nehisi Coates (Between the World and Me) or Derrick Bell (Faces at the Bottom of the Well), all of which influenced my own thinking.  I do plan future podcasts on Louis Farrakhan and Critical Race Theory (which will include Bell's book).  Meanwhile, do yourself a favor and add them to your reading list, if you have not already read them.    Names mentioned in this podcast:                 St. Clair Drake                Nicholas Lemann                Marcus Garvey (who is discussed more fully in the talk on leaders)                 Franklin Frasier and his book The Black Bourgeoisie                Shelby Steele and his two books, The Content of Our Character and White Guilt                 Barack Obama and his Father's Day Speech (plus his books Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope).                 Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and his book Disintegration                Murray and Herrnstein and their book The Bell Curve                Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and her book Amerikanah   (I love this book). Some terms used:  Race Man, Bronzeville, caste, Black Conservative 

In this episode, we discuss and compare Jochen Bittner's article “1918 Germany Has A Warning for America” and Nicholas Lemann's article “The Republican Identity Crises After Trump.”

There is no better person to start this journey than with journalist Nicholas Lemann, who has been observing the industry, also long-form journalism, for almost 50 years. Lemann started at the age of 17 in an alternative weekly in New Orleans, and since then he has been a staff writer for a number of magazines, including The New Yorker – since 1999. Lemann is also a former dean and current professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. In this episode, we are talk about the piece he wrote in February 2020 for the The New York Review titled: "Can Journalism Be Saved" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is no better person to start this journey than with journalist Nicholas Lemann, who has been observing the industry, also long-form journalism, for almost 50 years. Lemann started at the age of 17 in an alternative weekly in New Orleans, and since then he has been a staff writer for a number of magazines, including The New Yorker – since 1999. Lemann is also a former dean and current professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. In this episode, we are talk about the piece he wrote in February 2020 for the The New York Review titled: "Can Journalism Be Saved" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

There is no better person to start this journey than with journalist Nicholas Lemann, who has been observing the industry, also long-form journalism, for almost 50 years. Lemann started at the age of 17 in an alternative weekly in New Orleans, and since then he has been a staff writer for a number of magazines, including The New Yorker – since 1999. Lemann is also a former dean and current professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. In this episode, we are talk about the piece he wrote in February 2020 for the The New York Review titled: "Can Journalism Be Saved" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

There is no better person to start this journey than with journalist Nicholas Lemann, who has been observing the industry, also long-form journalism, for almost 50 years. Lemann started at the age of 17 in an alternative weekly in New Orleans, and since then he has been a staff writer for a number of magazines, including The New Yorker – since 1999. Lemann is also a former dean and current professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. In this episode, we are talk about the piece he wrote in February 2020 for the The New York Review titled: "Can Journalism Be Saved" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Over the last generation, the United States has undergone seismic changes. Stable institutions have given way to frictionless transactions, which are celebrated no matter what collateral damage they generate. The concentration of great wealth has coincided with the fraying of social ties and the rise of inequality. How did all this come about? In Transaction Man, Nicholas Lemann explains the United States'—and the world's—great transformation by examining three remarkable individuals who epitomized and helped create their eras. Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's chief theorist of the economy, imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions. By the 1970s, the corporations' large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences. Today, Silicon Valley titans such as the LinkedIn cofounder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope “networks” can reknit our social fabric. Lemann interweaves these fresh and vivid profiles with a history of the Morgan Stanley investment bank from the 1930s through the financial crisis of 2008, while also tracking the rise and fall of a working-class Chicago neighborhood and the family-run car dealerships at its heart. Incisive and sweeping, Transaction Man is the definitive account of the reengineering of America and the enormous impact it has had on us all. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pbliving/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pbliving/support

Rebecca Henderson is the John and Natty McArthur University Professor at Harvard, where she specializes in innovation and organizational change. Her newest book "Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire" examines how capitalism might be reworked so as to strive for a greener, more equitable future. "Reimagining Capitalism" was named to the shortlist of the Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award, and has received high praise from both academia and industry. Many scholars have argued that capitalism is at a crossroads, as the climate crisis and soaring inequality pose problems that the free market has proven to be incapable of solving. Professor Henderson points to Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics as the origin of these issues. As businesspeople adopted shareholder value maximization as their primary goal, and proponents of free market capitalism attacked government and regulation, capitalism spiralled out of control. How can businesses balance social responsibility and profitability? What changes need to be made to our current form of capitalism? And can the system truly be reformed? These are the questions that led Professor Henderson to write Reimagining Capitalism. In this interview, we explore these questions and more, diving into Professor Henderson’s insights as well as the research that informed her conclusions. We begin with Professor Henderson’s vision of “purpose-driven capitalism,” in which businesses place profit maximization on equal footing with serving society. How feasible is such an idea? Are there any real-world examples of businesses embracing this philosophy? Professor Henderson argues that, in many cases, the interests of business align with the interests of society. One of Professor Henderson’s key insights is that business and strong political institutions are complements – not adversaries. In opposition to the classical view of government as detrimental to economic efficiency, Professor Henderson argues that businesses benefit from capable government and regulation. What does this mean for tech giants like Facebook and Google? We discuss potential antitrust activity against these companies, and how it might be carried out in a responsible manner. Finally, we place Professor Henderson’s research alongside other recent books about capitalism: Thomas Piketty’s "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", Branko Milanovic’s "Capitalism, Alone", Nicholas Lemann’s "Transaction Man", Katharina Pistor’s "The Code of Capital", Glen Weyl on "Radical Markets"… How does "Reimagining Capitalism" differ in its approach to reforming capitalism? What makes Professor Henderson’s insights unique from that from academic economists?

Donald Trump was scorned by party leaders when he ran in the 2016 primaries. But after nearly four years in office, he's so popular among Republican voters that few Republican officials dare to cross him. We talk with 'New Yorker' staff writer Nicholas Lemann about what influence Trump might have on the party going forward once he leaves the White House, and how the GOP will deal with the changes Trump has made to the party's identity and ideology. Also, Maureen Corrigan reviews 'The Book Collectors: A Band of Syrian Rebels and the Stories That Carried Them Through a War' by Delphine Minoui.

Donald Trump was scorned by party leaders when he ran in the 2016 primaries. But after nearly four years in office, he's so popular among Republican voters that few Republican officials dare to cross him. We talk with 'New Yorker' staff writer Nicholas Lemann about what influence Trump might have on the party going forward once he leaves the White House, and how the GOP will deal with the changes Trump has made to the party's identity and ideology. Also, Maureen Corrigan reviews 'The Book Collectors: A Band of Syrian Rebels and the Stories That Carried Them Through a War' by Delphine Minoui.

Andrew Mueller is joined by Jeffrey Howard and Amy Pope to discuss what a Biden presidency might look like, how he’ll bring a divided nation together and the challenges ahead. Plus: the future of Trumpism with Nicholas Lemann. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a recent New Yorker article, journalist Nicholas Lemann explores the future of the Republican Party after Trump. We discuss the scenarios he puts forth and offer some of our own guesses.

Nicholas Lemann’s “The Republican Identity Crisis After Trump” explores what will happen to the movement Donald Trump created among Republicans. In his 2016 campaign, he ran as a populist insurgent against Wall Street, “élites,” and the Republican Party itself—mobilizing voters against their traditional leadership. But, in office, he has governed largely according to the Party’s priorities. If Trump loses next month’s election, what will become of the movement he created? Lemann spoke with David Remnick about three possible scenarios for Republicans.

Nicholas Lemann’s “The Republican Identity Crisis After Trump” explores what will happen to the movement Donald Trump created among Republicans. In his 2016 campaign, he ran as a populist insurgent against Wall Street, “élites,” and the Republican Party itself—mobilizing voters against their traditional leadership. But, in office, he has governed largely according to the Party’s priorities. If Trump loses next month’s election, what will become of the movement he created? Lemann spoke with David Remnick about three possible scenarios for Republicans. Plus, the New Yorker music critic Carrie Battan describes how the sound of Korean pop is becoming part of the American mainstream.

Nicholas Lemann’s recent book, “Transaction Man,” is an account of the United States economy in the 20th and 21st century, how it has transformed over time, and the impacts of such transformation on all of us. Specifically, Prof. Lemann examines three remarkable economic and social thinkers who he calls, “Institution/Organization Man,” “Transaction Man,” and “Network Man,” who epitomized and helped create the three main eras of American economy. 
In this interview, Prof. Lemann explains these three eras in detail, why none of these models has successfully brought sustainable prosperity to the American people, and how his vision of pluralism might provide a synthesis and possible solutions to today’s urgent social problems. “Institution Man” = Adolf Berle, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s chief theorist of the economy, who imagined a society dominated by large corporations, which a newly powerful federal government had forced to become benign and stable institutions, contributing to the public good by offering stable employment and generous pensions.  “Transaction Man” = Michael Jenson. By the 1970s, the corporations’ large stockholders grew restive under this regime, and their chief theoretician, Harvard Business School’s Michael Jensen, insisted that firms should maximize shareholder value, whatever the consequences may be. This narrative took place very much under the backdrop of “financialization” and heavy deregulations starting in the 1970s, which allowed capital providers and fund managers to suddenly play the role of textbook capitalist. “Network Man” = Reid Hoffman. Today, Silicon Valley titans like LinkedIn co-founder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman hope “networks” can reknit our social fabric and efficient startups like Uber and Airbnb can replace much of the existing infrastructure.  Bio: Professor Nicholas Lemann is a veteran American journalist and author of six books, including his latest "Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream." He is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus at the Columbia Journalism School. Previously, he has worked at The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, and a variety of other newspaper and magazine companies, writing about politics, education, business, social policy, and other topics.

It's been more than twenty years since the publication of Nicholas Lemann's classic book The Big Test, which exploded the myth of meritocracy in a system blind to the inequalities it fostered.  While systemic discrimination is widely discussed now, that's a fairly new phenomenon. In this episode, author Nicholas Lemann and Amanda explore how a creation with noble intentions--standardized testing--designed to mitigate social discrimination ended up being tainted by the very same bias it hoped to end.  About the Author:Nicholas Lemann is Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor and Dean Emeritus at Columbia Journalism School. A staff writer for The New Yorker, his previous books include The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy and The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America. Episode Credits:This episode was produced by Andrew Dunn, Beau Friedlander and Amanda Stern. It was edited, mixed and sound-designed by Andrew Dunn who also created Bookable's chill vibe.  Our host is Amanda Stern. Beau Friedlander is Bookable's executive producer and editor in chief of Loud Tree Media.  Music:"Mean Streets" by The Shrugs, "In Asbury" by Memory Palace, "Books That Bounce" by Rufus Canis, "Daydreamin'" by Dr Crosby, "Starry Night" by Brian Sussman, "Uni Swing Vox" by Rufus Canis, "Caña" by Sun Shapes

Throughout American history, significant economic changes have had a profound impact on the socioeconomic landscape and political economy of the country. With Covid-19 laying bare some of today’s economic inequalities, many wonder if the “American Dream” has all but evaporated. In this episode, author and academic Nicholas Lemann discusses this and more. Lemann, a staff writer at The New Yorker, is also the author of several books, the most recent of which is “Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream.” Lemann is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and dean emeritus of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. He also directs Columbia Global Reports, a book publishing venture, and Columbia World Projects, a new institution that implements academic research outside the university.

One of the seemingly consistent things about creative destruction, particularly as a result of technology, is that we have a short memory for what came before the change. We remember just immediately preceding a dramatic shift in some vital element of our lives, but we forget what came before. It has the patina of making us nostalgic for the remembered past, even though we forget the long history. This certainly seems to be true of journalism. We look at the landscape of what venture capitalist Jason Calacanis calls “late-stage journalism” and we see a world that is certainly far from what folks once though was the Golden Age of journalism in the 60s, 70s, and 80 and ’90s. But as a part of broader history, the picture is different. And perhaps it is only in seeing that difference, that we can adapt to the economic, political and socials needs of journalism today. To talk about this, I'm joined by the journalist and Dean Emeritus of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Nicholas Lemann.  His story, Can Journalism be Saved, appears in the most recent issue of the The New York Review of Books.   My conversation with Nicholas Lemann: 

112419 Nicholas Lemann Transaction Man by Marc Bernier

Dan and Eric talk about Dan's recent hosting of Yiyun Li at Bryn Mawr College, and how she knows when a short story is complete; Amy Davidson Sorkin on the Mueller report and the profanity of Trump and his cronies; Rebecca Mead's piece about Airbnb in Barcelona; Greg Jackson's current story, "Poetry," and his earlier story, "Wagner in the Desert"; Nicholas Lemann on a new biography of John Hersey; Amanda Petrusich on a Jewish jazz trumpeter who performed for the Nazis, and spent the rest of his life in gratitude to jazz for saving him, in many ways; and Dan talks about recent reading of short story writer, William Trevor.  Plus, as always, so much more.

In "Crash Course," Nicholas Lemann writes about the dangers of undoing Dodd-Frank.

Bob Herbert discusses the whirlwind first few days of the Donald J. Trump administration with his guest, Nicholas Lemann, a distinguished journalist and historian, and a former dean of the Graduate of Journalism at Columbia University.

Nicholas Lemann talks about Edward Jay Epstein's "How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft," and James Ryerson discusses new books about how to be civil in an uncivil world.

Nicholas Lemann served as the Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism for two terms. After deciding not to serve a third, Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger challenged Lemann to start a project that was entirely new. What resulted was Columbia Global Reports. Global Reports are in-depth studies of globalization. Each report covers a different aspect of our expanding global economy and is released in an incredibly readable, attractively bound form. In this episode, you'll get a special look at two of those reports. MORE COLUMBIA NEWS: https://alumni.columbia.edu http://thelowdown.alumni.columbia.edu

New Orleans manages to leave a mark, good or bad, on its tourists, natives, and those who've decided to take up roots there. Most people who visit have a great time, but many can attest to how the city's unique insular culture, history and traditions can be as frustrating as they are fascinating. As part of the 2011 Pen World Voices Festival of International Literature, five distinguished New Orleans writers — Sarah Broom, Richard Campanella, Nicholas Lemann, Fatima Sheik and Billy Sothern — read selections from their recently published books and essays. Through their writing, each author has made sense of the nuanced complexities that make up this Louisiana port city. Panel moderator and novelist Nathanial Rich called the discussion a manifesto to the city. Five years after Hurricane Katrina, the flurry of positive national media attention has helped create the impression that all is well in the Big Easy. But the city is still fraught with problems. In conversations about New Orlean's stark contradictions, emotions run high and opinions are strong. The five fiction and nonfiction writers participating in the PEN discussion are either originally from or currently living in New Orleans. Each has devoted his or her work to erasing the city's fairytale image and telling the true story of its past, present and future. At the end of the workshop, the participants issued a statement with suggestions on what PEN could do to improve education in New Orleans. Bon Mots: Billy Sothern, a New Orleans anti-death penalty lawyer and author of "Down in New Orleans: Reflections From a Drowned City," on understanding New Orleans: "I think there are many who view NOLA as this exceptional place and some of them are the city’s biggest fans. But I argue that instead of its exceptionalism, the rest of America needs to be concerned with New Orleans because it's highly representative of the problems of the rest of the country ... These kinds of issues are coming to a neighborhood near you — they may already have but they are going to get worse. Instead of a metaphor, I think it's important to not say we have this 'New Orleans problem' with the schools and crime. Instead, we have this 'American problem' that is tragically magnified in the city of New Orleans." Nicholas Lemann, a New Orleans native, staff writer for The New Yorker (among other magazines), and Dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, on race: "The fabled white elite that controls everything in New Orleans are probably the least powerful white elite than you'd find in any big city in the country. Not because someone took their power away, but for various cultural reasons. New Orleans has no locally controlled major economic institutions, so the infamous New Orleans white elite does not have the inclination to do what one would want done in New Orleans. And if they had the inclination, they would not be able to do them." Sarah Broom, a New Orleans native who wrote "A Yellow House in New Orleans," on local pride: "I think this 'love of place' is really just from people who are stuck in a lots of ways. There were very few opportunities for [career] advancement. It's almost impossible for a highly-educated person to move back to New Orleans and find some sort of intellectual rigor. That is just the truth. Part of it is that Hurricane Katrina forced a lot of people from New Orleans and now they don't want to come back. This population of people who can't come back because they can't afford to are also made up of people who don't actually want to return." Fatima Shaik, who is the author of four books of fiction set in Louisiana, on writing about New Orleans: "I think writers after Katrina were thrust into the roles of sociologists. People who are from New Orleans are likely to write about it. I think those people who are not from the city and want to write about it should focus on writing across the cultures and writing accurately. People don't have a conversation across cultures. Writers can do that."

Panel discussion moderated by Nicholas Lemann with Rebecca MacKinnon, Hugh Hewitt and Sheila Coronel.

Panel discussion moderated by Nicholas Lemann with Rebecca MacKinnon, Hugh Hewitt and Sheila Coronel.

Panel discussion moderated by Nicholas Lemann with Rebecca MacKinnon, Hugh Hewitt and Sheila Coronel.