Podcasts about reaganism

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim sits down with Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick. They discuss the pivotal role of Pennsylvania in national politics, particularly in relation to tariffs and trade policies. He emphasizes the need for fairness in trade relationships, the importance of industrial policy for national security, and the role of government in fostering economic growth. The discussion also touches on the complexities of negotiating trade deals, the future of U.S.-China relations, and the necessity of revitalizing American manufacturing. Sen. McCormick also highlights the strategic challenges posed by China, the importance of a robust U.S. foreign policy, and the need to address rising anti-Semitism in America. He reflects on his recent trip to the Middle East, emphasizing the existential threat posed by Iran and the need for a united front against adversaries.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Zack Cooper, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. They discuss Dr. Cooper's book, Tides of Fortune, which explores the rise and decline of great militaries, focusing on China's military buildup and its implications for U.S. defense strategy. The discussion covers the historical context of military power, the dynamics of rising and declining powers, and the need for the U.S. to reassess its military investments in light of China's advancements. Dr. Cooper emphasizes the importance of a balanced military mix and the role of technology in modern warfare, advocating for a strategic shift in U.S. defense policy to address emerging threats effectively.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by the Honorable Dr. John Hillen who serves as the James C. Wheat Jr. Professor in Leadership at the Wilson Center and is also a professor in the government and foreign affairs department at Hampden-Sydney College. They discuss the importance of strategic thinking in both business and government. Dr. Hillen emphasizes that while many business executives focus on task accomplishment, only a small percentage naturally think strategically. He draws parallels between military training and business strategy, highlighting the need for leaders to develop strategic and interpersonal skills as they advance in their careers. The discussion also touches on the current state of global leadership, the lessons from history, and the philosophical differences in American foreign policy regarding spheres of influence versus systems of governance.

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

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Hon. Hanno Pevkur who serves as the Minister of Defence for the Republic of Estonia. They discuss the current geopolitical landscape, Russia's aggressive actions in Eastern Europe, and the importance of NATO and collective defense. Minister Pevkur emphasizes Estonia's commitment to its own defense and support for Ukraine. The conversation reflects on historical contexts, the significance of NATO's Article 5, and the challenges posed by Russian influence in the region.

Trump is sending a clear message: he's not going away quietly. “ If you read The Washington Post, even The Wall Street Journal, but especially The New York Times, the question is, can MAGA survive after Trump steps down? “ There's arguments on both sides whether a popular movement can survive its creators. …   Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 to succeed him. And what did Barack Obama do? He repudiated Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council. And he went hard to the Left. And the result of that is we got a destroyed or an irrelevant Democratic Party.” 00:00 Introduction: Is Trump a Lame Duck? 00:23 Trump's Media Trolling and Third Term Speculation 01:29 Historical Context: Movements and Their Leaders 01:52 Reaganism and Its Aftermath 02:49 Clintonism and Obama's Shift 03:28 The Future of MAGA: DeSantis and Beyond 05:46 Conclusion: The Enduring MAGA Ideology Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Reaganism, Chairman Mike Rogers discusses the critical state of national defense funding, emphasizing the need for increased investment to address the lowest defense spending levels since World War II. He highlights the challenges facing the defense industrial base, the importance of sustained investment in munitions, and the necessity of strategic planning to counter global threats. The conversation also touches on fiscal responsibility and the imperative of maintaining a strong military to ensure national security.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Paul Kengor a prominent scholar on Ronald Reagan, and author of ‘The Crusader'. They discuss the significance of the ‘Evil Empire' speech, exploring how it framed the Cold War in moral terms and the role of speechwriting in shaping Reagan's legacy as a communicator. Dr. Kengor emphasizes the importance of Anthony Dolan's contributions and the moral clarity that President Reagan brought to foreign policy during a pivotal time in history. In this conversation, they explore the moral vision of Ronald Reagan, the significance of speechwriting in politics, and the role of morality in foreign policy. They discuss how President Reagan's speeches were influenced by his faith and the religious backgrounds of his speechwriters.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director of the Center for Civics, Education, and Opportunity Dan Rothschild is joined by Shruti Rajagopalan who is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center. They discuss the evolving relationship between the United States and India, emphasizing the significance of economic engagement, the impact of the 1991 reforms, and India's emerging identity on the global stage. They explore how India views itself in the context of global politics, its relationship with the US, and the challenges and opportunities in manufacturing, particularly in light of the China plus one strategy.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Joseph Lonsdale who is Founder and Managing Partner at 8VC. They discuss the impact of Doge on government transparency and efficiency, the need for budget cuts in Congress, and the importance of technology in improving government operations. Mr. Lonsdale also addresses the rise of anti-Semitism and the alliance between Jews and Christians in combating hate and promoting shared values.

We're taking a look at the start of Tom Cruise's star career by digging into the romance of Paul Brickman's 1983 hit Risky Business, starring Cruise alongside Rebecca De Mornay, who was not in her 90s when this was made. Join in as we discuss the film as a response to Reaganism, expensive hot chocolate, our dads' favorite movies, and "Old Time Rock and Roll." Plus: Why was Brickman's original ending replaced? What's Lana's last name? What's the sexiest public transit system? And, most importantly, what's the deal with that big egg? Make sure to rate, review, and subscribe! Next week: Lust, Caution (2007)----------------------------------------------------Key sources and links for this episode:1983 trailer for Risky Business (YouTube)Roger Ebert's four-star review of Risky Business"At 20, Risky is Still Frisky" (Variety)"My Wild Summer with Tom Cruise: Women, Sean Penn, and the Making of Risky Business" by Curtis Armstrong (The Hollywood Reporter)"1983: MTV Aesthetics, Flashdance, and Risky Business (Erotic 80s Part 6)" (You Must Remember This)"Rebecca De Mornay on Dating Tom Cruise and the Success of Risky Business" (Celebrity Page on YouTube)"Risky Business Director: "Some People Like the Visibility. I Don't" (Salon)"Adam McKay 'Wouldn't Be Surprised' if Wicked was Banned in '3-5 Years' Due to its 'Radical' Storyline" (The Hollywood Reporter)

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Alex Gray who serves as CEO of American Global Strategies LLC. They discuss the strategic importance of Greenland and the Panama Canal in U.S. foreign policy, particularly during the Trump administration. Gray emphasizes the historical context of U.S. interest in Greenland, the potential for Chinese influence in the Arctic, and the implications of Greenland's possible independence. The discussion then shifts to the Panama Canal, highlighting concerns over Chinese control and the need for U.S. involvement in its governance.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Tevi Troy who servces as a Senior Fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute. They discuss the intricacies of how the White House makes policy, the evolution and role of various policy councils, and the dynamics of President Trump's second term, particularly focusing on the communication strategies employed by Vice President Vance. Troy emphasizes the importance of a structured policy-making process and the potential pitfalls of proliferating councils that may dilute their effectiveness.

US Vice President JD Vance gave a speech about globalization that inadvertently revealed the truth about the US empire, the goal behind the new cold war on China, the economics of imperialism, and how the Trump administration is serving billionaire Big Tech oligarchs in Silicon Valley at the expense of the working class. Ben Norton explains. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmpea6vvOE US Big Tech CEOs admit they want AI monopoly: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/02/03/us-ai-monopoly-unipolar-world-china/ Topics 0:00 (CLIP) JD Vance excerpt 0:38 US vice president speech 1:03 Preparing for war on China 3:15 Summary of Vance's speech 3:56 (CLIP) Marco Rubio on China "threat" 4:39 Deindustrialization 5:02 (CLIP) JD Vance vows "industrial comeback" 5:41 Uniting billionaires and "populists" 6:26 Neoliberalism 7:01 JD Vance's patron Peter Thiel 8:22 Trump recruits Big Tech billionaires 9:34 For monopoly, against competition 10:21 (CLIP) Peter Thiel loves monopolies 10:35 Elon Musk and Trump 11:05 Billionaire Marc Andreessen 11:47 (CLIP) Trump admin loves Silicon Valley 12:08 Trump coalition: billionaires & workers? 13:37 (CLIP) Techno-optimists vs populists? 14:21 Big Tech manifesto 15:56 Scapegoating China 17:13 (CLIP) JD Vance scapegoats China 17:34 JD Vance calls China "biggest threat" 18:53 (CLIP) JD Vance scapegoats China 19:12 Neoliberal globalization 20:07 (CLIP) JD Vance on globalization 21:18 Neoliberal globalization 22:07 Imperialism & dependency theory 24:11 China's development 24:35 US bans Chinese competitors 26:15 (CLIP) JD Vance on China's AI 26:40 US Big Tech monopolies 27:23 (CLIP) "Competition is for losers" 27:38 Trump's tariffs 28:36 Jake Sullivan's industrial policy speech 29:16 (CLIP) Jake Sullivan on Washington Consensus 31:36 Industrial policy 32:45 Tech war on China 33:31 Trump's strategy 34:01 (CLIP) JD Vance on US shipbuilding 34:53 China's Shipbuilding 35:46 State-owned enterprises 38:07 US government-owned factories 40:32 Industrial policy 43:41 (CLIP) Tax cuts on rich & deregulation 44:07 Reaganism 2.0 44:28 Historical tax rates on rich 45:48 Oligarchs avoid taxes 46:52 Trump boosts deficit & debt 47:38 Fake industrial policy 49:09 (CLIP) JD Vance is "fan" of Big Tech 49:28 Andreessen Horowitz investments 50:30 S&P 500 stock buybacks & dividends 51:03 Reaganomics 51:59 Trumponomics 53:21 Tariffs & wealth transfer 53:55 Outro

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Policy Director Rachel Hoff is joined by Dr. Mark Clifford who serves as President of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong and author of the book, “The Troublemaker: How Jimmy Lai Became a Billionaire, Hong Kong's Greatest Dissident, and China's Most Feared Critic.” They discuss Jimmy Lai's early life in China, his rise as a successful entrepreneur, and his eventual transition into media, where he became a vocal critic of the Chinese Communist Party. The discussion also covers the impact of the Tiananmen Square protests on Lai's activism, the role of his media outlets during the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, and the international response to his imprisonment.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Henry Nau who serves as Distinguished Scholar at the Ronald Reagan Institute. They discuss the legacy of President Ronald Reagan, exploring his economic policies, leadership style, and the significance of his ideas in shaping contemporary politics. Dr. Nau emphasizes the importance of understanding Reagan's record and the impact of his beliefs on his presidency, particularly in the context of the Cold War and his approach to negotiation.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comChris — an old friend and, in my view, one of the sharpest right-of-center writers in journalism — returns to the Dishcast for his third appearance. He's a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a contributing editor to the Claremont Review of Books, a contributing writer for the NYT, and a member of the editorial committee of the French quarterly Commentaire. We covered his book The Age of Entitlement on the pod in 2021, and in 2023 he came back to talk European politics. This week I wanted to talk to a Trump supporter as we survey the first month. And we hashed a lot out.For two clips of our convo — on the vandalism of DOGE, and why Chris thinks Trump has been more consequential than Obama on policy— see our YouTube page.Other topics: the final demise of affirmative action; the 1964 Civil Rights Act; how DEI created racial strife; warring Dem interest groups; Biden's belated border enforcement; why Harris was picked for veep and party nominee; the minorities disillusioned with Dems; the rise in public disorder; looming inflation; Trump's tax cuts and tariffs; Trump vs Reaganism; DOGE vs Clinton's downsizing; Bannon vs Musk; Thiel a harbinger of Trump's broligarchy; USAID and NGOs; the Swamp; Musk calling for the impeachment of judges; his ignorance on government; his craving to be cool; RFK at HHS; Bezos ditching dissent at the WaPo op-ed page; America's new foreign policy; Trump's alliance with Russia against Ukraine; pushing reparations on an invaded country; NATO's Article 5 void under Trump; his love of strongmen; Vance's disdain of European leaders; Brexit; mass migration; the German elections; China and Trump; Syria and Obama; the DCA helicopter crash; the awfulness of Bluesky; the Gulf of America; and debating the extent to which Trump's rhetoric is just noise.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Nick Denton on China and AI, Francis Collins on faith and science, Michael Lewis on government service, Douglas Murray on Israel and Gaza, Ian Buruma on Spinoza, Michael Joseph Gross on bodybuilding, and the great and powerful Mike White, of White Lotus fame. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Policy Director Rachel Hoff is joined by Damon Wilson who is the President and CEO of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They discuss the organization's origins, its connection to President Reagan, and its ongoing mission to promote democracy worldwide. They discuss the importance of supporting grassroots movements, the definition of democracy, and the relationship between U.S. interests and democracy promotion. Wilson addresses criticisms of NED, the impact of U.S. foreign assistance policies, and the need for transparency and accountability in their operations.

On this episode, Aaron and Derek tackle 1990's horror film "Def by Temptation" written, directed, and produced by James Bond III who is also the star. They talk about how this became James Bond III's passion project, the progressive and problematic aspects of the story, and Kadeem Hardison's portrayal of K through the plot. They also get into the the excellent soundtrack, the shadow of politics in a post-Reaganism urban America, and many other aspects of the movie. Aaron and Derek use a cigarette lighter. The flame lasts longer. Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/WatchIfYouDare We are on PodBean, Apple Podcasts, Podchaser, Goodpods, Amazon Music, Spotify, iHeartRadio and CastBox. Please rate, review, subscribe, and share our show. Also, check out our Spotify Music playlist, links on our Twitter and Podbean page. Our socials are on Bluesky and Facebook and Twitter @WatchIfYouDare

How historic are Trump 2.0's first few weeks? For the veteran correspondent, Nick Bryant, the longtime BBC man in Washington DC, what the Trump regime has done in the first few weeks of his second administration is as historic as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It's the end of the America we haver known for the last seventy years, he says. Bryant describes Trump's rapprochement with Russia as Neville Chamberlain style appeasement and notes the dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and European allies. He sees Trump's actions as revealing rather than changing America's true nature. Bryant also discusses the failures of the Dems, the role of Elon Musk in the administration, and structural changes to federal institutions. Despite all the upheaval, Bryant suggests this isn't so much "goodbye to America" as a revelation of the cynically isolationist forces that were always present in American society.Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from our conversation with Nick Bryant:* Historic Transformation: Bryant sees Trump's second term as a pivotal moment in world history, comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall, with rapid changes in global alliances and particularly in America's relationship with Russia, which he characterizes as "appeasement."* Democratic Party Crisis: He analyzes how the Democrats' failures stemmed from multiple factors - Biden's delayed exit, Kamala Harris's weak candidacy, and the lack of time to find a stronger replacement. While Trump's victory was significant, Bryant notes it wasn't a landslide.* Elon Musk's Unexpected Role: An unforeseen development Bryant didn't predict in his book was Musk's prominent position in Trump's second administration, describing it as almost a "co-presidency" following Trump's assassination attempt and Musk's subsequent endorsement of Trump.* Federal Government Transformation: Bryant observes that Trump's dismantling of federal institutions goes beyond typical Republican small-government approaches, potentially removing not just bureaucratic waste but crucial expertise and institutional knowledge.* Trump as Revealer, Not Changer: Perhaps most significantly, Bryant argues that Trump hasn't changed America but rather revealed its true nature - arguing that authoritarianism, political violence, and distrust of big government have always been present in American history. FULL TRANSCRIPT Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. About eight months ago, we had a great show with the BBC's former Washington correspondent, Nick Bryant. His latest book, "The Forever War: America's Unending Conflict with Itself," predicted much of what's happening in the United States now. When you look at the headlines this week about the U.S.-Russia relationship changing in a head-spinning way, apparently laying the groundwork for ending the Ukrainian war, all sorts of different relations and tariffs and many other things in this new regime. Nick is joining us from Sydney, Australia, where he now lives. Nick, do you miss America?Nick Bryant: I covered the first Trump administration and it felt like a 25/8 job, not just 24/7. Trump 2.0 feels even more relentless—round-the-clock news forever. We're checking our phones to see what has happened next. People who read my book wouldn't be surprised by how Donald Trump is conducting his second term. But some things weren't on my bingo card, like Trump suggesting a U.S. takeover of Gaza. The rapprochement with Putin, which we should look on as an act of appeasement after his aggression in Ukraine, was very easy to predict.Andrew Keen: That's quite a sharp comment, Nick—an act of appeasement equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's umbrella.Nick Bryant: It was ironic that J.D. Vance made his speech at the Munich Security Conference. Munich was where Neville Chamberlain secured the Munich Agreement, which was seen as a terrible act of appeasement towards Nazi Germany. This moment feels historic—I would liken it to the fall of the Berlin Wall. We're seeing a complete upending of the world order.Back at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, we were talking about the end of history—Francis Fukuyama's famous thesis suggesting the triumph of liberal democracy. Now, we're talking about the end of America as we've known it since World War II. You get these Berlin Wall moments like Trump saying there should be a U.S. takeover of Gaza. J.D. Vance's speech in Munich ruptures the transatlantic alliance, which has been the basis of America's global preeminence and European security since World War II.Then you've seen what's happened in Saudi Arabia with the meeting between the Russians and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, completely resetting relations between Washington and Moscow. It's almost as if the invasions of Ukraine never happened. We're back to the situation during the Bush administration when George W. Bush famously met Vladimir Putin, looked into his soul, and gave him a clean bill of health. Things are moving at a hurtling pace, and it seems we're seeing the equivalent of a Berlin Wall tumbling every couple of days.Andrew Keen: That's quite dramatic for an experienced journalist like yourself to say. You don't exaggerate unnecessarily, Nick. It's astonishing. Nobody predicted this.Nick Bryant: When I first said this about three weeks ago, I had to think long and hard about whether the historical moments were equivalent. Two weeks on, I've got absolutely no doubt. We're seeing a massive change. European allies of America are now not only questioning whether the United States is a reliable ally—they're questioning whether the United States is an ally at all. Some are even raising the possibility that nations like Germany, the UK, and France will soon look upon America as an adversary.J.D. Vance's speech was very pointed, attacking European elitism and what he saw as denial of freedom of speech in Europe by governments, but not having a single word of criticism for Vladimir Putin. People are listening to the U.S. president, vice president, and others like Marco Rubio with their jaws on the ground. It's a very worrying moment for America's allies because they cannot look across the Atlantic anymore and see a president who will support them. Instead, they see an administration aligning itself with hard-right and far-right populist movements.Andrew Keen: The subtitle of your book was "America's Unending Conflict with Itself: The History Behind Trump in Advance." But America now—and I'm talking to you from San Francisco, where obviously there aren't a lot of Trump fans or J.D. Vance fans—seems in an odd, almost surreal way to be united. There were protests on Presidents Day earlier this week against Trump, calling him a tyrant. But is the thesis of your book about the forever war, America continually being divided between coastal elites and the hinterlands, Republicans and Democrats, still manifesting itself in late February 2025?Nick Bryant: Trump didn't win a landslide victory in the election. He won a significant victory, a decisive victory. It was hugely significant that he won the popular vote, which he didn't manage to do in 2016. But it wasn't a big win—he didn't win 50% of the popular vote. Sure, he won the seven battleground states, giving the sense of a massive victory, but it wasn't massive numerically.The divides in America are still there. The opposition has melted away at the moment with sporadic protests, but nothing really major. Don't be fooled into thinking America's forever wars have suddenly ended and Trump has won. The opposition will be back. The resistance will be back.I remember moments in the Obama administration when it looked like progressives had won every battle in America. I remember the day I went to South Carolina, to the funeral of the pastor killed in that terrible shooting in Charleston. Obama broke into "Amazing Grace"—it was almost for the first time in front of a black audience that he fully embraced the mantle of America's first African-American president. He flew back to Washington that night, and the White House was bathed in rainbow colors because the Supreme Court had made same-sex marriage legal across the country.It seemed in that moment that progressives were winning every fight. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare. You assumed America's first black president would be followed by America's first female president. But what we were seeing in that summer of 2015 was actually the conservative backlash. Trump literally announced his presidential bid the day before that awful Charleston shooting. You can easily misread history at this moment. Sure, Trump looks dominant now, but don't be fooled. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in two years' time the Republicans end up losing the House of Representatives in the congressional midterm elections.Andrew Keen: When it comes to progressives, what do you make of the Democratic response, or perhaps the lack of response, to the failure of Kamala Harris? The huge amount of money, the uninspiring nature of her campaign, the fiasco over Biden—were these all accidental events or do they speak of a broader crisis on the left amongst progressives in America?Nick Bryant: They speak of both. There were really big mistakes made by the Democrats, not least Joe Biden's decision to contest the election as long as he did. It had become pretty clear by the beginning of 2024 that he wasn't in a fit state to serve four more years or take on the challenge of Donald Trump.Biden did too well at two critical junctures. During the midterm elections in 2022, many people predicted a red wave, a red tsunami. If that had happened, Biden would have faced pressure to step aside for an orderly primary process to pick a successor. But the red wave turned into a red ripple, and that persuaded Biden he was the right candidate. He focused on democracy, put democracy on the ballot, hammered the point about January 6th, and decided to run.Another critical juncture was the State of the Union address at the beginning of 2024. Biden did a good job, and I think that allayed a lot of concerns in the Democratic Party. Looking back on those two events, they really encouraged Biden to run again when he should never have done so.Remember, in 2020, he intimated that he would be a bridge to the next generation. He probably made a mistake then in picking Kamala Harris as his vice presidential candidate because he was basically appointing his heir. She wasn't the strongest Democrat to go up against Donald Trump—it was always going to be hard for a woman of color to win the Rust Belt. She wasn't a particularly good candidate in 2020 when she ran; she didn't even make it into 2020. She launched her campaign in Oakland, and while it looked good at the time, it became clear she was a poor candidate.Historical accidents, the wrong candidate, a suffering economy, and an America that has always been receptive to someone like Trump—all those factors played into his victory.Andrew Keen: If you were giving advice to the Democrats as they lick their wounds and begin to think about recovery and fighting the next battles, would you advise them to shift to the left or to the center?Nick Bryant: That's a fascinating question because you could argue it both ways. Do the Democrats need to find a populist of the left who can win back those blue-collar voters that have deserted the Democratic Party? This is a historical process that's been going on for many years. Working-class voters ditched the Democrats during the Reagan years and the Nixon years. Often race is part of that, often the bad economy is part of that—an economy that's not working for the working class who can't see a way to map out an American dream for themselves.You could argue for a left-wing populist, or you could argue that history shows the only way Democrats win the White House is by being centrist and moderate. That was true of LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton—all Southerners, and that wasn't a coincidence. Southern Democrats came from the center of the party. Obama was a pragmatic, centrist candidate. Kennedy was a very pragmatic centrist who tried to bring together the warring tribes of the Democratic Party.Historically, you could argue Democrats need to move to the center and stake out that ground as Trump moves further to the right and the extremes. But what makes it harder to say for sure is that we're in a political world where a lot of the old rules don't seem to apply.Andrew Keen: We don't quite know what the new rules are or if there are any rules. You describe this moment as equivalent in historic terms to the fall of the Berlin Wall or perhaps 9/11. If we reverse that lens and look inwards, is there an equivalent historical significance? You had an interesting tweet about Doge and the attempt in some people's eyes for a kind of capture of power by Elon Musk and the replacement of the traditional state with some sort of almost Leninist state. What do you make of what's happening within the United States in domestic politics, particularly Musk's role?Nick Bryant: We've seen American presidents test the Constitution before. Nobody in the modern era has done it so flagrantly as Donald Trump, but Nixon tried to maximize presidential powers to the extent that he broke the law. Nixon would have been found guilty in a Senate trial had that impeachment process continued. Of course, he was forced to resign because a delegation of his own party drove down Pennsylvania Avenue and told him he had to go.You don't get that with the Republican Party and Donald Trump—they've fallen behind him. FDR was commonly described as an American dictator. H.L. Mencken wrote that America had a Caesar, a pharaoh. Woodrow Wilson was maximalist in his presidential powers. Abraham Lincoln was the great Constitution breaker, from trashing the First Amendment to exceeding his powers with the Emancipation Proclamation. Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional—he needed congressional approval, which he didn't have.There's a long history of presidents breaking rules and Americans being okay with that. Lincoln has never been displaced from his historical throne of grace. FDR is regarded as one of the great presidents. What sets this moment apart is that constraints on presidents traditionally came from the courts and their own political parties. We're not seeing that with Donald Trump.Andrew Keen: What about the cultural front? There's talk of Trump's revenge, taking over the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., revenge against traditional scientists, possibly closing some universities. Is this overdramatic, or is Trump really taking revenge for what happened between 2020 and 2024 when he was out of power?Nick Bryant: Trump is in a vengeful mood—we always thought Trump 2.0 would be a project of vengeance. Republican presidents have always thought parts of the administrative state work against them, and Trump is dismantling it at warp speed. Elon Musk is going into various government departments acting like he's heading a hostile takeover of the federal government.Reagan launched a rhetorical assault on federal government, which was really a creation of the New Deal years under FDR. That period saw massive expansion of federal government into people's lives with Social Security and the welfare net. We haven't seen this kind of assault on federal government since then. Trump is also trying to dismantle what he regards as America's cultural establishment, which he sees as too white, too elitist, too intellectual. He's trying to remold America, its government, and cultural institutions in his own image.Andrew Keen: You've mentioned Reagan. I came to the U.S. like you—you came as a grad student to study American history. I came in the '80s and remember the hysteria at UC Berkeley over Reagan—that he would blow up the world, that he was clueless, a Hollywood actor with no right to be in politics. Is it conceivable that Trump could be just another version of Reagan? In spite of all this hysteria, might this second Trump regime actually be successful?Nick Bryant: You can't rule out that possibility. The mistake made about Reagan was seeing him as a warmonger when he really wanted to be a peacemaker. That was the point of ending the Cold War—he wanted to win it, but through gambles on people like Gorbachev and diplomatic moves his advisors warned against.There are analogies to Trump. I don't think he's a warmonger or wants to send U.S. troops into countries. He's described some surprising imperial ambitions like taking over Greenland, though Harry Truman once wanted that too. Trump wants to make peace, but the problem is on what terms. Peace in Ukraine, in Trump's view, means a massive win for Vladimir Putin and the sidelining of the Ukrainian people and America's European allies.There wasn't a big cost to Reagan's peacemaking—the European alliance stayed intact, he tinkered with government but didn't go after Social Security. The cost of Trump is the problem.Andrew Keen: The moral cost or the economic cost?Nick Bryant: Both. One thing that happened with Reagan was the opening of big disparities in income and wealth in American society. That was a big factor in Donald Trump's success—the paradox of how this billionaire from New York became the hero of the Rust Belt. When the gulf between executive pay and shop floor pay became massive, it was during the Reagan years.You see the potential of something similar now. Trump is supercharging an economy that looks like it will favor the tech giants and the world's richest man, Elon Musk. You end up worsening the problem you were arguably setting out to solve.You don't get landslides anymore in American politics—the last president to win 40 states was George Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan in '84 won 49 out of 50 states, almost getting a clean sweep except for Mondale's home state of Minnesota. I don't think Trump will be the kind of unifying president that Reagan was. There was a spontaneity and optimism about Reagan that you don't see with Trump.Andrew Keen: Where are the divisions? Where is the great threat to Trump coming from? There was a story this week that Steve Bannon called Elon Musk a parasitic illegal immigrant. Is it conceivable that the biggest weakness within the Trump regime will come from conflict between people like Bannon and Musk, the nationalists and the internationalist wing of the MAGA movement?Nick Bryant: That's a fascinating question. There doesn't seem to be much external opposition at the moment. The Democrats are knocked out or taking the eight count in boxing terms, getting back on their feet and taking as long as they can to get their gloves up. There isn't a leader in the Democratic movement who has anywhere near Trump's magnetism or personal power to take him on.Maybe the opposition comes from internal divisions and collapse of the Trump project. The relationship with Elon Musk was something I didn't anticipate in my book. After that assassination attempt, Musk endorsed Trump in a big way, put his money behind him, started offering cash prizes in Pennsylvania. Having lived at Mar-a-Lago during the transition with a cottage on the grounds and now an office in the White House—I didn't anticipate his role.Many people thought Trump wouldn't put up with somebody who overshadows him or gets more attention, but that relationship hasn't failed yet. I wonder if that speaks to something different between Trump 2.0 and 1.0. Trump's surrounded by loyalists now, but at 78 years old, I think he wanted to win the presidency more than he wanted the presidency itself. I wonder if he's happy to give more responsibility to people like Musk who he thinks will carry out his agenda.Andrew Keen: You've been described as the new Alistair Cooke. Cooke was the father of Anglo-American journalism—his Letter from America was an iconic show, the longest-running show in radio history. Cooke was always very critical of what he called the big daddy state in Washington, D.C., wasn't a fan of large government. What's your take on Trump's attack on large government in D.C.? Is there anything in it? You spent a lot of time in DC. Are these agencies full of fat and do they need to be cut?Nick Bryant: Cutting fat out of Washington budgets is one of the easy things—they're bloated, they get all these earmarks, they're full of pork. There's always been a bloated federal bureaucracy, and there's a long historical tradition of suspicion of Washington going back to the founding. That's why the federal system emerged with so much power vested in the states.Reagan's revolution was based on dismantling the New Deal government. He didn't get that far in that project, but rhetorically he shifted America's views about government. He emphasized that government was the problem, not the solution, for four decades. When Bill Clinton became president, he had to make this big ideological concession to Reaganism and deliver Reaganite lines like "the era of big government is over."The concern right now is that they're not just getting rid of fat—they're getting rid of expertise and institutional knowledge. They're removing people who may be democratic in their thinking or not on board with the Trump revolution, but who have extensive experience in making government work. In moments of national crisis, conservative ideologues tend to become operational liberals. They rely on government in disasters, pandemics, and economic crises to bail out banks and industries.Conservatives have successfully planted in many Americans' heads that government is the enemy. Hillary Clinton saw a classic sign in 2006—a protester carrying a sign saying "get your government hands off my Medicare." Well, Medicare is a government program. People need government, expertise, and people in Washington who know what they're doing. You're not just getting rid of waste—you're getting rid of institutional knowledge.Andrew Keen: One of the more colorful characters in these Trump years is RFK Jr. There was an interesting piece in the National Review about RFK Jr. forcing the left to abandon the Kennedy legacy. Is there something symbolically historical in this shift from RFK Sr. being an icon on the left to RFK Jr. being an icon on the libertarian right? Does it speak of something structural that's changed in American political culture?Nick Bryant: Yes, it does, and it speaks to how America is perceived internationally. JFK was always seen as this liberal champion, but he was an arch pragmatist, never more so than on civil rights. My doctoral thesis and first book were about tearing down that myth about Kennedy.The Kennedys did inspire international respect. The Kennedy White House seemed to be a place of rationality, refinement, and glamor. JFK embodied what was great about America—its youth, dynamism, vision. When RFK was assassinated in California, weeks after MLK's assassination, many thought that sense of America was being killed off too. These were people who inspired others internationally to enter public service. They saw America as a beacon on a hill.RFK Jr. speaks of a different, toxic American exceptionalism. People look at figures like RFK Jr. and wonder how he could possibly end up heading the American Health Department. He embodies what many people internationally reject about America, whereas JFK and RFK embodied what people loved, admired, and wanted to emulate.Andrew Keen: You do a show now on Australian television. What's the view from Australia? Are people as horrified and disturbed in Australia as they are in Europe about what you've called a historic change as profound as the fall of the Berlin Wall—or maybe rather than the fall of the Berlin Wall, it's the establishment of a new kind of Berlin Wall?Nick Bryant: One of Australia's historic diplomatic fears is abandonment. They initially looked to Britain as a security guarantor in the early days of Australian Federation when Australia became a modern country in 1901. After World War II, they realized Britain couldn't protect them, so they looked to America instead. America has underwritten Australia's security since World War II.Now many Australians realize that won't be the case anymore. Australia entered into the AUKUS deal with Britain and America for nuclear submarine technology, which has become the basis of Australia's defense. There's fear that Trump could cancel it on a whim. They're currently battling over steel and aluminum tariffs. Anthony Albanese, the center-left prime minister, got a brief diplomatic reprieve after talking with Trump last week.A country like Australia, much like Britain, France, or Germany, cannot look on Trump's America as a reliable ally right now. That's concerning in a region where China increasingly throws its weight around.Andrew Keen: Although I'm guessing some people in Australia would be encouraged by Trump's hostility towards China.Nick Bryant: Yes, that's one area where they see Trump differently than in Europe because there are so many China hawks in the Trump administration. That gives them some comfort—they don't see the situation as directly analogous to Europe. But it's still worrying. They've had presidents who've been favorable towards Australia over the years. Trump likes Australia partly because America enjoys a trade surplus with Australia and he likes Greg Norman, the golfer. But that only gives you a certain measure of security.There is concern in this part of the world, and like in Europe, people are questioning whether they share values with a president who is aligning himself with far-right parties.Andrew Keen: Finally, Nick, your penultimate book was "When America Stopped Being Great: A History of the Present." You had an interesting tweet where you noted that the final chapter in your current book, "The Forever War," is called "Goodbye America." But the more we talk, whether or not America remains great is arguable. If anything, this conversation is about "hello" to a new America. It's not goodbye America—if anything, America's more powerful, more dominant, shaping the world more in the 2020s than it's ever done.Nick Bryant: It's goodbye to the America we've known for the last 70 years, but not goodbye to America itself. That's one of the arguments of the book—Trump is far more representative of the true America than many international observers realize. If you look at American history through a different lens, Trump makes perfect sense.There's always been an authoritarian streak, a willingness to fall for demagogues, political violence, deep mistrust of government, and rich people making fortunes—from the robber barons of the late 19th century to the tech barons of the 21st century. It's goodbye to a certain America, but the America that Trump presides over now is an America that's always been there. Trump hasn't changed America—he's revealed it.Andrew Keen: Well, one thing we can say for sure is it's not goodbye to Nick Bryant. We'll get you back on the show. You're one of America's most perceptive and incisive observers, even if you're in Australia now. Thank you so much.Nick Bryant: Andrew, it's always a pleasure to be with you. I still love the country deeply—my fascination has always been born of great affection.Nick Bryant is the author of The Forever War: American's Unending Conflict with Itself and When America Stopped Being Great, a book that Joe Biden keeps in the Oval Office. He was formerly one of the BBC's most senior foreign correspondents, with postings in Washington DC, New York, South Asia and Australia. After covering the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, he left the BBC in 2021, and now lives in Sydney with his wife and children. Nick studied history at Cambridge and has a doctorate in American history from Oxford.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Yaakov Katz who is a Senior Fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute. They discuss the ongoing cycle of conflict with Hamas, questioning the long-term effectiveness of military operations that have decimated Gaza but failed to fully eliminate Hamas, and the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump and the complexity of their differing views on diplomacy and military action towards Iran.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director of the Center for Civics, Education, and Opportunity Daniel M. Rothschild is joined by Dr. Samuel Gregg who serves as the Friedrich Hayek Chair in Economics and Economic History at the American Institute for Economic Research. They discuss the current state of free markets in America, emphasizing the critical choices facing the nation in the upcoming election. They explore the intertwining of economic, moral, and cultural dimensions in shaping public policy and the role of civil society. Dr. Gregg highlights the importance of historical figures like Wilhelm Röpke in understanding the foundations of economic freedom and critiques the welfare state while advocating for a revival of civil society to address genuine needs. The discussion also touches on the responsibilities of businesses in society and the need for a long-term perspective in political and economic discourse.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Policy Director Rachel Hoff is joined by Sir William Browder who is the Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign. They discuss his extraordinary journey from a capitalist in Russia to a leading figure in the fight against corruption and human rights abuses. Browder recounts the tragic story of his lawyer, Sergey Magnitsky, who was tortured and killed in a Russian prison after uncovering a massive fraud involving the Russian government. This led to the creation of the Magnitsky Act, a groundbreaking piece of legislation aimed at holding human rights violators accountable. Browder discusses the global impact of the Magnitsky Act and its potential to change the landscape of accountability for corruption and human rights abuses.

On this episode of Reaganism, Roger Zakheim and Rachel Hoff discuss the findings of the Reagan National Defense Survey, highlighting the American public's views on foreign policy, military spending, and trust in institutions. They explore the increasing desire for US engagement on the global stage, the decline in trust towards the military, and the public's perception of allies and adversaries, particularly in relation to China and Iran. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding public opinion in shaping national security policy and the nuances that exist within it.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Policy Director Rachel Hoff is joined by Oleksandra Matviichuk who is the head of the Center for Civil Liberties. They discuss Oleksandra's decades-long commitment to defending human rights in Ukraine, the Maidan uprising, the ongoing war with Russia, the documentation of war crimes, and the importance of international support for Ukraine. Matviichuk emphasizes the need for justice and accountability for war crimes and the role of ordinary citizens in supporting democracy and human rights.

Jimmy Carter passed away today at the age of 100. As ex-president, he was a person we should all aspire to be- Habitat for Humanity, the Democracy Program that advocated for democracy and fair and open elections around the world, and his opposition to Israeli apartheid. But as president, his domestic and foreign policies were the same as many other presidents. His presidency marked the abandonment of New Deal politics, the Democratic embrace of neo-liberalism, and deregulation of key industries. On the foreign policy front, he was a prologue to the brutal and dangerous era of Reaganism. Since being President, Carter has been a genuinely decent human, a diplomat and humanitarian. But as President, he carried water for the ruling class, both at home and abroad. Check out this encore episode about the Jimmy Carter Administration from 2021. ------------------Outro- "G&R Blues" by MoodyLinks//+ Jimmy Carter is a Liberal Saint Now, Was a War Criminal Then (https://bit.ly/4gBjIgE)Follow Green and Red// +G&R Linktree: ⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/greenandredpodcast⁠⁠⁠ +Our rad website: ⁠⁠⁠https://greenandredpodcast.org/⁠⁠⁠ + Join our Discord community (https://discord.gg/uvrdubcM) +NEW: Follow us on Substack (https://greenandredpodcast.substack.com)+NEW: Follow us on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/podcastgreenred.bsky.social)Support the Green and Red Podcast// +Become a Patron at https://www.patreon.com/greenredpodcast +Or make a one time donation here: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/DonateGandR⁠⁠⁠ Our Networks// +We're part of the Labor Podcast Network: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.laborradionetwork.org/⁠⁠ +We're part of the Anti-Capitalist Podcast Network: linktr.ee/anticapitalistpodcastnetwork +Listen to us on WAMF (90.3 FM) in New Orleans (https://wamf.org/) This is a Green and Red Podcast (@PodcastGreenRed) production. Produced by Bob (@bobbuzzanco) and Scott (@sparki1969). Edited by Scott.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Avik Roy who is the President of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. They discuss the principles of Freedom Conservatism, its roots in Reaganism, and the current divide within the conservative movement. They explore the relevance of Reagan's legacy today, the contrasting views of economic freedom, and the optimism versus pessimism that characterizes different factions of conservatism. Roy emphasizes the need for a revival of classical liberalism and critiques the national conservative movement's approach to government intervention and economic policy.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by the Honorable John Sullivan who previously served as the 10th U.S. Ambassador to Russia. They discuss his experiences as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia and the insights he gained during his tenure, particularly in relation to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. He emphasizes the nature of the Russian threat, the historical context of Putin's nationalism, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy. Sullivan argues that Russia is an enemy, not merely an adversary, and stresses the importance of understanding this distinction in crafting effective strategies.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Elliott Abrams who served as the 24th U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor. In this conversation, Elliott Abrams discusses his book ‘If You Will It' and the current state of American Jewry, particularly in light of the events of October 7th. They discuss themes of Jewish identity, the impact of anti-Semitism, the importance of Jewish education, and the role of Israel in shaping the future of American Jews.  They also discuss the evolving political landscape in the U.S. and the Middle East, particularly in light of President Trump's anticipated return to office. They explore the implications for U.S.-Israel relations, the shifting dynamics in Syria and Iran, and the potential for military action against Iran's nuclear program.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Henry Olsen who is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. They discuss the recent election outcomes, the transformation of the Republican Party, and the implications for Trump's upcoming administration. They explore the demographic shifts in voter support, the challenges Trump may face in his second term, and the policy priorities that will shape his administration.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Shyam Sankar who serves as the Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President of Palantir Technologies. They discuss his recent publication, ‘The Defense Reformation,' which critiques the current state of the U.S. defense system and proposes a reformation to enhance innovation and effectiveness.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Danielle Pletka who is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute focusing on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. They discuss the source of foreign funding for the recent campus protest movements, UNWRA and its connections to terrorist orgs,  and Israel in the UN and antisemitism.

Election Day. Alexander Hamilton recognized the potential harm to the minority's rights when he stated, "Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, but a republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." The electoral college remains an important aspect of the American republic as it was instituted to protect the minority and ensure that everyone's opinion could be heard. In this episode of Some Future Day, Dinesh D'Souza shares his detailed personal story, starting with his immigration from Mumbai, India, at 17 through a Rotary Club exchange program. He discusses his unique experiences living in a small Arizona town, his shift in career direction influenced by Reaganism, his time at the Reagan White House, and his evolution into a prolific author and documentary filmmaker. D'Souza delves into topics such as election fraud, the disruptive potential of technology like AI and blockchain, and Trump's influence and character. The episode concludes with Dinesh's thoughts on free speech, political polarization, and the possibility of restoring respectful intellectual debates in the future.Key Topics:Dinesh's immigration story and backgroundWorking in the Reagan administrationDinesh's prolific career as an authorPivoting to filmmaking (he made 3 of the top 10 political documentaries)How Dinesh secures and structures the financing of his filmsThe ins and outs of movie distribution for political docsThe demographics that political docs appeal to (a small %)Tech and AI's possible effects on politics, filmmaking, etc.The difference between election fraud and voter fraudHow easy it would be to hypothetically commit election fraudWhy did Dinesh want to make Vindicating Trump?The difference between Trump in public and Trump in privateWhy Dinesh defends Trump in the film and bookThe effects of anti-Trump rhetoric on Americans and their political viewsThe future of election securitySign up for the Some Future Day Newsletter here: https://marcbeckman.substack.com/Episode Links:Dinesh D'Souza: https://dineshdsouza.com/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8GAOCAJxBL4bExaUCvwL4QFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/DSouzaDineshTo join the conversation, follow Marc Beckman here: YoutubeLinkedInTwitterInstagramTikTok

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Rep. Blake Moore who represents Utah's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. They discuss Rep. Moore's views on the upcoming Presidential election, congressional priorities and budget challenges, entitlement reform, national security and economic policies, the war in Ukraine and global security, and much more.

Perhaps best known for his novels Motherless Brooklyn (1999), The Fortress of Solitude (2003), and Chronic City (2009)—or, more recently, Brooklyn Crime Novel (2023)—the author, essayist, and cultural critic Jonathan Lethem could be considered the ultimate modern-day Brooklyn bard, even if today he lives in California, where he's a professor of English and creative writing at Pomona College. His most celebrated books take place in Brooklyn, or in the case of Chronic City, on Manhattan's Upper East Side, and across his genre-spanning works of fiction, his narratives capture a profound sense of the rich chaos and wonder to be found in an urban existence. Lethem is also the author of several essay collections, including the newly published Cellophane Bricks: A Life in Visual Culture (ZE Books), which compiles much of his art writing from over the years written in response to—and often in exchange for—artworks by friends, including Gregory Crewdson, Nan Goldin, and Raymond Pettibon.On the episode, Lethem discusses his passion for book dedications; the time he spent with James Brown and Bob Dylan, respectively, when profiling them for Rolling Stone in the mid-aughts; how his work is, in part, a way of dealing with and healing from his mother's death in 1978, at age 36; and why he views his writing as “fundamentally commemorative.”Special thanks to our Season 10 presenting sponsor, L'École, School of Jewelry Arts.Show notes:Jonathan Lethem[5:35] Cellophane Bricks[5:35] High School of Music and Art[5:35] Motherless Brooklyn[5:35] The Fortress of Solitude[5:35] The Disappointment Artist[5:35] Maureen Linker[7:15] Carmen Fariña[8:26] Julia Jacquette[8:26] Rosalyn Drexler[9:08] The Great Gatsby[9:08] Brooklyn Crime Novel[10:59] Lynn Nottage[13:08] Bennington College[13:08] Bret Easton Ellis[13:08] Donna Tartt[23:41] The Collapsing Frontier[23:41] Italo Calvino[23:41] Cold War[23:41] Red Scare[23:41] J. Edgar Hoover[27:37] Dada movement[27:37] Ernest Hemingway[27:37] Gertrude Stein[27:37] Dissident Gardens[29:38] Reaganism[29:38] “Does intergenerational transmission of trauma skip a generation?”[31:21] John Van Bergen[31:21] Nan Goldin[34:33] “The Ecstasy of Influence”[34:33] Lawrence Lessig[35:31] Copyleft movement[35:31] Hank Shocklee[38:46] Hoyt-Schermerhorn Station[42:32] “Being James Brown: Inside the Private World of the Baddest Man Who Ever Lived”[42:32] “The Genius and Modern Times of Bob Dylan”[51:00] Chronic City[54:04] The Thalia[55:50] “Lightness” by Italo Calvino[1:06:26] Jorge Luis Borges

On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan launched his political career with his “Time for Choosing” speech, a moment so famous it simply became known as “The Speech.” Ushering in a new era of conservatism, future President Reagan argued that Americans were at a pivotal moment and had a choice to make: Did they want a […]

On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan launched his political career with his “Time for Choosing” speech, a moment so famous it simply became known as “The Speech.” Ushering in a new era of conservatism, future President Reagan argued that Americans were at a pivotal moment and had a choice to make: Did they want a massive welfare state or lower taxes, government, and greater capitalist innovation? To stand up to the enemies of freedom and American ideals or let Communism spread across the world? To let the government be run by elites or run by the people? On the sixtieth anniversary of this speech, one thing is clear: Reagan's principles are timeless, and as relevant now as they were sixty years ago. Peter Schweizer is an investigative journalist and author of five New York Times bestselling books. Peter is also the founder and president of the Government Accountability Institute, host of The Drill Down podcast, and was previously a consultant to the Office of Presidential Speechwriting in the White House for President George W. Bush. He is the author of Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism (Knopf 2003).Read the transcript here.Watch Reagan's Time for Choosing speech here. Subscribe to our Substack here. Find Peter's podcast here.

TENE pod concludes their biographical look into eugenicist Roger Pearson, focusing on his vast influence in the New Right of the '70s and '80s through his work in mainstream fashy organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the World Anti-Communist League. reading: Kevin Coogan, "Jackboots & Sporrans". 1984. Scott Anderson and John Lee Anderson, Inside the League. 1986. Michael Billig. Psychology, Racism & Fascism. 1979. Russ Bellant. Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party. 1991. Russ Bellant. The Coors Connection. 1988. Stefan Kuhl. The Nazi Connection. 1994. Closing music: Furioso; or, The Wilderness of Mirrors by The Knolls. soundcloud.com/knollsnyc Interlude music: Mankind? "Won't You Join The Army Now So You Can Fight... And You Can Die!" Other Music: David Fesliyan "Airlock", "In Honor", and "Elevator Ride" davidfesliyan.com Subscribe to patreon.org/tenepod and twitter.com/tenepod.

Politics War Room ON TOUR  - live show in Boston on 11/2 at politicon.com/tour  Watch Politics War Room & James Carville Explains on YouTube @PoliticsWarRoomOfficial James and Al raise hell over the danger of fascism if Trump is elected and ask the leaders of our military to call out his rejection of democracy before welcoming Dr. Michael Bitzer to discuss the Democrats' prospects in North Carolina.  They discuss the effect of the hurricane on the vote, the counties and cities with the most predictive value for the results, and what to expect in the state's down-ballot races.  Then, Al and James welcome historian Max Boot to explain how the Republicans have abandoned Reaganism in favor of Trump and extremism, the threat Trump poses to the Constitution, and why he left the party behind. Email your questions to James and Al at politicswarroom@gmail.com or tweet them to @politicon.  Make sure to include your city– we love to hear where you're from! Get tickets for the Politics War Room live shows in Boston on 11/2 at politicon.com/tour  Get text updates from Politics War Room and Politicon. Watch Politics War Room & James Carville Explains on YouTube @PoliticsWarRoomOfficial CARVILLE: WINNING IS EVERYTHING, STUPID hits theaters in California and Texas this weekend before going nationwide!  Get tickets now at CarvilleDoc.com/tickets.  Get updates and some great behind-the-scenes content by  following James on Twitter @jamescarville and his new TikTok @realjamescarville James Carville & Al Hunt have launched the Politics War Room Substack Get More From This Week's Guests:  Michael Bitzer: Twitter | Catawba College | Old North State Politics | Author of “Redistricting and Gerrymandering in North Carolina” Max Boot: Twitter | Threads | Website | WaPo | CFR | Author  Please Support Our Sponsors: Zbiotics: Get back into action after a night out with 15% off your first order of Zbiotics when you go to zbiotics.com/pwr and use code: PWR Smalls: For 50% off your first order, head to smalls.com/warroom and use code: WARROOM Beam: Sleep better with Beam's best-selling Dream Powder and get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com/warroom and use code: WARROOM

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Rep. Mike Waltz who represents Florida's 6th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. They discuss Rep. Waltz's new book entitled, Hard Truths: Think and Lead Like a Green Beret. They discuss Rep. Waltz's time as a Green Beret, bipartisanship in congress, the importance of national service, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the war in Ukraine, and more.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Leon Aron who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and is an issue-area expert on Russia and US-Russia relations. They discuss the Russian invasion and war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression against the Ukrainian people, and broader implications on European Security. They also cover the emerging threat of a new geopolitical axis between Russia and China.

Ronald Reagan campaigned on a slogan to “Make America Great Again” and ushered in a new era of conservatism in America. That was more than forty years ago, and his Republican Party today looks very different with Donald Trump at its helm. Does the Reagan legend — a tax cutting, government shrinking, Cold War winning optimist — stand up to close scrutiny? And how did Reaganism pave the way for Trumpism? This week's guest is Max Boot, who's just written an authoritative, wide-ranging biography of the 40th President of the United States.Go to audible.com/news where you'll find Peter Bergen's recommendations for other news, journalism and nonfiction listening.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Tevi Troy who served as the former United States Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and is now a Senior Fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. They discuss Dr. Troy's new book entitled, The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes Between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry, which highlights the relationship between the most powerful leaders in American industry, from Howard Hughes to Elon Musk, and the President of the United States.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Policy Director Rachel Hoff is joined by Katerina Sergatskova who is the Co-founder of the 2402 Foundation. They discuss Katerina's childhood growing up on the Crimean Peninsula, her experience as a journalist covering conflicts in Crimea and the Donbas Region, and her work as a part of the 2402 Foundation in training and equipping journalists to cover the illegal Russian War in Ukraine.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by national security and Middle East expert Dr. Michael Doran who serves as the Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson Institute. They discuss the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, the hostage crisis which resulted in the death of an American citizens, and Iran's role as a funder and organizer of terrorism and discord throughout the Middle East.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by foreign policy and national security expert General Jack Keane who formerly served as the Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. They discuss the National Defense Strategy commission and its latest report, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the increasingly dangerous and complex situation in the Middle East.

@ToryAnarchist Daniel McCarthy says Trumpism is Reaganism 2.0. Can RFK Jr get moms hot and bothered enough to vote Trump? @RareCamellia & Pope Francis says people who don't allow migrants in are SINNERS! @PentsakDaniella  

Well that certainly was a week. Seems more like a year now since the news that Judge Cannon declared special DoJ prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, but it was only Monday. But we didn't even get into this issue in this episode, even though weekly defense of the Constitution is in our union contract.Is there anything new or original left to be said about the political events of the week, starting with the attempted assassination of President Trump, the nomination of J.D. Vance (allowing Lurcretia to say "I told you so!" yet again—isn't this getting monotonous by this point), and then Trump's near Castroesque-length acceptance speech? Why yes—yes there is. Steve, John, and Lucretia offer several observations we haven't yet heard from the legion of other pundits and analysts, which leads to a surprisingly sharp argument about free trade and potential tariffs under a Trump-Vance administration, which extends to a vigorous discussion of another substantial import of the moment—illegal immigrants.Steve also explains why, if you listened carefully to Trump's speech, you'll see that Reaganism isn't quite dead yet, why it was also a Jedi-mind trick on Biden, and why many of the news stories about Biden's possible withdrawal from the race have a implicit subtext that party leaders really really don't want Kamala Harris either, but can't say so publicly. We end the week with our shopping lists: more popcorn for John and Steve, and more tin foil for Lucretia.

The news media is very good at focusing on points of disagreement in our politics. Wherever Democrats and Republicans are butting heads, that's where we reliably find news coverage. When right and left disagree about trans rights, or the immigration border bill, or abortion, or January 6, or the indictments over January 6, you can bet that news coverage will be ample. But journalists like me sometimes have a harder time seeing through the lurid partisanship to focus on where both sides agree. It's these places, these subtle areas of agreements, these points of quiet fusion, where policy is actually made, where things actually happen. I'm offering you that wind up because I think something extraordinary is happening in American economics today. Something deeper than the headlines about lingering inflation. High grocery prices. Prohibitive interest rates. Stalled out housing markets. Quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, a new consensus is building in Washington concerning technology, and trade, and growth. It has three main parts: first, there is a newly aggressive approach to subsidizing the construction of new infrastructure, clean energy, and advanced computer chips that are integral to AI and military; second, there are new tariffs, or new taxes on certain imports, especially from China to protect US companies in these industries; and third, there are restrictions on Chinese technologies in the U.S., like Huawei and TikTok. Subsidies, tariffs, and restrictions are the new rage in Washington. Today's guest is David Leonhardt, a longtime writer, columnist, and editor at The New York Times who currently runs their morning newsletter, The Morning. he is the author of the book Ours Was the Shining Future. We talk about the history of the old economic consensus, the death of Reaganism, the demise of the free trade standard, the strengths and weaknesses of the new economic consensus, what could go right in this new paradigm, and what could go horribly wrong. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: David Leonhardt Producer: Devon Baroldi Links: David Leonhardt on neopopulism: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html Greg Ip on the three-legged stool of new industrial policy: https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-u-s-finally-has-a-strategy-to-compete-with-china-will-it-work-ce4ea6cf Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mike Johnson shows hints of Reaganism with his new push for a foreign aid bill that includes support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Republicans in Arizona self-own on abortion, the GOP in DC flails on a staged impeachment, and Biden makes a populist move on tariffs. Ali Vitali and Will Saletan join Tim Miller. show notes: VOTE HERE for Will Saletan's 'Corruption of Lindsey Graham' podcast Sen. Chris Murphy's Bulwark piece Ali's book, "Electable"