Podcast appearances and mentions of William G Howell

In my columns and on this show over the past few years, I've argued that to achieve the goals liberals hold most dear, we need a liberalism that builds. A liberalism that builds everything from multifamily housing and mass transit systems to transmission lines and solar farms. And we need a liberalism that can build it all quickly, cheaply and effectively. But even in the places where liberals have governing power, they are often failing to do exactly that. Why?Nicholas Bagley is a law professor at the University of Michigan, the former chief legal counsel to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the author of a fascinating paper called “The Procedure Fetish.” In it, Bagley argues that liberals — liberal lawyers in particular — have helped hobble the very government they now need to act swiftly and decisively. It's easy to see how conservatives have strategically used a thicket of procedures and paperwork to slow down government, but what Bagley shows is that liberals too have been complicit in that project — to the detriment of many of the very causes they hope to advance.So this is a conversation about what I've come to think of as the divided soul of American liberalism — one that simultaneously demands big government action while also constantly acting to restrain it. We also discuss the importance of the administrative state, what liberals often fail to understand about government legitimacy, how corporate interests end up “capturing” government agencies, why Bagley thinks that American politics broadly and the Democratic Party in particular have a “lawyer problem,” how government paralysis helps fuel the rise of right-wing populists like Donald Trump, what it will take to restore Americans' trust in government, the problems with the public interest legal movement, how progressives are getting in the way of their own decarbonization agenda and more.Mentioned:“The Procedure Fetish” by Nicholas BagleyPresidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy by William G. Howell and Terry M. MoeBook Recommendations:Public Citizens by Paul SabinThe Fifth Risk by Michael LewisBabel by R.F. KuangThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld, Rogé Karma and Kristin Lin. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair. Mixing by Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Pat McCusker and Kristina Samulewski.

Individual reactions to the coronavirus pandemic and the public health restrictions that have accompanied it have underscored how powerful negative partisanship can be in the formation of political opinions. In past crises, national shocks have urged partisans to put aside their personal grievances in pursuit of the greater good, but today, that doesn't seem to be the case. Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, shares how the perception of risk influences our political behavior and the impact it has on public opinion. President Donald Trump spent his first term undermining the credibility of the media. His tweets, campaign events, and press conferences were tools he used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of reputable news organizations while promoting unfounded lies and conspiracy theories that served his personal agenda. As President Trump prepares to leave office, members of the White House press pool have turned their gaze to President-elect Joe Biden. Due to the virtual nature of campaigning in 2020, Biden was able to avoid much of the traditional back and forth with members of the media. There are some who argue that members of the press didn’t push hard enough to get Biden in front of reporters. But because Biden has spent a considerable amount of time in Washington, he has a track record that he can be measured against. A core part of Biden’s campaign promise was a return to normalcy that would include a more traditional communications team and relationship with the press. Rick Klein, political director at ABC News, Caitlin Conant, political director at CBS News, and Ben Smith, media columnist at The New York Times, discuss what the Biden administration’s relationship with the press could look like.  President Trump distinguished himself in a crowded 2016 primary field by running as a populist. He spoke to the problems that many Americans felt the government had failed to adequately address, like their inability to earn a decent wage or pay for healthcare and higher education. A man who was born rich tapped into the anxieties of working-class Americans whose pleas for help were ignored by leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties. William G. Howell, professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and Terry M. Moe, professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution are the co-authors of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. They spoke with Amy Walter about the last impact of populism and President Trump’s lasting impact on our politics. 

Individual reactions to the coronavirus pandemic and the public health restrictions that have accompanied it have underscored how powerful negative partisanship can be in the formation of political opinions. In past crises, national shocks have urged partisans to put aside their personal grievances in pursuit of the greater good, but today, that doesn't seem to be the case. Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, shares how the perception of risk influences our political behavior and the impact it has on public opinion. President Donald Trump spent his first term undermining the credibility of the media. His tweets, campaign events, and press conferences were tools he used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of reputable news organizations while promoting unfounded lies and conspiracy theories that served his personal agenda. As President Trump prepares to leave office, members of the White House press pool have turned their gaze to President-elect Joe Biden. Due to the virtual nature of campaigning in 2020, Biden was able to avoid much of the traditional back and forth with members of the media. There are some who argue that members of the press didn’t push hard enough to get Biden in front of reporters. But because Biden has spent a considerable amount of time in Washington, he has a track record that he can be measured against. A core part of Biden’s campaign promise was a return to normalcy that would include a more traditional communications team and relationship with the press. Rick Klein, political director at ABC News, Caitlin Conant, political director at CBS News, and Ben Smith, media columnist at The New York Times, discuss what the Biden administration’s relationship with the press could look like.  President Trump distinguished himself in a crowded 2016 primary field by running as a populist. He spoke to the problems that many Americans felt the government had failed to adequately address, like their inability to earn a decent wage or pay for healthcare and higher education. A man who was born rich tapped into the anxieties of working-class Americans whose pleas for help were ignored by leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties. William G. Howell, professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and Terry M. Moe, professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution are the co-authors of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. They spoke with Amy Walter about the last impact of populism and President Trump’s lasting impact on our politics. 

Individual reactions to the coronavirus pandemic and the public health restrictions that have accompanied it have underscored how powerful negative partisanship can be in the formation of political opinions. In past crises, national shocks have urged partisans to put aside their personal grievances in pursuit of the greater good, but today, that doesn't seem to be the case. Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, shares how the perception of risk influences our political behavior and the impact it has on public opinion. President Donald Trump spent his first term undermining the credibility of the media. His tweets, campaign events, and press conferences were tools he used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of reputable news organizations while promoting unfounded lies and conspiracy theories that served his personal agenda. As President Trump prepares to leave office, members of the White House press pool have turned their gaze to President-elect Joe Biden. Due to the virtual nature of campaigning in 2020, Biden was able to avoid much of the traditional back and forth with members of the media. There are some who argue that members of the press didn’t push hard enough to get Biden in front of reporters. But because Biden has spent a considerable amount of time in Washington, he has a track record that he can be measured against. A core part of Biden’s campaign promise was a return to normalcy that would include a more traditional communications team and relationship with the press. Rick Klein, political director at ABC News, Caitlin Conant, political director at CBS News, and Ben Smith, media columnist at The New York Times, discuss what the Biden administration’s relationship with the press could look like.  President Trump distinguished himself in a crowded 2016 primary field by running as a populist. He spoke to the problems that many Americans felt the government had failed to adequately address, like their inability to earn a decent wage or pay for healthcare and higher education. A man who was born rich tapped into the anxieties of working-class Americans whose pleas for help were ignored by leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties. William G. Howell, professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and Terry M. Moe, professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution are the co-authors of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. They spoke with Amy Walter about the last impact of populism and President Trump’s lasting impact on our politics. 

INDIVISIBLE CHICAGO PODCAST SHOW NOTES FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2020 1. With the current president's assault on democracy, one wonders what the ghosts of those who died in wars to protect our democratic way of life might expect of us. 2. For those of us who grew up believing that democratic values would be simply impossible to subvert in this country -- well, Donald Trump, you have our attention. This week, to help explain how we got here and what we need to do now, the authors of the new book Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy (University of Chicago Press). William H. Howell is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago. He is currently chair of the Department of Political Science and Director of the Center for Effective Government. Terry M. Moe is the William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Millions of Americans are voting for the President of the United States. Some of you will hear this episode before the election is over. Others will likely listen after the election is over. I hope my conversation with William Howell and Terry Moe will have relevance no matter when you listen. William is Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Terry is a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Our conversation explores their book Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. These are familiar topics for regular listeners of Democracy Paradox. William and Terry break from many critics of Donald Trump in their defense of the Presidency as an institution. They have tremendous faith in the Presidency to deliver effective governance.Many ideas have been considered as an antidote to populism. William and Terry believe effective government is the solution to the populist backlash. There is some truth in their argument. But more importantly, democracy must always strive for effective governance. Because unless democratic governance is synonymous with effectiveness, authoritarians have a justification for their rule. Thanks to Apes of the State for permission to use their tracks "The Internet Song" and "Bill Collector's Theme Song." You can find their music on Spotify or their Bandcamp.Please visit my blog at www.democracyparadox.com. I have written 80 reviews of both classic and contemporary works of political science with an emphasis on democracy. This week I reviewed Karl Marx's third volume of Capital. Please visit the website and read my book reviews. And don't forget to subscribe to keep up with future episodes.

The United States Constitution, a document written nearly 250 years ago, continues to dictate politics in 2017. According to the political scientist, author, and University of Chicago Professor, William Howell — this is a problem. In his new book, Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government—and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency, Dr. Howell argues that the political institutions we inherited from the Founding Fathers were simply not designed to solve the problems we face today. In a live conversation with IVY, Dr, Howell expands on this argument and explains why it might not be such a bad idea to rewrite the centuries-old Constitution to create a better path forward for 21st-century democracy.

William G. Howell, Saul P. Jackman, and Jon C. Rogowski are the authors of The Wartime President: Executive Influence and the Nationalizing Politics of Threat (University of Chicago Press, 2013). Howell is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Jackman is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Rogowski is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. The book is a meaty and complex analysis of the presidency during war. They rely on formal modeling to develop a theory of Policy Priority. In other work, that has bogged down the prose, but here the writing is clear and the case studies presented toward the end of the book enrich their analysis. What we learn is that presidents benefit from war in their domestic agenda. As members of congress shift to focusing on national concerns, rather than local, they more closely adhere to the preferences of the president. This pattern isn't without exceptions, and Howell et al. show the interesting cases (LBJ with Vietnam and GW Bush in 2005 with social security reform) where the model doesn't predict outcomes as well. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell, Saul P. Jackman, and Jon C. Rogowski are the authors of The Wartime President: Executive Influence and the Nationalizing Politics of Threat (University of Chicago Press, 2013). Howell is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Jackman is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Rogowski is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. The book is a meaty and complex analysis of the presidency during war. They rely on formal modeling to develop a theory of Policy Priority. In other work, that has bogged down the prose, but here the writing is clear and the case studies presented toward the end of the book enrich their analysis. What we learn is that presidents benefit from war in their domestic agenda. As members of congress shift to focusing on national concerns, rather than local, they more closely adhere to the preferences of the president. This pattern isn’t without exceptions, and Howell et al. show the interesting cases (LBJ with Vietnam and GW Bush in 2005 with social security reform) where the model doesn’t predict outcomes as well. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell, Saul P. Jackman, and Jon C. Rogowski are the authors of The Wartime President: Executive Influence and the Nationalizing Politics of Threat (University of Chicago Press, 2013). Howell is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Jackman is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Rogowski is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. The book is a meaty and complex analysis of the presidency during war. They rely on formal modeling to develop a theory of Policy Priority. In other work, that has bogged down the prose, but here the writing is clear and the case studies presented toward the end of the book enrich their analysis. What we learn is that presidents benefit from war in their domestic agenda. As members of congress shift to focusing on national concerns, rather than local, they more closely adhere to the preferences of the president. This pattern isn’t without exceptions, and Howell et al. show the interesting cases (LBJ with Vietnam and GW Bush in 2005 with social security reform) where the model doesn’t predict outcomes as well. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell, Saul P. Jackman, and Jon C. Rogowski are the authors of The Wartime President: Executive Influence and the Nationalizing Politics of Threat (University of Chicago Press, 2013). Howell is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Jackman is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Rogowski is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. The book is a meaty and complex analysis of the presidency during war. They rely on formal modeling to develop a theory of Policy Priority. In other work, that has bogged down the prose, but here the writing is clear and the case studies presented toward the end of the book enrich their analysis. What we learn is that presidents benefit from war in their domestic agenda. As members of congress shift to focusing on national concerns, rather than local, they more closely adhere to the preferences of the president. This pattern isn’t without exceptions, and Howell et al. show the interesting cases (LBJ with Vietnam and GW Bush in 2005 with social security reform) where the model doesn’t predict outcomes as well. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell (with David Brent) is the author of the new book Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power (Princeton UP, 2013). Howell is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago, where he holds a joint appointment in the Harris School of Public Policy. Howell's thesis is simple: “Power is every president's North Star.” He argues in this succinct book that by focusing attention on the expansion of power, we can best understand the presidency and its evolution. Combining historical analysis of key documents and a synthesis of current scholarship, Howell offers a convincing and provocative case for power as the central feature of the presidency. Given the current attention to the Obama presidency's treatment of secrets, privacy, and security, Howell's book has much to add to these contemporary debates. The book builds a deep, scholarly argument, but one that could be read and appreciated by undergraduates and the public-at-large. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell (with David Brent) is the author of the new book Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power (Princeton UP, 2013). Howell is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago, where he holds a joint appointment in the Harris School of Public Policy. Howell’s thesis is simple: “Power is every president’s North Star.” He argues in this succinct book that by focusing attention on the expansion of power, we can best understand the presidency and its evolution. Combining historical analysis of key documents and a synthesis of current scholarship, Howell offers a convincing and provocative case for power as the central feature of the presidency. Given the current attention to the Obama presidency’s treatment of secrets, privacy, and security, Howell’s book has much to add to these contemporary debates. The book builds a deep, scholarly argument, but one that could be read and appreciated by undergraduates and the public-at-large. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell (with David Brent) is the author of the new book Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power (Princeton UP, 2013). Howell is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago, where he holds a joint appointment in the Harris School of Public Policy. Howell’s thesis is simple: “Power is every president’s North Star.” He argues in this succinct book that by focusing attention on the expansion of power, we can best understand the presidency and its evolution. Combining historical analysis of key documents and a synthesis of current scholarship, Howell offers a convincing and provocative case for power as the central feature of the presidency. Given the current attention to the Obama presidency’s treatment of secrets, privacy, and security, Howell’s book has much to add to these contemporary debates. The book builds a deep, scholarly argument, but one that could be read and appreciated by undergraduates and the public-at-large. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell (with David Brent) is the author of the new book Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power (Princeton UP, 2013). Howell is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago, where he holds a joint appointment in the Harris School of Public Policy. Howell’s thesis is simple: “Power is every president’s North Star.” He argues in this succinct book that by focusing attention on the expansion of power, we can best understand the presidency and its evolution. Combining historical analysis of key documents and a synthesis of current scholarship, Howell offers a convincing and provocative case for power as the central feature of the presidency. Given the current attention to the Obama presidency’s treatment of secrets, privacy, and security, Howell’s book has much to add to these contemporary debates. The book builds a deep, scholarly argument, but one that could be read and appreciated by undergraduates and the public-at-large. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William G. Howell (with David Brent) is the author of the new book Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power (Princeton UP, 2013). Howell is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago, where he holds a joint appointment in the Harris School of Public...