President Joe Biden finally defined the MAGA movement for what it is, a form of “semi fascism”, and in turn ignited a debate about whether he was unwise, technically incorrect, or plain old offensive. The “F word” is complicated - it’s bandied about and stretched beyond meaning in some circles while others refrain from it to avoid seeming hysterical. Yet these elaborate rules and rubrics to distinguish what is fascist get in the way of clearly identifying the threats to our democracy. Historian and writer of the Lucid newsletter Ruth Ben-Ghiat joins to talk about this crescendo in the fascism debate and what history has taught us about Trump’s brand of semi fascism.

Biden Says the F Word

Politix is a weekly podcast about the 2024 election from Brian Beutler, Matthew Yglesias, and some occasional guests. We’ll have some good-faith disagreement, some points of consensus, and an overall effort to focus on what’s really at stake in November. Subscribe for new episodes each Wednesday and listen wherever you get your podcasts. 

www.politix.fm

News

Politics

News Commentary

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fm

This week, Matt and Brian take a granular look at the latest New York Times/Siena data, which finds Joe Biden losing most swing states, and well behind in the sunbelt states of Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which he won in 2020. They discuss whether: * Biden’s post-State of the Union poll bounce was illusory, or a hint at what might help him turn the election around; * Post-inflation grumpiness is hamstringing Biden, just like other world leaders, or if something unique to Biden (his age, the U.S. information environment) explains his peculiar unpopularity; * The issues voters say they’re fixed on (inflation, immigration, and crime) are creating genuine problems in their lives, or are merely evidence of successful, unopposed, Republican propaganda.  Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt interpret the poll data per se: What’s the optimistic read of the numbers? What’s the pessimistic read? Is it time to revive the debate over whether Biden should yield to a younger candidate with less baggage? Or does he still have time to prove the doubters and haters wrong? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.  Further reading: * Brian on Democrats’ mysterious aversion to setting the national discourse agenda, and how it hurts them badly. * Learning From Loss by . * Matt on the misinformation that truly matters.

Having A Poll For Dinner

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fm

This week, Matt and Brian break down the growing tension between Joe Biden and the New York Times and try to assess what impact it will have on the 2024 election and the deteriorating relationship between Democrats and mainstream media generally.  * Is Biden right to be frustrated with the way the national political media has covered the election so far? * Should newspapers outsource editorial judgment to issue polls? * What, beyond blinkering their coverage of politics, could mainstream news outlets do to increase their appeal among conservative consumers? Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt take a more abstract look at the challenge facing non-partisan media in the Trump era. Should mainstream journalism outlets be tribunes for democracy, as part of their larger advocacy for the free press? Can institutions like the Times be openly pro-democracy without being openly engaged in an effort to help Joe Biden win the election? What would an incarnation of the Times that made an effort to address its critics look like? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.  Further reading: * Brian on whether outlets like the Times do such a bad job addressing well-developed liberal criticisms because they don’t have good answers. * Ben Smith’s (widely criticized) interview with Times executive editor Joe Kahn. *  responds to their mischaracterization of his earlier Times critique.

The Times, They Aren't A Changin'

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fm

This week, Matt and Brian look ahead to looming questions that, under normal circumstances, would be paint-by-numbers developments in a presidential election year: running-mate selection and debates.  * President Biden recently confirmed that he intends to debate Donald Trump. Is this a wise decision, and how should he approach the task? * Do Biden’s communication and strategic arms have the right acumen to see Biden through debates and other, similar challenges? * Can Trump have a running mate without attempting to steal his or her money or implicate them in the destruction of American democracy? Then, for paid subscribers, Brian and Matt apply questions raised by the new movie Civil War to real-life, Trump-era political violence incitement. With Trump running free from consequences, and promising to pardon insurrectionists, what’s to stop him from applying the logic of January 6-style mob violence to other goals he may have? Is the logical endpoint of Trumpism a full-scale rebellion from one direction or another, or something slower-burning and harder to discourage? What can liberals and Democrats do to persuade people that the threat is real, without essentially guilt-tripping people into voting blue? We hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you’d like to listen to the whole thing, you can upgrade to paid for a private feed that gets you access to the complete Politix archive and all future episodes.  Further reading: * The New York Post reports that the White House wanted to drive Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre out of her job, but chickened out.  * RELATEDLY: Joe Biden’s uncle really did crash his warplane in a part of the world where there were lots of cannibals.  * Brian on why Democratic frustrations with the mainstream press were bound to boil over, and where things go from here.  * Shelby Talcott on how nobody in GOP politics has any idea what Trump wants in a running mate because he’s distracted, selfish, and susceptible to flattery. * Brian on Civil War (with spoilers).

Let Veeping Dogs Die

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fm

With Matt back from vacation, he and Brian discuss a bunch of important developments in the news, and zoom out to assess whether it’s really changed race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump: * Has polling data improved enough to make Biden the favorite to win? * Have developments like Biden’s patient victory in the fight over Ukraine aid, careful management of hostilities between Israel and Iran, and solid economic news contributed to the uptick? * Is Trump’s legal jeopardy/farting finally taking a toll on his numbers? Then, paid subscribers hear an assessment of the candidates’ upside or downside potential. Is Biden poised to benefit from a booming economy as inflation memories recede? Does Donald Trump have any way to improve his standing (as opposed to dragging Biden down)? Will  prediction that Biden would pull ahead by late April then widen his lead over the summer be vindicated? We hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you’d like to listen to the whole thing, you can upgrade to paid for a private feed that gets you access to the complete Politix archive and all future episodes.  Further reading: * Brian on how a subset of reflexive critics, including progressives, have become economy deniers, and are holding Biden’s approval polling down.  * Matt on how negativity is making everyone miserable. * Simon Rosenberg’s prediction, from Greg Sargent’s podcast.

Is The Biden Campaign's Theory Of The Election Panning Out?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fm

With Matt on vacation this week, Brian hosts a conversation with Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor and former Manhattan prosecutor who enforced the very laws Donald Trump is charged with breaking in his first criminal trial. They discuss: * Why legal commentators who criticized District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s theory of the case were factually wrong about the laws at issue and how they are applied; * The importance of enforcing these laws, whether violators represent big businesses or small businesses, and whether their motives were financial, political, personal, or a combination thereof; * Whether it would’ve been a breach of duty for Bragg not to bring charges in this case. Then, paid subscribers hear a more abstract conversation about legal discourse and ethics. Why were so many legal and media elites, including many Trump critics, so eager to line up against Bragg, even as they lacked the subject-matter expertise to know whether Bragg had exceeded his mandate? Even if Bragg had gone fishing for a reason to try Trump on felony charges, would that be a violation of his ethical obligations or his oath of office? Should Trump’s status as an exceptionally high-profile political leader insulate him in any way from accountability for lower-tier felonies, even if law-enforcement officers understand him to be a serial scofflaw? We hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you’d like to listen to the whole thing, you can upgrade to paid for a private feed that gets you access to the complete Politix archive and all future episodes.  Correction: Rebecca is a professor at New York Law School, not a New York University law school professor. Brian regrets the error. Further reading: * Brian on why Joe Biden should break his vow of silence and begin commenting on the hush-money case.  * Mark Joseph Stern on why he was wrong, initially, to be skeptical of Alvin Bragg’s case and what made him come around. * There’s a new Stormy Daniels documentary on Peacock.

Biden Says the F Word

Download our free app to listen on your phone