If American democracy is a house, the floors are creaky and the roof is close to caving in. But it doesn’t have to be this way. 

Matthew and Jack sit down with Danielle Allen, who wants the United States to undergo a “democracy renovation” so that the house that the founders built responds to the needs of the present day. Allen, a political philosopher and scholar of public policy at Harvard, marries theory and practice in her work. She covers both in this conversation, touching on her theory of justice, her campaign for governor of Massachusetts, and the urgent need for democracy renovation. The path forward, in her eyes, involves reforming democratic institutions to achieve political equality, building a cross-ideological supermajority in support of constitutional democracy, and reviving the lost art of respectful political disagreement. 

Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard and the director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation. She is the author of several books, including “Justice by Means of Democracy,” “Democracy in the Time of Coronavirus,” and “Cuz: The Life and Times of Michael A.” She is also the founder and president of the nonprofit Partners in Democracy and a Washington Post contributing columnist.

Are the Democrats doomed in 2024? Or will the US get a rerun of 2020? In this episode, Jack and Jaden sit down with Jonathan Martin, Politico’s politics bureau chief and senior political columnist, for a discussion about what the future holds for Trump, Biden, America’s political parties, and journalism. Jonathan dons his campaign hat and outlines what Biden must do to defeat Trump in 2024 (hint: get the Clintons on board). Amid the rise of AI, he also reflects on the future of journalism: Will journalists like Jonathan even exist in a decade?

Jonathan is also the author of the 2022 book This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future. Check out his political column here. It’s a treat.

Matthew and Jack sit down in Lowell House with Bo Seo, a two-time world champion debater and the author of Good Arguments: How Debate Teaches Us to Listen and Be Heard. Bo is a legend in the debating community. In high school, he led team Australia to victory at the World Schools Debating Championship, and in university, he and his teammate Fanele won the World University Debating Championship representing Harvard. 

In this episode, we talk about Bo’s journey from a shy and conflict-averse child to an expert debater, we discuss how to apply the virtues of debating to our real-world disagreements, and we ask Bo how he understands the role of arguments in journalism and the law. 

Like good debaters, we also think critically about debating and pose some tough questions about the activity’s limitations. Ultimately, we’re persuaded and inspired by Bo’s conclusion. Debating, with all its shortcomings and imperfections, promises something special: to help restore humility and civility to our arguments, to help us grapple with the pressing political and ethical questions of the day, and to give its participants a special space in which to listen and be heard.

Introduction: 00:00

Bo’s childhood: 02:53

Bo’s rhetorically ambitious style: 07:57

Effect of debating on political views/arguments: 11:20

Frameworks for real-life arguments: 18:21

Bo’s responses to criticism of debate: 24:42

Generative AI’s threat to persuasion: 42:07

Arguments in the law: 47:23

Advice to Debaters and Non-Debaters: 52:46

Years after Justice Harry Blackmun authored the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, his daughter revealed that Blackmun had sought extensive counsel in his family. Evidence also suggests that members of Congress can be swayed by their children. Is this wrong? Should the influence of personal relationships in politics be condemned? Or do those influences play an important, necessary role? Jaden navigates the delicate balance of personal influences in politics, offering insights into how voters should respond if such influences are inevitable.

How do the arts shape our political culture and civic life? Professor Adatto, multiple-award-winning Harvard lecturer and author of Picture Perfect: Life in the Age of the Photo Op, sits down with Matthew for a wide-ranging discussion of art and how it affects the way we view political candidates, fight wars, and relate to one another as human beings. How do politicians present themselves before the camera? Is there an ethical way to document war and suffering? In what way is persuasive rhetoric an art form, and how can modern politics rediscover it? 

Professor Adatto is a Scholar in Residence at Harvard’s Mahindra Humanities Center and a Lecturer on Social Studies. In addition to Picture Perfect, she is the author of the children’s book Babayan and the Magic Star. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, the Atlantic, the New Republic, Time magazine, and other national publications, and her writings on the media helped spark a national debate about coverage of presidential campaigns.

Introduction: 0:00

Political photo ops: 4:12

Ethical relationship between photographer and subject: 12:38

Photographing war and suffering: 20:37

Persuasive rhetoric in politics: 26:01

Political rhetoric in popular music: 34:52

Babayan Story Project 41:08

How does Matthew Yglesias see the world, and what does he think about the Biden administration’s messaging, education polarization, and the right way to talk about crime? The author of the popular Substack newsletter Slow Boring and co-founder of Vox sits down with Matthew and Jack to talk about a range of policy issues, to explain how he sees politics differently than when he was a 21-year old Harvard student, and to share some wisdom on staying happy even when politics frustrates. 

We highly recommend subscribing to Matthew’s Substack, Slow Boring, and reading his book One Billion Americans.

0:00:00 Introductions

00:00:50 21-year-old Matt Yglesias + evolving views

00:09:37-00:15:21 Substack blogging

00:15:21 Political messaging

00:30:07 Political polarization

00:42:09 Crime

00:56:00 Higher education

01:03:39 Happiness and optimism

College admissions are in turmoil. The Supreme Court’s dismantling of race-based affirmative action has ignited a broader discussion about who gets into America’s most selective colleges. Legacy preferences, a long-standing practice in the Ivy League and beyond, have come under fire in a recent investigation. And a groundbreaking paper by a group of economists paints class as a particularly influential factor in a student’s admission to elite schools. How should colleges respond to these challenges to long-standing admissions policies? And what do they stand to lose if the status quo endures?

The Fairness Doctrine—a 20th-century policy of the Federal Communications Commission—required radio and TV broadcasters to present balanced coverage on controversial issues. Since its repeal in 1987, the landscape of news media has drastically changed. Our access to a diverse range of news sources is greater than at any point in history, and yet the allegiance of viewers to their preferred talk show hosts and political pundits leaves us in silos and echo chambers, unwilling to hear the other side. In our age of polarization and misinformation, is a return to the Fairness Doctrine feasible? And would it help fix our broken media?

Clarence Thomas and his growing list of ethics scandals have led to calls for Congress to rein in the autonomy of Supreme Court justices. How was the court allowed to stray so far from the ethical path? And what does its intransigence say about its role in American society? Jack delves into America's most untouchable branch of government.

In 1971, Richard Nixon declared a “War on Drugs,” kicking off a nationwide campaign criminalizing drug use and drug users. But today, more than 50 years later, weed is legal in almost half the country, the opioid epidemic has fundamentally changed the way we view addiction, and the War on Drugs is widely viewed as a glaring policy failure. Meanwhile, several countries across the world have legalized marijuana and even experimented with the decriminalization of all drugs. What is the future of legal and illegal drug use, and what can policymakers in the US learn from how other countries regulate drugs of all kinds?