Jesse Arm (X, Substack) is the Vice President of External Affairs at the Manhattan Institute. He joins the podcast to talk about his recent article, “Ezra Klein’s Blindspot.” Along with Richard Hanania, he discusses whether there really is a pro-abundance future for the Democrats. The conversation involves a comparison of the two parties, and a debate over what is happening on both sides of the political spectrum. Hanania mentions self-driving cars as a perfect experiment to test which side is more likely to embrace progress, and thus far it has been red states that have been more open to the technology.

Hanania and Arm disagree strongly about JD Vance, and what he says about the future of the GOP. Recently, Rod Dreher made waves by suggesting that perhaps 30% to 40% of Republican staffers are Groypers. As Arm’s job involves dealing with this class of people, he has particular insight into that issue. Hanania is interested in not only whether they are personally fans of Nick Fuentes, but also what their views are about Ronald Reagan and how they think about political issues more generally.

Arm also explains the dynamics of the recent NYC mayoral race. How did Mamdani end up winning? And why couldn’t the Republicans field a serious challenger? The conversation provides much to consider for those who believe that embracing markets and new technology is the best way to achieve economic growth but feel alienated from both major parties right now. Arm and Hanania also handicap the 2028 Democratic race, discussing how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might rise to the top due to the moderate wing being split, in the same way that Biden had a lane open to him in 2020.

For more articles by Arm and other Manhattan Institute scholars, subscribe to the City Journal Substack.

Related Links

Jesse Arm, “Ezra Klein’s Blindspot”

Richard Hanania, “The Broad Lessons of YIMBY”

Richard Hanania, “Boomer Liberalism Must Be Overcome” (conversation with Derek Thompson)

Richard Hanania interviews State Senator Scott Weiner on the YIMBY victory in California

Timothy B. Lee and Kai Williams, “Waymo’s Next Five Cities Are All in Red States”

JD Vance on the problems of Appalachia

Laurenz Guenther (X, website) is a Research Fellow at the Toulouse School of Economics. He joins the podcast to discuss his working paper, “Political Representation Gaps and Populism.” Relying on survey data of politicians and regular citizens across the EU, he finds a simple explanation for the rise of populism across the continent. Politicians are one standard deviation to the left of the public on social issues. As Guenther points out, the gap is larger than the difference between the typical communist and conservative MP. Immigrants are more conservative on migration and assimilation issues than politicians. These are quite remarkable findings, and must be factored into any understanding of contemporary European politics.

Beginning in the 2010s, the salience of the immigration issue took off. Voters have been flocking to populist candidates as a result ever since. As much as many academics and political leaders would like to deny this fact, this provides the most straightforward explanation for recent trends.

The conversation focuses on what to make of the data. Does this mean that to defeat populism, all politicians have to do is become more restrictionist? How does this square with the rise of populism being a global phenomenon, even in countries where immigration isn’t an issue? What to make of research showing that populism is bad for the economy? Are there examples of European parties that have headed off the rise of populism in this way? Guenther discusses the well-known case of Denmark, but also brings up the surprising example of Hungary, where Orbán took the mainstream conservative party, made it more populist, and has dominated the politics of his nation ever since.

Another perhaps surprising finding is that there is much less of an elite-public gap on economic issues. If anything, politicians are more inclined to support free markets. Hanania asks whether the gap might be even greater than the paper suggests, given the way questions are framed. This helps explain why left-wing populism hasn’t been as successful as its right-wing equivalent, whether in the US or Europe.

Abortion pops up as the one social issue on which there is no notable difference between elites and the public. This is reminiscent of experiences in American red states, where politicians take abortion rights away while voters nearly everywhere support the pro-choice position in referendums. The conversation discusses why this might be.

The rise of right-wing populism is the political story of our time. By grounding the discussion in empirical data, Guenther sheds light on why mainstream parties have struggled to respond, and what strategies may or may not work to blunt the populist surge. This conversation helps provide a clear and evidence-based perspective on one of the defining issues of our era, while providing hints of possible future productive avenues of research.

Philip Wallach (follow on X) is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the book Why Congress, which he joins Richard Hanania to discuss.

In this conversation, Hanania and Wallach review the historical role of Congress in American politics, focusing on key events from the FDR administration to the present. Wallach explains the important role Congress played in making sure that Roosevelt did not take the country too far down the path of economic statism, a history that Hanania points out is in tension with some of the ideas of Curtis Yarvin.

Throughout the conversation, Wallach emphasizes the importance of Congress in shaping policy and maintaining a balance of power between the branches of government. They explore the impact of significant legislation, the dynamics of the Civil Rights Movement, and changes in Congressional structure during the 1970s. The discussion also touches on the influence of Newt Gingrich, the ongoing challenges of governance in a polarized political environment, the impact of Trump, and the potential for bipartisan cooperation on policy issues. Wallach argues for a more responsive Congress that can find compromises between political factions and effectively address the concerns of the American public.

Hanania plays devil’s advocate, and asks whether it might be better for Congress not to legislate, using European states and the EU as a comparison. Near the end, Hanania asks who the best people are to follow in order to stay informed about Congress. You can find Wallach’s preferred list here.

Stephen Goldstein (follow on X) is a postdoc in Evolutionary Virology at the University of Utah School of Medicine, where he specializes in coronaviruses. In this interview, he addresses common misconceptions about vaccines, particularly the debunked link to autism, and emphasizes the rigorous safety testing that vaccines undergo. The conversation also explores the reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and the challenges of communicating credible information to the public. Goldstein highlights the need for innovative methods to improve public acceptance and accessibility. He discusses the potential of certain vaccines, such as that against HPV, to save millions of lives and address the long-term effects of diseases like measles; the search for vaccines against viruses like Epstein-Barr; and the balance between safety and innovation in development.

One thing that is highlighted in this conversation is the problem with the “just taking questions” posture adopted by the anti-vaxx movement. Most of the questions they ask have been answered. Those that remain do not create enough doubt to suggest a person should not get the vaccines recommended by public health professionals. For more along these lines, see Richard Hanania, “Vaccines and the Tightrope of Progress.” This interview originally appeared here.

Eric Kaufmann is a research fellow at CSPI and a professor of politics at the University of Buckingham. He joins the podcast to talk about his new book, Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution. Eric explains its thesis, which holds that the taboos around race that arose in the 1960s expanded into other areas of life and eventually led to modern wokeness. He and Richard debate the plausibility of this idea, its similarities and differences with those put forth in The Origins of Woke, and what kind of policy responses might be appropriate to stem and ultimately reverse undesirable cultural trends. The conversation ends with some discussion about free speech in academia, and why Eric decided to leave his old university and start teaching at the University of Buckingham.

Bess Stillman (email) is a doctor at the Mayo Clinic and writes at Everything Is An Emergency. She is also an excellent storyteller who uses her skills to convey the hectic and at times heart wrenching experiences one faces as an ER doctor. Bess is married to Jake Seliger, who in 2022 was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma. She has written a three-part series about the struggles that she and Jake have faced getting him into clinical trials. On the podcast, Bess describes the maddening and cruelly irrational processes that dying patients must go through in order to find access to treatments that might help them. The conversation covers the nightmare of dealing with ClinicalTrials.gov, the requirement that an individual travel across state lines to even know if they are eligible for a trial, and how the government continues to exercise paternalism on the behalf of patients who have no other options other than to take a drug that has not yet been proven to work. Bess also discusses policy ideas she would like to see implemented, and finally shares some stories from her time as an ER doctor.

The themes touched on here will be familiar to those who have read about the “invisible graveyard” that the FDA is responsible for. Yet even listeners who know about the utter lack of interest in patient well being normally shown by federal agencies will find themselves shocked by the degree to which bureaucratic procedures with few plausible benefits govern the lives of sick individuals who want nothing but to get some extra time on this earth and help move science forward. For dealing with the clinical trial system in its current state, Bess is currently trying to figure out ways to assist oncologists and patients in being able to navigate the process at HelpMeFindAClinicalTrial.com. And hopefully by telling her story, she can help inspire much needed reforms to the system.

Rob Henderson joins the podcast to talk about his book Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. The conversation starts with a discussion about the recent controversy in which Rob was unable to find a book store that would host his launch. Rob also shares insights into his writing style, which focuses on conveying his experiences in a matter-of-fact way rather than dwelling on his internal emotional state. Richard then questions him about the story of his biological parents, and whether he would ever want to reconnect with them, particularly the Korean grandfather who started out as a police detective and then struck it rich as the owner of a fertilizer company. The two go on to discuss other aspects of Rob’s life story, including what the friends he grew up with think of his success, what it was like in the military, including stints in Qatar and Kyrgyzstan, and when he began questioning elite narratives surrounding issues like the importance of family stability and personal responsibility. Finally, Rob talks about what is next for him now that the book promotion tour is winding down.

Romina Boccia is the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, where she writes about government spending, the debt problem, and entitlement reform. She also has a Substack called the Debt Dispatch that you can subscribe to here.

Romina joins the podcast to discuss available paths to deal with the coming entitlement crisis. One potential way to get politicians out of making tough choices is to create a debt commission that takes responsibility for unpopular reforms. Romina has written about using the model of the BRAC commission, which was relied on to close down military bases at the end of the Cold War.

The conversation also touches on the politics of debt, how policymakers are thinking about these issues, Paul Ryan as an unappreciated hero of our time, and much more. Near the end, Romina reflects on her career as a DC policy-wonk, and why she is motivated to help ensure that America continues to be the land of opportunity. If we don’t get entitlements under control, it could potentially degrade our entire way of life. For more discussion on this topic and the difficult choices our leaders will soon be facing, see the previous CSPI podcast with Brian Riedl.

Listen to the podcast with Romina here or watch the video on YouTube.

Brian Chau writes and hosts a podcast at the From the New World Substack, and recently established a new think tank, the Alliance for the Future.

He joins the podcast to discuss why he’s not worried about the alignment problem, where he disagrees with “doomers,” the accomplishments of ChatGPT versus DALL-E, the dangers of regulating AI until progress comes to a halt in the way it did with nuclear power, and more. With his background in computer science, Brian takes issue with many of those who write on this topic, arguing that they think in terms of flawed analogies and know little about the underlying technology. The conversation touches on a previous CSPI discussion with Leopold Aschenbrenner, and the value of continuing to work on alignment.

Brian’s view is that AI doomers are making people needlessly pessimistic. He believes that this technology has the potential to do great things for humanity, particularly when it comes to areas like software development and biotech. But the post-World War II era has seen many examples of government hindering progress, and AFF is dedicated to stopping that from happening with artificial intelligence.

Listen to the conversation here, or watch the video here.

Links

Donate to AFF

AFF manifesto

Brian on diminishing returns to machine learning, and discussing AI with Marc Andreessen

Vaswani et al. on transformers

Limits of current machine learning techniques

Andrew Roberts (website, follow on X) is a historian, Visiting Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and a member of the House of Lords. He joins the podcast to talk about his Napoleon: A Life.

The conversation begins with a discussion of different counterfactuals regarding ways in which Napoleon might have been able to stay in power, which leads to Roberts explaining his view that the wars of the era could be understood at least in part as resulting from a rejection of free trade. Other topics include:

* Meritocracy as a guiding principle of the French Revolution and a justification for Napoleon’s regime

* Napoleon’s personal magnetism and why men were willing to follow him

* The relationship with Josephine, and whether or not it influenced any of his political decision

* Whether Napoleon was in fact the greatest general of his time

See also Hanania’s audio review of the Ridley Scott film, and Roberts’ reviews in Commentary and The Times. For an edited transcript of this conversation, see here.