There are few more respected economic analysts in the world than the Financial Times Chief Economic Commentator Martin Wolf. Yesterday, we ran a conversation with Wolf about the survival of American democracy. Today, we talk Trumpian economics, particularly tariff policy. Wolf characterizes Trump's trade policies as historically unprecedented in their scale, comprehensive nature, and unpredictability. But are they “dumb”, I asked? He acknowledges genuine issues driving tariff policy like global imbalances and deindustrialization but believes the current approach won't solve these problems. Wolf explains that the US-China trade war is causing significant economic disruption, with prohibitive tariffs likely stopping trade between the world’s two dominant economies. He warns that investor confidence is damaged by unpredictability, which will take years to restore, and questions the wisdom of dismantling America's alliance system. Dumb, dumb and dumber.

Five Key Takeaways

* Trump's tariff policies are unprecedented in economic history for their scale, comprehensive nature affecting most of the world, and extraordinary unpredictability.

* There are legitimate economic problems regarding global imbalances and deindustrialization, but Wolf believes the current approach won't solve these issues and may worsen them.

* The economic consequences include potential slowdowns in US retail sales, reduced profits for retailers, job losses, and decreased manufacturing investment due to uncertainty.

* Investor confidence is severely damaged by unpredictability, with concerns about US government stability reflected in Treasury markets, and this uncertainty could take "a decade or two" to fully dissipate.

* Wolf compares the current US withdrawal from global leadership to America's post-WWI rejection of the League of Nations, calling it "strikingly willful" and potentially destabilizing for the global order.

Full Transcript

Andrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are at the London office of the Financial Times with the chief economics commentator of the newspaper, one of the world's leading economists, Martin Wolf. Martin's been on the show many times. Martin, before we went live you suggested to me that this was your moment, that suddenly economics has become interesting again. Is it because of this Tariff thing that a certain Donald Trump has introduced well, there's no doubt

Martin Wolf: what you describe as this tariff thing has created a novelty, to put it mildly. He's done things that as far as I can see have never been done before in the history of economics. So and you don't normally live through an experience with a set of policies, trade policy, which has been pretty unexciting since the Second World War, and you're suddenly in a different world. And that was not quite what we expected. In addition to that, it's not even as though it's sort of predictably in a different world. It was sort of every day or so. It seems to be something different. So in that sense, yes, it is very, very exciting. Now, there are other things going on, obviously in the administration and other areas which might turn out to be even more important. The attack on science and the funding of science, for example, the attack on universities. These are all very, important, the dismantling of important parts of the government, the relationship with allies, but I think this tariff war is remarkable for its scale. We've never seen changes in tariffs on this level before. It's comprehensive nature that base effects most of the world and it's extraordinary unpredictability. So this This is a new world for economists and we will be studying this, I'm absolutely sure, for half a century.

Andrew Keen: My sense, Martin, is that one of the reasons you're enjoying it is because you're a natural polemicist and you haven't pulled your punches in your columns. I think you recently wrote in one of your last FTPs that America is inevitably going to lose in this war against China. Is it as dumb? As it seems. I mean, you're the chief economist at the chief economics commentator at the FT, one of the world's, as I said, most respected economists. You're an expert on this area. Is it just dumb? Are there any coherent economic arguments in favor of tariffs, of what they're doing? Well, I think...

Martin Wolf: There is a genuine problem, and part of that is to do with trade. And more broadly the balance of payments, which is affecting the U.S., is genuine. There's a real set of issues, and economists, including me actually, have been discussing these problems, which you might call actually two problems, the global imbalances problem and the deindustrialization problem. These are two real problems, economic and social. The problem is that it's very hard for me to see how these policies that are now being introduced will solve those problems worldwide, and they are global problems. And the way the war is being pursued, if you like, by the Trump administration is such as, I think, inevitably to lose the many of the allies they ought to have in this contest and therefore they are playing this match, if we like, without the help of lots of people who should be on their side. And I don't think the way they're going about it now will solve that problem. I think making it worse but yes there are a couple of genuine real problems which is perfectly reasonable for them want to for them to want to address address if they can do so in a coherent well-planned

Andrew Keen: relatively inclusive way is it a problem with China essentially in terms of China producing too much and not buying enough of American goods is that the heart of the problem I think the problem China's

Martin Wolf: not the only such country. They are right to observe that Germany has also behaved somewhat in the same way, but Germany's capacity for disruption, though very real in Europe and I wrote about that in my book on the crisis published about a decade ago, is not global. The rise of China was bound to be a massively disruptive event. How could it not be? Suddenly there's a new peer competitor out there in the world. I don't think we had the right or the capacity to prevent its rise I would have strongly opposed any such effort but some people I'm sure would disagree but China is a vast country with a tremendously capable population and an even more capable government than we thought 20 or 30 years ago and its rise was going to be very disruptive its disruption is for the world I mean it's also disrupted Europe a lot it's disrupted any country that is competing with Chinese manufacturers. Actually, that includes Japan. Japan has been displaced as a manufacturing exporter to significant degree by China. So it's not just about America. One of the mistakes is thinking it's just about America. The rise of China is a fundamental transformational moment. And there is a specific problem with China, which is it's been following the general line of East Asian manufacturing-led development but because it's much bigger and because there are features of its economy particularly excess savings which are even larger than in other countries the disruption is even bigger so there's a genuine disruptive force here which we should have started dealing with consistently.

Andrew Keen: About two decades ago. My sense is that Trump is trying in his own peculiar way to walk back some of these policies. But has the damage already been done? Well, that's a very interesting question.

Martin Wolf: There are two dimensions that some damage has been done because it's working through the system now. Right now, there's essentially prohibitive tariffs between the US and China. And that means that trade between these two countries is largely going to stop and inevitably that's going to do a lot of damage because they, on both sides, but notably with China's supplies of manufacturers to the U.S. There are an enormous number of businesses across the United States that depend on these products. So that's going to be a disruption and it's going show itself up in economic activity and retail sales in the U.S. That's going have a significant effect. But I think the more important point is the degree of unpredictability and the degree of zaniness of what's happened, introducing these so-called reciprocal tariffs, which were reciprocal on one day and essentially getting rid of them the next for 90 days without anyone knowing what will follow them, for example, or introducing these obviously not expected, massively prohibitive tariffs on China, 145% tariffs and 125% on the other side, people suddenly realize that sort of anything can happen, things that they couldn't possibly imagine. It was completely outside their worst nightmares that this is what would happen when Donald Trump became president. After the first term, they didn't experience that. So I think the realization... That the range of possible developments of events is so far outside what you thought was possible changes the way you view the future and inevitably I think it's going to make investors who are going to be affected by trade which is basically anyone in manufacturing quite a lot of other businesses very very nervous about making commitments which they can't walk back so I think that everybody's going to become very risk averse. That includes allies, potential allies, because they don't know what's going happen to them. Should they align themselves with the US? Well, maybe that won't work. Look at what has happened to Canada. So, I think the In this respect, they have broadened the range of possible futures in relationship to the US, still the most important country in the world, beyond anything they could imagine, and that cannot disappear quickly. It will take, I would have thought, a decade or two at best before people will say, Now we know exactly what's going on.

Andrew Keen: Exactly how the U.S. Is going to behave again. In terms of the economic consequences, Martin, is the real damage, at least at this point, 100 days into the Trump administration, is there real damage to the U S economy and the U,S. Consumer? I think that...

Martin Wolf: That's certainly going to be important. There's no doubt about it. There's a basic proposition in economics, which is still basically true. The biggest victim of protection, particularly at this sort of level. Is your own country. You are imposing massive adjustment shocks on your country by suddenly putting out of reach, a huge range of goods that they were used to buying. So that's a huge shock and they have to adjust their spending habits, the firms have to adjust how they structure themselves. That's ineluctable and as it all goes away, And if it all goes away, will they assume that it's all back to normal? I don't know. But of course, because the US is the US, it has imposed tariffs now, significant tariffs by historical standards. It used to be an average of 2% or so. Now it's 10%, leaving aside China and leaving aside of course the automobile sector which has got higher tariffs and all the other special cases that are being considered. So these all affect other countries. And, of course, the effect on China is certainly going to be very, very substantial because it's losing the ability, really, to export to its biggest single market, if you don't regard Europe as a single market. So there will be damage to China. And then there's a really big question. What does it mean for all the countries that might replace China? Vietnam for example, other East Asian countries, is there now going to be a huge opportunity or is the US going to jack up its, reintroduce its reciprocal tariffs, 50%, close to 50%, which case they're going to lose the market. So I think at the moment you'd have to say that everybody is going to feel... Actually or very close to actually

Andrew Keen: damaged. And what's that gonna look like? Higher prices, fewer jobs? Well I would be, there will be countries that will, in the US in particular. What should we be so to speak looking forward to in the next couple of years? Well when I assume that

Martin Wolf: There will be a slowdown in retail sales of consumer goods which will be really quite significant. It will affect the profits of major U.S. Retailing and retail firms significantly and jobs in those activities. That's sort of the shock effect. There will be a risk factor in investment above all investment in manufacturing which will also be significant so I would expect manufacturing investment to decline too. Will that lead to an actual formal recession? I don't know. I don t have enough expertise on the day-by-day numbers. I think there s an additional factor which we mustn t underestimate, how that will play out, we don t know, which is the loss of confidence in the U.S. Government, and you can see that in the Treasury s market, which is most important market in the world, and the pricing there suggests some real nervousness about the future of stability of US economic policy. And here, I think the most important thing will be will there be a war on the Fed? Who's going to be the next Fed chair? What will Trump try to do to get the Fed to do what he wants? So there's going to be a shorter term medium short term impact on the economy. Through exports and, above all, also import availability. And there's going to be bigger concern which will affect investment. And, I think, people's confidence in US financial assets, which is ultimately about confidence in the US government and the consistency and probity of its policies. So short, medium, and long-term effects. How bad it will be, that depends very much on what is decided in the next few months. If in the end, the trade war disappears, Trump stops threatening the Fed, everybody thinks well they tried that it was a huge disaster and they've learnt and he's very flexible he could go away still but the next I think the next two three months are going to be very very important do they walk all this back pretty decisively or do they stick with it or even play double or quits we don't know

Andrew Keen: I don't know whether Mr. Trump knows. Finally, and that's one of Donald Runfield's unknown unknowns, especially when we get into the head of Donald Trump. Finally, Martin, you're very good at the big picture. What people are talking about this moment at the end of a US-centric economic world order, the demise of the dollar, perhaps the rise of cryptocurrency, obviously the 90s. Dimension. Was this? Two final questions. Firstly, is that true? Are we seeing a reoriented global financial system in America and the dollar no longer being central? And secondly, for all Trump's stupidity, was this in the long run inevitable? I mean, of course, Kane says in the long run, everything is inevitable, including our own deaths. Uh is this something that we should have expected it's just all come in a rush in a mad rush at the beginning of 2025 well these these are really difficult questions i think that's why i asked you you're the chief economics commentator in the ft if you can't answer them no one let's just say how i think about it

Martin Wolf: There are two reasons why you could think the world wouldn't continue as it was. The first is the rise of China has genuinely changed the world. And the unipolar moment was clearly over and China is clearly a more credible peer competitor of the US across the board than the Soviet Union ever was. So in that sense, the world that the US comfortably dominated had gone, and it was bound to require a, and something I've written about many times, a forceful alliance strategy by the US using its web of alliances which are still so potent as the basis of its power and influence to maintain anything like that order. So that was the situation. What I don't think was inevitable is that the president who sort of declared the end of the US-led order would also be someone who basically stands not just for America first but America alone. I always attacked his allies so forcibly. So he has, as it were, taken apart the Alliance system and the values that were linked to that, on which I think U.S. Leadership was going to depend increasingly in future. So that's a, it doesn't seem to be a necessary shock and a rather strange one if you consciously detonate as such an important part of your power, but I suppose it is possible to argue that after 80 years since the war, second world war, the Americans have just sort of got tired of that world and tired of the responsibility of that well and they've sort of gotten tired with themselves, with the system that they've been living under. That's so obvious. Left and right agree they don't like modern America. Well once we look at that, then it may be that this was inevitable, but it was inevitable then for reasons that I don't fully understand. And that's probably a failure of my imagination. And the core remains that while America couldn't go on being precisely what it was in the 90s or early 2000s, where they made a bigger mess of it, but they didn't have to jump out of the world and the world they created with this stupendous speed. And it's very similar, and even more dramatic in its effects, when after the First World War the Americans repudiated the League of Nations, said Europe's got nothing to do with us, we're just going to leave it, gone. You sort it out and you know what happened as a result. Germans elected the Nazis and the Nazis started conquering the whole of Europe. So it's the American withdrawal. So suddenly, and so completely, well, complete, that's unfair, but so suddenly, with no obvious strategy to replace it, that seems to me striking, strikingly willful and a little bit mad and in any case, for me it's a surprise.

Andrew Keen: And it changes the world. Well, on that chilling note, Martin Wolff, the chief economics commentator of BFT, given us much to think about. Martin, thank you so much. This story is only just beginning. We're gonna get you back on the show in the not too distant future to explain what comes after America.

I’ve been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump’s MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism.

5 Key Takeaways

* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.

* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.

* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.

* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.

* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety.

Full Transcript

Andrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?

Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.

Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?

Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.

Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?

Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.

Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.

Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.

Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.

Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.

Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?

Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.

Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.

Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.

Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.

Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.

Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?

Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.

Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.

Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.

Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?

Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.

Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.

Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...

Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?

Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.

Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account’ that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What’s it like to have to work physically hard to make a living in America today? In A Living, the writer and physician Michael Stein shares conversations with his working-class patients. He explores how work shapes identity, provides meaning beyond income, and impacts upon physical and mental health. Stein promotes the dignity of physical labor, noting that many workers find deep satisfaction in producing tangible results, while highlighting how America’s healthcare system often fails to recognize the importance of work in patients' lives.

Five Key Takeaways

* Work is deeply meaningful beyond income - people work to make friends, exert power, learn new skills, and find purpose. For many working-class Americans, their labor provides a core sense of identity and belonging.

* Physical labor often provides a satisfaction that "b******t jobs" (white-collar positions) lack, as workers can see the tangible results of their efforts at the end of the day, giving them a sense of accomplishment.

* The American healthcare system spends too much on treatment and not enough on prevention, with doctors having limited time to understand the full context of patients' lives, including how their work affects their health.

* The rise of AI may flip traditional hierarchies, potentially making physical labor more secure and valued than knowledge work, as robots won't easily replace plumbers, electricians, and other skilled manual laborers.

* Unemployment is fundamentally unhealthy - when factories close or people lose physical work, it has measurable negative impacts on community health outcomes, highlighting work's importance to wellbeing beyond financial security.

Does the United States of America still have anything going for it? According to the Arizona based Larry Aldrich, co-author of the upcoming What’s Right About America, there remains much to celebrate about his country’s foundational strengths, its resilience in the face of sometimes daunting challenges, and its continued innovation. He argues that America's focus on individual empowerment and the rule of law has created a structure that’s enabled the country to overcome its difficulties and divisions throughout its turbulent history. While acknowledging current political divisiveness over issues like immigration reform, Aldrich maintains that the American system of checks and balances continues to work and will enable the nation to navigate through its currently turbulent moment.

Five Point Takeaway

* Aldrich identifies five core American traits: courage, imagination, grit, generosity, and optimism, which he believes contribute to the nation's continued strength and resilience.

* He argues that America's innovative spirit continues to thrive through private sector achievements like SpaceX, which builds upon foundations established by government initiatives like NASA.

* Aldrich believes the American system of checks and balances, though currently stressed, is functioning as designed and will help correct excesses in governmental power.

* On immigration, he advocates for more humane policies and increased legal immigration, arguing that immigrants fill essential roles in the economy that many Americans don't want.

* Despite describing himself as a libertarian who has never voted for a Democrat at the federal level, Aldrich expresses views that sometimes align with centrist positions, including criticism of excessive regulation and opposition to political extremes.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Is any criticism of Israel, by definition, anti-semitic? Not according to Uri Kaufman who, in his new book American Intifada, examines what he calls the "new antisemitism" following the Gaza war. That said, Kaufman nonetheless believes that progressive institutions and figures like Obama and the New York Times manifest a form of antisemitism by holding Israel to different moral standards than other countries. He contends that many supposedly well-meaning media organizations willfully misrepresent facts about Gaza and Israel's actions, and that the path to peace requires Palestinians to unambiguously accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. Perhaps. Although just as Uri Kaufman believes progressives hold Israel to different moral standards than other countries, I wonder if Zionists like Kaufman hold Palestinians to higher moral standards than other disempowered peoples.

Five Key Takeaways

* Kaufman defines "new antisemitism" as discrimination against Jews that comes from well-intentioned progressives who unknowingly apply different standards to Israel than to other countries.

* He argues that media organizations like the New York Times and BBC misrepresent facts about Gaza, incorrectly labeling it as "occupied" despite Israel's withdrawal, and uncritically reporting Palestinian casualty figures.

* Kaufman believes many progressives automatically side with Palestinians as "people of color" against Israelis, who they view as a "white group of privilege," regardless of factual context.

* He maintains that criticism of Israel can be legitimate without being antisemitic, but claims many critics apply double standards they wouldn't use for other conflicts.

* Kaufman believes peace will only come when Palestinians unambiguously accept a Jewish state in the Middle East, and suggests that educating progressives about their biases is needed to change Western perceptions about Israel.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In today’s discussion with David Masciotra about the first hundred days of Trump 2.0 I made the (Freudian) error of referring to it as a “hundred years”. It certainly feels like a hundred years. So how should the Democrats respond to Trump’s avalanche of illiberalism? Masciotra argues they should emulate Ted Kennedy's forceful 1987 rhetoric against Robert Bork, focusing on the existential threats to civil rights and democracy rather than worrying about bread and butter economic issues. Masciotra criticizes the Dems for neglecting their working class base while pursuing moderate suburban voters and running Kamala-style cheerful campaigns. He believes Democrats lack the unified messaging infrastructure that the Republicans have built and suggests they need to balance aggressive opposition with muscular Kennedyesque idealism to effectively counter Trump's assault upon American democracy.

Five Key Takeaways

* Masciotra believes Democrats should adopt Ted Kennedy's direct, aggressive rhetorical approach from his Robert Bork speech to counter Trump's policies.

* He argues Democrats often run positive campaigns while Republicans run fear-based campaigns, which are typically more effective.

* The Democratic Party lacks the unified messaging infrastructure the Republican Party has built over decades.

* Masciotra suggests Democrats are too focused on chasing moderate voters while neglecting their base, unlike Republicans who effectively rally their core supporters.

* He contends that after condemning Trump's actions, Democrats need to offer Kennedy-like idealism that gives people "ripples of hope" and something more positive to work toward.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Few analysts are more familiar with the politics of both contemporary Turkey and the United States than my old friend , the distinguished Turkish political scientist Soli Ozel. Drawing on his decades of experience in both countries, Ozel, currently a senior fellow at the Institut Montaigne, explains how democratic institutions are similarly being challenged in Trump’s America and Erdogan's Turkey. He discusses the imprisonment of Istanbul's popular mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, restrictive speech in American universities, and how economic decline eventually undermines authoritarian regimes. Ozel emphasizes that effective opposition requires both public discontent and compelling leadership alternatives, which Turkey has developed but America currently sorely lacks. Most intriguingly, he suggests that Harvard's legal battle against Trump could be as significant as the 1925 Scopes trial which marked the end of another bout of anti-scientific hysteria in America.

5 Key Takeaways

* Populist authoritarianism follows a similar pattern regardless of left/right ideology - controlling judiciary, media, and institutions while claiming to represent "the people" against elites.

* Academic freedom in America has declined significantly, with Ozel noting he experienced more classroom freedom in Turkey than at Yale in 2019.

* Economic pain combined with a crisis of legitimacy is crucial for challenging authoritarian regimes, but requires credible opposition leadership to succeed.

* Istanbul mayor Imamoglu has emerged as a powerful opposition figure in Turkey by appealing across political divides and demonstrating practical governance skills.

* Turkey's strategic importance has increased due to its position between war zones (Syria and Ukraine) and Europe's growing need for security partners as American support becomes less certain.

Full Transcript

Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It's not great news these days that the U.S. Brand has been, so to speak, tarnished as a headline today on CNN. I'm quoting them. CNN, of course, is not Donald Trump's biggest fan. Trump tarnishes the U S brand as a rock of stability in the global economy. I'm not sure if the US was ever really a rock of stability for anything except itself. But we on the show as. As loyal viewers and listeners know, we've been going around the world, taking stock of the US brand, how it's viewed around the word. We did a show last week with Simon Cooper, the Dutch-based Paris writer of the Financial Times, who believes it's time for all Americans to come and live in Europe. And then with Jemima Kelly, another London-based correspondent. And I thought we would broaden. I asked european perspective by visiting my old friend very old friend Soli Ozel. iVve known him for almost forty years he's a. Senior fellow of international relations and turkey at the montane institute he's talking to us from vienna but he is a man who is born and spends a lot of his time thinking about. Turkey, he has an interesting new piece out in the Institute Montaigne. Turkey, a crisis of legitimacy and massive social mobilization in a regional power. I want to talk to Soli later in this conversation about his take on what's happening in Turkey. But first of all, Soli, before we went live, you noted that you first came to America in September 1977. You were educated here, undergraduate, graduate, both at uh, sized in Washington DC and then at UC Berkeley, where you and I studied together at the graduate program. Um, how do you feel almost 50 years, sorry, we're dating ourselves, but how did you feel taking off your political science cap, your analyst cap, how did you feel about what's happening in America as, as a man who invested your life in some ways in the promise of America, and particularly American education universities.

Soli Ozel: Yeah, I mean, I, yes, I came to the States or I went to the States in September of 1977. It was a very different America, post Vietnam. And I went through an avant garde college liberal arts college.

Andrew Keen: Bennington wasn't

Soli Ozel: Bennington College, and I've spent about 11 years there. And you and I met in 1983 in Berkeley. And then I also taught at American universities. I taught at UC Santa Cruz, Northwestern, SAIS itself, University of Washington, Yale, and had fellowships in different parts. Now, of course, in those years, a lot has changed in the US. The US has changed. In fact, I'm writing a piece now on Christopher Lash. And reading Christopher Lasch work from the 60s and the 1970s, in a way, you wonder why Trumpism has not really emerged a bit earlier than when it did. So, a lot of the... Dynamics that have brought Donald Trump to power, not once, but twice, and in spite of the fact that, you know, he was tried and found guilty and all that. Many of those elements have been there definitely since the 1980s, but Lascch identified especially this divergence between educated people and less educated people between brainies and or the managerial class and the working class in the United States. So, in a way, it looks like the Trumpism's triumph came even a bit late, although there were a couple of attempts perhaps in the early 1990s. One was Pat Buchanan and the other one, Ross Perot, which we forget that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote against in the contest when Bill Clinton. Won the election against George H.W. Bush. So underground, if you will, a lot was happening in the United States.

Andrew Keen: All right. And it's interesting you bring up Lash, there's that sort of whole school Lasch Daniel Bell, of course, we had Daniel Bell's son, David Bell, on the show recently. And there's a lot of discussion, as I'm sure you know, about the nativism of Trump, whether it's uniquely American, whether it was somehow inevitable. We've done last week, we did a show about comparing what's happening now in America to what happened after the First World War. Being less analytical, Solé, my question was more an emotional one to you as someone who has built their life around freedom of expression in American universities. You were at Bennington, you were at SICE, you're at UC Berkeley, as you know, you taught at UC Santa Cruz and Yale and many other places. You come in and out of this country giving lectures. How do you personally feel about what's happening?

Soli Ozel: Yeah, okay. I mean, in that sense, again, the United States, by the way, I mean the United States has been changing independently of Mr. Trump's presidency. It was much more difficult to be, I mean when I went to college in Bennington College, you really did not bite your tongue when you were going to speak either as a student or a professor. And increasingly, and especially in my last bout at Yale in 2019, I felt that, you know, there were a lot of constraints on what you could say or how you could say it, whether you would call it walkism, political correctness, whatever it was. It was a much, the atmosphere at the university was much more constrained in terms of what transpired in the classroom and that I mean, in Turkey, I had more freedom in terms of how we debated things in class that I felt that...

Andrew Keen: That is astonishing. So you had more freedom in...

Soli Ozel: As well, you did in Yale in 1990. I'm talking about not the political aspect of things, but how you debate something, okay, whether or not, I mean, there would be lots of views and you could you could present them without insulting anyone, however you presented them was fine, and this is how what the dynamics of the classroom had been when I was a student. So, in that sense, I guess it wasn't just the right that constrained speech, but also the left that constrained the speech, because new values were added or new norms were invented to define what can and cannot be said. And of course, that goes against the grain of what a university education ought to be. I mean, I had colleagues. In major universities who told me that they really were biting their tongue when they were giving their lectures. And that is not my understanding of education or college education and that certainly has not been my experience when I came to the States and for my long education here for 11 years.

Andrew Keen: Solit, you and I have a long history of thinking about the Middle East, where back in the early 80s, we TA'd a class on the Arab-Israeli conflict with Yaya Sadowski, who at that time was a very independent thinker. I know he was a close friend of yours. I was always very influenced by his thinking. You're from Izmir, from a Jewish family in Turkey. So you're all too familiar with the complexity of anti-Semitism, Israel, the Middle East, Turkey. What do you personally make of this hysteria now on campus about anti-semitism and throwing out anyone, it seems, at least from the Trump point of view, who are pro-Palestinian? Is this again, I mean, you went back to Christopher Lasch and his thinking on populism and the dangers of populism in America. Or is this something that... Comes out of the peculiarities of American history. We have predicted this 40 years ago when you and I were TAing Sadowski's class on Arab-Israeli conflict at Berkeley.

Soli Ozel: The Arab-Israeli conflict always raises passions, if you will. And it's no different. To put it mildly, Salvador, I think. Yeah, it is a bit different now. I mean, of course, my hunch is that anti-Semitism is always present. There is no doubt. And although I followed the developments very closely after October 7. I was not in there physically present. I had some friends, daughters and sons who were students who have reported to me because I'm supposed to know something about those matters. So yeah, antisemitism is there. On the other hand, there is also some exaggeration. We know that a lot of the protesters, for instance, were Jews themselves. But my hunch is that the Trump administration, especially in their attack against elite universities, are using this for political purposes. I'm sure there were other ways of handling this. I don't find it very sincere. And a real problem is being dealt with in a very manipulative political way, I think. Other and moreover So long as there was no violence and I know there were instances of violence that should be punished that I don't have any complaints about, but partially if this is only related to what you say, I'm not sure that this is how a university or relations between students at the university ought to be conducted. If you're not going to be able to say what you think at the university, then what else are you going to say? Are you going be able say it? So this is a much more complicated matter than it is being presented. And as I said, my view or based on what I follow that is happening at colleges, this is being used as an excuse. As somebody I think Peter Beinhart wrote today in the New York Times. He says, No, no, no. It is not really about protecting Jewish students, but it is protecting a certain... Type of Jewish students, and that means it's a political decision, the complaints, legitimate complaints, perhaps, of some students to use those against university administrations or universities themselves that the Trump administration seems to be targeting.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting you bring up Beinart. He was on the show a year or two ago. I think he notes that, I mean, I don't want to put words into his mouth, but he seems to be suggesting that Jews now have a responsibility almost to speak out, not just obviously about what's happening in the U.S., but certainly about what is happening in Gaza. I'm not sure what you think on.

Soli Ozel: He just published a book, he just published the book being Jewish in the US after Gaza or something along those lines. He represents a certain way of thinking about what had happened in Gaza, I mean what had happened to Israel with the attack of Hamas and what had happened afterwards, whether or not he represents the majority. Do you agree with him? I happen to be. I happen to be sympathetic to his views. And especially when you read the book at the beginning, it says, look, he's a believer. Believer meaning he is a practicing Jew. So this is not really a question about his own Jewishness, but how he understands what being a Jew actually means. And from that perspective, putting a lot of accent to the moral aspects of Jewish history and Jewish theological and secular thinking, He is rebelling, if you will, against this way of manipulative use. On the part of some Jewish organizations as well of what had gone on and this is this he sees as a along with others actually he also sees this as a threat to Jewish presence in the United States. You know there is a simultaneous increase in in anti-semitism. And some people argue that this has begun even before October 7. Let us not forget Charlottesville when the crowds that were deemed to be nice people were chanting, Jews will not replace us, and those people are still around. Yeah, a lot of them went to jail.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, I mean Trump seemed to have pardoned some of them. And Solly, what do you make of quote-unquote the resistance to Trump in the U.S.? You're a longtime observer of authoritarianism, both personally and in political science terms. One of the headlines the last few days is about the elite universities forming a private collective to resist the Trump administration. Is this for real and is it new? Should we admire the universities or have they been forced into this position?

Soli Ozel: Well, I mean, look, you started your talk with the CNN title. Yeah, about the brand, the tarnishing of the U.S. Whatever the CNN stands for. The thing is, there is no question that what is happening today and what has been happening in my judgment over the last two years, particularly on the issue of Gaza, I would not... Exonerate the Biden administration and the way it actually managed its policy vis-a-vis that conflict. There is, of course, a reflection on American policy vis a vis that particular problem and with the Trump administration and 100 days of storm, if you will, around the world, there is a shift in the way people look at the United States. I think it is not a very favorable shift in terms of how people view and understand the United States. Now, that particular thing, the colleges coming together, institutions in the United States where the Americans are very proud of their Madisonian institutions, they believe that that was there. Uh, if you will, insurance policy against an authoritarian drift in their system. Those institutions, both public institutions and private institutions actually proved to be paper tigers. I mean, look at corporations that caved in, look at law firms that arcade that have caved in, Look at Columbia university being, if you will the most egregious example of caving in and plus still not getting the money or not actually stopping the demands that are made on it. So Harvard after equivocating on this finally came up with a response and decided to take the risk of losing massive sums of grants from the federal government. And in fact, it's even suing. The Trump administration for withholding the money that was supposed to go to them. And I guess there is an awakening and the other colleges in order to protect freedom of expression, in order, to protect the independence of higher education in this country, which has been sacrosanct, which is why a lot of people from all around the world, students... Including you and I, right? I mean, that's why we... Yeah, exactly. By the way, it's anywhere between $44 and $50 billion worth of business as well. Then it is there finally coming together, because if you don't hang together, you'll hang separately, is a good American expression that I like. And then trying to defend themselves. And I think this Harvard slope suit, the case of Harvard, is going to be like the Stokes trial of the 1920s on evolution. It's going to be a very similar case, I believe, and it may determine how American democracy goes from now.

Andrew Keen: Interesting. You introduced me to Ece Temelkuren, another of your friends from someone who no longer lives in Turkey. She's a very influential Turkish columnist, polemicist. She wrote a famous book, How to Lose a Country. She and you have often compared Turkey. With the rest of the world suggesting that what you're going through in Turkey is the kind of canary in the coal mine for the rest the world. You just came out with a piece, Turkey, a crisis of legitimacy, a massive social mobilization and regional power. I want to get to the details of what's happening in Turkey first. But like Ece, do you see Turkey as the kind of canary and the coalmine that you got into this first? You're kind of leading the narrative of how to address authoritarianism in the 25th century.

Soli Ozel: I don't think Turkey was the first one. I think the first one was Hugo Chavez. And then others followed. Turkey certainly is a prominent one. But you know, you and I did other programs and in an earlier era, about 15 years ago. Turkey was actually doing fine. I mean, it was a candidate for membership, still presumably, formally, a candidate for membership in the European Union, but at the time when that thing was alive. Turkey did, I mean, the AKP government or Erdogan as prime minister did a lot of things that were going in the right direction. They certainly demilitarized Turkish politics, but increasingly as they consolidated themselves in power, they moved in a more authoritarian path. And of course, after the coup attempt in 2016 on the 15th of July, that trend towards authoritarianism had been exacerbated and but with the help of a very sui generis if you will unaccountable presidential system we are we find ourselves where we are but The thing is what has been missed out by many abroad was that there was also a very strong resistance that had remained actually unbowing for a long time. And Istanbul, which is, of course, almost a fifth of Turkey's population, 32 percent of its economy, and that's where the pulse of the country actually beats, since 2017 did not vote for Mr Erdogan. I mean, referendum, general election, municipal election. It hasn't, it hasn't. And that is that really, it really represents the future. And today, the disenchantment or discontent has now become much broader, much more broadly based because conservative Anatolia is also now feeling the biting of the economy. And this sense of justice in the country has been severely damaged. And That's what I think explains. The kinds of reaction we had throughout the country to the first arrest and then incarceration of the very popular mayor of Istanbul who is a national figure and who was seen as the main contender for the presidency in the elections that are scheduled to take place in.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I want to talk more about Turkey's opposition and an interesting New York Times editorial. But before we get there, Soli, you mentioned that the original model was Chavez in Venezuela, of course, who's always considered a leftist populist, whereas Erdogan, Trump, etc., and maybe Netanyahu are considered populists of the right. Is that a useful? Bifurcation in ideological terms or a populist populism that the idea of Chavez being different from Trump because one's on the left and right is really a 20th century mistake or a way of thinking about the 21st century using 20th-century terms.

Soli Ozel: Okay, I mean the ideological proclivities do make a difference perhaps, but at the end of the day, what all these populist movements represent is the coming of age or is the coming to power of country elites. Suggests claiming to represent the popular classes whom they say and who are deprived of. Uh, benefits of holding power economically or politically, but once they get established in power and with the authoritarian tilt doesn't really make a distinction in terms of right or wrong. I mean, is Maduro the successor to Chavez a rightist or a leftist? I mean does it really make a difference whether he calls himself a leftists or a rightists? I is unaccountable, is authoritarian. He loses elections and then he claims that he wins these elections and so the ideology that purportedly brought them to power becomes a fig leaf, if you will, justification and maybe the language that they use in order to justify the existing authoritarianism. In that sense, I don't think it makes a difference. Maybe initially it could have made a difference, We have seen populist leaders. Different type of populism perhaps in Latin America. For instance, the Peruvian military was supposed to be very leftist, whereas the Chilean or the Brazilian or the Argentinian or the Uruguayan militaries were very right-wing supported by the church itself. Nicaragua was supposed to be very Leftist, right? They had a revolution, the Sandinista revolution. And look at Daniel Ortega today, does it really matter that he claims himself to be a man of the left? I mean, He runs a family business in Nicaragua. And so all those people who were so very excited about the Nicaraguan Revolution some 45 years ago must be extraordinarily disappointed. I mean, of course, I was also there as a student and wondering what was going to happen in Nicaragua, feeling good about it and all that. And that turned out to be an awful dictatorship itself.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, and on this sense, I think you're on the same page as our mutual friend, Moises Naim, who wrote a very influential book a couple of years ago. He's been on the show many times about learning all this from the Latin American playbook because of his experience in Venezuela. He has a front row on this. Solly, is there one? On this, I mean, as I said, you just come out with a piece on the current situation in Turkey and talk a little bit more detail, but is America a few stops behind Turkey? I mean you mentioned that in Turkey now everyone, not just the urban elites in Istanbul, but everyone in the country is beginning to experience the economic decline and consequences of failed policies. A lot of people are predicting the same of Trump's America in the next year or two. Is there just one route in this journey? Is there's just one rail line?

Soli Ozel: Like by what the root of established wow a root in the sense of you

Andrew Keen: Erdogan or Trump, they come in, they tell lots of lies, they promise a lot of stuff, and then ultimately they can't deliver. Whatever they're promising, the reverse often happens. The people they're supposed to be representing are actually victims of their policies. We're seeing it in America with the consequences of the tariff stuff, of inflation and rise of unemployment and the consequences higher prices. It has something similar. I think of it as the Liz Truss effect, in the sense that the markets ultimately are the truth. And Erdogan, I know, fought the markets and lost a few years ago in Turkey too.

Soli Ozel: There was an article last week in Financial Times Weekend Edition, Mr. Trump versus Mr. Market. Trump versus, Mr. Market. Look, first of all, I mean, in establishing a system, the Orban's or Modi's, they all follow, and it's all in Ece's book, of course. You have to control the judiciary, you have to control the media, and then all the institutions. Gradually become under your thumb. And then the way out of it is for first of all, of course, economic problems, economic pain, obviously makes people uncomfortable, but it will have to be combined with the lack of legitimacy, if you will. And that is, I don't think it's right, it's there for in the United States as of yet, but the shock has been so. Robust, if you will, that the reaction to Trump is also rising in a very short period, in a lot shorter period of time than it did in other parts of the world. But economic conditions, the fact that they worsen, is an important matter. But there are other conditions that need to be fulfilled. One of those I would think is absolutely the presence of a political leader that defies the ones in power. And I think when I look at the American scene today, one of the problems that may, one of problems that the political system seems to have, which of course, no matter how economically damaging the Trump administration may be, may not lead to an objection to it. To a loss of power in the midterms to begin with, is lack of leadership in the Democratic Party and lack of a clear perspective that they can share or program that they present to the public at large. Without that, the ones that are in power hold a lot of cards. I mean, it took Turkey about... 18 years after the AKP came to power to finally have potential leaders, and only in 2024 did it become very apparent that now Turkey had more than one leader that could actually challenge Erdogan, and that they also had, if not to support the belief in the public, that they could also run the country. Because if the public does not believe that you are competent enough to manage the affairs of the state or to run the country, they will not vote for you. And leadership truly is an extraordinarily important factor in having democratic change in such systems, what we call electoral authoritarian.

Andrew Keen: So what's happened in Turkey in terms of the opposition? The mayor of Istanbul has emerged as a leader. There's an attempt to put him in jail. You talk about the need for an opposition. Is he an ideological figure or just simply younger, more charismatic? More attractive on the media. What do you need and what is missing in the US and what do you have in Turkey? Why are you a couple of chapters ahead on this?

Soli Ozel: Well, it was a couple of chapters ahead because we have had the same government or the same ruler for 22 years now.

Andrew Keen: And Imamo, I wanted you to pronounce it, Sali, because my Turkish is dreadful. It's worse than most of the other.

Soli Ozel: He is the mayor of Istanbul who is now in jail and whose diploma was annulled by the university which actually gave him the diploma and the reason why that is important is if you want to run for president in Turkey, you've got to have a college degree. So that's how it all started. And then he was charged with corruption and terrorism. And he's put in zero. Oh, it's terrorism. There was.

Andrew Keen: It's terrorism, they always throw the terrorist bit in, don't they, Simon?

Soli Ozel: Yeah, but that dossier is, for the moment, pending. It has not been closed, but it is pending. Anyway, he is young, but his major power is that he can touch all segments of society, conservative, nationalist, leftist. And that's what makes people compare him also with Erdogan who also had a touch of appealing to different segments of the population. But of course, he's secular. He's not ideological, he's a practical man. And Istanbul's population is about anywhere between 16 and 18 million people. It's larger than many countries in Europe. And to manage a city like Istanbul requires really good managerial skills. And Imamoglu managed this in spite of the fact that central government cut its resources, made sure that there was obstruction in every step that he wanted to take, and did not help him a bit. And that still was continuing. Still, he won once. Then there was a repeat election. He won again. And this time around, he one with a landslide, 54% against 44% of his opponent, which had all the

Andrew Keen: So the way you're presenting him, is he running as a technocrat or is he running as a celebrity?

Soli Ozel: No, he's running as a politician. He's running a politician, he is a popular politician. Maybe you can see tinges of populism in him as well, but... He is what, again, what I think his incarceration having prompted such a wide ranging segments of population really kind of rebelling against this incarceration has to do with the fact that he has resonance in Anatolia. Because he does not scare conservative people. He aspires the youth because he speaks to them directly and he actually made promises to them in Istanbul that he kept, he made their lives easier. And he's been very creative in helping the poorer segments of Istanbul with a variety of programs. And he has done this without really being terribly pushing. So, I mean, I think I sense that the country sees him as its next ruler. And so to attack him was basically tampering with the verdict of the ballot box. That's, I, think how the Turkish public interpreted it. And for good historical reasons, the ballot box is really pretty sacred in Turkey. We usually have upwards of 80% of participation in the election.

Andrew Keen: And they're relatively, I mean, not just free, but the results are relatively honest. Yeah, there was an interesting New York Times editorial a couple of days ago. I sent it over. I'm sure you'd read it anyway. Turkey's people are resisting autocracy. They deserve more than silence. I mean from Trump, who has very peculiar relations, he has peculiar relations with everyone, but particularly it seems with Turkey does, in your view, does Turkey needs or the resistance or the mayor of Istanbul this issue, need more support from the US? Would it make any difference?

Soli Ozel: Well, first of all, the current American administration didn't seem to particularly care that the arrest and incarceration of the mayor of Istanbul was a bit, to say the least, was awkward and certainly not very legal. I mean, Mario Rubio said, Marco Rubio said that he had concerns. But Mr. Witkoff, in the middle of demonstrations that were shaking the country, Mr. Witkof said it to Tucker Carlson's show that there were very wonderful news coming out of Turkey. And of course, President Trump praised Erdogan several times. They've been on the phone, I think, five times. And he praised Erdogan in front of Bibi Netanyahu, which obviously Bibi Netanyah did not particularly appreciate either. So obviously the American administration likes Mr. Erdogans and will support him. And whatever the Turkish public may or may not want, I don't think is of great interest to

Andrew Keen: What about the international dimension, sorry, Putin, the Ukrainian war? How does that play out in terms of the narrative unfolding in Turkey?

Soli Ozel: Well, first of all, of course, when the Assad regime fell,

Andrew Keen: Right, and as that of course. And Syria of course as well posts that.

Soli Ozel: Yeah, I mean, look, Turkey is in the middle of two. War zones, no? Syria was one and the Ukraine is the other. And so when the regime fell and it was brought down by groups that were protected by Turkey in Idlib province of Syria. Everybody argued, and I think not wrongly, that Turkey would have a lot of say over the future of Syria. And I think it will. First of all, Turkey has about 600 miles or 911 kilometer border with Syria and the historical relations.

Andrew Keen: And lots of Syrian refugees, of course.

Soli Ozel: At the peak, there were about 4 million, I think it's now going down. President Erdogan said that about 200,000 already went back since the overthrow of the regime. And then of course, to the north, there is Ukraine, Russia. And of course this elevates Turkey's strategic importance or geopolitical importance. Another issue that raises Turkish geopolitical importance is, of course, the gradual withdrawal of the United States from providing security to Europe under the umbrella of NATO, North Atlantic Alliance. And as the Europeans are being forced to fetch for themselves for their security, non-EU members of NATO such as Britain, Norway, Turkey, their importance becomes more accentuated as well. And so Turkey and the European Union were in the process of at least somewhat normalizing their relations and their dialog. So what happened domestically, therefore, did not get much of a reaction from the EU, which is supposed to be this paragon of rights and liberties and all that. But But it also left Turkey in a game in an awkward situation, I would think, because things could have gone much, much better. The rapprochement with the European Union could have moved a lot more rapidly, I will think. But geopolitical advantages are there. Obviously, the Americans care a lot for it. And whatever it is that they're negotiating with the Turkish government, we will soon find out. It is a... It is a country that would help stabilize Syria. And that's what President Trump also said, that he would adjudicate between Israel and Turkey over Syria, because these two countries which have been politically at odds, but strategically usually in very good terms. Whether or not the, so to avoid a clash between the two in Syria was important for him. So Turkey's international situation will continue to be important, but I think without the developments domestically, Turkey's position and profile would have been much more solid.

Andrew Keen: Comparing US and Turkey, the US military has never participated, at least overtly, in politics, whereas the Turkish military, of course, has historically. Where's the Turkish Military on this? What are they thinking about these imprisonments and the increasing unpopularity of the current regime?

Soli Ozel: I think the demilitarization of the Turkish political system was accomplished by the end of the 2000s, so I don't think anybody knows what the military thinks and I'm not sure that anybody really wonders what the army thinks. I think Erdogan has certainly on the top echelons of the military, it has full control. Whether or not the cadets in the Turkish military are lower echelons. Do have political views at odds with that of the government that is not visible. And I don't think the Turkish military should be designing or defining our political system. We have an electorate. We do have a fairly, how shall I say, a public that is fairly attuned to its own rights. And believes certainly in the sanctity of the ballot box, it's been resisting for quite some time and it is defying the authorities and we should let that take its course. I don't think we need the military to do it.

Andrew Keen: Finally, Soli, you've been very generous with your time from Vienna. It's late afternoon there. Let's end where we began with this supposed tarnishing of the U.S. Brand. As we noted earlier, you and I have invested our lives, if for better or worse, in the U S brand. We've always been critical, but we've also been believers in this. It's also important in this brand.

Soli Ozel: It is an important grant.

Andrew Keen: So how do we, and I don't like this term, maybe there is a better term, brands suggest marketing, something not real, but there is something real about the US. How do we re-establish, or I don't know what the word is, a polish rather than tarnish the US brand? What needs to happen in the U.S.

Soli Ozel: Well, I think we will first have to see the reinvigoration of institutions in the United States that have been assaulted. That's why I think the Harvard case... Yeah, and I love you.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I love your idea of comparing it to the Scopes trial of 1926. We probably should do a whole show on that, it's fascinating idea.

Soli Ozel: Okay, and then the Democratic Party will have to get its act together. I don't know how long it will take for them to get their act together, they have not been very...

Andrew Keen: Clever. But some Democrats will say, well, there's more than one party. The Sanders AOC wing has done its job. People like Gavin Newsom are trying to do their job. I mean, you can't have an official party. There's gonna be a debate. There already is a debate within the party between the left and the right.

Soli Ozel: The thing is, debates can be endless, and I don't think there is time for that. First of all, I think the decentralized nature of American governance is also an advantage. And I think that the assault has been so forceful that everybody has woken up to it. It could have been the frog method, you know, that is... Yeah, the boiling in the hot water. So, already people have begun to jump and that is good, that's a sign of vitality. And therefore, I think in due time, things will be evolving in a different direction. But, for populist or authoritarian inclined populist regimes, control of the institutions is very important, so you've got to be alert. And what I discovered, studying these things and looking at the practice. Executive power is a lot of power. So separation of powers is fine and good, but the thing is executive power is really very... Prominent and the legislature, especially in this particular case with the Republican party that has become the instrument of President Trump, and the judiciary which resists but its power is limited. I mean, what do you do when a court decision is not abided by the administration? You cannot send the police to the White House.

Andrew Keen: Well, you might have to, that's why I asked the military question.

Soli Ozel: Well, it's not up to the military to do this, somehow it will have to be resolved within the civilian democratic system, no matter where. Yes, the decks are stacked against the opposition in most of these cases, but then you'll have to fight. And I think a lot hinges on how corporations are going to react from now on. They have bet on Trump, and I suppose that many of them are regretting because of the tariffs. I just was at a conference, and there was a German business person who said that he has a factory in Germany and a factory in Ohio. And he told me that within three months there would not be any of the goods that he produces on the shelves because of tariffs. Once this begins to hit, then you may see a different dynamic in the country as well, unless the administration takes a U-turn. But if it does take a U turn, it will also have weakened itself, both domestically and internationally.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, certainly, to put it mildly. Well, as we noted, Soli, what's real is economics. The rest is perhaps froth or lies or propaganda.

Soli Ozel: It's a necessary condition. Without that deteriorating, you really cannot get things on values done.

Andrew Keen: In other words, Marx was right, but perhaps in a slightly different context. We're not going to get into Marx today, Soli, we're going to get you back on the show. Cause I love that comparison with the current, the Harvard Trump legal thing, comparing it to Scopes. I think I hadn't thought of that. It's a very interesting idea. Keep well, keep safe, keep telling the truth from Central Europe and Turkey. As always, Solia, it's an honor to have you on the show. Thank you so much.

Soli Ozel: Thank you, Andrew, for having me.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Americans, it’s time to move to Europe! The American geo-strategist Jason Pack anticipated last week’s advice from Simon Kuper and moved to London a few years ago during the first Trump Presidency. Pack, the host of the excellent Disorder podcast, confesses to be thrilled to have escaped MAGA America. He describes the esthetics of contemporary Washington DC as "post-apocalyptic" and criticizes what he sees as the Trump administration's hostile atmosphere, ideological purity tests, and institutional destruction. Contrasting this with Europe's ideological fluidity, Pack warns that Trump's isolationist policies are increasing global disorder by fundamentally undermining America's global leadership role with its erstwhile European allies.

Five Key Takeaways

* Pack left America because he found the "esthetics" of working in policy and media spaces increasingly distasteful, particularly during Trump's first administration.

* He argues that European political systems allow for greater ideological fluidity, while American politics demands strict partisan loyalty.

* Pack describes Washington DC as "post-apocalyptic" with institutions functioning like zombies - going through motions without accomplishing anything meaningful.

* Unlike European populists who want to control institutions, Pack believes Trump's administration aims to destroy government institutions entirely.

* Pack warns that America's deteriorating relationships with traditional allies is creating a "rudderless world" with increased global disorder and potential for conflict.

Full Transcript

Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. Over the last few days, we've been focusing on the impressions of America, of Trump's America around the world. We had the Financial Times' controversial columnist, Simon Cooper, on the show, arguing that it's the end of the American dream. He had a piece in the FT this week, arguing that it's time to move to Europe for Americans. Not everyone agrees. We had the London-based FT writer Jemima Kelly on the show recently, also suggesting that she hasn't quite given up on America. She is, of course, a Brit living in the UK and looking at America from London. My guest today, another old friend, is Jason Pack. He is the host of the Excellent Disorder podcast. Jason's been on the shows lots of times before. He's an observer of the world's early 21st century disorder. And he is an American living in London. So I'm thrilled that Jason is back on the show. Jason, did you have a chance to look at Simon Cooper's piece? Is it time for Americans to move to Europe?

Jason Pack: You've already moved. Well, he's just popularizing what I've believed for eight or 10 years already. So yeah, I looked at the piece. I really enjoyed your podcast with him. I don't think many Americans will move because most Americans are not particularly global in their outlook. And as disenchanted as they will be, their networks of family and of perspective are in America. Some elites in media and finance will move. But for me, I just found the aesthetics of America becoming distasteful when I worked in D.C. during the first Trump administration. And that's why I pursued a European citizenship.

Andrew Keen: Jason, it's interesting that you choose the word aesthetics. Two thoughts on that. Firstly, America has never been distinguished for its aesthetics. People never came to America for aesthetics. It's never been a particularly beautiful country, a very dynamic place, a very powerful place. So why do you choose that word aesthetic?

Jason Pack: Because for most upper middle class Americans, life under Trump, particularly if they're white and heterosexual, will not change tremendously. But the aesthetics of working in the policy space or in the media will change. Having to deal with all the BS that we hear when we wake up and turn on the TV in the morning, having to interact with Republican nutcase friends who say, oh, the fat is being trimmed by the doge and don't worry about all those people who've been being laid off. The aesthetics of it are ugly and mean. And I have found among some Republican colleagues and friends of mine that they love the vileness of this dog-eat-dog aesthetic.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's an interesting way of putting it. And I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm less concerned with the aesthetics as with the reality. And my sense in some ways of what's happening is that the Trump people are obsessed with what you call aesthetics. They want to appear mean. I'm not actually sure that they're quite as mean as they'd like to think they are.

Jason Pack: Oh, they're pretty mean. I mean, people are running around the NIH offices, according to colleagues of mine. And if you're out to the bathroom and your card is inserted in your computer, they go in, they steal the data from your computer.

Andrew Keen: Actually, I take your point. What I meant more by that is that whereas most traditional authoritarian regimes hide their crimes against migrants. They deny wrongdoing. My sense of the Trump regime, or certainly a lot of the people involved in this Trump administration, is that they actually exaggerate it because it gives them pleasure and it somehow benefits their brand. I'm not convinced that they're quite as bad as they'd like to think.

Jason Pack: Oh, I agree with that. They make Schadenfreude a principle. They want to showcase that they enjoy other people's pain. It's a bizarre psychological thing. Trump, for example, wanted to show his virility and his meanness, probably because he's an inner coward and he's not that feral. But we digress in terms of the aesthetics of the individual American wanting to leave. I experienced American government, like the State Department, and then, the bureaucracy of the policy space, say think tanks, or even the government relations trade space, say working for oil companies and government relations, as already authoritarian and ass-kissing in America, and the aesthetics of those industries I have always preferred in Europe, and that's only diverging.

Andrew Keen: One of the things that always struck me about Washington, D.C. It was always uncomfortable as an imperial city. It always has been since the end of the Second World War, with America dominating the world as being one of two or perhaps the only super power in the world. But Washington, DC seems to always have been uncomfortable wearing its imperial mantle cloak in comparison, I think, to cities like London or Paris. I wonder whether, I'm not sure how much time you've spent back in America since Trump came back to power. I wonder if in that sense DC is trying to catch up with London and Paris.

Jason Pack: I actually was giving a briefing in Congress to staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee only three weeks ago, and DC seemed post-apocalyptic to me. Many of my favorite restaurants were closing. There was traffic jams at bizarre hours of the day, which I think this is because the Trump people don't know how public transport works and they just ride their cars everywhere. So, yes, it seemed very bizarre being back. You were trying to gauge the interlocutor you were speaking to, were they merely pretending to be on board with Trump's stuff, but they actually secretly think it's ridiculous, or were they true believers? And you had to assess that before you would make your comments. So there is a slide to a kind of, again, neo-authoritarian aesthetic. In my conference, it became clear that the Republican Congressional staffers thought that it was all junk and that Trump doesn't care about Libya and he doesn't understand these issues. But we needed to make lip service in how we expressed our recommendations. So, fascinatingly, various speakers said, oh, there's a transactional win. There's a way that cheaper oil can be gotten here or we could make this policy recommendation appeal to the transactional impulses of the administration. Even though everyone knew that we were speaking in a Democrat echo-chamber where the only Republicans present were anti-Trump Republicans anyway.

Andrew Keen: Describe DC as post-apocalyptic. What exactly then, Jason, is the apocalypse?

Jason Pack: I don't think that the Trump people who are running the show understand how government works and whether you're at state or the NIH or USAID, you're kind of under siege and you're just doing what you're supposed to do and going through the motions. I mean, there's so much of like the zombie apocalypse going on. So maybe it's more zombie apocalypse than regular apocalypse, whereby the institutions are pretending to do their work, but they know that it doesn't accomplish anything. And the Trumpian appointees are kind of pretending to kind of cancel people on DAI, but the institutions are still continuing.

Andrew Keen: I'm going to vulgarize something you said earlier. You talked about Trump wanting to appear bigger than he actually is. Maybe we might call that small penis syndrome. Is that, and then that's my term, Jason, let's be clear, not yours. Maybe it's fair or not. He probably would deny it, but I don't think he'll come on this show. He's more than welcome. Is that also reflected in the people working for him? Is there a bit of a small penis syndrome going on with a lot of the Trump people? Are they small town boys coming to America, coming to D.C. And in all their raison d'état trying to smash up the world that they always envied?

Jason Pack: 100%. If you look at the Tucker Carlson and the Hegset, who went to Princeton in 03, and obviously Tucker Carlsen's WASP elite background is well known, they wanted to make it conventionally and couldn't. Hegson didn't achieve the rank of lieutenant general or colonel or anything in the army. He didn't make it in finance and Vance, obviously had just a minor career in finance, they didn't make the big time except through their hate and resentment of the establishment that succeeded on merit. So, I mean, you could call that small penis syndrome. I think another thing to point out is that many of them have been selected because whether they've been accused of rape or financial crimes or just meanness, they owe the great leader their ability to be in that position. And if he would throw them overboard they're entirely exposed, so that cash patels of the world and the Hexeds of the world serve at the mercy of the great leader, because if they were thrown to the wolves, they could be devoured for their misdeeds. And I think that that makes it a place where it's all about loyalty to the boss. But maybe we could pivot to the initial topic about how I think Europe is a place where you can reinvent yourself as an individual now. Certainly in the political and ideology space, and America really hasn't been for much of my left.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting. And this is how actually our conversation you're doing. You're a much better podcast host than I am, Jason. You're reminding us of the real conversation rather than getting led down one Trumpian byway or another. I did a show recently on why I still believe in the American dream. And I was interviewed by my friend, David Maschiottra, another old friend of the show. And I suggested I originally came to America to reinvent myself and that's always been the platform with which Europeans have come to America. You're suggesting that perhaps the reverse is true now.

Jason Pack: I really enjoyed that episode. I thought you were a great guest and he was a natural host. But I realized how it wasn't speaking to me. Many of my European friends who work in law, finance, tech, startup, you know, they finished their degrees in Italy or in England and they moved to America. And that's where they raised venture capital and they go on the exact success trajectory that you explained and they fetishize, oh my God, when my green card is gonna come through, I'm gonna have this big party. That never resonated with me because America was never a land of opportunity for me. And it hit me in hearing your podcast that that's because what I've aspired to is to work in government slash think tank or to be a professional expert. And if you don't ally yourself with one of the major political movements, you're always branded and you can never move ahead. I'll give a few examples if you're interested in the way that my trying to be in the center has meant that I could never find a place in America.

Andrew Keen: Absolutely. So you're suggesting that your quote-unquote American dream could only be realized in Europe.

Jason Pack: So I moved to the Middle East to serve my country after 9/11. If Gore had been elected president, I likely would have joined the army or the Marines or something. But Bush was president and I knew I needed to do this on my own. So, you know, I lived in Beirut, then I went to Iraq. Where did you graduate from, Jason? I graduated from Williams in 2002, but I was changing my studies as soon as the 9-11 happened. I stopped my senior thesis in biology and I pivoted to doing the Middle East. I thought the Middle East was going to be the next big thing. But I didn't realize that if you wanted to do it your own way, for example, living in Syria prior to working in government, then you couldn't get those security clearances. But in the UK, that's not really a problem. If you go to Leeds or Oxford and you got sent to study Arabic in Syria, you can work for the UK government, but not in America. If your went and did that your own way, your loyalties would be questioned. You wouldn't get your security clearance. I got an internship to work at the U.S. Embassy in Muscat, where I fell afoul of my supervisors because I was someone who wanted to speak in Arabic with Omanis and, for example, go to hear prayers at the mosque and really be a part of the society. And I was told, don't do that. But aren't we here to understand about Oman? And they're like, no, it's really important to mostly socialize with people at the embassy. But my British colleagues, they were out there in Omani society, and they were, for example, really participating in stuff because the relationship between the Omanis and the Brits and the Americans is a happy one. That's just a small example, but I wanna make the kind of further point, which is that if you wanna get promoted in think tank world in America, it doesn't matter whether it's Cato or Heritage on the right or New America Foundation or Middle East Institute on the left. You have to buy in hook, line, and sinker to the party line of those institutions. And if that party line is DEI, as it was at the Middle East Institute when I was there, and you're a white heterosexual male, you're not going to get promoted. And if, for example, you want to then interact with some Zionist think tank like FDD, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, I was going to a fellowship there for work that I had done about monitoring ISIS in Libya, and they had proposed a funding line for my project, which was just technically reading jihadi Facebook posts and monitoring them. And then they did some more research on me, ironically, after we had already signed the funds. And they said, oh, we're so sorry, we are going to have to pull back on this. We are going have to pay you a kill fee. We are really, really sorry. And I came to understand why that was. And it was because I had advocated that the Iranians should be allowed to get the bomb so that they could have mutually assured destruction theory with Israel.

Andrew Keen: Well, Jason, I take your point, but everyone has their own narrative when it comes to why their career didn't did or didn't take off and how they know what that doesn't happen in Europe. I'm just making a contrast. Let me just come back to my argument about America, which is it isn't necessarily as straightforward as perhaps at first it seems. I think one of the reasons why America has always been a great place for reinvention is because of the absence of memory.

Jason Pack: No, but what I'm saying is Google will inspire on you, and if you're not within the ideological cadre, you cannot progress at these kind of institutions.

Andrew Keen: Okay, I take your point on that, but thinking more broadly, America is a place where you can, I've done so many different things in this country from being a scholar to being an internet entrepreneur to being an expert on technology to being a critic of technology to being against podcasts, to being a podcaster. And you can get away, and I've failed in practically all of them, if not all of them, but the fact is that because people don't have memory, you can keep on doing different things and people won't say, well, how can you get away with this? Last week you were doing X. My sense, and maybe correct me if I'm wrong about London or Europe, is there is much more memory. You can't get away with perpetual reinvention in Europe as you can in the U.S. and maybe that's because of the fact that in your language, living in Europe with its memory and respect for memory is more aesthetically pleasing. So I'm not suggesting this is as simple as it might appear.

Jason Pack: I agree with that last point, but I think I'm trying to bring something else out. In spheres like tech or podcasting, there isn't credentialism in America. And therefore, if you're just good at it, you don't need the credentials and you can get going. And you and other Europeans who had great merit, as you do, have benefited from that. And in Europe, you might run up against credentialism, but, oh, but you didn't work at the BBC, so you don't get the job. I'm making a different point about ideological purity within the very specific realms of, say, working for an American presidential candidate or briefing a policymaker or rising up at a think tank. I have briefed labor MPs, Lib Dem MPs and Tory MPs. And they don't ask my politics. I can go in there and get a meeting with Keir Starmer's people on Libya, and they don't care about the fact that I want him to do something slightly different. Criticized him and praised him at different times on my podcast, try having an influence with some Trump people and then say, Oh, well, you know, I really think that I can help you on this Libya policy, but I happened to run a fairly anti-Trump podcast. No, you just can't get the briefing because America is about ideological purity tests and getting your ticket punch in the government and think tank and exporting professions, and therefore it's not some place you can reinvent yourself. If you're clearly an anti-Trump Republican McCainite, you can't all of a sudden become an AOC Democrat for the purpose of one meeting. But in Europe you can, because you can be a Lib Dem like Liz Truss and then be a Tory Prime Minister. And no one cares what my position on these topics are when they ask me to brief Keir Starmer's people and that's something that I find so fantastic about Europe.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, you know this stuff better than I do. But isn't someone like Truss rooted in ideological purity? She was a Lib Dem when she was at Oxford. Yeah, but that was a long time ago. I can reverse that, Jason, and say, well, when Trump was young, he ran around with Bill and Hillary Clinton, he went to their wedding, he funded them. He never was even a Republican until 2014 or 15. So, I mean, he's an example of the very ideological fluidity that you idealize in Europe.

Jason Pack: I agree with your point. I think that he's an exception there and he wouldn't have allowed it from his staffers. They now have essentially loyalty tested everything. It's not a place where if you were Democrat with ideas that would benefit the Trumpian establishment, you can be heard. I'll give an example. I like the Abraham Accords and I have a colleague who wants to help extend the Abraham Accords to Pakistan, she can only work with ideologically pure Republicans in the pitching of this idea. She can't work with someone like me because I don't have the ideological purity, even though this is a nonpartisan idea and it should be embraced if you can get the Trumpians to be interested in it. But that's not how America works and it has not been. Reagan, of course, if you said that you like taxes, and I'm someone who likes taxes and I don't believe in the Laffer curve, and neoliberalism is a sham, you couldn't be on that economic team. So there are different ideological tests. Trump was never a politician, so he's not an expert like me in the expert class where we've been litmus tested our whole careers.

Andrew Keen: Interesting. Jason, yesterday I was talking to someone who was thinking of hiring me to do a speech in Europe to a business group, and we were discussing the kinds of speeches I could give, and one of the things I suggested was a defense of America, suggesting that we can believe in America and that everyone's wrong. And these people have hired me before. I've often made provocative counterintuitive arguments, there was a little bit of a silence and they said, you can't make that speech in Europe. No one will take it seriously to a business community. What's generally, I mean, you travel a lot, you talk to lots of different people. Have people really given up on the promise of America, particularly within the establishment, the business establishment, the political establishment?

Jason Pack: I don't know. I think that many Europeans still think that this is a passing phase. I will comment on the fact that I do not see anti-Americanism in my daily life as a result of Trump, the way that, for example, you do see anti-Semitism as a results of Netanyahu's policy. The individual Jew is tarred by horrible things happening in Gaza, but the individual American is not tarred by the deporting and illegal detentions and sacking of people by Doge because people in Poland or London or even the Middle East understand that you're likely to not be a Trump supporter and they're not targeting you as an individual as a result of that. So I think they believe in the promise of America and they still might like to move to America. But on individual level if you want to be a political animal inside the beast of campaigns, rising up to be a David Axelrod kind of figure. America has been a place of these litmus tests. Whereas in Europe, you know, I feel that there's tremendous fluidity because in Italy they have so and so many political parties and in Germany, what's the distinction between the SPD at one moment in the CDU and the Greens and there's a tradition of coalitions that allows the individual to reinvent himself.

Andrew Keen: One of the things that came up with Cooper, and he's certainly no defender of Marine Le Pen or Meloni in Italy, but he suggested that the Trump people are far to the right of Le Pen and Meloni. Would you agree with that?

Jason Pack: Because they want to break down institutions, whereas Le Pen and Meloni simply want to conquer the institutions and use them. They're not full-blown, disordering neopopulists, to use the language of my disorder podcast. When Meloni is in power, she loves the Italian state and she wants it to function merely with her ideological slant. Whereas the Trumpians, they have a Bannonite wing, they don't simply wanna have a MAGA agenda, use the U.S. Government. No, they want to break the Department of Agriculture. They want to break the EPA. They simply want to destroy our institutions. And there's no European political party that wants that. Maybe on the fringe like reform, but reform probably doesn't even want that.

Andrew Keen: But Jason, we've heard so much about how the Bannonites idealized Orban in Hungary. A lot of people believe that Project 2025 was cooked up in Budapest trying to model America on Orban. Is there any truth to that? I mean, are the Trump people really re-exporting Orbanism back into the United States?

Jason Pack: That there is some truth, but it can be overplayed. It can go back further to Berlusconi. It's the idea that a particularly charismatic political leader can come to dominate the media landscape by either having a state media channel in the Berlusconi sense or cowing media coverage to make it more favorable, which is something that Orban has done geniusly, and then doling out contracts and using the state for patronage, say, Orban's father's construction business and all those concrete soccer stadiums. There is an attempt potentially in Trump land to, through an ideological project, cow the media and the checks and balances and have a one-party state with state media. I think it's going to be difficult for them to achieve, but Chuck Carlson and others and Bannon seem to want that.

Andrew Keen: You were on Monocle recently talking about the Pope's death. J.D. Vance, of course, is someone who apparently had a last, one of the last conversations with the Pope. Pope wasn't particularly, Pope Francis wasn't particularly keen on him. Bannon and Vance are both outspoken Catholics. What's your take on the sort of this global religious movement on the part of right-wing Catholics, and how does it fit in, not only to the death of Francis, but perhaps the new Pope?

Jason Pack: It's a very interesting question. I'm not a right-wing Catholic, so I'm really not in a position to...

Andrew Keen: I thought you were Jason, that's why you could always come on the show.

Jason Pack: I think that they don't have the theological bona fides to say that what they call Catholicism is Catholicism because obviously Jesus turned the other cheek, you know, and Jesus didn't want to punish his enemies and make poor black or Hispanic women suffer. But there is an interesting thing that has been going on since 1968, which is that there was a backlash against the student protests and free love and the condom and all the social changes that that brought about. And Catholics have been at the forefront, particularly Catholic institutions, in saying this has gone too far and we need to use religion to retake our society. And if we don't, no one will have children and we will lose out and the Muslims and Africans will rule the roost because they're having babies. And that right-wing Catholicism is caught up in the moral panic and culture wars since 1968. What I argued in the monocle interview that you referenced from earlier today is something quite different, which is that the Catholic Church has a unique kind of authority, and that that unique kind of authority can be used to stand up against Trump, Bannon, Orban, and other neopopulists in a way that, say, Mark Carney or Keir Starmer cannot, because if Mark Kearney and Keir Stormer say, you guys are not sufficiently correctly American and you're not following the American laws, blah, blah blah, the kind of Americans who support Trump are not convinced by that because they say, these are just, you know, pinko Brits and Canadians. I don't even care about Mark Kearny, but it's quite different if the next Pontiff is someone who comes not only from the school of Francis, but maybe more so is a great communicator vested in the real doctrines of the church, the Lateran Councils and Vatican too, and can say, actually this given thing that Trump has just said is not in line with the principles of Jesus. It's not inline with what the Vatican has said about, for example, migration or social equity. And I find that that is a unique opportunity because even the right-wing Catholics have to acknowledge the Pope and Christian doctrine and the ability of the Catholic hierarchy to say this is not in line with our teachings. So I think there's a very interesting opportunity right now.

Andrew Keen: Perhaps that brings to mind Stalin's supposedly famous remarks to Churchill at Potsdam when they were talking about the Pope. Stalin said to Churchill, the Pope, how many divisions does he have? In other words, it's all about ideology, morality, and ultimately it doesn't really. It's the kind of thing that perhaps if some of the Trump people were as smart as Stalin, they might make the same remark.

Jason Pack: That was a physical war, and the Pope didn't have divisions to sway the battles in World War II, but this is an ideological or an influence war. And the Pope, if you've just seen from media coverage over the last week, is someone who has tremendous media influence. And I do think that the new pontiff could, if he wanted to, stand up to the moral underpinnings of Trump and pull even the most right-wing Catholics away from a Trumpian analysis. Religion is supposed to be about, because Jesus didn't say punish your enemies. Don't turn the other cheek and own the libs. Jesus said something quite different than that. And it will be the opportunity of the new Catholic leader to point that out.

Andrew Keen: I'm not sure if you've seen the movie Conclave, which was very prescient, made by my dear London friend, or at least produced by Tessa Ross at House Productions. But I wonder in these new conversations whether in the debates about who should the new Pope be, they'll mull over TikTok presence.

Jason Pack: I hope they will. And I want to point out something that many people probably are not aware, which is that the College of Cardinals that constitutes the conclave does not have to pick one of their member to be pope. For the last six centuries, they have always chosen one of their own number, but they don't have to. So they could choose someone who has not only an ability to make great TikToks, but someone who can put forth a vision about climate change, about tax equity, for example, maybe about AI and what constitutes humanity from within the Catholic tradition, but reaching new faithful. And I think that they might actually consider we're doing this because in places like Western Europe, attendance is down, but in Eastern Europe and Latin America, it isn't. And in Africa, it's surging. So they may want to reach new millennials in Gen Z with a new message, but one which is rooted in their tradition. And I think that that would be a great counterbalance to what Trump and his ilk have done to how media coverage place things like climate change and migrants these days.

Andrew Keen: Speaking of Trump and his ilk, Jason, lots of conversations here about the first cracks in his monolith. Speaking to me from London, I always look at the front page of The Telegraph, a conservative English newspaper. I refuse to give the money, so I never actually read any of the pieces. But I'm always curious as to the traditional conservative media attitude to Trump. What do not so much the Conservative Party, which seems to be in crisis in the UK, but what does Conservative media, Conservative thinkers, what's their take currently on Trump? Are you seeing a crack? Are people seeing this guy's absolutely insane and that the tariff policy is going to make all of us, everybody in the world poorer?

Jason Pack: Well, Trump has always been a vote loser in the UK. So that even though Farage brags about his relationship, it isn't something that gets him more votes for reform. And whether it's Sunak or Badnak, and Badnak is the current leader of the Tory party, which is an opposition, she can't so closely associate herself with Trump because he's not popular in even right-wing British circles. However, the Tory media, like the telegraph and the spectator, they love the idea that he's owning the Libs. We talked about Schadenfreude, we talked about attacking the woke. The spectator has taken a very anti-woke turn over the last five to 10 years. And they love the ideal of pointing out the hypocrisies of the left and the effeminacy of it and all of that. And that gets them more clicks. So from a media perspective, there is a way in which the Murdoch media is always going to love the click bait, New York post bait of the Trump presidency. And that applies very much, you know, with the sun and the Daily Mail and the way that they cover media in this country.

Andrew Keen: Although I was found in the U.S. That perhaps the newspaper that has been most persistently and usefully critical of Trump is the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Murdoch.

Jason Pack: Yeah, but that's a very highbrow paper, and I think that it's been very critical of the tariff policy and it said a lot of intelligent things about Trump's early missteps. It doesn't reach the same people as the New York Post or the Daily Mail do.

Andrew Keen: Finally, Jason, let's go back to Disorder, your excellent podcast. You started it a couple of years ago before this new Trump madness. You were always one of the early people on this global disorder. How much more disordered can the world become? Of course, it could become more disorded in terms of war. In late April 2025, is the world more disordered than it was in April 2024, when Biden was still in power? I mean, we still have these wars in Gaza, in Ukraine, doesn't seem as if that much has changed, or am I wrong?

Jason Pack: I take your point, but I'm using disorder in a particularly technical sense in a way by which I mean the inability of major powers to coordinate together for optimal solutions. So in the Biden days of last year, yes, the Ukraine and Gaza wars may be waging, but if Jake Sullivan or Blinken were smarter or more courageous, they could host a summit and work together with their French and British and Argentinian allies. Put forth some solutions. The world is more disordered today because it doesn't have a leader. It doesn't have institutions, the UN or NATO or the G7 where those solutions on things like the Ukraine war attacks could happen. And you may say, but wait, Jason, isn't Trump actually doing more leadership? He's trying to bring the Ukrainians and the Russians to the table. And I would say he isn't. They're not proposing actual solutions. They don't care about solving underlying issues. They're merely trying to get media wins. He wants the Japanese to come to Washington to have the semblance of a new trade deal, not a real trade deal. He's trying to reorder global finance in semblance, not in reality. So the ability to come to actual solutions through real coordinating mechanisms where I compromise with you is much weaker than it was last year. And on the Disorder Podcast, we explore all these domains from tax havens to cryptocurrency to cyber attacks. And I think that listeners of Keen On would really enjoy how we delve into those topics and try to see how they reflect where we're at in the global system.

Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a strongly, I would strongly agree with you. I would encourage all keen on listeners to listen to Disorder and vice versa if this gets onto the Disorder podcast. What about the China issue? How structural is the tariff crisis, if that's the right word, gonna change US relations with China? Is this the new Cold War, Jason?

Jason Pack: I'm not an economist, but from what I've been told by the economists I've interviewed on my podcast, it's absolutely completely game changing because whether it's an Apple iPhone or most pieces of manufactured kit that you purchase or inputs into American manufacturing, it's assembled everywhere and the connections between China and America are essential to the global economy. Work and it's not like you can all of a sudden move those supply chains. So this trade war is really a 1930s style beggar thy neighbor approach to things and that led to and deepened the great depression, right? So I am very worried. I had the sense that Trump might back off because he does seem to be very sensitive to the markets. But maybe this is such an ideological project and, you know, Andrew Ross Sorkin on CNBC was just saying, even though he's willing to back off if the T bill rate changes, he thinks that his strategy is working and that he's going to get some deals. And that terrifies me because that's not what's happening. It isn't working. And God forbid that they'll push this to its logical conclusion and cause a new recession or depression.

Andrew Keen: I know you've got to run Jason. So final question, let's return to where we began with America and the changing nature of America. Your last episode of Disorder was with Corey Sharpe, who is a very, very good and one of Washington DC's, I think, smartest foreign policy analysts. She asks, what's America without allies? If this continues, what, indeed, I mean, you're happy in London, so I don't sound like you're coming back, whatever. But what will America become if indeed all these traditional allies, the UK, France, Germany, become, if not enemies, certainly just transactional relationships? What becomes of America without allies?

Jason Pack: Wow, great question. I'm gonna treat this in two parts, the American cultural component and then the structural geopolitical component. I'm a proud American. Culturally, I work on Sundays. I don't take any holiday. I get angry at contractors who are not direct. I am going to be American my whole life and I want an American style work ethic and I wanna things to function and the customer to always be right. So I didn't move to Europe to get European stuff in that way, and I think America will still be great at new inventions and at hard work and at all of that stuff and will still, the NFL will still be a much better run sports league than European sports leagues. Americans are great at certain things. The problem is what if America's role in the world as having the reserve currency, coordinating the NATO allies. If that's eviscerated, we're just going to be living more and more in the global enduring disorder, as Corey Schacke points out, which is that the Europeans don't know how to lead. They can't step up because they don't have one prima inter Paris. And since the decline of the British Empire, the British haven't learned how, for example, to coordinate the Europeans for the defense of Ukraine or for making new missile technologies or dealing with the defense industry. So we're just dealing with a rudderless world. And that's very worrying because there could be major conflict. And then I just have to hope that a new American administration, it could be a Republican one, but I think it just can't be a Trumpian one, will go back to its old role of leadership. I haven't lost hope in America. I've just lost hope in this current administration.

Andrew Keen: Well, I haven't lost hope in Jason Pack. He is an ally of ours at Keen On. He's the host of the Excellent Disorder podcast. Jason, it's always fun to have you on the show. So much to discuss and no doubt there will be much more over the summer, so we'll have you back on in the next month or two. Thank you so much. Keep well. Stay American in London. Thank you again.

Jason Pack: It was a great pleasure. Thanks, Andrew. See you then.

Don’t say we weren’t warned. Project 2025, the 2022 Heritage Foundation’s 900-page policy blueprint, unambiguously plotted out the strategy of the second Trump administration. As Atlantic staff writer David A. Graham makes clear in his refreshingly brief The Project, the Heritage Foundation document is an verbose summary of Trump 2.0’s ambition to reshape government by strengthening executive power, promote traditional family structures, eliminate climate regulations, attack DEI initiatives, restructure the civil service and (gasp) outlaw pornography. Graham sees this project as both radical in its methods yet traditional in its values, produced by isolationists intent on resurrecting their fantasy of small town America.

Five Point Takeaway

* Project 2025 was created by former Trump administration officials under the Heritage Foundation to provide a comprehensive policy agenda and staffing strategy for a second Republican presidency.

* Despite Trump publicly distancing himself from the project during his campaign, many of its policies are now being implemented, particularly through executive orders and civil service reforms.

* The project emphasizes traditional Christian values, binary gender definitions, nuclear families, and aims to use government power to promote these views through various policies and incentives.

* On climate, the project seeks to eliminate climate research, end climate-related regulations, and promote fossil fuel extraction, prioritizing economic growth over environmental concerns.

* Graham believes Democrats could learn from the project's systematic, forward-thinking approach rather than remaining reactive, as Republicans are reshaping government in ways that may be difficult to reverse.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

We are all Waymo Democrats now. That Was the Week’s Keith Teare and I appropriate Thomas Friedman’s controversial new term to dream of an American high tech future. Keith and I also talk about last week’s interview with Peter Leyden, a founding member of the Waymo Democracy club. Keith might not be altogether convinced by Leyden’s thesis about the inevitability of America’s 80 year historical cycles, but he nonetheless acknowledges that the Democrats need to “work backwards” to establish a clear vision of a radically reinvented 21st United States.

Five Key Takeaways

* Peter Layden's optimism about America's reinvention through an 80-year cycle is met with a degree of skepticism from Keith Teare, who believes the challenges of economic reinvention are too great without massive systemic change.

* Thomas Friedman's concept of "Waymo Democrats" represents politicians focused on economic progress and innovation rather than cultural wars, which both hosts see as a potential path forward.

* Despite previous skepticism, Google posted excellent financial results with a 43% profit increase driven by search, showing successful AI integration despite competition from companies like Perplexity.

* YouTube, celebrating its 20th anniversary, is highlighted as Google's most successful acquisition, transforming from a small startup demo at a TechCrunch barbecue to dominating global entertainment.

* Keith Teare emphasizes that entrepreneurs must "work backwards from the outcome they want" rather than focusing on day-to-day management, establishing a clear vision that guides development toward a desired end state.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.