Keen On America

“What Trump is doing is not popular”. For the This Old Democracy podcaster and veteran Democratic activist Micah Sifry, that’s the good news of Trump’s sub-40% approval rate. The bad news, Sifry warns, is that the Dems remained a weak, divided party struggling to counter the MAGA-controlled Republicans. Learning from the campus success of Charlie Kirk, he says, the Democrats need to rediscover what once made them a party of the vibrant counterculture. And that certainly isn’t going to happen if grey functionaries like Schumer and Jeffries retain control of an increasingly gerontocratic party. He favors economic populism over identity politics, arguing that progressives made a “gigantic mistake” by favoring the woke politics of the university over working-class concerns. And so the New York based Sifry is cautiously optimistic about Zohran Mamdani whose primary victory, he is convinced, demonstrated that young voters will turn out for dynamic candidates who offer both generational change and credible ways to address economic anxiety.

1. Trump’s Weakness Creates Democratic Opportunity Sifry argues that Trump’s sub-40% approval rating means 50-60% of Americans are politically available to the opposition. The challenge isn’t Trump’s popularity (he’s not popular) but Democrats’ failure to effectively organize and mobilize this majority.

2. Democrats Must Use Their Leverage or Lose It Rather than capitulating on government funding, Sifry advocates that Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats should force shutdowns when necessary. Trump backs down when faced with sufficient pushback, as evidenced by his quick reversal on tariffs when markets crashed.

3. Generational Change Is Already Underway Mamdani’s primary victory over Mario Cuomo signals the end of the Biden-Clyburn-Pelosi era. Young voters (under 40) turned out in unprecedented numbers, suggesting the Democratic Party’s old guard has lost touch with a crucial demographic.

4. Economic Populism Beats Identity Politics Sifry admits progressives made a “gigantic mistake” by centering identity hierarchies that marginalized working-class concerns, particularly young men. He advocates for Bernie Sanders-style economic populism that focuses on class and corporate power rather than cultural issues.

5. Charlie Kirk Built What Progressives Lack Despite disagreeing with Kirk politically, Sifry acknowledges he created a successful youth movement through genuine debate, chapter-based organizing, and relationship building. Progressives have no equivalent infrastructure for engaging and converting opponents through sustained conversation and local organizing.

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

Jacob Ward warned us. Back in January 2022, the Oakland-based tech journalist published The Loop, a warning about how AI is creating a world without choices. He even came on this show to warn about AI’s threat to humanity. Three years later, we’ve all caught up with Ward. So where is he now on AI? Moderately vindicated but more pessimistic. His original thesis has proven disturbingly accurate - we’re outsourcing decisions to AI at an accelerating pace. But he admits his book’s weakest section was “how to fight back,” and he still lacks concrete solutions. His fear has evolved: less worried about robot overlords, he is now more concerned about an “Idiocracy” of AI human serfs. It’s a dystopian scenario where humans become so stupid that they won’t even be able to appreciate Gore Vidal’s quip that “I told you so” are the four most beautiful words in the English language.

I couldn’t resist asking Anthropic’s Claude about Ward’s conclusions (not, of course, that I rely on it for anything). “Anecdotal” is how it countered with characteristic coolness. Well Claude wouldn’t say that, wouldn’t it?

1. The “Idiocracy” threat is more immediate than AGI concerns Ward argues we should fear humans becoming cognitively dependent rather than superintelligent machines taking over. He’s seeing this now - Berkeley students can’t distinguish between reading books and AI summaries.

2. AI follows market incentives, not ethical principles Despite early rhetoric about responsible development, Ward observes the industry prioritizing profit over principles. Companies are openly betting on when single-person billion-dollar businesses will emerge, signaling massive job displacement.

3. The resistance strategy remains unclear Ward admits his book’s weakness was the “how to fight back” section, and he still lacks concrete solutions. The few examples of resistance he cites - like Signal’s president protecting user data from training algorithms - require significant financial sacrifice.

4. Economic concentration creates systemic risk The massive capital investments (Nvidia’s $100 billion into OpenAI) create dangerous loops where AI companies essentially invest in themselves. Ward warns this resembles classic bubble dynamics that could crash the broader economy.

5. “Weak perfection” is necessary for human development Ward argues we need friction and inefficiency in our systems to maintain critical thinking skills. AI’s promise to eliminate all cognitive work may eliminate the mental exercise that keeps humans intellectually capable.

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

So where exactly is Trump’s America? According to the Brookings fellow Jonathan Rauch, the world’s largest economic, military and cultural power is “half way to Hungary” - the small, landlocked Central European country run by an equally small and landlocked man called Viktor Orban. For Rauch, this suggests that America is on its way to becoming the sort of pathetically petty patrimonial state that the wannabe dictator Orban is trying to establish in Hungary. But the idea of the world’s dominant superpower being “halfway to Budapest” sounds more like the title of a characteristically absurd central European novel. It suggests that Trump’s America is, in fact, currently lost in the mid-Atlantic. It’s nowhere. And if making America great again really does require borrowing anything from a country as small and landlocked as Hungary, then I fear for the historical significance of both Trump and his MAGA movement. Surely they could come up with a more original playbook than that?

1. America is Following the “Hungarian Playbook” of Modern Authoritarianism Rauch warns that Trump is deploying Viktor Orbán’s four-part strategy: sue critics into bankruptcy, use regulatory power to threaten licenses, buy out media outlets, and intimidate advertisers. This represents a new form of authoritarianism that doesn’t require tanks or military coups.

2. The Rise of the “Woke Right” - Postmodern Tactics Adopted by Conservatives The right has borrowed from postmodern philosophy the idea that there’s no objective truth, only power and narrative control. This creates a “postmodern right” that focuses on winning stories rather than establishing facts - exemplified by claims about vaccine dangers or election fraud.

3. Constitutional Crisis is Already Underway, Not Coming Rauch argues we’re not heading toward a constitutional crisis - we’re already in one. He points to executive orders targeting political enemies and the “naked politicization” of prosecutorial systems as evidence that democratic norms have already been breached.

4. 2028, Not 2026, Will Be the Real Test While Rauch expects the 2026 midterms to be relatively fair (70-80% likelihood), he’s deeply concerned about 2028. The administration won’t have enough time to fully implement election interference by 2026, but 2028 could see systematic attempts to rig the democratic process.

5. Resistance Requires Slowing Down Authoritarian “Shock and Awe” The most effective resistance strategy is to slow down Trump’s rapid implementation of authoritarian measures through litigation and civil society pushback. Early capitulation doesn’t work - it only invites more demands. The key is preventing the normalization of antidemocratic behavior.

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

Donald Trump made his own controversial case against the United Nations at the UN today, lecturing world leaders that “the UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.” But he was beaten to this anti-UN manifesto by the New York City based journalist Seth Barron, who wrote “The End of the UN ” cover story for Tablet magazine this month. While Barron’s historically grounded critique is more academically rigorous than Trump’s, it essentially makes the same realpolitik argument: that there’s an irreconcilable contradiction between American interests and multilateral governance. Barron blithely suggests it’s time for the United States to withdraw from the UN entirely. But as I pressed him, without success, in our conversation, what then would replace international institutions when it comes to resolving seemingly intractable conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond?

1. The UN Is Already Dead in Practice

Barron argues the UN has lost all meaningful influence and relevance. He compares it to the Roman Senate, which continued meeting for 200 years after Rome’s collapse in 476 AD, discussing wars and public works they had no power to conduct. The UN, he suggests, has become a similar zombie institution.

2. Peacekeeping Missions Have Been Catastrophic Failures

From Somalia (1993) and Rwanda (1994) to Bosnia (1995) and Haiti, Barron cites repeated examples where UN peacekeepers either failed to prevent massacres or, in Haiti’s case, became predators themselves—with Sri Lankan peacekeepers systematically raping Haitian children while building brothels.

3. International Law Is a Fiction Used by the Powerful

Barron argues that without enforcement mechanisms, international law becomes merely “a cudgel by powerful countries to throw their weight around.” He notes that the International Criminal Court typically prosecutes African leaders from weak nations while ignoring crimes by major powers.

4. Israel Has Become the UN’s Scapegoat

Since 2015, the UN has passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel compared to just 27 against Russia and 12 against Syria. Barron sees this as evidence of institutional anti-Semitism and argues that post-colonial nations use Israel as a “whipping boy” to deflect from their own human rights violations.

5. No Viable Alternative to National Sovereignty

When pressed on what would replace the UN, Barron offered no clear answer beyond bilateral agreements and regional arrangements. He dismissed the idea that global challenges like climate change require international cooperation, arguing that agreements like the Paris Accords are toothless without enforcement mechanisms. Barron’s critique has some merit but offers no constructive vision for addressing genuinely global problems in an interconnected world.

As the prize-winning author of Dreamland and The Least of Us, Sam Quinones is one of the most acclaimed authorities on America’s deadly drug epidemics. So it might seem a little surprising that his follow-up to these two best-sellers is a book in praise of the bass horn, a relatively unglamorous musical instrument that he neither plays nor learned in marching band. But it all makes perfect sense. In The Perfect Tuba, Quinones resurrects the American Dream in the form of the bass horn (tuba) which he describes as the “tuba civil rights movement”. It’s the story of how to forge fulfillment from the bass horn, high school band and hard work. This isn’t just Quinones’ journey. It’s a map of how America can get from fentanyl to fulfillment.

1. You Don't Find Your Passion—You Forge It Through Hard Work Quinones discovered that fulfillment doesn't come from finding something you're naturally drawn to, but from working so hard at something that you become good enough to love doing it. This creates a cycle where competence breeds passion, leading to deeper engagement and growth.

2. Band Teaches What Sports Can't: True Community Values While athletics get the glory, band programs create lasting life skills. In schools with 66% dropout rates, band students had 100% graduation rates. Twenty years later, former band members showed strong family and professional lives because band teaches accountability, precision, collaboration, and finding joy in small accomplishments.

3. The "Tuba Civil Rights Movement" Challenges Low Expectations Tuba players have fought against being seen as limited—both the instrument and the people who play it. This mirrors broader social justice themes: when we expect little from people or communities (like Roma, Texas), we waste hidden talent that just needs proper cultivation and support.

4. Hard Work Is the Antidote to America's Addiction Economy Quinones sees tuba players as the opposite of addicts. Instead of seeking happiness through consumption (buying something external), they find fulfillment through creation (developing internal capabilities). This offers a model for moving from quick dopamine hits to sustained contentment.

5. Democracy Requires Orchestral Thinking, Not Solo Performance Real democracy sounds like a band—people with different roles working toward shared goals, not wanting to let others down, and being accountable for their part. The collaborative discipline learned in music programs teaches essential democratic values that social media and individual achievement culture are eroding.

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

I suspect both left and right have the Kimmel-Kirk story wrong. Rather than being about free speech versus hate speech, it’s actually the story of the end of the television era and the rise of open internet platforms like YouTube and Substack. So when Keith Teare asks who is for free speech in his latest That Was The Week newsletter, what he’s really saying is that free speech has never been freer. Anyone can say anything they want, he says. The only real question is whether anyone is actually listening. So the Kimmel-Kirk story is really about the shift in broadcast business models and the future of paid content. Getting fired from ABC might be the best thing that ever happened to a generic tv comic like Jimmy Kimmel. What he now needs to figure out is how to monetize his instant global fame.

1. The Cancellation Paradox Getting "canceled" from traditional media might now be a career accelerator rather than a death sentence. Kimmel has instant global recognition - the hardest thing to achieve in the creator economy - and can now build a direct audience relationship without network interference.

2. Television is Already Dead (But Nobody Wants to Admit It) When late-night TV audiences are "well under 100,000 people" watching live, we're witnessing the final death throes of broadcast television as a relevant medium. The controversy feels big because it's symbolic, not because TV actually matters anymore.

3. The Real Battle is Platform Independence vs. Platform Dependence The fundamental shift isn't about what you can say, but about who controls your ability to monetize what you say. Traditional media creates "intellectual codependency" between talent and publishers - breaking free requires becoming your own platform.

4. Attention is the New Scarce Resource As Keith Teare notes, "anyone can say anything they want" - distribution is infinite. The challenge isn't getting a voice; it's getting an audience. Controversy, even negative controversy, solves the attention problem that most creators struggle with for years.

5. Both Sides Are Fighting Yesterday's War While left and right argue about speech policing, the real action is in the economic disruption of media business models. YouTube, Substack, and other platforms are quietly becoming the new infrastructure for public discourse - making the entire "who controls traditional media" debate irrelevant.

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

Is there anyone who will defend Kamala Harris’ latest debacle, her 107 Days memoir that has irritated prominent Democrats like Josh Shapiro, Tim Walz and Pete Buttigieg? Certainly not the progressive writer David Masciotra, who has appeared on this show several times in the past to defend the former Vice President. According to Masciotra, the person most damaged by the ridiculous narcissism in 107 Days is Harris herself, who appears utterly out of touch with reality. "I was wrong, you were right," Masciotra admitted to me (never a fan of Harris), describing the memoir as a "literary political travesty" that reveals Harris as a "callous, petty, self-involved careerist." Even more damning, Masciotra argues, the book's timing couldn't be worse: while Trump dismantles democracy, Harris chooses to settle scores with the very Democrats who helped her in the last election, effectively torching her political future.

1. Progressive Defender Completely Reverses Position on Harris David Masciotra, who previously defended Harris in "spats" with Keen, now admits: "I was wrong, you were right." He calls the memoir a "literary political travesty" revealing Harris as a "callous, petty, self-involved careerist" - a stunning reversal from a left-wing intellectual who wanted to support her against Trump.

2. Harris Attacks Every Democrat Who Helped Her The book targets Joe Biden (who made her VP and endorsed her), Tim Walz (her chosen running mate), Josh Shapiro, and even includes complaints from her husband Doug Emhoff. As Masciotra notes, she's "trying to set fire to an already weak, enfeebled Democratic Party" by attacking those who supported her candidacy.

3. The Timing Reveals Profound Political Incompetence While Trump "dismantles civil society" and threatens the First Amendment, Harris publishes a book settling personal scores. Masciotra observes she's quoting her husband about being mistreated instead of "quoting a nurse who worked at a defunded Planned Parenthood clinic" or others suffering under Trump's policies.

4. The Book Effectively Ends Any Future Political Ambitions Both interviewers agree this memoir kills Harris's political future. When asked if she might run again, Masciotra suggests if she thought this book would launch a 2028 campaign, "she should probably seek psychiatric help rather than political."

5. Harris Lives in a Parallel Universe Disconnected from Political Reality The memoir reveals someone who doesn't understand basic humor (missing Gore Vidal's wit), blamed her loss on identity factors ("a black woman married to a Jewish man"), and believed Pete Buttigieg would have been ideal "if I were a straight white man" - showing she fundamentally misunderstands why she lost.

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

Gutted by AI larceny and glutted by an avalanche of shows, the podcast economy is in deep crisis. So says Marshall Poe, founder of The New Books Network, a publisher of almost 30,000 independent podcasts. Things really are that bleak, Poe insists. Drawing parallels between today's AI content appropriation and Napster's music piracy in the late Nineties, he argues we've entered an era where "the theft of IP is an accepted business model." AI companies appear to scrape podcast content without permission or payment, then repackage it as their own product. Meanwhile, the market drowns in a vast ocean of shows, with AI-generated podcasts now flooding platforms at unprecedented scale—one company claims profitability with just 20 listeners per episode while producing 3,000 episodes weekly. For independent creators lacking deep pockets or legal teams, podcast economics have become impossible. "The cost of that theft has gone to zero," Poe explains, describing an environment where authentic human voices struggle to survive against algorithmic content mills that operate without either the constraints of paying creators or sometimes even acknowledgement of IP law. It’s like 1999 all over again, he warns. But this time around, it’s AI, not Napster, that is now radically rewriting the rules of the creative economy.

1. AI content appropriation follows historical patterns Poe argues current AI practices mirror past disruptions like Napster - companies take content without payment, repackage it, and profit from advertising. The core business model isn't new, just more efficient.

2. The podcast market has reached unsustainable saturation With millions of podcasts and AI companies producing thousands of episodes weekly, discovery has become nearly impossible for independent creators. Poe describes the market as "beyond glutted."

3. Content creators lack power to protect their work Small operations like Poe's New Books Network have no way to detect if AI companies are scraping their content and no resources to fight back even if they discovered it. The power asymmetry is stark.

4. Authentic human voices may survive through alternative funding Poe sees hope in foundation support and direct audience relationships for podcasts that build trust around authenticity. Traditional advertising models may fail, but mission-driven content could find other revenue streams.

5. Starting a podcast in 2025 is economically irrational Poe bluntly advises against launching new podcasts unless creators have other motivations beyond making money. The combination of oversupply and AI competition has made the economics impossible for newcomers.

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

It’s the most curious paradox of today’s digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven’t actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn’t resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just the United States and Europe, but China as well. That, Frey warns, is how all progress will end.

1. The Productivity Paradox is Real Despite revolutionary digital technologies, we're not seeing the productivity gains that past technological revolutions delivered. It took a century for steam to show its full economic impact, four decades for electricity—but even accounting for lag time, the computer revolution has underperformed economically compared to its transformative social effects.

2. Automation vs. Innovation: The Critical Distinction True progress comes from creating entirely new industries and types of work, not just automating existing processes. The mid-20th century boom created the automobile industry and countless supporting sectors. Today's AI primarily makes existing work easier rather than spawning fundamentally new economic activities.

3. Institutional Structure Trumps Technology The Soviet Union succeeded when scaling existing technology but failed when innovation was needed because it lacked decentralized exploration. Success requires competitive, decentralized systems where different actors can take different bets—like Google finding funding after Bessemer Ventures said no.

4. Europe's Innovation Crisis Has a Clear Diagnosis Europe lags in digital not due to lack of talent or funding, but because of fragmented markets and regulatory burdens. The EU's internal trade barriers in services amount to a 110% tariff equivalent, while regulations like GDPR primarily benefit large incumbents who can absorb compliance costs.

5. Geography Still Matters in the Digital Age Silicon Valley's success stemmed from unenforceable non-compete clauses that enabled job-hopping and knowledge transfer, while Detroit's enforcement of non-competes after 1985 contributed to its decline. As AI makes many services tradeable globally, high-cost innovation centers face new competitive pressures from lower-cost locations.

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

Should being a billionaire be illegal? Or, at least, actively discouraged? That’s the argument at the heart of Ingrid Robeyns’ intriguing case against extreme wealth, Limitarianism. It’s an argument particularly pertinent in a week when Tesla is offering to make Elon Musk a trillionaire if he can reach certain sales targets. For Robeyns, an ethicist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, her arguments against extreme wealth are both moral and utilitarian. On the one hand, she argues that nobody truly "deserves" billions because economic success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetic lottery, family circumstances, educational opportunities, and market timing. On the other hand, she contends that extreme wealth concentration actively harms society by undermining democracy, encouraging unsustainable consumption patterns, and creating inefficient resource allocation. While acknowledging that such reforms may take decades to implement, Robeyns floats the idea of wealth caps around $10 million, arguing this still rewards success while preventing the most flagrant concentrations of economic and political power. Spare change for Elon and his plutocratic bros. So don’t hold your breath for a Musk funded Limitarian political party in the next few centuries.

1. Why Billionaires Don't "Deserve" Their Wealth Robeyns argues that extreme wealth is largely undeserved because success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetics, family background, education access, and market timing. She contends that acknowledging luck's role should make us more humble about wealth accumulation and challenge narratives of self-made billionaires.

2. Extreme Wealth Threatens Democratic Equality She identifies a concerning alliance between extreme wealth holders and anti-democratic forces, arguing that billionaire-level fortunes inevitably translate into disproportionate political influence that undermines the principle of political equality essential to democratic governance.

3. Billionaire Lifestyles Are Environmentally Unsustainable The consumption patterns of the ultra-wealthy - private jets, space tourism, multiple estates - cannot be scaled to the broader population without ecological collapse. This creates a sustainability paradox where a tiny elite's lifestyle choices constrain options for everyone else.

4. Wealth Caps Could Preserve Innovation While Limiting Harm Rather than eliminating all inequality, Robeyns proposes capping individual wealth at roughly $10 million, arguing this still provides substantial rewards for success while preventing the most harmful concentrations of economic and political power.

5. Implementation Requires Generational Cultural Change Robeyns acknowledges her proposals are "regulative ideals" that may take decades to implement, comparing the timeline to how neoliberal ideas took generations to become mainstream policy. She emphasizes changing cultural narratives about extreme wealth as the essential first step.

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