Keen On America

On July 4, 2025, is America still worth the fireworks? For Paul Orgel, producer of America 250, C-SPAN's upcoming celebration of 250 years of independence, the answer is a full stars 'n stripes YES! But even this C-SPAN veteran acknowledges the complexity of celebrating America in 2025. "We're not just going to be celebratory," Orgel admits, "but realistic to the good, the bad and the ugly of our country's history." As America stands one year away from its 250th birthday, the question isn't whether national independence deserves to be celebrated—it's whether Americans can still find common ground in their shared experiment. With political divisions deeper than ever and historical narratives under fierce debate, Orgel's mission feels both urgent and impossible: reminding a fractured nation why it's still worth celebrating together.

1. C-SPAN’s America 250 Will Address the "Good, Bad and Ugly:" "This effort of ours will not just be celebratory, but will be realistic to the good, the bad and the ugly of our country's history." Orgel promises C-SPAN won't shy away from difficult topics like slavery and treatment of indigenous peoples, even as they celebrate America's founding.

2. The Founders Expected Political Division: "When you read about how the early debates and early politics in this country were conducted, very, very rabid, very opinionated, very harsh in their political campaigns... I don't think founders would be surprised at how divided politics are in the country now." Current political polarization isn't unprecedented—it echoes the fierce debates of America's earliest days.

3. "Freedom" Still Defines the American Experience: "I just interviewed a bunch of people in Boston and Philadelphia about what it means to be an American. And the word that kept coming up was freedom. Freedom to live where you want, do what you want." Despite current challenges, Americans still see freedom as their defining characteristic.

4. America Remains an Ongoing Experiment: "They talk about this country still being an experiment, right? How can we get better? How can we become more unified as a country? I don't think that conversation ever ends." The work of building America isn't finished—it's a continuous process of improvement and adaptation.

5. The Constitution's Flexibility Was It’s Genius: "The beauty... is that they left that Constitution amendable. I think they realized that they weren't gonna have all the answers to everything." The founders' decision to make the Constitution changeable shows their wisdom in creating a framework that could evolve with the times.

Like C-SPAN's Paul Orgel, I think America is worth the fireworks. But not because the American Dream is alive and well—because it's still worth improving. What strikes me about this interview is how Orgel refuses to abandon the dream even while acknowledging its flaws, contradictions and, perhaps, even its fundamental imperfectability. Over the next 18 months, we'll be featuring more content from C-SPAN's celebration of America's 250 years of independence. So enjoy today’s fireworks and get ready for many more over the next year and a half.

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

Few people have spent more of their lives thinking about the Nazis than the English filmmaker and writer Laurence Rees. In his new book, The Nazi Mind, Rees offers a lifetime of knowledge about the Nazis to warn about today’s fragility of democracy. Borrowing from his extensive interviews of both former Nazis and Holocaust survivors, Rees discusses how Nazi ideology developed, why democracy proved so vulnerable in 1930s Germany, and what modern societies must understand about the enduring appeal of authoritarianism. Institutions we take for granted, he warns, can be far more fragile than we imagine.

1. Democracy is More Fragile Than We Think

"Everything is fragile and often a great deal more fragile than we think. That's the recurring theme of many of the interviewees that I met. Never saw this coming... You can have the most fragile piece of glass on your mantelpiece and it can stay there for 50 years, but someone can just touch it and it breaks." Democratic institutions require constant vigilance to survive.

2. The Nazis Started as a Fringe Movement

"Crucial statistic people should hold onto is that in 1928, the Nazis only got 2.6% of the vote. The vast majority of Germans rejected them... And then five years later, Hitler's chancellor." Economic crisis and democratic failure allowed extremism to flourish.

3. Nazi Anti-Semitism Was Uniquely Dangerous

"Unlike in previous anti-Semitic attacks going back hundreds and hundreds of years, there wasn't a possibility of a Jew saving themselves by saying, no, I'm baptized Christian... The Nazis saw you as a Jew based on your Jewish heritage, and so you found that there was no escape." This racial ideology made the Holocaust uniquely all-encompassing and deadly.

4. Charismatic Leadership Requires Hero Worship

"It was vital for a charismatic leader that the population see him as a hero... The notion of a charismatic leader being a hero figure is incredibly useful and important." Modern propaganda techniques were pioneered by figures like Goebbels.

5. Historical Ignorance Enables Extremism

"The bigger issue is absolute historical illiteracy... All this nonsense, all this misinformation, all this fake history, to coin a phrase, comes in to fill the gap." Without understanding history, people become vulnerable to manipulation and conspiracy theories.

Forget the 12 warnings. There are only two ways of thinking about the Nazi mind: either it’s evil or it’s banal. In his historical movies and books, Rees treats Nazis as uniquely literal manifestation of pure evil. In contrast, Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, focuses on its human ordinariness - what she called the banality of evil. It’s an argument that Jonathan Glazer brilliantly develops in his controversial 2023 Oscar-winning movie, The Zone of Interest. As you can probably sense from my conversation with Rees, I’m in the Arendt/Glazer camp on this. Evil is always all around us. It’s in Guantanamo and Gaza, as well as Belsen and Auschwitz.

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

If the American dream died in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, then who killed it? According to the crime novelist Terrence McCauley, the JFK assassination was carried out by organized crime. That’s the heart of his new novel, Twilight Town, in which McCauley reexamines the JFK assassination in Dallas. But this wasn't Oliver Stone style CIA or shadowy government conspirators, pulling well-oiled strings from their deep state offices. Instead, McCauley argues it was something far more mundane yet chilling: a street-level contract hit executed by mob-connected criminals with intelligence ties. These were the same underworld figures who ran guns to Cuba, operated training camps for Bay of Pigs veterans, and had both the means and motive to eliminate a President they saw as soft on communism and hard on organized crime. In McCauley's vision, America's Camelot ended not through some grand operatic conspiracy, but through the banal efficiency of professional killers.

1. The JFK Assassination Was a "Street Crime," Not a High-Level Government Plot "I approach it as the way I thought it was. And that is a contract hit and a street crime, which is ultimately what happened on the streets of Dallas that morning." McCauley argues the assassination was carried out by mob-connected criminals with intelligence ties, not CIA masterminds in smoke-filled rooms.

2. Only a Small Group Knew the Full Plan "I think maybe 10 or 20 at the most who knew all the details and much fewer than that who knew exactly what was going to happen and when." McCauley believes the conspiracy was deliberately kept small, citing FBI recordings of Joseph Milteer who said such operations only work with minimal participants.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald Didn't Pull the Trigger "I never was able to put a gun in Oswald's hands that day... I don't think he did. No, I think he was involved with the people who did." McCauley argues Oswald was connected to the plotters but wasn't the actual shooter, pointing to inconclusive gunpowder residue tests.

4. The Assassination Marked "The End of American Innocence" "It was certainly the end of American innocence, where we thought we were always the good guys, where we were the liberators, and where we were one hope of the world against the ongoing threat of communism." McCauley sees November 22, 1963, as the moment America lost its post-WWII optimism.

5. The Cover-Up Happened Because Intelligence Agencies Recognized Their Own Assets "The coverup happened because these organizations looked into it. They realized, well, so-and-so could have this off, and we worked with them for 10 years, let's back away from that." McCauley suggests the cover-up wasn't planned but emerged when agencies discovered their own connected operatives were involved.

The American Dream has more lives than cats. It was supposed to have died in November 1963 in Dallas, then in 1968 with the assassinations of MLK and RFK, then in the Fall of Saigon, then at the Watergate Building, then at the Twin Towers on 9/11. And then, of course, there is Trump, who is supposed to have slain the American Dream not once but twice. And yet today, a couple of days before Independence Day, my sense is that the Dream is alive all over America. The promise of individual agency continues to inspire new generations of both native and immigrant Americans. JFK might be gone, but the Dream remains the defining quality of the American experience.

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

If everything is propaganda (even this show), then we are forever engaged in a war to control other people's minds. That, at least, is the view of the self-described “freedom fighter”, Connor Boyack, the libertarian author of the best-selling Tuttle Twins series of children books. In his latest piece of Tuttle Twins propaganda, A Guide to the World’s Worst Ideas, Boyack argues against all forms of government welfare, drug prohibition and foreign military engagement. And yet there's one institution that the Utah based Boyack religiously supports. The family, he says, offers protection for children and should be actively protected by the government. Children of the world unite, some might respond, you’ve got nothing to lose but your parents.

1. Everything is Propaganda - And That's Fine "Tuttle twins, quote me now, is libertarian propaganda. And I use that word intentionally because what is propaganda? Propaganda is just propagating an idea from one person's mind to another. It is persuasion. It is education. Everything is propaganda."

2. America Isn't Really Free "I'm quite a libertarian and everywhere I look, there's a lot of reasons to think we're not independent. We threw off the shackles of Britain so long ago and if those same patriots and founding fathers who were part of constructing a new country could see all the heavy programs and taxes and all the things now, I think they'd have a thing or two to say about it."

3. Foreign Intervention Creates More Problems "Look at Iran. Everyone's freaking out about Iran. But Iran, the whole conflict started in 1953 when the CIA waged a coup along with the UK and overthrew the democratically elected leader that led to the hostage crisis in 79, which led to of the destruction in the decades since."

4. Family is the Natural Form of Government "I see the family and parents as the breeding ground of freedom, the natural form of governance... between Totalitarianism on the one hand and the naked individual on the other looms the first line of resistance against totalitarianism, and that is the economic and politically independent family."

5. Drug Prohibition Mirrors Failed Alcohol Prohibition "Look prohibition, I think there's common like there's there's general consensus that the alcohol prohibition of a century ago didn't work But it's that same sentiment that fuels the drug war today, which of course has led to cartels It's led to fentanyl. It's lead to all of these problems where people are being harmed and dying."

When somebody claims that everything is propaganda, you know that something isn’t. There’s always some ideological “truth” at the heart of all everything-is-ideology messages. For the freedom fetishizing Boyack, it’s the “natural” truth of the family. But I’m not convinced. As Philip Larkin wrote, “They f**k you up, your mum and dad.” Equally troubling, they infect you with bad ideas. So my message this July 4 week to all American kids: don’t trust anything your mom or dad reads to you. It’s bound to be propaganda.

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

As we transition from the social media age (the internet of trolls) to the AI epoch (the internet of tolls), has the publishing apocalypse finally arrived? That’s the question Keith Teare and I discuss in our That Was the Week summary of tech news. Two major court cases this week—Getty Images vs. Stability AI and the Anthropic lawsuit—have fundamentally shifted the legal landscape around AI and copyright. The courts ruled that AI systems can legally "learn" from published content without copying it, essentially giving artificial intelligence a free pass to consume human creativity at scale. Meanwhile, publishers are scrambling to find new business models as search traffic evaporates and AI “answers” replace traditional web browsing. From CloudFlare's proposed toll system to the rise of AI browsers like DIA, Keith and I explore how traditional link economics are being completely reimagined—and whether human creators can survive the transformation. Dead Links Walking everyone. It’s going to be a bloody entertaining spectacle.

* AI Won the Legal Battle: Two major court cases (Getty Images vs. Stability AI and the Anthropic lawsuit) ruled that AI systems can legally "learn" from copyrighted content without permission, as long as they're not directly copying it. This distinction between learning and copying has massive implications for content creators.

* The Search-to-AI Shift is Killing Publisher Revenue: As consumers increasingly use AI instead of search engines, publishers are losing the traffic that drives their advertising-based business models. Google's own CEO admits about two-thirds of their revenue still comes from search ads—a model that's under threat.

* The "Internet of Tolls" is Coming: Publishers will be forced to return to pre-internet subscription models, putting content behind paywalls. CloudFlare is even developing technology to charge AI systems for accessing content at the network level, creating micro-transactions for publishers.

* Links Are the New Currency: The future monetization model for publishers may depend on getting AI systems to surface and properly compensate for links to original content, rather than just providing direct answers.

* We're Still Waiting for Native AI Products: Despite all the hype, we haven't yet seen the "Netscape moment" for AI—a truly native, intuitive product that isn't just AI bolted onto existing technology. The real transformation is still coming.

“The tollbooths are rising”, Keith ends his That Was The Week editorial, “the road ahead is ours to choose”. I think he’s wrong. Yes, he’s right, of course, that the AI revolution is inaugurating a new toll economy of walled garden AI leviathans. But the future isn’t ours to choose. We - and I mean the broad content industry from individual producers to larger publishers - are spectators to this epochal change. Agency no longer exists. We don’t shape the future; it shapes us. Maybe that was always the case. But in the age of trillion dollar AI start-ups, we don’t matter. As I said earlier, it’s going to be a bloody entertaining spectacle.

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

Yesterday’s show was on the Great White Hoax of manufactured racism in America. Today’s is on Black Capitalists, the title of a provocative new book by Rachel Layrea. But is this a great black hoax? Or might her focus on race and class really be a blueprint for a more ethical 21st century capitalism? Laryea, who holds a PhD from Yale and works in wealth management at JPMorgan Chase, argues that Black capitalists can strategically use the tools of capitalism to create social good, not just profit. But in a week when Jeff Bezos's lavish Venice wedding sparked protests about wealth inequality, can any kind of capitalism - either black, brown or white - ever truly serve social justice? And with the dismantling of DEI initiatives across America, is Booker T. Washington's style self-reliance the only path forward for Black economic empowerment?

1. Black capitalism means using wealth-building strategically for social good, not just profit .

Laryea:"To be clear, a Black capitalist is someone who identifies as a Black person and strategically repositions themselves within the economic system in order to create social good... it's someone who is still kind of in pursuit of excess resources, but it's also with the intention to create and produce social good."

2. Race and class are inextricably linked in America's economic system

Laryea: "When you think about systemic inequality, that's predicated on racism, implicated in systemic inequality focused on racism is also a story about inequality when it comes to classism as well... there is a correlation between race and class."

3. Black people face different standards and expectations as they accumulate wealth Laryea: "When people ascend the kind of economic social ladder, they are held to different standards than their non-white counterparts... oftentimes correlations that we see around wealth and whiteness are not questioned. But when we see black economic thriving, we question why they should be thriving."

4. Communities can't rely on external institutions to solve economic inequality Laryea: "The cavalry is not coming. We see the strategic kind of dismantling of DE&I initiatives, programs that have aimed to create access and channels to opportunity... it really starts with us and looking within and creating those mechanisms ourselves."

5. Traditional capitalism is fundamentally exploitative, requiring a different approach

Laryea: "What's wrong with capitalism is that it is predicated on exploitation, extraction, harm of some sense... You can have a billionaire exist while still have people who don't have access to meet their fundamental needs to food, water, shelter. Those two things should not coexist."

Like apple pie, everybody loves the idea of ethical capitalism. But just as most “homemade” apple pie in stores today comes from a factory, not some rustic kitchen, most for-profit capitalism - whether practiced by black, white, or brown entrepreneurs - ends up focused singularly on profit. Laryea's example of a unicorn fintech company (ASUS) may help people build credit, but it's still a billion-dollar business extracting value from financial transactions. Blueprints remain just blueprints. I’m wary of coloring capitalism.

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

There’s something fishy about what Philip Kadish calls The Great White Hoax. It’s his new book about America's long con - how racist scientific hoaxes have shaped two centuries of racist politics. From the 1840 Census Scandal to Henry Ford to George Wallace, Kadish exposes the conmen who have tried to sell racism to America. But here's the chilling twist: many of these fraudsters knew exactly what they were doing. They weren't true believers - they were cynical opportunists who saw profit in peddling fake science to justify white supremacy, creating elaborate deceptions that sometimes fooled even legitimate scientists.

1. Many racist "scientific" theories were deliberate, cynical frauds, not misguided beliefs

"The thing that really characterizes the particular thread that I am following in my book and things that I was finding is that they all involved varying degrees of a kind of cynical, very self-aware, purposeful deception."

2. The 1840 Census created the template for American scientific racism through knowing falsification

"So this was a case that was starting out as an accident, but then he knowingly investigated it, saw the falseness, and then re-certified it, and that information was then used in the defense of slavery for decades."

3. Authority and social credibility mattered more than actual scientific expertise

"Madison Grant... did not have a degree in biology. He was trained as a lawyer... the reason he was trusted about race, all of these politicians and wealthy philanthropists, is because, A, he came from a very wealthy family himself."

4. The hoax pattern shifted but didn't disappear after World War II

"It became socially unacceptable to be that, to be making such openly racist arguments... And things shift into a kind of coded mode... while we're talking about state's rights or he's developing a language talking about the federal government as a tyranny."

5. Many hoaxes continued to influence people even after being exposed as fraudulent

"Over half of the hoaxes that I described in the book were revealed as hoaxes in the midst of them. And yet were still embraced by many people and often for a long time after."

I’m in two minds on this. One the one hand, Kadish’ expose of two centuries of selling fraudulent scientific racism is chilling. On the other hand, I wonder if progressive historians like Kadish are themselves becoming overly preoccupied with race and racism. I’m also not convinced that the MAGA movement, RFK Jr or Fox News are a return to the overt racism of D.W. Griffith’s movie Birth of a Nation or the “science” of eugenicists like Madison Grant. History, particularly American history, is too complex to simply repeat itself endlessly. Sometimes it rhymes and sometimes it doesn’t. And sometimes, the historical hoax is in the hoax.

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

Next month, America will celebrate the centenary of the Scopes Trial, the so-called 1925 “Monkey Trial” on evolution that riveted a nation. Although perhaps celebrate is the wrong word to describe the Tennessee trial that not only riveted America but also divided it. According to the historian Brenda Wineapple, author of Keeping The Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial that Riveted a Nation, the Scopes trial is as relevant to America in 2025 as it was in 1925. According to Wineapple, the trial wasn't really about science versus religion at all. Neither side truly understood Darwin's theory of evolution, which had been settled science for decades. Instead, the Scopes trial served as a cultural battleground where deeper American anxieties played out—fears about immigration, racial integration, women's suffrage, and rapid social change in the post-World War I era. The real combatants weren’t evolution and creationism, or even the courtroom celebrities Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, but competing visions of American identity. Today, as debates rage over book bans, curriculum restrictions, and civil rights, Wineapple argues that America is still fighting the same fundamental battles that erupted in that sweltering Dayton, Tennessee courtroom a century ago.

1. The trial wasn't actually about science versus religion Neither side understood Darwin's theory, which had been settled science for decades, revealing the real issues lay elsewhere.

\KEY QUOTE: "Nobody knew the science. Nobody understood the science, and Darwin had published, in 1859, The Origin of Species."

2. It was a proxy fight for deeper cultural anxieties about rapid social change The evolution debate masked fears about immigration, women's suffrage, racial integration, and post-WWI upheaval.

KEY QUOTE: "So there was a proxy fight that was occurring, because it really couldn't be about what it was said to be about, and I think people on the ground in 1925 knew that."

3. Race was a central but often hidden issue in the proceedings Black communities understood that evolution theory undermined racist hierarchies, making this fundamentally about racial anxiety.

KEY QUOTE: "Certainly many in the Black communities felt that this was about race because they understood... that the theory of evolution itself helped make absolutely indefensible the idea that racial hierarchies."

4. William Jennings Bryan embodied the contradictions of progressive populism Bryan simultaneously championed common people while holding reactionary views on race, showing populism's complex nature.

KEY QUOTE: "So in that sense, he was a progressive, as you said he was for the common people... at the same time as being very conservative, even to being reactionary."

5. The trial's relevance to contemporary America lies in ongoing battles over freedom and education

Today's debates over book bans and curriculum restrictions echo the same fundamental questions about who controls knowledge.

KEY QUOTE: "The issues that are being debated in terms of the trial or raised at the trial really are about freedom... who decides what we learn, what we can read."

I’ve always been intrigued by William Jennings Bryan, the three-time Democratic candidate for President, passionate Prohibitionist and lead prosecutor at the Scopes Trial. As today’s Democrats struggle to invent a progressive 21st century populism that can compete with MAGA, what can Bryan teach us? Bryan embodies populism's central paradox: his passionate defense of ordinary people against economic elites coexisted with deeply reactionary social views. He championed workers and women's suffrage while refusing to condemn the KKK. His "Cross of Gold" speech attacked Wall Street, but his fundamentalism led him to Dayton to prosecute a schoolteacher for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. This wasn't a bug but a feature of Bryan’s thinking —he believed "the people" should decide everything, from monetary policy to what children should learn about evolution. Today's progressives face the same dilemma: how do you harness populist energy for economic justice without empowering the “traditional” (ie: reactionary) values that seem to inevitably go with it? The example of William Jennings Bryan suggests that this tension may be inherent in democratic populism itself. A hundred years after Scopes, this remains the real monkey business confronting American progressivism.

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

Don’t blame women. Men are failing spectacularly and it’s totally their own fault. In What Is Wrong with Men, cultural critic Jessica Crispin borrows from Michael Douglas movies to dissect how masculinity devolved from Seventies style vulnerability into today's aggressive displays of insecurity. While billionaires like Musk compulsively impregnate women and Zuckerberg learns jujitsu to feel "manly," basement-dwelling incels worship sex traffickers like Andrew Tate. The old patriarchy died in the 1980s, Crispin argues, but men refuse to adapt, expecting the world to revolve around them instead of building female-style support systems. It’s the Michael Douglas Trap. From Gordon Gekko's greed to crypto-gambling bros, modern masculinity has degenerated into a grotesque performance of insecurity—and it's getting worse.

1. Modern masculinity is trapped between dead patriarchy and refusal to adapt Crispin argues that traditional patriarchal structures collapsed in the 1980s, but men still expect the world to revolve around them instead of building new support systems like women did.

KEY QUOTE: "The world is supposed to adapt to men. Men are not supposed to adopt to the world."

2. Billionaire masculinity reveals desperate insecurity despite ultimate success Even the world's richest men obsessively seek validation through physical transformation and procreation, proving that external markers of success no longer provide masculine identity.

KEY QUOTE: "Nothing is ever enough anymore. And so that's why you see Elon Musk will never stop having children, never stop fathering children. Jeff Bezos will never have enough money to be satisfied."

3. The 1980s created a fantasy of male rejection to mask female-initiated abandonment As women initiated two-thirds of divorces, Hollywood created the "midlife crisis" narrative where men chose to leave, protecting male ego from the reality of being unwanted.

KEY QUOTE: "There was this sort of fantasy that was being created at the time of the male midlife crisis, where a kind of, you can't fire me, I quit. Fantasy was being generated."

4. Today's male influencers have inverted basic human connection into pathology The evolution from 1970s male vulnerability to Andrew Tate's misogyny represents a complete rejection of emotional intimacy and romantic love.

KEY QUOTE: "Andrew Tate does not fall in love, you know, he sexually violates, he's charged with sex trafficking... You can't hold a woman's hand, that's gay. You can have sex with women, that is gay."

5. The crisis requires material solutions, not emotional band-aids Rather than teaching boys to cry, society needs to address the gambling-based economy and lack of meaningful work that creates destructive masculine behaviors.

KEY QUOTE: "You're not gonna be able to fight against that just by learning how to cry... This is about making sure people have steady employment, making sure that people have study income, making sure the people have health care and community."

Nothing explains everything. Not even Michael Douglas movies. But just as women like setting traps, men love stumbling into them. I’m not convinced by Crispin’s reading of Hollywood movies. Men have always been making fools of themselves on screen - from Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo to the equally pathetic Douglas in Wall Street. Everything is supposed to be in crisis in America these days: from democracy to capitalism to masculinity. But if crisis means that men (or women) aren’t quite sure how to behave around the other sex, then they’ve been in crisis forever. So I’m unconvinced. No doubt because I’m in crisis. What would Michael Douglas do/think?

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

So I get why Jeff Bezos isn’t popular in Venice this week. But why would Africans in general, and Kenyans in particular, not love Bill Gates after the philanthropist pledged to give away $200 billion of his fortune to Africa? According to Tablet staff writer, Armin Rosen, it’s because Gates’ top-down, metrics-driven approach often ignores what Africans actually want. Drawing from extensive on-the-ground reporting in Kenya, Rosen highlights how Gates' Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa pushed unwanted agricultural technologies onto Kenyan farmers, while his foundation received controversial diplomatic immunity from Kenya's unpopular President Ruto. Though acknowledging Gates' successes in vaccination programs, Rosen questions whether billionaire-led development truly helps or undermines local agency and democratic governance. Maybe Gates should, instead, pledge his billions to Venice to enable the sinking city to outlaw tasteless American celebrity marriages.

1. Gates' philanthropy often imposes unwanted solutions on Africans Rosen argues that Gates consistently brings his own technological fixes to problems without consulting the people he claims to help, particularly through initiatives like the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

KEY QUOTE: "So a lot of his philanthropy either sort of goes towards bringing his own solutions to these places or his money is spent in such a way that there isn't a lot of consultation with the people that he's actually trying to help."

2. The Gates Foundation operates with government-scale power and spending With massive operational costs and diplomatic immunity, the foundation wields influence comparable to state actors, raising questions about accountability and democratic oversight.

KEY QUOTE: "The Gates Foundation spends something like $140 million a year just on travel expenses... They have the same scale as a government agency."

3. Gates has become deeply unpopular in Kenya due to political associations His close relationship with Kenya's controversial President Ruto has damaged his reputation among Kenyans who already distrust their government and foreign interference.

KEY QUOTE: "At the moment, Bill Gates is not a very popular person in Kenya. And the reason for his bad name is the trust deficit with the government."

4. Diplomatic immunity controversy reveals troubling governance patterns The secretive granting of legal immunity to the Gates Foundation, announced after deadly protests against the government, exemplified the lack of transparency that fuels public mistrust.

KEY QUOTE: "The Gates Foundation had gotten full diplomatic immunity from the Kenyan government... it was relatively unusual in Kenya for any non-governmental organization to get that kind of legal protection."

5. Local innovation often outperforms foreign philanthropy African societies frequently develop their own solutions more effectively than external interventions, as demonstrated by Kenya's creation of mobile money systems that became global models.

KEY QUOTE: "It turns out that these societies can kind of solve their problems on their own... Kenya is where basically mobile money began, you know, and M-Pesa is a Kenyan invention."

At least Gates isn't spending $200 billion on gross Venetian weddings. Despite all Rosen’s valid criticisms of Gates' African interventions, I think we should still prefer billionaires who try (however imperfectly) to solve global problems over those buying massive yachts and throwing obscenely expensive parties. Armchair philanthropy criticism is easier than solutions.

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