TALKING POLITICS

Gary Gerstle talks about the journalist who brought down a business empire, when Ida Tarbell went after the power of John D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Corporation at the start of the twentieth century. Could anyone do the same to Facebook or Amazon today?

Talking Points: 

America’s foundational myth is about rebelling against monopolies: a monopoly of power in the hands of the King. 

• How does an anti-monopolistic society get dominated by monopolies?
• Industrialization and the free economic environment after the Civil War created different conditions. 
• The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment to mean that corporations are individuals and therefore protected by the Bill of Rights.

Resistance to monopolies reached a peak during the first Gilded Age.

• Some of the resistance was political, but some of it was journalistic.
• Journalists known as ‘muckrakers’ sought to expose the practices that produced extraordinary power.
• The reports of journalist Ida Tarbell ultimately led to the breakup of Standard Oil of Ohio.
• Journalism set the tone for the progressive reform movement.

The election of 1912 was about what to do about the trusts/monopolies.

• Debs wanted to nationalize them; Wilson wanted to break them up; Roosvevelt said regulate them; only Taft carried take a stand.
• Roosevelt’s approach ultimately carried the day.

What can the past tell us about today? 

• Warren is carrying forward the breakup agenda.
• Previous anti-monopoly movements took a long time; don’t expect much too quickly.
• But the sentiments haven’t gone away. And the forces that Warren and Sanders have unleashed will continue to percolate.

Mentioned in this Episode: 

• Dark Money by Jane Mayer

Further Learning: 

• More on Ida Tarbell
• A Talking Politics Guide to … the Gilded Age
• More on Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up big tech

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gary Gerstle tells the story of Anthony Comstock, the man who tried to stamp out pornography in the final decades of the nineteenth century, using the US Postal Service as his weapon. Where he succeeded and how he ultimately failed still has echoes now, even in the age of the internet.

Talking Points: 

States were exempted from the Bill of Rights from the 1790s until essentially the 1960s.

• Some states pursued extraordinary influence over the lives of their citizens. 
• There were always states that were more liberal and more repressive.
• For many Americans, the government was the state government.

Anthony Comstock was a moral crusader who used the postal service as the vehicle of anti-vice politics at the federal level.

• The federal government can only exercise the powers mentioned in the constitution.
• The constitution doesn’t give the government the power to regulate morals but it does give the government power over the post office.
• The post office was a large and efficacious bureaucracy.
• Any mail traveling between states was carried by a federal agency; Comstock seized upon this as a national censorship mechanism. 

Today, the dynamics have largely reversed. Instead of seeing the federal government as a way to control states, today’s moralists want to punt things back to the states.

• This has been particularly effective in the case of abortion.

Further Learning: 

• ‘Sex and the Constitution,’ more on Comstock and the moralists
• The history of the post office
• A profile of Anthony Comstock

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the first of our American Histories series, Sarah Churchwell explains the lessons to be learned for Trump and his opponents from what happened in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson was impeached by Congress and survived his trial in the Senate by a single vote. What are 'high crimes and misdemeanours' anyway?

Talking Points: 

What was Reconstruction?

• The period immediately following the Civil War and the first attempt at civil rights in the United States.
• The 14th and 15th amendments gave rights to black men. There were black legislators and black senators.
• There was also pushback, namely from what would become the Ku Klux Klan.

Johnson became president after Lincoln’s assassination: his whole presidency was about overturning the gains of Reconstruction.

• Johnson was a unionist but also a white supremacist: he basically pardoned the entire white South. 
• This is the conflict that led to impeachment.

The immediate act that precipitated impeachment was Johonson breaking a law designed to restrain him, the Tenure of Office Act. 

• There were 11 articles of impeachment.
• He ultimately survived by 1 vote in the Senate. 
• If he had been impeached, he would have been succeeded by Benjamin Wade, a radical Republican. The moderates didn’t like this.

One of the lessons of history is that it’s almost impossible to remove the president.

• Johnson had clearly broken the law and the Senate was hostile. 
• Trump has much more favorable circumstances.

Mentioned in this Episode: 

• W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America

Further Learning:

• How impeachment works
• Jill Lepore on the history of impeachment
• Historian Eric Foner on Reconstruction
• What does ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ really mean? 

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David and Helen talk to bestselling author Michael Lewis about the effect that Trump's presidency is having on the workings of the US government and the risks we are all running as a result. From wilful ignorance to breathtaking corruption, we explore the different ways that one man can change the character of an entire political system. Plus we ask what, if anything, can be done about it.

https://bit.ly/2M1yzVk

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We gather the morning after the Tory triumph the night before to discuss how they did it and what it means. From Swinson's hubris to Corbyn's comeuppance, from Scottish independence to constitutional challenges, from the start of Brexit to the end of the Brexit party, we try to cover it all in a bumper edition. With Helen Thompson, Chris Brooke, Chris Bickerton, Alison Young, Peter Sloman, Kenneth Armstrong, and some overnight reflections from other TP regulars. If you want to hear more, David and Helen are also on 538 discussing the election result.

Talking Points: 

It was a good night for the Conservatives, a bad one for Labour, and cosmically bad for the Lib Dems.

• The Lib Dems made a fatal mistake in backing Revoke and running a presidential style campaign.
• They lured fewer Tory remainers than they had hoped.
• Six months ago, the Conservatives were in existential crisis, and now they are like Thatcher in all her pomp.

How grim are things for Labour? 

• They lost seats they’ve held for decades. But they didn’t lose by that much. If the problems are Corbyn and Brexit, those won’t be there the next time around. 
• Realignment in the North and Midlands may not be permanent.
• Labour is popular among young people and renters. There are more of them in cities, where Labour is already strong. 
• Who can bridge the urban-rural, traditional base-new base divide? 

Now that there’s a clear majority, will Parliament go back to working as usual?

• It’s not only the two parties: there’s also the SNP.
• They will probably repeal the fixed term parliament act.
• What about the Supreme Court? Could Scotland be the next thing they weigh in on?

What will happen to the Labour Party post-Corbyn? 

• It’s not easy to separate the Corbyn factor from the Brexit factor. 
• Corbyn’s record on security issues mattered—his support never recovered from the Salisbury poisoning. A lot of people don’t see him as a patriot. 

Mentioned in this Episode: 

• Our video on Jo Swinson
• ...and on the next Labour leader

Further Learning: 

• David and Helen talk about the election with our friends at 538
• Talking with Anand Menon before the elections

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For our last pre-election episode we talk with Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe, about what might happen to Brexit once the vote is done. What choices does Johnson face if he wins? What paths are there to a second referendum if he loses? And what will remainers do if Britain does finally leave the EU? Plus we discuss what the rest of Europe makes of it all. With Helen Thompson. Tomorrow, we talk about the result of the election as it happens.

Talking Points: 

There are basically two scenarios: Johnson gets a majority and the withdrawal bill passes, or there’s a hung parliament.

• The first is slightly more probable, but the margins are getting closer.
• If Johnson has a majority of even one, the UK will probably leave.
• But we still don’t know what Johnson wants. Will he be a prisoner to the ERG or will he be a one nation Tory and go for a softer Brexit?
• The next crunch point will be the end of June with the extension for transition. 

EU leaders have been assuming a Johnson victory.

• There’s a conversation in Brussels about how flexible the EU should be, given Johnson’s comments on European trade.
• Relations within the EU have gotten more fraught.
• What about the UK’s security relationship with the EU? 

Would a hung parliament inevitably lead to a second referendum?

• It’s not clear that a Corbyn minority government could legislate for a referendum. You might actually get another election.

The gap between Labour and the Conservatives is as wide as it has been in recent history.

• The Lib Dems have again fallen behind.
• The public seems to be uncomfortable with revoke. It’s not a vote winner.

If the UK leaves, where do the remainers go? 

• It doesn’t seem that project rejoin would have much steam in the short term.
• If Johnson wins, it will be on less than half of the vote. And the likelihood of a fifth Conservative victory is unlikely. 
• There is a reason for Labour to believe that next time is their real chance.

Mentioned in this Episode: 

• On the tension between Macron and Merkel
• Robert Tombs in the Spectator.

Further Learning: 

• Follow Anand on Twitter here
• Anand on negotiating a trade deal with Europe

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Helen and David explore some counterfactuals: What if Remain had won in 2016? What if Corbyn hadn't got on the leadership ballot in 2015? What if Scotland had voted for independence in 2014? We consider whether British politics would be very different or whether a lot of what we are seeing in 2019 was coming anyway. Plus we explore if there are any circumstances in which the stranglehold of the two main parties could be broken in a general election and why the Lib Dems have so spectacularly failed to break it this time.

Talking Points: 

What would have happened if Remain won the referendum?

• Cameron would have remained prime minister.
• UKIP probably wouldn’t have collapsed. 
• Johnson would still have been in a good position to become prime minister.

What if Corbyn hadn’t been on the ballot for Labour leadership?

• The membership supports him, but he almost didn’t make the ballot. 
• The next leader probably would have been Andy Burnham.
• Burnham would have fought the referendum with more enthusiasm, but the problems in the base would have remained the same.
• Corbyn expanded the membership by being on the ballot; he didn’t rebuild the old Labour coalition.

What if Scotland had voted for independence?

• This would have been a disaster for Cameron: he’s a unionist to the core. 
• Negotiations would have been extremely complicated, especially over the currency question.
• Scottish independence would have posed an existential question for the Labour party.

Can a third party break through?

• It looked like the Lib Dems might do it, but the two main parties have pulled away. 
• Is this a structural problem, or a contingency problem?
• First Past the Post forces voters to make hard choices, often between two unpalatable options.
• The revoke position is tricky, even if the donors like it. There’s no real way to reach hard core remainers in this electoral system.
• The Remain vote is more geographically concentrated. There are also voters who prefer remain but respect the referendum result.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• Ken Clarke talking about First Past the Post

Further Learning: 

• David’s review of Cameron’s memoirs for the LRB
• Who is Jo Swinson? 

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We talk about the impact of different online platforms on the general election campaign, from Twitter and Facebook to WhatsApp and TikTok. Is micro-targeting getting more sophisticated? Is viral messaging getting more important? Or are traditional electioneering techniques still driving voter engagement? Plus we ask whether there's any scope left for a 'December surprise'. With Charles Arthur, former technology editor of the Guardian, and Jennifer Cobbe, from the Cambridge Trust and Technology Initiative.

Talking Points: 

In 2017, Labour ran an incredibly successful social media campaign that the mainstream media outlets missed. Is 2017 repeating itself? 

• Facebook has gotten more transparent about the ads they are running. 
• There doesn’t seem to be a big Labour project, at least on Facebook. The Lib Dems on the other hand have a huge operation. 
• Labour has at least a few ads that seem extremely well calibrated.
• Are we more resistant to political messaging on social media now? 

This election isn’t a binary choice. There are few single messages that you can push. (The NHS may be the exception.)   

• But at the end of the day, the electoral system tends to force a binary choice. Is it old politics or new technology? 
• The messages are relatively old school. Time spent on doorsteps may still be more valuable than a Facebook ad. 
• But in other ways, things have changed. It’s much easier to publicly screw up. And when new candidates come onto the scene, the first thing people do is scroll through their social media history.
• Do we overblow the consequences of a single screw up?

What is political messaging trying to achieve?

• Persuasion is incredibly difficult. Turnout will be key. 
• Labour will need to get out the vote. There’s certainly been a big voter registration push on social media. 
• Younger voters are online, but not on Facebook. YouTube, for example, is more important. The Tories don’t seem to have caught on to this. 
• In an information economy, are people more likely to switch on right before an election, or switch off?

Mentioned in this episode: 

• Tech election… Part 1
• The Rob Delaney ad
• The Sacha Baron Cohen speech on Facebook

Further Learning: 

• Charles’ new book
• Charles’ blog, “The Overspill”
• Jennifer’s Talking Politics Guide to… Machine Learning

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.