Keen On America

The Harper’s cover story this month is about the ever-softening soft skills of American workers. Written by Lily Scherlis, it suggests that today’s emphasis on "soft skills" reflects America’s broader anxieties about automation, workplace conditions, and ever deepening socioeconomic inequality. After attending a Dale Carnegie training course, Scherlis observed how these programs frame human connection as something that can be quantified and engineered. She suggests that the focus on developing individual soft skills serves as a way to blame workers for systemic problems while avoiding addressing deeper political and economic issues. Scherlis views this trend as part of what she calls the "fantasy of the center" that values cultural politeness over meaningful political change. five key takeaways * Scherlis argues that the "soft skills crisis" is not actually about declining sociability but rather reflects deeper anxieties about labor conditions, automation, and political issues.* The Dale Carnegie training she attended focused on teaching formulaic approaches to influence others, emphasizing presentation skills and self-promotion rather than genuine connection.* The concept of "soft skills" emerged from the US military in the early 1970s as an attempt to quantify and control human connection and relationships.* There's a generational component where complaints about Gen Z's workplace behavior mask intergenerational resentment and fears about social change.* The emphasis on individual "adaptability" as a soft skill shifts responsibility from systemic problems to workers, blaming them for not being flexible enough to handle deteriorating conditions.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Lenin quipped that "there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." The post Liberation Day drama of early April 2025, That Was The Week’s Keith Teare suggests, will be remembered as one of those weeks. While the world isn’t exactly ending, Keith suggests, the “West” - or at least a post Bretton Woods American centric west - is finished. He may well be right in seeing Trump’s clownish tariffs as a symptom of American decline. But if the United States is the past and China the future, then where - Keith and I discuss - does that leave Silicon Valley? What becomes of supposedly pioneering American AI technology in a China centric world? And can traditional Big Tech leviathans like Apple and Google survive the end of the West? FIVE TAKEAWAYS * Shift in global economic power: Our conversation highlights a dramatic change in global trade patterns from 2000 to 2024, with China replacing the US as the dominant trading partner for most countries. This is visualized through maps showing the world changing from predominantly "blue" (US) to "red" (China).* Trump's tariff policy: Keith Teare argues that while Trump's tariffs may seem irrational, they represent a rational (though potentially harmful) attempt to slow America's relative economic decline. He suggests these policies aim to protect America's position even if they shrink the global economic pie.* Impact on Big Tech: We discuss how companies like Apple are vulnerable to tariffs due to their global supply chains, with predictions that an American-made iPhone would cost $3,000-$5,000 instead of $1,000. We also note that even service-oriented tech companies could face European tariffs in retaliation.* Historical significance: Keith characterizes the recent economic shifts as comparable to major historical events like the Bretton Woods agreement, suggesting this represents the end of the post-WWII economic order where America was the unambiguous world leader.* Silicon Valley's political divide: We touch on how Silicon Valley has shifted politically, with many tech elites supporting Trump's "America first" approach, while noting exceptions like Elon Musk who has criticized specific tariff policies. The Palo Alto based Keith observes that AI development remains a bigger topic of conversation in the Valley than politics.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In late February in DC, I attended the US premiere of the Bertelsmann Foundation of North America produced documentary “Lithium Rising”, a movie about the extraction of essential rare minerals like lithium, nickel and cobalt. Afterwards, I moderated a panel featuring the movie’s director Samuel George, the Biden US Department of Energy Director Giulia Siccardo and Environmental Lawyer JingJing Zhang (the "Erin Brockovich of China"). In post Liberation Day America, of course, the issues addressed in both “Lithium Rising” and our panel discussion - particularly US-Chinese economic rivalry over these essential rare minerals - are even more relevant. Tariffs or not, George’s important new movie uncovers the essential economic and moral rules of today’s rechargeable battery age. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* China dominates the critical minerals supply chain, particularly in refining lithium, cobalt, and nickel - creating a significant vulnerability for the United States and Western countries who rely on these minerals for everything from consumer electronics to military equipment.* Resource extraction creates complex moral dilemmas in communities like those in Nevada, Bolivia, Congo, and Chile, where mining offers economic opportunities but also threatens environment and sacred lands, often dividing local populations.* History appears to be repeating itself with China's approach in Africa mirroring aspects of 19th century European colonialism, building infrastructure that primarily serves to extract resources while local communities remain impoverished.* Battery recycling offers a potential "silver lining" but faces two major challenges: making the process cost-effective compared to new mining, and accumulating enough recycled materials to create a closed-loop system, which could take decades.* The geopolitical competition for these minerals is intensifying, with tariffs and trade wars affecting global supply chains and the livelihoods of workers throughout the system, from miners to manufacturers. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. Last year, we did a show on a new book. It was a new book back then called Cobalt Red about the role of cobalt, the mineral in the Congo. We also did a show. The author of the Cobalt Red book is Siddharth Kara, and it won a number of awards. It's the finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. We also did a show with Ernest Scheyder, who authored a book, The War Below, Lithium, Copper, and the Global Battle to Power Our Lives. Lithium and cobalt are indeed becoming the critical minerals of our networked age. We've done two books on it, and a couple of months ago, I went to the premiere, a wonderful new film, a nonfiction documentary by my guest Samuel George. He has a new movie out called Lithium Rising and I moderated a panel in Washington DC and I'm thrilled that Samuel George is joining us now. He works with the Bertelsmann Foundation of North America and it's a Bertelsman funded enterprise. Sam, congratulations on the movie. It's quite an achievement. I know you traveled all over the world. You went to Europe, Latin America, a lot of remarkable footage also from Africa. How would you compare the business of writing a book like Cobalt read or the war below about lithium and cobalt and the challenges and opportunities of doing a movie like lithium rising what are the particular challenges for a movie director like yourself.Samuel George: Yeah, Andrew. Well, first of all, I just want to thank you for having me on the program. I appreciate that. And you're right. It is a very different skill set that's required. It's a different set of challenges and also a different set of opportunities. I mean, the beauty of writing, which is something I get a chance to do as well. And I should say we actually do have a long paper coming out of this process that I wrote that will probably be coming out in the next couple months. But the beauty of writing is you need to kind of understand your topic, and if you can really understand your topics, you have the opportunity to explain it. When it comes to filming, if the camera doesn't have it, you don't have it. You might have a sense of something, people might explain things to you in a certain way, but if you don't have it on your camera in a way that's digestible and easy for audience to grasp, it doesn't matter whether you personally understand it or not. So the challenge is really, okay, maybe you understand the issue, but how do you show it? How do you bring your audience to that front line? Because that's the opportunity that you have that you don't necessarily have when you write. And that's to take an audience literally to these remote locations that they've never been and plant their feet right in the ground, whether that be the Atacama in Northern Chile, whether that'd be the red earth of Colwaisy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And that's the beauty of it, but it takes more of making sure you get something not just whether you understand it is almost irrelevant. I mean I guess you do need to understand it but you need to be able to draw it out of a place. It's easier when you're writing to get to some of these difficult places because you don't have to bring 900 pounds of equipment and you can kind of move easier and you're much more discreet. You can get places much easier as you can imagine, where with this, you're carrying all this equipment down. You're obvious from miles away. So you really have to build relationships and get people to get comfortable with you and be willing to speak out. So it's different arts, but it's also different rewards. And the beauty of being able to combine analysis with these visuals is really the draw of what makes documentary so magic because you're really kind of hitting different senses at the same time, visual, audio, and combining it to hopefully make some sort of bigger story.Andrew Keen: Well, speaking, Sam, of audio and visuals, we've got a one minute clip or introduction to the movie. People just listening on this podcast won't get to see your excellent film work, but everybody else will. So let's just have a minute to see what lithium rising is all about. We'll be back in a minute.[Clip plays]Andrew Keen: Here's a saying that says that the natural resources are today's bread and tomorrow's hunger. Great stuff, Sam. That last quote was in Spanish. Maybe you want to translate that to English, because I think, in a sense, it summarizes what lithium rising is about.Samuel George: Right. Well, that's this idea that natural resources in a lot of these places, I mean, you have to take a step back that a lot of these resources, you mentioned the lithium, the cobalt, you can throw nickel into that conversation. And then some of the more traditional ones like copper and silver, a lot are in poor countries. And for centuries, the opportunity to access this has been like a mirage, dangled in front of many of these poor countries as an opportunity to become more wealthy. Yet what we continue to see is the wealth, the mineral wealth of these countries is sustaining growth around the world while places like Potosí and Bolivia remain remarkably poor. So the question on their minds is, is this time gonna be any different? We know that Bolivia has perhaps the largest lithium deposits in the world. They're struggling to get to it because they're fighting amongst each other politically about what's the best way to do it, and is there any way to it that, hey, for once, maybe some of this resource wealth can stay here so that we don't end up, as the quote said, starving. So that's where their perspective is. And then on the other side, you have the great powers of the world who are engaged in a massive competition for access to these minerals.Andrew Keen: And let's be specific, Sam, we're not talking about 19th century Europe and great powers where there were four or five, they're really only two great powers when it comes to these resources, aren't they?Samuel George: I mean, I think that's fair to say. I think some people might like to lump in Western Europe and the EU with the United States to the extent that we used to traditionally conceive of them as being on the same team. But certainly, yes, this is a competition between the United States and China. And it's one that, frankly, China is winning and winning handily. And we can debate what that means, but it's true. I showed this film in London. And a student, who I believe was Chinese, commented, is it really fair to even call this a race? Because it seems to be over.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's over. You showed it at King's College in London. I heard it was an excellent event.Samuel George: Yeah, it really was. But the point here is, to the extent that it's a competition between the United States and China, which it is, China is winning. And that's of grave concern to Washington. So there's the sense that the United States needs to catch up and need to catch up quickly. So that's the perspective that these two great powers are going at it from. Whereas if you're the Democratic Republic of Congo, if you are Bolivia, if your Chile, you're saying, what can we do to try to make the most of this opportunity and not just get steamrolled?Andrew Keen: Right. And you talk about a grave concern. Of course, there is grave concern both in Washington, D.C. and Beijing in terms of who's winning this race for these natural resources that are driving our networked age, our battery powered age. Some people might think the race has ended. Some people may even argue that it hasn't even really begun. But of course, one of the biggest issues, and particularly when it comes to the Chinese, is this neocolonial element. This was certainly brought out in Cobalt Red, which is quite a controversial book about the way in which China has essentially colonized the Congo by mining Cobalt in Congo, using local labor and then shipping out these valuable resources back to China. And of course, it's part of a broader project in Africa of the Chinese, which for some critics actually not that different from European 19th century colonialism. That's why we entitled our show with Siddharth Kara, The New Heart of Darkness. Of course, the original Heart of darkness was Joseph Conrad's great novel that got turned into Apocalypse Now. Is history repeating itself, Sam, when it comes to these natural resources in terms of the 19th-century history of colonialism, particularly in Africa?Samuel George: Yeah, I mean, I think it's so one thing that's fair to say is you hear a lot of complaining from the West that says, well, look, standards are not being respected, labor is being taken advantage of, environment is not being taken care of, and this is unfair. And this is true, but your point is equally true that this should not be a foreign concept to the West because it's something that previously the West was clearly engaged in. And so yes, there is echoes of history repeating itself. I don't think there's any other way to look at it. I think it's a complicated dynamic because sometimes people say, well, why is the West not? Why is it not the United States that's in the DRC and getting the cobalt? And I think that's because it's been tough for the United states to find its footing. What China has done is increasingly, and then we did another documentary about this. It's online. It's called Tinder Box Belt and Road, China and the Balkans. And what we increasingly see is in these non-democracies or faulty democracies that has something that China's interested in. China's willing to show up and basically put a lot of money on the table and not ask a whole lot of questions. And if the West, doesn't wanna play that game, whatever they're offering isn't necessarily as attractive. And that's a complication that we see again and again around the world and one, the United States and Europe and the World Bank and Western institutions that often require a lot of background study and open tenders for contracts and democracy caveats and transparency. China's not asking for any of that, as David Dollar, a scholar, said in the prior film, if the World Bank says they're going to build you a road, it's going to be a 10-year process, and we'll see what happens. If China says they'll build you a road a year later, you'll have a road.Andrew Keen: But then the question sound becomes, who owns the road?Samuel George: So let's take the Democratic Republic of the Congo, another great option. China has been building a lot of roads there, and this is obviously beneficial to a country that has very limited infrastructure. It's not just to say everything that China is doing is bad. China is a very large and economically powerful country. It should be contributing to global infrastructure. If it has the ability to finance that, wonderful. We all know Africa, certain African countries can really benefit from improved infrastructure. But where do those roads go? Well, those roads just happen to conveniently connect to these key mineral deposits where China overwhelmingly owns the interest and the minerals.Andrew Keen: That's a bit of a coincidence, isn't it?Samuel George: Well, exactly. And I mean, that's the way it's going. So that's what they'll come to the table. They'll put money on the table, they'll say, we'll get you a road. And, you know, what a coincidence that roads going right by the cobalt mine run by China. That's debatable. If you're from the African perspective, you could say, look, we got a road, and we needed that road. And it could also be that there's a lot of money disappearing in other places. But, you know that that's a different question.Andrew Keen: One of the things I liked about Lithium Rising, the race for critical minerals, your new documentary, is it doesn't pull its punches. Certainly not when it comes to the Chinese. You have some remarkable footage from Africa, but also it doesn't pull its punches in Latin America, or indeed in the United States itself, where cobalt has been discovered and it's the indigenous peoples of some of the regions where cobalt, sorry, where lithium has been discovered, where the African versus Chinese scenario is being played out. So whether it's Bolivia or the western parts of the United States or Congo, the script is pretty similar, isn't it?Samuel George: Yeah, you certainly see themes in the film echoed repeatedly. You mentioned what was the Thacker Pass lithium mine that's being built in northern Nevada. So people say, look, we need lithium. The United States needs lithium. Here's the interesting thing about critical minerals. These are not rare earth minerals. They're actually not that rare. They're in a lot of places and it turns out there's a massive lithium deposit in Nevada. Unfortunately, it's right next to a Native American reservation. This is an area that this tribe has been kind of herded onto after years, centuries of oppression. But the way the documentary tries to investigate it, it is not a clear-cut story of good guy and bad guy, rather it's a very complicated situation, and in that specific case what you have is a tribe that's divided, because there's some people that say, look, this is our land, this is a sacred site, and this is going to be pollution, but then you have a whole other section of the tribe that says we are very poor and this is an opportunity for jobs such that we won't have to leave our area, that we can stay here and work. And these kind of entangled complications we see repeated over and over again. Cobalt is another great example. So there's some people out there that are saying, well, we can make a battery without cobalt. And that's not because they can make a better battery. It's because they want to avoid the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But that cobalt is providing a rare job opportunity. And we can debate the quality of the job, but for the people that are working it, as they say in my film, they say, look, if we could do something else, we would do it. But this is all there is. So if you deprive them of that, the situation gets even worse. And that something we see in Northern Chile. We see it in Nevada. We see in Africa. We see it in Indonesia. What the film does is it raises these moral questions that are incredibly important to talk about. And it sort of begs the question of, not only what's the answer, but who has the right to answer this? I mean, who has right to speak on behalf of the 10 communities that are being destroyed in Northern Chile?Andrew Keen: I have to admit, I thought you did a very good job in the film giving everybody a voice, but my sympathy when it came to the Nevada case was with the younger people who wanted to bring wealth and development into the community rather than some of the more elderly members who were somehow anti-development, anti-investment, anti mining in every sense. I don't see how that benefits, but certainly not their children or the children of their children.Samuel George: I guess the fundamental question there is how bad is that mine going to be for the local environment? And I think that's something that remains to be seen. And one of the major challenges with this broader idea of are we going to greener by transitioning to EVs? And please understand I don't have an opinion of that. I do think anywhere you're doing mining, you're going to have immediate consequences. The transition would have to get big enough that the external the externalities, the positive benefits outweigh that kind of local negativity. And we could get there, but it's also very difficult to imagine massive mining projects anywhere in the world that don't impact the local population. And again, when we pick up our iPhone or when we get in our electric vehicle, we're not necessarily thinking of those 10 villages in the Atacama Desert in Chile.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I've been up to the Atacama's, perhaps the most beautiful part in the world I've ever seen. It's nice. I saw the tourist side of it, so I didn't see the mining. But I take your point. There is one, perhaps, the most positive section of the film. You went to France. I think it was Calais, you took your camera. And it seems as if the French are pioneering a more innovative development of batteries which benefit the local community but also protect them environmentally. What did you see in northern France?Samuel George: Point, and that gets back to this extractive cycle that we've seen before. Okay, so northern France, this is a story a lot of us will know well because it's similar to what we've see in the Rust Belt in the United States. This is an industrial zone, historically, that faced significant deindustrialization in recent decades and now has massive problems with unemployment and lack of job opportunities, as one of the guys says in the film. Nothing's open here anymore except for that cafe over there and that's just because it has gambling guy. I couldn't have said it any better. This EV transition is offering an opportunity to bring back industrial jobs to whether it's Northern France or the United States of America. So that is an opportunity for people to have these more advanced battery-oriented jobs. So that could be building the battery itself. That could be an auto manufacturing plant where you're making EV electric vehicles. So there is job creation that's happening. And that's further along the development stage and kind of higher level jobs. And we meet students in France that are saying, look, this is an opportunity for a career. We see a long-term opportunity for work here. So we're really studying batteries and that's for university students. That's for people maybe 10, 15 years older to kind of go back to school and learn some skills related to batteries. So there is job creation to that. And you might, you may be getting ready to get to this, but where the real silver lining I think comes after that, where we go back to Georgia in the United States and visit a battery recycling plant.Andrew Keen: Right, yeah, those two sections in the movie kind of go together in a sense.Samuel George: Right, they do. And that is, I think, the silver lining here is that these batteries that we use in all of these appliances and devices and gadgets can be recycled in such a way that the cobalt, the lithium, the nickel can be extracted. And it itself hasn't degraded. It's sort of funny for us to think about, because we buy a phone. And three years later, the battery is half as good as it used to be and we figure well, materials in it must be degrading. They're not. The battery is degrading, the materials are fine. So then the idea is if we can get enough of this in the United States, if we can get old phones and old car batteries and old laptops that we can pull those minerals out, maybe we can have a closed loop, which is sort of a way of saying we won't need those mines anymore. We won't have to dig it up. We don't need to compete with China for access to from Bolivia or Chile because we'll have that lithium here. And yes, that's a silver lining, but there's challenges there. The two key challenges your viewers should be aware of is one, it's all about costs and they've proven that they can recycle these materials, but can they do it in a way that's cheaper than importing new lithium? And that's what these different companies are racing to find a way to say, look, we can do this at a way that's cost effective. Then even if you get through that challenge, a second one is just to have the sheer amount of the materials to close that loop, to have enough in the United States already, they estimate we're decades away from that. So those are the two key challenges to the silver lining of recycling, but it is possible. It can be done and they're doing it.Andrew Keen: We haven't talked about the T word, Sam. It's on everyone's lips these days, tariffs. How does this play out? I mean, especially given this growing explicit, aggressive trade war between the United States and China, particularly when it comes to production of iPhones and other battery-driven products. Right. Is tariffs, I mean, you film this really before Trump 2-0, in which tariffs were less central, but is tariffs going to change everything?Samuel George: I mean, this is just like so many other things, an incredibly globalized ecosystem and tariffs. And who even knows by the time this comes out, whatever we think we understand about the new tariff scenario could be completely outdated.Andrew Keen: Guaranteed. I mean, we are talking on Wednesday, April the 9th. This will go out in a few days time. But no doubt by that time, tariffs will have changed dramatically. They already have as we speak.Samuel George: Here's the bottom line, and this is part of the reason the story is so important and so timely, and we haven't even talked about this yet, but it's so critical. Okay, just like oil, you can't just dig oil out of the ground and put it in the car. It's got to be refined. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, it's got be refined as well. And the overwhelming majority of that refining occurs in China. So even your success story like France, where they're building batteries, they still need to import the refined critical minerals from China. So that is a massive vulnerability. And that's part of where this real fear that you see in Washington or Brussels is coming from. You know, and they got their first little taste of it during the COVID supply chain meltdown, but say in the event where China decided that they weren't gonna export any more of this refined material it would be disastrous for people relying on lithium devices, which by the way, is also the military. Increasingly, the military is using lithium battery powered devices. So that's why there's this urgency that we need to get this on shore. We need to this supply chain here. The problem is that's not happening yet. And okay, so you can slap these tariffs on and that's going to make this stuff much more expensive, but that's not going to automatically create a critical mineral refining capacity in the United States of America. So that needs to be built. So you can understand the desire to get this back here. And by the way, the only reason we're not all driving Chinese made electric vehicles is because of tariffs. The Chinese have really, really caught up in terms of high quality electric vehicles at excellent prices. Now, the prices were always good. What's surprising people recently is the quality is there, but they've basically been tariffed out of the United States. And actually the Biden administration was in part behind that. And it was sort of this tension because on the one hand, they were saying, we want a green revolution, we want to green revolution. But on the other hand, they were seeing these quality Chinese electric vehicles. We're not gonna let you bring them in. But yeah, so I mean, I think the ultimate goal, you can understand why a country that's convinced that it's in a long term competition with China would say we can't rely on Chinese refined materials. Slapping a tariff on it isn't any sort of comprehensive strategy and to me it almost seems like you're putting the horse before the cart because we're not really in a place yet where we can say we no longer need China to power our iPhone.Andrew Keen: And one of the nice things about your movie is it features miners, ordinary people living on the land whose lives are dramatically impacted by this. So one would imagine that some of the people you interviewed in Bolivia or Atacama or in Africa or even in Georgia and certainly in Nevada, they're going to be dramatically impacted by the tariffs. These are not just abstract ideas that have a real impact on people's lives.Samuel George: Absolutely. I mean, for decades now, we've built an economic system that's based on globalization. And it's certainly true that that's cost a lot of jobs in the United States. It's also true that there's a lot jobs and companies that have been built around global trade. And this is one of them. And you're talking about significant disruption if your global supply chains, as we've seen before, again, in the COVID crisis when the supply chains fall apart or when the margins, which are already pretty slim to begin with, start to degrade, yeah, it's a major problem.Andrew Keen: Poorly paid in the first place, so...Samuel George: For the most part, yeah.Andrew Keen: Well, we're not talking about dinging Elon Musk. Tell us a little bit, Sam, about how you made this movie. You are a defiantly independent filmmaker, one of the more impressive that I know. You literally carry two large cameras around the world. You don't have a team, you don't have an audio guy, you don't ever sound guy. You do it all on your own. It's quite impressive. Been you shlep these cameras to Latin America, to Southeast Asia, obviously all around America. You commissioned work in Africa. How did you make this film? It's quite an impressive endeavor.Samuel George: Well, first of all, I really appreciate your kind words, but I can't completely accept this idea that I do it all alone. You know, I'm speaking to you now from the Bertelsmann Foundation. I'm the director of Bertelsman Foundation documentaries. And we've just had this fantastic support here and this idea that we can go to the front line and get these stories. And I would encourage people to check out Bertelsmen Foundation documentation.Andrew Keen: And we should have a special shout out to your boss, my friend, Irene Brahm, who runs the BuzzFeed Foundation of North America, who's been right from the beginning, a champion of video making.Samuel George: Oh, absolutely. I mean, Irene Brahm has been a visionary in terms of, you know, something I think that we align on is you take these incredibly interesting issues and somehow analysts manage to make them extraordinarily boring. And Irene had this vision that maybe it doesn't have to be that way.Andrew Keen: She's blushing now as she's watching this, but I don't mean to make you blush, Sam, but these are pretty independent movies. You went around the world, you've done it before, you did it in the Serbian movie too. You're carrying these cameras around, you're doing all your own work, it's quite an achievement.Samuel George: Well, again, I'm very, very thankful for the Bertelsmann Foundation. I think a lot of times, sometimes people, when they hear a foundation or something is behind something, they assume that somebody's got an ax to grind, and that's really not the case here. The Bertelsman Foundation is very supportive of just investigating these key issues, and let's have an honest conversation about it. And maybe it's a cop-out, but in my work, I often don't try to provide a solution.Andrew Keen: Have you had, when we did our event in D.C., you had a woman, a Chinese-born woman who's an expert on this. I don't think she's particularly welcome back on the mainland now. Has there been a Chinese response? Because I would say it's an anti-Chinese movie, but it's not particularly sympathetic or friendly towards China.Samuel George: And I can answer that question because it was the exact same issue we ran into when we filmed Tinder Box Belt and Road, which was again about Chinese investment in the Balkans. And your answer is has there been a Chinese reaction and no sort of official reaction. We always have people sort of from the embassy or various affiliated organizations that like to come to the events when we screen it. And they're very welcome to. But here's a point that I want to get across. Chinese officials and people related to China on these issues are generally uniformly unwilling to participate. And I think that's a poor decision on their part because I think there's a lot they could say to defend themselves. They could say, hey, you guys do this too. They could say, we're providing infrastructure to critical parts of the world. They could said, hey we're way ahead of you guys, but it's not because we did anything wrong. We just saw this was important before you did and built the network. There are many ways they could defend themselves. But rather than do that, they're extremely tight-lipped about what they're doing. And that can, if you're not, and we try our best, you know, we have certain experts from China that when they'll talk, we'll interview them. But that kind of tight-lip approach almost makes it seem like something even more suspicious is happening. Cause you just have to guess what the mindset must be cause they won't explain themselves. And I think Chinese representatives could do far more and it's not just about you know my documentary I understand they have bigger fish to fry but I feel like they fry the fish the same way when they're dealing with bigger entities I think it's to their detriment that they're not more open in engaging a global conversation because look China is gonna be an incredibly impactful part of world dynamics moving forward and they need to be, they need to engage on what they're doing. I think, and I do think they have a story they can tell to defend themselves, and it's unfortunate that they very much don't do it.Andrew Keen: In our DC event, you also had a woman who'd worked within the Biden administration. Has there been a big shift between Biden policy on recycling, recyclable energy and Trump 2.0? It's still the early days of the new administration.Samuel George: Right. And we're trying to get a grip on that of what the difference is going to be. I can tell you this, the Biden approach was very much the historic approach of the United States of America, which is to try to go to a country like Congo and say, look, we're not going to give you money without transparency. We're not gonna give you this big, you know, beautiful deal. We're going to the cheapest to build this or the cheapest build that. But what we can compete with you is on quality and sustainability and improved work conditions. This used to be the United States pitch. And as we've seen in places like Serbia, that's not always the greatest pitch in the world. Oftentimes these countries are more interested in the money without questions being asked. But the United states under the Biden administration tried to compete on quality. Now we will have to see if that continues with the Trump administration, if that continuous to be their pitch. What we've see in the early days is this sort of hardball tactic. I mean, what else can you refer to what's happening with Ukraine, where they say, look, if you want continued military support, we want those minerals. And other countries say, well, maybe that could work for us too. I mean that's sort of, as I understand it, the DRC, which is under, you know, there's new competition there for power that the existing government is saying, hey, United States, if you could please help us, we'll be sure to give you this heaping of minerals. We can say this, the new administration does seem to be taking the need for critical minerals seriously, which I think was an open question because we see so much of the kind of green environmentalism being rolled back. It does still seem to be a priority with the new administration and there does seem to be clarity that the United States is going to have to improve its position regarding these minerals.Andrew Keen: Yeah, I'm guessing Elon Musk sees this as well as anyone, and I'm sure he's quite influential. Finally, Sam, in contrast with a book, which gets distributed and put in bookstores, doing a movie is much more challenging. What's the goal with the movie? You've done a number of launches around the world, screenings in Berlin, Munich, London, Washington D.C. you did run in San Francisco last week. What's the business model, so to speak here? Are you trying to get distribution or do you wanna work with schools or other authorities to show the film?Samuel George: Right, I mean, I appreciate that question. The business model is simple. We just want you to watch. You know, our content is always free. Our films are always free, you can go to bfnadox.org for our catalog. This film is not online yet. You don't need a password, you don't a username, you can just watch our movies, that's what we want. And of course, we're always on the lookout for increased opportunities to spread these. And so we worked on a number of films. We've got PBS to syndicate them nationally. We got one you can check your local listings about a four-month steel workers strike in western Pennsylvania. It's called Local 1196. That just started its national syndication on PBS. So check out for that one. But look, our goal is for folks to watch these. We're looking for the most exposure as we can and we're giving it away for free.Andrew Keen: Just to repeat, if people are interested, that's bfna.docs.org to find more movies. And finally, Sam, for people who are interested perhaps in doing a showing of the film, I know you've worked with a number of universities and interest groups. What would be the best way to approach you.Samuel George: Well, like you say, we're a small team here. You can always feel free to reach out to me. And I don't know if I should pitch my email.Andrew Keen: Yeah, picture email. Give it out. The Chinese will be getting it too. You'll be getting lots of invitations from China probably to show the film.Samuel George: We'd love to come talk about it. That's all we want to do. And we try, but we'd love to talk about it. I think it's fundamental to have that conversation. So the email is just Samuel.George, just as you see it written there, at BFN as in boy, F as in Frank, N as in Nancy, A. Let's make it clearer - Samuel.George@bfna.org. We work with all sorts of organizations on screenings.Andrew Keen: And what about the aspiring filmmakers, as you're the head of documentaries there? Do you work with aspiring documentary filmmakers?Samuel George: Yes, yes, we do often on projects. So if I'm working on a project. So you mentioned that I work by myself, and that is how I learned this industry, you know, is doing it by myself. But increasingly, we're bringing in other skilled people on projects that we're working on. So we don't necessarily outsource entire projects. But we're always looking for opportunities to collaborate. We're looking to bring in talent. And we're looking to make the best products we can on issues that we think are fundamental importance to the Atlantic community. So we love being in touch with filmmakers. We have internship programs. We're open for nonprofit business, I guess you could say.Andrew Keen: Well, that's good stuff. The new movie is called Lithium Rising, The Race for Critical Minerals. I moderated a panel after the North American premiere at the end of February. It's a really interesting, beautifully made film, very compelling. It is only 60 minutes. I strongly advise anyone who has the opportunity to watch it and to contact Sam if they want to put it on their school, a university or other institution. Congratulations Sam on the movie. What's the next project?Samuel George: Next project, we've started working on a project about Southern Louisiana. And in there, we're really looking at the impact of land loss on the bayous and the local shrimpers and crabbers and Cajun community, as well as of course This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

It’s a small world. The great David Rieff came to my San Francisco studio today for in person interview about his new anti-woke polemic Desire and Fate. And half way through our conversation, he brought up Daniel Bessner’s This Is America piece which Bessner discussed on yesterday’s show. I’m not sure what that tells us about wokeness, a subject which Rieff and I aren’t in agreement. For him, it’s the thing-in-itself which make sense of our current cultural malaise. Thus Desire and Fate, his attempt (with a great intro from John Banville) to wake us up from Wokeness. For me, it’s a distraction. I’ve included the full transcript below. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS * Rieff views "woke" ideology as primarily American and post-Protestant in nature, rather than stemming solely from French philosophy, emphasizing its connections to self-invention and subjective identity.* He argues that woke culture threatens high culture but not capitalism, noting that corporations have readily embraced a "baudlerized" version of identity politics that avoids class discussions.* Rieff sees woke culture as connected to the wellness movement, with both sharing a preoccupation with "psychic safety" and the metaphorical transformation of experience in which "words” become a form of “violence."* He suggests young people's material insecurity contributes to their focus on identity, as those facing bleak economic prospects turn inward when they "can't make their way in the world."* Rieff characterizes woke ideology as "apocalyptic but not pessimistic," contrasting it with his own genuine pessimism which he considers more realistic about human nature and more cheerful in its acceptance of life's limitations. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, as we digest Trump 2.0, we don't talk that much these days about woke and woke ideology. There was a civil war amongst progressives, I think, on the woke front in 2023 and 2024, but with Donald Trump 2.0 and his various escapades, let's just talk these days about woke. We have a new book, however, on the threat of woke by my guest, David Rieff. It's called Desire and Fate. He wrote it in 2023, came out in late 2024. David's visiting the Bay Area. He's an itinerant man traveling from the East Coast to Latin America and Europe. David, welcome to Keen on America. Do you regret writing this book given what's happened in the last few months in the United States?David Rieff: No, not at all, because I think that the road to moral and intellectual hell is trying to censor yourself according to what you think is useful. There's a famous story of Jean Paul Sartre that he said to the stupefaction of a journalist late in his life that he'd always known about the gulag, and the journalist pretty surprised said, well, why didn't you say anything? And Sartre said so as not to demoralize the French working class. And my own view is, you know, you say what you have to say about this and if I give some aid and comfort to people I don't like, well, so be it. Having said that, I also think a lot of these woke ideas have their, for all of Trump's and Trump's people's fierce opposition to woke, some of the identity politics, particularly around Jewish identity seems to me not that very different from woke. Strangely they seem to have taken, for example, there's a lot of the talk about anti-semitism on college campuses involves student safety which is a great woke trope that you feel unsafe and what people mean by that is not literally they're going to get shot or beaten up, they mean that they feel psychically unsafe. It's part of the kind of metaphorization of experience that unfortunately the United States is now completely in the grips of. But the same thing on the other side, people like Barry Weiss, for example, at the Free Press there, they talk in the same language of psychic safety. So I'm not sure there's, I think there are more similarities than either side is comfortable with.Andrew Keen: You describe Woke, David, as a cultural revolution and you associated in the beginning of the book with something called Lumpen-Rousseauism. As we joked before we went live, I'm not sure if there's anything in Rousseau which isn't Lumpen. But what exactly is this cultural revolution? And can we blame it on bad French philosophy or Swiss French?David Rieff: Well, Swiss-French philosophy, you know exactly. There is a funny anecdote, as I'm sure you know, that Rousseau made a visit to Edinburgh to see Hume and there's something in Hume's diaries where he talks about Rousseau pacing up and down in front of the fire and suddenly exclaiming, but David Hume is not a bad man. And Hume notes in his acerbic way, Rousseau was like walking around without his skin on. And I think some of the woke sensitivity stuff is very much people walking around without their skin on. They can't stand the idea of being offended. I don't see it as much - of course, the influence of that version of cultural relativism that the French like Deleuze and Guattari and other people put forward is part of the story, but I actually see it as much more of a post-Protestant thing. This idea, in that sense, some kind of strange combination of maybe some French philosophy, but also of the wellness movement, of this notion that health, including psychic health, was the ultimate good in a secular society. And then the other part, which again, it seems to be more American than French, which is this idea, and this is particularly true in the trans movement, that you can be anything you want to be. And so that if you feel yourself to be a different gender, well, that's who you are. And what matters is your own subjective sense of these things, and it's up to you. The outside world has no say in it, it's what you feel. And that in a sense, what I mean by post-Protestant is that, I mean, what's the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? The fundamental difference is, it seems to me, that in Roman Catholic tradition, you need the priest to intercede with God, whereas in Protestant tradition, it is, except for the Anglicans, but for most of Protestantism, it's you and God. And in that sense it seems to me there are more of what I see in woke than this notion that some of the right-wing people like Chris Rufo and others have that this is cultural French cultural Marxism making its insidious way through the institutions.Andrew Keen: It's interesting you talk about the Protestant ethic and you mentioned Hume's remark about Rousseau not having his skin on. Do you think that Protestantism enabled people to grow thick skins?David Rieff: I mean, the Calvinist idea certainly did. In fact, there were all these ideas in Protestant culture, at least that's the classical interpretation of deferred gratification. Capitalism was supposed to be the work ethic, all of that stuff that Weber talks about. But I think it got in the modern version. It became something else. It stopped being about those forms of disciplines and started to be about self-invention. And in a sense, there's something very American about that because after all you know it's the Great Gatsby. It's what's the famous sentence of F. Scott Fitzgerald's: there are no second acts in American lives.Andrew Keen: This is the most incorrect thing anyone's ever said about America. I'm not sure if he meant it to be incorrect, did he? I don't know.David Rieff: I think what's true is that you get the American idea, you get to reinvent yourself. And this notion of the dream, the dream become reality. And many years ago when I was spending a lot of time in LA in the late 80s, early 90s, at LAX, there was a sign from the then mayor, Tom Bradley, about how, you know, if you can dream it, it can be true. And I think there's a lot in identitarian woke idea which is that we can - we're not constricted by history or reality. In fact, it's all the present and the future. And so to me again, woke seems to me much more recognizable as something American and by extension post-Protestant in the sense that you see the places where woke is most powerful are in the other, what the encampment kids would call settler colonies, Australia and Canada. And now in the UK of course, where it seems to me by DI or EDI as they call it over there is in many ways stronger in Britain even than it was in the US before Trump.Andrew Keen: Does it really matter though, David? I mean, that's my question. Does it matter? I mean it might matter if you have the good or the bad fortune to teach at a small, expensive liberal arts college. It might matter with some of your dinner parties in Tribeca or here in San Francisco, but for most people, who cares?David Rieff: It doesn't matter. I think it matters to culture and so what you think culture is worth, because a lot of the point of this book was to say there's nothing about woke that threatens capitalism, that threatens the neo-liberal order. I mean it's turning out that Donald Trump is a great deal bigger threat to the neoliberal order. Woke was to the contrary - woke is about talking about everything but class. And so a kind of baudlerized, de-radicalized version of woke became perfectly fine with corporate America. That's why this wonderful old line hard lefty Adolph Reed Jr. says somewhere that woke is about diversifying the ruling class. But I do think it's a threat to high culture because it's about equity. It's about representation. And so elite culture, which I have no shame in proclaiming my loyalty to, can't survive the woke onslaught. And it hasn't, in my view. If you look at just the kinds of books that are being written, the kinds of plays that are been put on, even the opera, the new operas that are being commissioned, they're all about representing the marginalized. They're about speaking for your group, whatever that group is, and doing away with various forms of cultural hierarchy. And I'm with Schoenberg: if it's for everybody, if it's art, Schoenberg said it's not for everybody, and if it's for everybody it's not art. And I think woke destroys that. Woke can live with schlock. I'm sorry, high culture can live with schlock, it always has, it always will. What it can't live with is kitsch. And by which I mean kitsch in Milan Kundera's definition, which is to have opinions that you feel better about yourself for holding. And that I think is inimical to culture. And I think woke is very destructive of those traditions. I mean, in the most obvious sense, it's destructive of the Western tradition, but you know, the high arts in places like Japan or Bengal, I don't think it's any more sympathetic to those things than it is to Shakespeare or John Donne or whatever. So yeah, I think it's a danger in that sense. Is it a danger to the peace of the world? No, of course not.Andrew Keen: Even in cultural terms, as you explain, it is an orthodoxy. If you want to work with the dominant cultural institutions, the newspapers, the universities, the publishing houses, you have to play by those rules, but the great artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians have never done that, so all it provides, I mean you brought up Kundera, all it provides is something that independent artists, creative people will sneer at, will make fun of, as you have in this new book.David Rieff: Well, I hope they'll make fun of it. But on the other hand, I'm an old guy who has the means to sneer. I don't have to please an editor. Someone will publish my books one way or another, whatever ones I have left to write. But if you're 25 years old, maybe you're going to sneer with your pals in the pub, but you're gonna have to toe the line if you want to be published in whatever the obvious mainstream place is and you're going to be attacked on social media. I think a lot of people who are very, young people who are skeptical of this are just so afraid of being attacked by their peers on various social media that they keep quiet. I don't know that it's true that, I'd sort of push back on that. I think non-conformists will out. I hope it's true. But I wonder, I mean, these traditions, once they die, they're very hard to rebuild. And, without going full T.S. Eliot on you, once you don't think you're part of the past, once the idea is that basically, pretty much anything that came before our modern contemporary sense of morality and fairness and right opinion is to be rejected and that, for example, the moral character of the artist should determine whether or not the art should be paid attention to - I don't know how you come back from that or if you come back from that. I'm not convinced you do. No, other arts will be around. And I mean, if I were writing a critical review of my own book, I'd say, look, this culture, this high culture that you, David Rieff, are writing an elegy for, eulogizing or memorializing was going to die anyway, and we're at the beginning of another Gutenbergian epoch, just as Gutenberg, we're sort of 20 years into Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and these other art forms will come, and they won't be like anything else. And that may be true.Andrew Keen: True, it may be true. In a sense then, to extend that critique, are you going full T.S. Eliot in this book?David Rieff: Yeah, I think Eliot was right. But it's not just Eliot, there are people who would be for the wokesters more acceptable like Mandelstam, for example, who said you're part of a conversation that's been going on long before you were born, that's going to be going on after you are, and I think that's what art is. I think the idea that we make some completely new thing is a childish fantasy. I think you belong to a tradition. There are periods - look, this is, I don't find much writing in English in prose fiction very interesting. I have to say I read the books that people talk about because I'm trying to understand what's going on but it doesn't interest me very much, but again, there have been periods of great mediocrity. Think of a period in the late 17th century in England when probably the best poet was this completely, rightly, justifiably forgotten figure, Colley Cibber. You had the great restoration period and then it all collapsed, so maybe it'll be that way. And also, as I say, maybe it's just as with the print revolution, that this new culture of social media will produce completely different forms. I mean, everything is mortal, not just us, but cultures and civilizations and all the rest of it. So I can imagine that, but this is the time I live in and the tradition I come from and I'm sorry it's gone, and I think what's replacing it is for the most part worse.Andrew Keen: You're critical in the book of what you, I'm quoting here, you talk about going from the grand inquisitor to the grand therapist. But you're very critical of the broader American therapeutic culture of acute sensitivity, the thin skin nature of, I guess, the Rousseau in this, whatever, it's lumpen Rousseauanism. So how do you interpret that without psychologizing, or are you psychologizing in the book? How are you making sense of our condition? In other words, can one critique criticize therapeutic culture without becoming oneself therapeutic?David Rieff: You mean the sort of Pogo line, we've met the enemy and it is us. Well, I suppose there's some truth to that. I don't know how much. I think that woke is in some important sense a subset of the wellness movement. And the wellness movement after all has tens and tens of millions of people who are in one sense or another influenced by it. And I think health, including psychic health, and we've moved from wellness as corporal health to wellness as being both soma and psyche. So, I mean, if that's psychologizing, I certainly think it's drawing the parallel or seeing woke in some ways as one of the children of the god of wellness. And that to me, I don't know how therapeutic that is. I think it's just that once you feel, I'm interested in what people feel. I'm not necessarily so interested in, I mean, I've got lots of opinions, but what I think I'm better at than having opinions is trying to understand why people think what they think. And I do think that once health becomes the ultimate good in a secular society and once death becomes the absolutely unacceptable other, and once you have the idea that there's no real distinction of any great validity between psychic and physical wellness, well then of course sensitivity to everything becomes almost an inevitable reaction.Andrew Keen: I was reading the book and I've been thinking about a lot of movements in America which are trying to bring people together, dealing with America, this divided America, as if it's a marriage in crisis. So some of the most effective or interesting, I think, thinkers on this, like Arlie Hochschild in Berkeley, use the language of therapy to bring or to try to bring America back together, even groups like the Braver Angels. Can therapy have any value or that therapeutic culture in a place like America where people are so bitterly divided, so hateful towards one another?David Rieff: Well, it's always been a country where, on the one hand, people have been, as you say, incredibly good at hatred and also a country of people who often construe themselves as misfits and heretics from the Puritans forward. And on the other hand, you have that small-town American idea, which sometimes I think is as important to woke and DI as as anything else which is that famous saying of small town America of all those years ago which was if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. And to some extent that is, I think, a very powerful ancestor of these movements. Whether they're making any headway - of course I hope they are, but Hochschild is a very interesting figure, but I don't, it seems to me it's going all the other way, that people are increasingly only talking to each other.Andrew Keen: What this movement seems to want to do is get beyond - I use this word carefully, I'm not sure if they use it but I'm going to use it - ideology and that we're all prisoners of ideology. Is woke ideology or is it a kind of post-ideology?David Rieff: Well, it's a redemptive idea, a restorative idea. It's an idea that in that sense, there's a notion that it's time for the victims, for the first to be last and the last to be first. I mean, on some level, it is as simple as that. On another level, as I say, I do think it has a lot to do with metaphorization of experience, that people say silence is violence and words are violence and at that point what's violence? I mean there is a kind of level to me where people have gotten trapped in the kind of web of their own metaphors and now are living by them or living shackled to them or whatever image you're hoping for. But I don't know what it means to get beyond ideology. What, all men will be brothers, as in the Beethoven-Schiller symphony? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's the way things are going.Andrew Keen: Is the problem then, and I'm thinking out loud here, is the problem politics or not enough politics?David Rieff: Oh, I think the problem is that now we don't know, we've decided that everything is part, the personal is the political, as the feminists said, 50, 60 years ago. So the personal's political, so the political is the personal. So you have to live the exemplary moral life, or at least the life that doesn't offend anybody or that conforms to whatever the dominant views of what good opinions are, right opinions are. I think what we're in right now is much more the realm of kind of a new set of moral codes, much more than ideology in the kind of discrete sense of politics.Andrew Keen: Now let's come back to this idea of being thin-skinned. Why are people so thin-skinned?David Rieff: Because, I mean, there are lots of things to say about that. One thing, of course, that might be worth saying, is that the young generations, people who are between, let's say, 15 and 30, they're in real material trouble. It's gonna be very hard for them to own a house. It's hard for them to be independent and unless the baby boomers like myself will just transfer every penny to them, which doesn't seem very likely frankly, they're going to live considerably worse than generations before. So if you can't make your way in the world then maybe you make your way yourself or you work on yourself in that sort of therapeutic sense. You worry about your own identity because the only place you have in the world in some way is yourself, is that work, that obsession. I do think some of these material questions are important. There's a guy you may know who's not at all woke, a guy who teaches at the University of Washington called Danny Bessner. And I just did a show with him this morning. He's a smart guy and we have a kind of ironic correspondence over email and DM. And I once said to him, why are you so bitter about everything? And he said, you want to know why? Because I have two children and the likelihood is I'll never get a teaching job that won't require a three hour commute in order for me to live anywhere that I can afford to live. And I thought, and he couldn't be further from woke, he's a kind of Jacobin guy, Jacobin Magazine guy, and if he's left at all, it's kind of old left, but I think a lot of people feel that, that they feel their practical future, it looks pretty grim.Andrew Keen: But David, coming back to the idea of art, they're all suited to the world of art. They don't have to buy a big house and live in the suburbs. They can become poets. They can become filmmakers. They can put their stuff up on YouTube. They can record their music online. There are so many possibilities.David Rieff: It's hard to monetize that. Maybe now you're beginning to sound like the people you don't like. Now you're getting to sound like a capitalist.Andrew Keen: So what? Well, I don't care if I sound like a capitalist. You're not going to starve to death.David Rieff: Well, you might not like, I mean, it's fine to be a barista at 24. It's not so fine at 44. And are these people going to ever get out of this thing? I don't know. I wonder. Look, when I was starting as a writer, as long as you were incredibly diligent, and worked really hard, you could cobble together at least a basic living by accepting every assignment and people paid you bits and bobs of money, but put together, you could make a living. Now, the only way to make money, unless you're lucky enough to be on staff of a few remaining media outlets that remain, is you have to become an impresario, you have become an entrepreneur of your own stuff. And again, sure, do lots of people manage that? Yeah, but not as many as could have worked in that other system, and look at the fate of most newspapers, all folding. Look at the universities. We can talk about woke and how woke destroyed, in my view anyway, a lot of the humanities. But there's also a level in which people didn't want to study these things. So we're looking at the last generation in a lot places of a lot of these humanities departments and not just the ones that are associated with, I don't know, white supremacy or the white male past or whatever, but just the humanities full stop. So I know if that sounds like, maybe it sounds like a capitalist, but maybe it also sounds like you know there was a time when the poets - you know very well, poets never made a living, poets taught in universities. That's the way American poets made their money, including pretty famous poets like Eric Wolcott or Joseph Brodsky or writers, Toni Morrison taught at Princeton all those years, Joyce Carol Oates still alive, she still does. Most of these people couldn't make a living of their work and so the university provided that living.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Barry Weiss earlier. She's making a fortune as an anti-woke journalist. And Free Press seems to be thriving. Yascha Mounk's Persuasion is doing pretty well. Andrew Sullivan, another good example, making a fortune off of Substack. It seems as if the people willing to take risks, Barry Weiss leaving the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan leaving everything he's ever joined - that's...David Rieff: Look, are there going to be people who thrive in this new environment? Sure. And Barry Weiss turns out to be this kind of genius entrepreneur. She deserves full credit for that. Although even Barry Weiss, the paradox for me of Barry Weiss is, a lot of her early activism was saying that she felt unsafe with these anti-Israeli teachers at Columbia. So in a sense, she was using some of the same language as the woke use, psychic safety, because she didn't mean Joseph Massad was gonna come out from the blackboard and shoot her in the eye. She meant that she was offended and used the language of safety to describe that. And so in that sense, again, as I was saying to you earlier, I think there are more similarities here. And Trump, I think this is a genuine counterrevolution that Trump is trying to mount. I'm not very interested in the fascism, non-fascism debate. I'm rather skeptical of it.Andrew Keen: As Danny Bessner is. Yeah, I thought Danny's piece about that was brilliant.David Rieff: We just did a show about it today, that piece about why that's all rubbish. I was tempted, I wrote to a friend that guy you may know David Bell teaches French history -Andrew Keen: He's coming on the show next week. Well, you see, it's just a little community of like-minded people.David Rieff: There you go. Well, I wrote to David.Andrew Keen: And you mentioned his father in the book, Daniel.David Rieff: Yeah, well, his father is sort of one of the tutelary idols of the book. I had his father and I read his father and I learned an enormous amount. I think that book about the cultural contradictions of capitalism is one of the great prescient books about our times. But I wrote to David, I said, I actually sent him the Bessner piece which he was quite ambivalent about. But I said well, I'm not really convinced by the fascism of Trump, maybe just because Hitler read books, unlike Donald Trump. But it's a genuine counterrevolution. And what element will change the landscape in terms of DI and woke and identitarianism is not clear. These people are incredibly ambitious. They really mean to change this country, transform it.Andrew Keen: But from the book, David, Trump's attempts to cleanse, if that's the right word, the university, I would have thought you'd have rather admired that, all these-David Rieff: I agree with some of it.Andrew Keen: All these idiots writing the same article for 30 years about something that no one has any interest in.David Rieff: I look, my problem with Trump is that I do support a lot of that. I think some of the stuff that Christopher Rufo, one of the leading ideologues of this administration has uncovered about university programs and all of this crap, I think it's great that they're not paying for it anymore. The trouble is - you asked me before, is it that important? Is culture important compared to destroying the NATO alliance, blowing up the global trade regime? No. I don't think. So yeah, I like a lot of what they're doing about the university, I don't like, and I am very fiercely opposed to this crackdown on speech. That seems to be grotesque and revolting, but are they canceling supporting transgender theater in Galway? Yeah, I think it's great that they're canceling all that stuff. And so I'm not, that's my problem with Trump, is that some of that stuff I'm quite unashamedly happy about, but it's not nearly worth all the damage he's doing to this country and the world.Andrew Keen: Being very generous with your time, David. Finally, in the book you describe woke as, and I thought this was a very sharp way of describing it, describe it as being apocalyptic but not pessimistic. What did you mean by that? And then what is the opposite of woke? Would it be not apocalyptic, but cheerful?David Rieff: Well, I think genuine pessimists are cheerful, I would put myself among those. The model is Samuel Beckett, who just thinks things are so horrible that why not be cheerful about them, and even express one's pessimism in a relatively cheerful way. You remember the famous story that Thomas McCarthy used to tell about walking in the Luxembourg Gardens with Beckett and McCarthy says to him, great day, it's such a beautiful day, Sam. Beckett says, yeah, beautiful day. McCarthy says, makes you glad to be alive. And Beckett said, oh, I wouldn't go that far. And so, the genuine pessimist is quite cheerful. But coming back to woke, it's apocalyptic in the sense that everything is always at stake. But somehow it's also got this reformist idea that cultural revolution will cleanse away the sins of the supremacist patriarchal past and we'll head for the sunny uplands. I think I'm much too much of a pessimist to think that's possible in any regime, let alone this rather primitive cultural revolution called woke.Andrew Keen: But what would the opposite be?David Rieff: The opposite would be probably some sense that the best we're going to do is make our peace with the trash nature of existence, that life is finite in contrast with the wellness people who probably have a tendency towards the apocalyptic because death is an insult to them. So everything is staving off the bad news and that's where you get this idea that you can, like a lot of revolutions, you can change the nature of people. Look, the communist, Che Guevara talked about the new man. Well, I wonder if he thought it was so new when he was in Bolivia. I think these are - people need utopias, this is one of them, MAGA is another utopia by the way, and people don't seem to be able to do without them and that's - I wish it were otherwise but it isn't.Andrew Keen: I'm guessing the woke people would be offended by the idea of death, are they?David Rieff: Well, I think the woke people, in this synchronicity, people and a lot of people, they're insulted - how can this happen to me, wonderful me? And this is those jokes in the old days when the British could still be savage before they had to have, you know, Henry the Fifth be played by a black actor - why me? Well, why not you? That's just so alien to and it's probably alien to the American idea. You're supposed to - it's supposed to work out and the truth is it doesn't work out. But La Rochefoucauld says somewhere no one can stare for too long at death or the sun and maybe I'm asking too much.Andrew Keen: Maybe only Americans can find death unacceptable to use one of your words.David Rieff: Yes, perhaps.Andrew Keen: Well, David Rieff, congratulations on the new book. Fascinating, troubling, controversial as always. Desire and Fate. I know you're writing a book about Oppenheimer, very different kind of subject. We'll get you back on the show to talk Oppenheimer, where I guess there's not going to be a lot of Lumpen-Rousseauism.David Rieff: Very little, very little love and Rousseau in the quantum mechanics world, but thanks 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. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Liberals won’t like it, but according to the Seattle based historian and podcaster Daniel Bessner, Trump’s wannabe imperial presidency is a “natural outgrowth” of the centralized power of the FDR presidency. In a provocative Jacobin piece, Bessner contends that executive power has been expanding since FDR, with the U.S. President increasingly becoming an "elected monarch." The leftist Bessner criticizes American liberals for both obsessing over the fictional specter of fascism and for failing to address the economic inequality that enabled the rise of Trump. And he expresses pessimism about meaningful reform, arguing that 21st century capitalism has become too entrenched for significant changes without some dramatic external shock. 5 Takeaways from the Bessner Interview* Trump's presidency represents a continuation of American traditions rather than fascism, with his immigration policies echoing historical patterns like the Palmer Raids and McCarthyism.* The significant shift under Trump is his aggressive tariff policy against China, which represents a departure from decades of neoliberal economic approaches.* Presidential power has been expanding dramatically since FDR (who issued over 3,700 executive orders), creating what Bessner calls an "elected monarch" with increasingly unchecked authority.* The failure of liberal leadership, particularly Obama's inadequate response to the 2008 financial crisis and insufficient economic redistribution, created the conditions for Trump's rise.* Bessner expresses deep pessimism about the possibility of meaningful reform, suggesting that capitalism has become too entrenched globally for significant democratic changes without some external shock like climate disaster or war.Daniel Bessner is an historian and journalist. He is currently the Anne H.H. and Kenneth B. Pyle Associate Professor in American Foreign Policy in the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He previously held the Joff Hanauer Honors Professorship in Western Civilization and is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an Associate of the Alameda Institute, and a Contributing Editor at Jacobin. In 2019-2020, he served as a foreign policy advisor to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign; in 2024, for unclear reasons, the Russian government sanctioned him. Daniel is an intellectual historian, and his work has focused on three areas of inquiry: the history and contemporary practice of U.S. foreign relations; the history and theory of liberalism; and, most recently, the history and practice of the entertainment industry. He is the author of Democracy in Exile: Hans Speier and the Rise of the Defense Intellectual (Cornell, 2018), which you may order here. He is also the co-editor, with Nicolas Guilhot, of The Decisionist Imagination: Sovereignty, Social Science, and Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Berghahn, 2019), which you may order here; and the co-editor, with Michael Brenes, of Rethinking U.S. World Power: Domestic Histories of U.S. Foreign Relations (Palgrave, 2024), which you may order here. In addition to his scholarship, he has published pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The New Republic, The Nation, n+1, and other venues. In July 2022, he published a cover story in Harper’s Magazine titled “Empire Burlesque: What Comes After the American Century?”; in May 2024, he published a cover story, also in Harper’s, titled “The Life and Death of Hollywood: Film and Television Writers Face an Existential Threat,” which was also republished as the cover of the Italian magazine Internazionale.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Question: What was the position of 19th century American Jews to the Civil War and Slavery? Answer: Complicated. Very complicated.Painfully and, in some ways, shamefully complicated, according to the historian Richard Kreitner. In his new book, Fear No Pharaoh, Kreitner explores the radically diverse positions that American Jews held toward slavery during the Civil War. He highlights 6 prominent Jewish figures including Judah Benjamin (a Confederate leader), Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphael (who justified slavery using Torah), David Einhorn (an abolitionist rabbi), Isaac Mayer Wise (who advised Jews to stay out of the conflict), August Bondy (who fought with John Brown), and Ernestine Rose (a radical feminist activist). Kreitner explains how American Jews, numbering around 150,000 by 1860, were - like the rest of the (dis)United States - deeply divided on slavery, with most influenced by regional issues that usurped the supposedly universalist religious ethic of their faith. 5 KEEN ON AMERICA TAKEAWAYS * American Jews were deeply divided on slavery and the Civil War, with most adopting the political views of their geographic region rather than having a unified "Jewish position."* The Jewish experience with slavery in Egypt (celebrated in the Passover tradition) created a complex dynamic for American Jews confronting American slavery, with some using it to oppose slavery while others justified the practice.* Jewish figures like Judah Benjamin rose to high positions in the Confederacy, while others like Rabbi David Einhorn were forced to flee for their anti-slavery activism.* Anti-Semitism was relatively subdued in the American South before the Civil War (as Black enslavement served as the primary social hierarchy), but increased during and after the war.* Figures like Ernestine Rose represented an intersection of Jewish identity, abolitionism, women's rights activism, and freethinking, highlighting the diverse ways American Jews engaged with 19th century social reform movements.Richard Kreitner is the author of Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union and Booked: A Traveler’s Guide to Literary Locations Around the World. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Nation, Slate, Raritan, The Baffler, and other publications. He lives in the Hudson Valley, New York. In his new Substack podcast, Think Back, Kreitner interview US historians about connections between the past and the present.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Stephen Witt’s last book was entitled How Music Got Free. His latest, The Thinking Machine, a history of NVIDIA and its CEO Jensen Huang, might have been called How Intelligence Got Expensive. It’s about NVIDIA’s role in both the multi trillion dollar AI revolution and the world’s Taiwan-centric microchip economy. Witt explains how NVIDIA transformed itself from an obscure gaming graphics company into an AI hardware powerhouse by investing in scientific computing when competitors wouldn't. He describes Huang's relentless leadership style (including demanding Musk style weekly emails from 30,000 employees), the influence of his Taiwanese heritage, and NVIDIA's success in parallel computing as a post-Moore's Law company. * NVIDIA succeeded by taking a counterintuitive approach - investing heavily in academic computing markets that seemed unprofitable but eventually led to their AI dominance.* Jensen Huang has an unusual management style featuring a flat organizational structure with 60 direct reports, mandatory weekly emails from all employees, and public critiques of underperforming teams.* Huang's Taiwanese heritage and cultural background played a significant role in NVIDIA's success, particularly in establishing crucial manufacturing relationships with TSMC.* NVIDIA's focus on parallel computing positioned them as a post-Moore's Law company, allowing them to thrive when traditional chip manufacturers like Intel and AMD hit physical limitations.* Despite NVIDIA's current dominance, they face threats from Chinese competitors, potential shifts in manufacturing due to tariffs, and the challenge of maintaining control over increasingly powerful AI systems.Stephen Witt is the author of The Thinking Machine, a forthcoming book on the AI hardware giant Nvidia. His first book, How Music Got Free, was a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize, and the Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year. His writing has appeared in The New Yorker, Financial Times, New York, The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, and GQ. He lives in Los Angeles, California.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Should death row prisoners have the right to demand to be executed? In her debut book The Volunteer, Bay Area journalist Gianna Toboni exposes the absurd bureaucratization of the American death penalty system through the story of Scott Dozier, a death row inmate who volunteered for execution. Convicted of two murders on circumstantial evidence, Dozier preferred death to living 22-24 hours daily in a cell. Despite his and the state's shared goal of execution, bureaucratic delays and legal challenges prevented it. Toboni describes how extended solitary confinement undermined Dozier's mental health, eventually leading to his suicide, which she suggests was effectively state-induced. Toboni questions whether Americans truly understand the monstrously inefficient system they fund, where death sentences cost ten times more than life imprisonment yet only 15% of death row inmates are actually executed.FIVE TAKEAWAYS IN THIS CONVERSATION WITH TOBONI* The death penalty system is dysfunctional: Despite sentencing people to death, states like Nevada rarely carry out executions (the last one in Nevada was in 2006), creating a system where people are sentenced but left in limbo—only about 15% of death row inmates are ever executed.* Solitary confinement conditions are severe: Dozier was kept in conditions Toboni describes as "psychological torture"—up to 24 hours a day in a small cell, without human contact, reading materials, or other stimulation, which severely deteriorated his mental health.* Death row inmates face higher suicide rates: The suicide rate on death row is approximately 10 times higher than in general prison population, suggesting the conditions push many to take their own lives rather than continue living in those circumstances.* The financial argument is compelling: Death penalty cases cost approximately 10 times more than life imprisonment cases, yet most sentences are never carried out, raising questions about resource allocation.* Humanizing the condemned complicates perspectives: Toboni's experience showed how meeting death row inmates and understanding their full life stories—not just their crimes—can complicate black-and-white views on capital punishment, even for those who oppose it on principle.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.GIANNA TOBONI is a two-time Emmy-winning documentarian and author with dozens of films that have aired on HBO, Showtime, Hulu and VICE. Toboni has traveled to more than 30 countries, including Iraq, Mexico, Somalia, Israel/Palestine/Gaza, Nigeria, Russia, Philippines, and many more, telling stories that highlight the most significant challenges facing each local community and the humanity at the center of them. She’s covered the biggest national stories and feels some of the most powerful ones are often hidden right here in America.n Her debut book, THE VOLUNTEER, a story about her relationship with a death row inmate, who volunteered for execution, and the broader story of America’s death penalty, will be published by Atria Books, a Simon and Schuster imprint, in 2025. Toboni was honored on Forbes’ 30 Under 30 list for Media. She was named a TEDx Speaker on truth and storytelling. Toboni is a Peabody and du-Pont Columbia Award finalist for her documentaries, has won two Emmys, a GLAAD, Gracie, two Front Page Awards, and a Webby for Best Documentary Series. She works alongside her sister, Jacqueline Toboni, to bring both scripted and unscripted projects to the screen through their production company, Mother Media.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

How to measure the good life? According to Cambridge University’s Professor of Public Policy, Diane Coyle, quantifying progress doesn’t involve traditional economic metrics. In her new book, Measure of Progress, Coyle discusses how economic metrics like GDP, designed 80 years ago, are increasingly inadequate for measuring today's complex economy. She argues we need new approaches that account for digital transformation, supply chains, and long-term sustainability. Coyle suggests developing human-centric balance sheet measures that reflect true progress beyond simple growth numbers. Five Key Takeaways * Economic metrics like GDP were developed 80 years ago and are increasingly outdated for measuring today's complex digital economy with global supply chains.* We lack adequate tools to measure crucial modern economic factors such as data usage, cloud services, and cross-border supply chains.* Economic statistics have always been political in nature, from their historical origins to present debates about what counts as progress.* Coyle advocates for a "balance sheet" approach that considers long-term sustainability of resources rather than just short-term growth figures.* While productivity growth has slowed for many middle-income families over the past 20 years, Coyle rejects "degrowth" approaches, arguing instead for better metrics that capture true progress in living standards.Professor Dame Diane Coyle is the Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. Diane co-directs the Bennett Institute where she heads research under the themes of progress and productivity. Her latest book is 'Cogs and Monsters: What Economics Is, and What It Should Be’, exploring the challenges for economics particularly in the context of digital transformation. Her current research focuses on productivity and on economic measurement: what does it mean for economic policy to make the world ‘better’, and how would we know if it succeeds?Diane is also a Director of the Productivity Institute, a Fellow of the Office for National Statistics, and an expert adviser to the National Infrastructure Commission. She has served in public service roles including as Vice Chair of the BBC Trust, member of the Competition Commission, of the Migration Advisory Committee and of the Natural Capital Committee. Diane was Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester until March 2018 and was awarded a DBE for her contribution to economic policy in the 2023 King’s Birthday Honours.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Keach Hagey’s upcoming new biography of OpenAI's Sam Altman is entitled The Optimist. But it could alternatively be called The Salesman. The Wall Street Journal reporter describes Altman as an exceptional salesman whose superpower is convincing (ie: selling) others of his vision. This was as true, she notes, in Altman’s founding of OpenAI with Elon Musk, their eventual split, and the company's successful pivot to language models. Hagey details the dramatic firing and rehiring of Altman in 2023, attributing it to tensions between AI safety advocates and commercial interests. She reveals Altman's personal ownership of OpenAI's startup fund despite public claims to the contrary, and discusses his ongoing challenge of fixing the company's seemingly irresolvable nonprofit/for-profit structure. 5 Key Takeaways * Sam Altman's greatest skill is his persuasive ability - he can "sell ice to people in northern climates" and convince investors and talent to join his vision, which was crucial for OpenAI's success.* OpenAI was founded to counter AI risks but ironically accelerated AI development - starting an "arms race" after ChatGPT's release despite their charter explicitly stating they wanted to avoid such a race.* The 2023 firing of Altman involved tensions between the "effective altruism" safety-focused faction and Altman's more commercially-oriented approach, with the board believing they saw "a pattern of deliberate deception."* Altman personally owned OpenAI's startup fund despite publicly claiming he had no equity in OpenAI, which was a significant factor in the board's distrust leading to his firing.* Despite regaining his position, Altman still faces challenges converting OpenAI's unusual structure into a more traditional for-profit entity to secure investment, with negotiations proving difficult after the leadership crisis.Keach Hagey is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where she focuses on the intersection of media and technology. She was part of the team that broke the Facebook Files, a series that won a George Polk Award for Business Reporting, a Gerald Loeb Award for Beat Reporting and a Deadline Award for public service. Her investigation into the inner workings of Google’s advertising-technology business won recognition from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing (Sabew). Previously, she covered the television industry for the Journal, reporting on large media companies such as 21st Century Fox, Time Warner and Viacom. She led a team that won a Sabew award for coverage of the power struggle inside Viacom. She is the author of The King of Content: Sumner Redstone’s Battle for Viacom, CBS and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire, published by HarperCollins, and The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI and the Race to Invent the Future, published by W.W. Norton & Company. Before joining the Journal, Keach covered media for Politico, The National in Abu Dhabi, CBS News and the Village Voice. She has a bachelor’s and a master’s in English literature from Stanford University. She lives in Irvington, N.Y., with her husband, three daughters and dog.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe