Keen On America

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a psychologist and author, argues against the cult of authenticity in his impactful discussion. He suggests that strategic self-presentation often trumps radical honesty in achieving success. Authenticity, he claims, is a privilege for the elite and perpetuates inequality, especially regarding gender dynamics. Chamorro-Premuzic reveals how self-delusion can sometimes work as an advantage and discusses the pressures of AI on human expression. With a blend of behavioral science and cultural insights, he challenges conventional beliefs on authenticity and leadership.

What unites America, it used to be said, is a common commitment to “freedom”. But in our disunited times, it's worth remembering that two incompatible versions of freedom have actually divided rather than brought the United States together. As the historian Nicholas Buccola notes in his intriguing new book One Man’s Freedom, these competing freedoms are represented in the thinking of the two icons of modern American conservatism and liberalism: Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King. For Goldwater, freedom meant liberation from government interference—the right to be left alone to pursue economic success without federal meddling. For King, it meant empowerment—ensuring people had genuine capacity to participate fully in society. And as Buccola demonstrates, these competing visions persist in today’s debates over everything from healthcare to voting rights. When conservatives champion ‘medical freedom’ to refuse vaccines while liberals demand ‘reproductive freedom’ through government-protected abortion access, they’re not just disagreeing on policy—they’re wielding incompatible definitions of freedom itself. When some see voter ID laws as protecting electoral freedom while others view them as destroying it, they’re replaying the Goldwater-King divide: Is freedom merely the absence of federal interference, or does it require active measures to ensure everyone can meaningfully participate? Two freedoms, two Americas—no wonder the United States now feels so bitterly divided. 1. Freedom Isn’t One ThingGoldwater championed “negative freedom” (freedom from government interference), while King advocated “positive freedom” (empowerment to actually participate in society). Both men claimed to seek “authentic liberalism,” but their visions were fundamentally incompatible. You can’t just say you’re “for freedom” without specifying which kind.2. Goldwater’s Consequential SilenceThroughout his career, Goldwater had numerous opportunities to speak out on civil rights from his libertarian perspective but repeatedly chose silence. His refusal to use what King called “the moral power” of leadership to support racial justice—even while claiming personal opposition to segregation—helped set a pattern for the modern conservative movement’s approach to race.3. The 1964 Pivot PointThe 1964 Republican Convention was a watershed moment when race and “extremism” tore the party apart. When Goldwater sided with the far right and voted against the Civil Rights Act in the name of “freedom,” it drove Black Republicans like George Parker from the party and reshaped American political coalitions in ways that persist today.4. Economics Was Central to the DivideKing saw Goldwater’s economic philosophy as almost as dangerous as his stance on civil rights. While Goldwater focused on protecting economic freedom from “big government,” King advocated for an economic bill of rights that would address inequality across racial lines. This wasn’t just about race—it was about whether economic empowerment is necessary for genuine freedom.5. These Divisions Persist in 2025The Goldwater-King debate isn’t historical trivia. Today’s arguments about the role of government, economic inequality, and racial justice still break along these same philosophical lines. When politicians invoke “freedom,” they’re usually choosing sides in this 60-year-old debate without acknowledging that their opponents are using the same word to mean something entirely different.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

We’ve done a couple (here and here) of shows recently about the war on cars. But we never discussed the connections, both literal and metaphorical, between the damage of “Big Car” and “Big University” . According to the tenured Emory law professor Deepa Das Acevedo, what she calls in her new book, The War on Tenure, is really an attempt to transform the modern university into an academic version of Uber. By getting rid of tenure, Acevedo argues, academia is creating a new precariat of adjunct professors who are living in their cars. What she calls the “uberification” of academia is, so to speak, driving an assault not just on tenure, but on free thought and intellectual innovation. The war on tenure, then, is part of the broader neo-liberal project to replace full-time jobs with precarious labor. Academics - you have nothing to lose but your cars!1. The Charlie Kirk Fallout is a Watershed MomentIn just one month, an estimated 40-60 professors have been fired over social media posts about the assassination - with perhaps 10-15 being tenured faculty. This represents potentially half the number of academic freedom-related terminations that occurred over the entire previous 20-year period (2000-2020).2. Rich Universities Are Leading the Race to the BottomContrary to expectations, it’s not cash-strapped colleges but wealthy universities with substantial endowments that are most aggressively replacing tenure-track positions with contingent adjunct labor - choosing to spend their resources elsewhere while casualizing their core academic workforce.3. Academic Job Markets Are Essentially MonopolisticThe entire state of Georgia has only 5-6 positions for a labor law professor. This extreme scarcity means academics can’t simply “get another job” like workers in other industries - making job security through tenure essential for attracting people to spend 8-10 years training for these positions.4. The “Lazy Professor” Myth is Unsupported by DataResearch shows tenure doesn’t reduce productivity - highly productive scholars remain productive after tenure, while those who did minimum work continue at that level. People become academics for reasons beyond job security, contradicting the stereotype of post-tenure retirement.5. Academic Precarity Has Reached Crisis LevelsAdjunct professors are literally living in cars while teaching classes. When academics lose stable employment, they typically exit the profession entirely rather than finding another academic position, creating a brain drain that threatens the future of higher education and research.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

One of the most painful lessons of the Kirk assassination is that conservatives are running rings around progressives in political mobilization - especially of young Americans. So how to make the left relevant in America again? For the philosopher Michael Brownstein, co-author of Somebody Should Do Something, progressives need to learn to lose both cleverly and loudly. And they can learn from NRA on this. Despite holding positions unpopular with most Americans, Brownstein acknowledges that the NRA created a powerful social identity around gun ownership and leveraged it for decades of legislative victories through masterful political strategy and organization. Drawing from social science research on collective action, Brownstein argues that highly theatrical defeats—like the recent Texas Democrats’ walkout or John Lewis’ bloody fate on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965—can catalyze change by forcing opponents into untenable positions. The key isn’t winning every battle, but making individual actions visible enough to shift social norms and inspire others, especially the young, to join the cause. So lose often and lose loudly, Brownstein says. It’s a winning strategy. 1. Individual Actions Are Social Signals, Not Just Drops in the Bucket When you install solar panels or drive an electric car, the impact isn’t just environmental—it’s social. Research shows your neighbors are far more likely to adopt these behaviors after seeing you do it. Stop calculating carbon molecules; start thinking about social influence.2. The “Do-Gooder’s Dilemma” Is a Corporate Invention From “jaywalking” (coined by 1920s car companies) to “personal carbon footprints” (popularized by BP), industries have systematically shifted responsibility for systemic problems onto individuals. Recognizing this manipulation is the first step to effective collective action.3. Losing Loudly Can Be More Powerful Than Winning Quietly The Texas Democrats knew they’d lose their walkout fight. John Lewis knew he’d be beaten at Selma. But theatrical defeats that force opponents to reveal their brutality or absurdity can shift public opinion more effectively than quiet procedural victories.4. Study Your Enemies’ Playbook The NRA succeeded for decades despite holding unpopular positions by creating a powerful social identity around gun ownership. Progressives should learn from these organizing tactics rather than dismissing them.5. Beware the “Anti-Incrementalism Bias” Revolutionary change like Prohibition often fails because it lacks public buy-in. Lasting progress—like Social Security—comes from incremental victories that build over time. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.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

“Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown,” were, of course, the closing words from Polanski’s 1974 movie, Chinatown. But the point of Jeff Chang’s new biography of Bruce Lee, Water Mirror Echo, is that by 1973, when Lee died, Asian America was more than just Chinatown. Lee made Asian America, Chang argues, by giving Asian Americans dignity. Chang shows how Lee’s journey from segregated Seattle and San Francisco neighborhoods to global stardom paralleled the rise of Asian American political consciousness. His films weren’t just action movies but anti-colonial spectacles - kicking down “No Chinese and Dogs” signs, fighting for workers against bosses, defending communities against gentrification. After Bruce Lee, chinatown became more, so much more, than just chinatown.1. Lee was an “anchor baby” who embodied the immigrant struggle Born in San Francisco in 1940 during Chinese Exclusion, Lee lived in segregated neighborhoods and learned firsthand what it meant to be a racialized minority - making him a powerful symbol for those Trump-era immigration debates Chang references.2. His movies were explicitly political, not just action films From labor solidarity in The Big Boss to anti-colonialism in Fist of Fury to fighting gentrification in Way of the Dragon, Lee’s films consistently championed underdogs against oppressors.3. Lee’s rise paralleled the birth of “Asian American” identity Just as the term “Asian American” emerged in Berkeley in 1968, Lee was transforming from Hollywood sidekick to global hero, giving form to a new political consciousness that refused second-class status.4. Hollywood’s racism forced Lee to find stardom in Asia After losing the Kung Fu role to David Carradine in yellowface, Lee had to return to Hong Kong to be seen as a leading man - becoming Asia’s biggest star in six months.5. Hip-hop embraced Lee through shared spaces of segregation Inner-city theaters showed both Blaxploitation and kung fu films to the same audiences, creating an unexpected solidarity between Black and Asian communities that continues through artists like Wu-Tang Clan.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

Back in 1990, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur called Jim Fruchterman chose purpose over profit. In his new book, Technology for Good, Fruchterman explains how nonprofit leaders like him are using software and data to solve our most pressing social problems. Thirty five years ago, when his investors vetoed a reading machine for the blind because the market was only $1 million annually, Fruchterman walked away from his $25 million-funded AI company to start his first nonprofit. Today, he’s still on the front line of the battle to show that technology’s greatest potential lies not in making billionaires richer, but in serving the 90% of humanity that big tech conveniently ignores.1. When profit and purpose clash, profit usually wins Fruchterman argues that when companies face a choice between social good and making money, they “pretty much always pick making more.” His own experience—investors vetoing a reading machine for the blind despite having the technology ready—exemplifies this. Even OpenAI, which started with a nonprofit mission, ultimately flipped to prioritize profit when Sam Altman was briefly fired then reinstated.2. The nonprofit sector is 15 years behind in technology adoption While companies like Uber and banks have essentially become software companies, most nonprofits are still operating with outdated technology. This creates what Fruchterman calls a “target-rich environment” for improvement—nonprofits don’t need cutting-edge AI to transform their operations, just the basic data and software tools that for-profit businesses mastered years ago.3. Effective altruism has gone “out of control” Some philanthropists focus so narrowly on measurable impact that they dismiss causes like women’s rights or education as “immoral” investments compared to deworming programs. Fruchterman advocates for diversity in philanthropic approaches, arguing that the complexity of global problems requires varied solutions, not just those with the cleanest metrics.4. U.S. foreign aid primarily benefits Americans Contrary to isolationist arguments, 80% of U.S. foreign aid money goes to American staff and American products. Cutting aid doesn’t help American farmers—it just leaves their grain piling up in silos. Fruchterman sees nonprofit work as “market development capital for the capitalist system,” turning aid recipients into future customers.5. Mental health represents AI’s most promising social application Within five years, Fruchterman believes AI could revolutionize mental health support—not because the technology is revolutionary, but because “we’ll never have enough people to help solve our mental health issues.” While big tech’s algorithms have exacerbated mental health problems for profit, the same tools could be redesigned to provide accessible support at scale.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

It’s not exactly news that the Nazis didn’t like the Jews. But according to the Rutgers historian Jochen Hellbeck, author of World Enemy Number One, the Nazi obsession went so far as to believe that the Soviet Union was owned and operated by a global cabal of Jews. And so, Hellbeck argues, it was not the Western powers but Communist Russia that Nazi Germany viewed as an existential threat—in fact, “World Enemy No. 1.” Jewish revolutionaries, the Nazis believed, had seized power in 1917 and were preparing the Soviet state to destroy Germany and the world. This paranoid delusion drove Nazi Germany’s most catastrophic decision: launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941. While Hitler made tactical alliances and fought on multiple fronts, Hellbeck demonstrates through his meticulous archival research that the destruction of “Judeo-Bolshevism” remained the Nazis’ primary ideological mission. Drawing on overlooked Soviet sources, including war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg’s writings, Hellbeck shows how this twisted worldview shaped not just propaganda but military strategy, ultimately leading to both the Holocaust and Germany’s catastrophic defeat on the Eastern Front.1. The Nazis saw “Judeo-Bolshevism” as one unified threat The Nazis genuinely believed Soviet communism was a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. They conflated Russians, Bolsheviks, and Jews into a single enemy - viewing Karl Marx’s Jewish heritage as proof that communism itself was a Jewish plot to destroy Germany.2. This obsession drove Nazi military strategy, not just propaganda Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union wasn’t merely opportunistic. German military planning for attacking the USSR, including detailed preparations for different rail gauges and propaganda leaflets, began in the mid-1930s - showing this was a long-term ideological priority, not a tactical decision.3. Soviet sources deserve serious historical consideration Western historiography has often dismissed Soviet wartime accounts as propaganda. But Hellbeck’s research, particularly examining war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg’s work against German documents, shows these Soviet sources accurately documented Nazi atrocities and mindsets without fabrication.4. Ordinary Germans, not just the SS, committed atrocities The Wehrmacht’s brutality on the Eastern Front wasn’t limited to special units. Hellbeck found that whenever German soldiers felt threatened, they defaulted to extreme racial violence - a pattern that intensified as the Red Army approached Germany in 1944-45.5. The war’s memory continues shaping current conflicts The different ways Eastern and Western Ukraine remembered WWII (Soviet liberation vs. Soviet occupation) contributed to the country’s political divisions. Putin’s Russia still invokes the “Great Patriotic War” to justify current actions, showing how WWII’s contested legacy remains politically explosive.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

The numbers are mind blowing. According to Roadkill authors Henrietta Moore and Arthur Kay, cars have killed more people than both world wars combined. That’s how toxic our relationship with cars has been over the last century, they argue. The UN figures they cite—60 to 80 million direct deaths since the automobile’s invention—don’t even include premature deaths from air pollution or the millions seriously injured. Yet we’ve become “car blind,” Moore and Kay contend, unable to see how we’ve surrendered 80% of urban public space to vehicles that sit idle 96% of the time, creating what they call a hidden “car industrial complex” that reshapes cities in its image. So what to do? They advocate for “choice not obligation”—redesigning cities so people can drive if they want but aren’t forced to. They point to successful experiments from Barcelona’s superblocks to Dallas’s highway cap parks, where reclaimed streets have actually increased business revenue by up to 34% in some cases. Their goal isn’t to ban cars but to stop letting them dominate every aspect of urban planning and life.1. The Deadly Math of “Car Blindness” Cars have directly killed 60-80 million people since their invention—more than WWI and WWII combined. Yet we’ve normalized this death toll and become “car blind” to how thoroughly automobiles dominate our lives, with 80% of urban public space dedicated to vehicles that sit unused 96% of the time.2. Electric and Self-Driving Cars Aren’t Silver Bullets Moore and Kay argue that EVs and autonomous vehicles like Waymo don’t solve the fundamental problem: they’re still cars taking up urban space. Plus, EVs bring their own issues—from lithium extraction devastating places like Chile’s Atacama Desert to the question of whether electricity generation is actually clean.3. “Choice Not Obligation” - A New Freedom Framework The authors aren’t advocating car bans but rather redesigning cities so driving becomes optional rather than mandatory. They argue true 21st-century freedom means being able to walk to school safely, access nearby shops, and move through cities without car dependence—not just the 20th-century freedom to drive anywhere.4. Global South Solutions Leading the Way Surprisingly, innovations aren’t coming from Copenhagen but from places like Nairobi’s matatu system (on-demand informal transit) and Dallas’s highway “cap parks.” These demonstrate that car reduction isn’t just for wealthy European cities but can work across diverse economic contexts.5. Follow the Money - It Actually Works When done properly, reducing car dominance boosts business. Times Square restaurants saw revenue jump 34% after pedestrianization. The key is integrated planning with communities rather than top-down mandates, ensuring alternatives exist before removing parking.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

It’s the $320,000 question both parents and students are asking themselves: Is that four-year liberal arts degree really worth it? According to Brandeis University President Arthur Levine, it’s a question they should, indeed, be asking. In his co-authored book The Great Upheaval, Levine argues that the United States is experiencing a profound transformation not seen since the Industrial Revolution—when America’s classical colleges adapted to meet the needs of an emerging industrial economy. So what, exactly, does that mean for a useful liberal arts education today? Should students really invest their time in women’s studies in our AI age of Claude and ChatGPT?1. America is experiencing its second great transformation in historyLevine argues we’re in a shift from national analog industrial economies to global digital knowledge economies—comparable only to the Industrial Revolution. This creates massive winners and losers, with educational level becoming the primary dividing line in society.2. The $320K liberal arts degree must prove its worthTraditional liberal arts education isn’t enough anymore. Levine is reforming Brandeis’s curriculum to combine “durable life skills” (critical thinking, communication) with practical “career skills,” creating a second transcript to show employers what graduates can actually do.3. Higher education is splitting into two unequal systemsWe’re developing one system for the wealthy (traditional campus experience) and another for working people (online education). Only 20% of college students now fit the traditional model of 18-24 year-olds attending full-time on campus.4. Universities are under political attack because they represent changeThe populist backlash against “elite” institutions isn’t really about ideology—it’s about anger from those left behind by economic transformation. Universities are being scapegoated as symbols of a changing world that has hurt many working-class Americans.5. Federal policies are actively damaging higher educationInternational student visa denials, research funding cuts based on forbidden words, and threats of deportation for student activists are isolating America and weakening universities’ capacity to innovate and compete globally.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

Some liberals might shake their virtuous heads and tut-tut disapprovingly. But, as the Brookings scholar William Galston argues, Donald Trump’s Old Testament politics of retribution has exposed the limitations of liberal thought. In his new book, Anger, Fear, Domination, Galston argues that liberals must recognize the dark passions driving politics and incorporate them into their own language. The power of political speech, Galston reminds us, depends on the recognition and promise of human passion. Those passions don’t have to be so hatefully retributive as Trump’s, of course. But contemporary liberals, Galston argues, must recognize that humans aren’t simply calculating machines and shape their language accordingly. Only then, he warns, will they be able to take on and defeat the dark passions currently corroding American politics. 1. Liberals Have Been Politically Naive About Human Nature Galston argues liberals have expected “dark passions” (anger, fear, domination) to disappear through rational discourse and commercial interests, but these emotions are “perennial” and “part of our nature.” Trump succeeded because he understood this; liberals failed because they were surprised by it.2. Trump’s Politics Are Fundamentally About Retribution, Not Policy His famous CPAC line “I am your retribution” wasn’t campaign rhetoric—it was a governing philosophy. Trump genuinely believes his supporters have been wronged and that “revenge and retribution represent justice the old-fashioned way.”3. Political Speech Can Either Inflame or Soothe These Passions Galston advocates for leaders who use rhetoric like “foam on a runway fire”—dampening rather than stoking destructive emotions. He points to FDR’s “only thing we have to fear is fear itself” as an example of transforming paralyzing fear into productive confidence.4. History Has No Predetermined Direction Unlike Hegelian or Marxist narratives, Galston argues there’s no “History with a capital H” moving inexorably toward liberal democracy. Regression is always possible, and believing in historical inevitability is one of liberalism’s dangerous illusions.5. Americans Are Growing Tired of Constant Political Combat Despite polarized extremes, Galston detects a “rising sense that we need civil peace” and believes many Americans are “yearning” for a peacemaker who can restore “domestic tranquility”—creating an opening for the right kind of leader.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