Keen On America

As a longtime journalist and the co-founder of Transparency International, myboldb friend Frank Vogl has always the nose for a good story. So it was particularly interesting to get Frank’s take on the incoming Trump administration, especially since he just wrote an interesting piece about how money didn’t buy the election for Trump. But given that the art of the (digital) deal is Trump’s only real motivator, what exactly should we expect of a reborn Donald Trump? Might the Trump 2.0 regime, for example, be a semi-legal version of Sam Bankman-Fried/FTX and will we remember this new administration as the Bitcoin Presidency?Frank Vogl is the co-founder of two leading international non-governmental organizations fighting corruption -- Transparency International and the Partnership for Transparency Fund (Frank is the Chair of the PTF Board).  He teaches at Georgetown University, writes regular "blog" articles on corruption for theGlobalist.com and lectures extensively.  Frank is also a specialist in international economics and finance with more than 50 years of experience in these fields - first as an international journalist, then as the Director of Information & Public Affairs at the World Bank official and, from 1990 to 2017, as the president and CEO of a consulting firm, Vogl Communications Inc.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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

Last week, we featured an interview with John Markoff, the legendary New York Times Silicon Valley correspondent. If Markoff has an East Coast equivalent, it’s Steven Levy, the former Newsweek technology correspondent and author of best-selling books about hacking, crypto, Google and Facebook. Levy is now Wired’s editor-at-large and when I visited Levy at New York City’s glittering Conde Nast offices, we talked about what has and hasn’t surprised him about the last twenty years of tech history and why he may be the last journalist with the good fortune of being paid to write long articles about Microsoft.Steven Levy is Wired’s editor at large. The Washington Post has called him “America’s premier technology journalist.”For almost four decades Levy has chronicled the digital revolution, its impact on humanity, and the people behind it. He has written the foundational work on computer culture (Hackers, 1984) and with Crypto (2001) the indispensable book on story behind that groundbreaking technology—years before people began gushing about Bitcoin and the blockchain. He has written the definitive books on Facebook, Google, the Macintosh, and the iPod. World-class engineers tell him that they pursued AI after reading his 1992 book Artificial Life. And he currently covers the breadth of tech stories—the good and the disturbing—for WIRED, where he has been a contributor since its inception. Levy’s previous positions include founder of Backchannel and chief technology writer and senior editor for Newsweek. His work has also appeared in Rolling Stone, Harper’s Magazine, Macworld, The New York Times Magazine, Esquire, The New Yorker, and Premiere. Among his honors: PC Magazine named Hackers the best sci-tech book written in the last twenty years. Crypto won the grand e-book prize at the 2001 Frankfurt Book Fair. In the Plex was Amazon’s best business book of 2011. In 2008 he was inducted as a SVForum Visionary, alongside Reed Hastings and Diane Greene. (Previous winners include Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, and Vin Cerf.) He has won several Computer Press Association Awards, been finalist for the National Magazine Award and the Loeb Award, winner of a Clarion Award and many others.  His 1988 book, The Unicorn’s Secret, was the source material for a two-night NBC miniseries, “The Hunt for the Unicorn Killer.” Levy hails from Philadelphia, where he began his career writing for weekly papers and writing stories for Philadelphia Magazine and the Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday Magazine. He wrote extensively on rock music and sports. In 1982, he published a Rolling Stone story on computer hackers that drew him into the world of technology.  He lives in New York City with his wife, Pulitzer Prize winner and bestselling author Teresa Carpenter.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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

David Masciotra, an insightful author and lecturer, interviews Andrew Keen, renowned commentator and author of the thought-provoking Cult of the Amateur. They dive into the book's critical take on the digital age, particularly its predictions about platforms like YouTube and the rise of narcissism in our culture. Topics include the erosion of trust in expertise, the interplay between democracy and cultural gatekeeping, and a surprising resurgence of analog appreciation among younger generations as they grapple with digital addiction.

Every digital tech revolution over the last forty years has promised decentralization but each one only seems to have recentralized power. So will the AI revolution be different? Can AI be the tipping point for fundamentally decentralizing the architecture of our 21st century politics, culture and business? That Was The Week newsletter publisher Keith Teare and Andrew discuss both the promise and danger of the AI revolution. Both are skeptical about radical decentralization, but both recognize that there’s nothing inevitable about history repeating itself again. As Keith notes, it’s up to us. Human agency will define the success or failure of the AI revolution. We all know the world we want. Now we just need to create it.Keith Teare is the founder and CEO of SignalRank Corporation. Previously, he was executive chairman at Accelerated Digital Ventures Ltd., a U.K.-based global investment company focused on startups at all stages. Teare studied at the University of Kent and is the author of “The Easy Net Book” and “Under Siege.” He writes regularly for TechCrunch and publishes the “That Was The Week” newsletter.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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

How to beat Trump? In his new book, Turf War, the architect Steven Robinson shows us how it can be done. In the late 1980s, a band of New York civic groups set out to stop Donald Trump from building his self-styled “masterpiece,” a half-mile of gargantuan buildings overlooking the Hudson River on Manhattan’s West Side. After five years of community organizing and strategic opposition, Turf War explains, they defeated his proposal. So fast forward forty years. What, I asked Robinson, are the lessons of Turf War for the mid 2020’s? How can activists successfully resist Trump’s latest assault on the environment and on the civil rights of women and migrants?Steven Robinson has been an award-winning architect, a land-use planner, community activist, and writer in New York and New Mexico since 1985. His buildings and public space designs in urban and rural landscapes have served private clients, academic institutions, and native communities. He was a founder of Westpride, the grassroots nonprofit that initiated the defeat of Donald Trump’s overwhelming proposal for Manhattan’s West Side and was a designer on the ensuing civic-oriented master plan, the buildings, and the riverfront park for that site. In New Mexico, Mr. Robinson has served as the founding president of the nonprofit which revitalized the nationally acclaimed downtown Santa Fe Railyard. He has been a featured speaker at the National Trust for Historic Preservation and taught at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. Mr. Robinson received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Pennsylvania and earned a Master of Architecture degree from Yale University. He lives in New Mexico.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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

Former New York Times reporter John Markoff has been writing about Silicon Valley for almost a half century. In December 1993 the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist wrote one of the earliest articles about the World Wide Web, referring to it as a "map to the buried treasures of the Information Age." So where are we now in the history of tech, I asked Markoff. Is the AI boom just one more Silicon Valley cycle of irrational exuberance? And how do contemporary tech titans like Sam Altman and Elon Musk compare with Steve Jobs, who Markoff covered for many years.John Markoff is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. He has reported on Silicon Valley for more than four decades and wrote for The New York Times’ science and technology beat for 28 years, where he was widely regarded as the paper’s star technology reporter. He is the author of five books about the technology industry including his upcoming book Whole Earth: The Many Lives of Stewart Brand (on sale in March 2022). For decades Markoff has chronicled how technology has shaped our society. In Whole Earth, he delivers the definitive biography of one the most influential visionaries to inspire the technological and cultural revolutions of the last six decades. While Stewart Brand is largely known as the creator of The Whole Earth Catalog that became a counterculture bible for a generation of young Americans during the 1960s, his life’s work is much larger. Brand became a key influence in the ‘70s environmental movement and the computing world of the ‘80s. Steve Jobs adopted Brand’s famous mantra “Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish” as his code to live by, and to this day Brand epitomizes what Markoff calls “that California state of mind.” Brand has always had “an eerie knack for showing up first at the onset of some social movement or technological inflection point,” Markoff writes, “and then moving on just when everyone else catches up.” Brand’s uncanny ahead-of-the-curve-ness is what makes John Markoff his ideal biographer. Markoff’s reporting has always been at the cutting edge of tech revolutions—he wrote the first account of the World Wide Web in 1993 and broke the story of Google’s self-driving car in 2010. Stewart Brand gave Markoff carte blanche access in interviews for the book, so Markoff gets a clearer story than has ever been set down before, ranging across Brand’s time with the Merry Pranksters to his fostering of the marriage of environmental consciousness with hacker capitalism and the rise of a new planetary culture. Markoff’s other books are: The High Cost of High Tech (with Lennie Siegel); Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier (with Katie Hafner); Takedown: The Pursuit and Capture of America’s Most Wanted Computer Outlaw (with Tsutomu Shimomura); What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry; and Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots. He is a Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has been a lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley School of Journalism, and an adjunct faculty member at the Stanford Graduate Program on Journalism. In 2013, Markoff was part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team for Explanatory Reporting “for its penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies that illustrates the darker side of a changing global economy for workers and consumers.” He continues to work as a freelance journalist for The Times and other organizations. Markoff graduated from Whitman College with a B.A. in sociology, and an M.A. in sociology from the University of Oregon.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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

Few Americans have been as consistently critical of Donald Trump’s morality than the New York Times and Atlantic columnist Peter Wehner. How to prevent the worst happening, Wehner thus wrote, in his final Atlantic column before the election. So now that the worst has actually happened, how exactly is Wehner - who worked in several Republican administrations - feeling about the future of the American Republic? More optimist than one might. American self-renewal is a wonder of the world, Wehner explained to me, which is why, he believes, we should still be remain cheerful about American democracy.Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. His books include The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, which he co-wrote with Michael J. Gerson, and Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Transcript“What we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is.” -Pete WehnerAK: Hello everybody. Election was two weeks ago, but we're trying to figure out the implications of the Trump/Vance win in the presidential election. We've done a number of shows, one with my old friend Jonathan Rauch. Rauch believes that November 5th represents what he calls a "moral catastrophe." And I'm curious as to what my guest today will say, whether he'll try to trump his old friend John Rauch. Wehner I've always seen as the conscience of American conservatism. He wrote a piece in The Atlantic—he writes a lot both for The Atlantic and The New York Times. Before the election, he wrote a piece for The Atlantic about preventing the worst from happening. He's joining us now two weeks after the election. Pete, did the worst happen? Is it a moral catastrophe?PETE WEHNER: Well, I see the worst happened in terms of what the binary choice was for this this election. Obviously, it's not the worst that could conceivably happen to a country, but given the circumstances, it's the worst that happened. Is it a moral catastrophe? You know, it's a moral blow. And I think it's a moral indictment, actually, of of much of the country as well. Whether it's a moral catastrophe remains to be seen. I mean, events will write that story. But I'm certainly concerned about where we are politically in terms of classical liberalism, in terms of the moral life and moral compass of America.AK: Immediately after the election. Peter Baker, New York Times writer, one of your one of your companions, colleagues on The Times, wrote an interesting piece about Trump's America, suggesting that this is the America who we are. Kamala Harris argued that we were different. But Baker believes that this is the America. It's Trump's America. As you know, Pete, he quoted you in the piece. You said, "This election was a CAT scan on the American people. And as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption." Tell me more about this CAT scan. What does it tell us about the America of late 2024?PETE WEHNER: Well, I think it tells us things that are disturbing. It doesn't mean—and I wouldn't say and I didn't mean to imply—that people who themselves voted for Donald Trump are morally corrupt. But what I do mean to argue is that everybody who voted for Donald Trump voted for a man of borderless corruption, a man of moral depravity. And that's disturbing.AK: It's more than disturbing, Pete, the way you put it. "Moral depravity." In what way is he depraved?PETE WEHNER: Well, let me count the ways. I mean, the man was found liable to sexual assault. He's adulterer, porn star. He's cheated on his taxes and charitable giving. He tried to coerce an ally to find dirt on his opponent. He invited a hostile foreign power in the election. He instigated an insurrection against the Capitol. He tried to urge a violent mob to hang his vice president. He's a man who says racist things. He's a misogynist. He surrounds himself with people who are themselves deeply problematic, including picks that he wants for his cabinet. I would say that corruption has touched every area of his life, personal, professional, and in the presidency. So I don't think that that's a difficult argument to make. I think there's empirical evidence for it. But if there is a counter argument, I'm open to hearing it.AK: Well, I'm certainly not going to make that counter argument. You seem on the one hand, Pete, a little...tentative about, shall we say, morally smearing all Trump voters with his depravity. On the other hand, you know that everybody knows everything about Trump. There are no secrets here.PETE WEHNER: Right.AK: Can one then vote for Trump and not be in any way smeared by this moral depravity?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, it's a good question and I've thought a lot about it, Andrew. The way I think about it is that for Trump supporters, many of them, in any event, look, I know them. I mean, we've friends throughout our life, and I wouldn't deny that you can be a Trump voter and be a wonderful parent or neighbor and a person of high moral quality in a lot of areas in your life. On the other hand, I would say that this was an important election, and that Trump's depravity was undisguised. In fact, he kind of hung a neon light on it. And for an individual to cast a vote for that kind of man, who has done the things that he's done, and he's promised to do the things that he's done, I do think reflects on the person's character. And I don't think it's says everything about a person's character. I don't think this is the most important thing about a person's character. But I do think it says something. And I think that the people who voted for him should at least own up to who he is and the kind of man that that they cast their vote for. So if that's the tentativeness that you hear from me, that's an effort to explain why it's both tentative but something that I have fairly strong convictions on.AK: Pete, you and I talked about this a lot. You've been on the show many times. So it's a wonderful opportunity to talk to you. Is the church/state division in your head as sharp as it should be? For you, is politics essentially an extension of morality? I've always suspected there's an element of that, and I don't necessarily mean that as a criticism. It's just a reality of how you think.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I don't take it as a criticism. I do think that politics is an extension of of morality. I don't think it's the most important extension of morality. And I do believe that the people who are indifferent to politics, you know, their morality expresses itself in different ways. But yeah, I think from my youngest days, at least in junior high and high school and on, I've always had a sense that politics, at its core, is about justice and the pursuit of justice. And it's about a lot of other things. And it's an imperfect means to achieve justice; there's other ways to achieve justice. But I do think that that's what politics is about. And politics is also the expression of a set of moral beliefs. I mean, that, after all, is what law is in many cases. So I do think that morality and politics are tied. The last point I'll make on it, Andrew, is that if politics goes bad, if it goes really bad, it can have catastrophic human consequences. Gulags and killing fields and genocide and a lot of things less bad than that but that are bad enough. And so I just feel like that matters. And that's certainly a manifestation of morality.AK: What about the argument, Pete, that for all the immorality, the depravity, to use your word, of Trump, most of the voters are voting for change. There's a photo in one of your pieces, I think it may be in the Baker piece, of a Trump supporter on a motorbike with a "Trump 2024" flag, and the suggestion that the rules have changed. It seems to be clear in the two weeks after the election that Trump is determined to change the rules. I mean all his appointments seem to be challenging the current assumptions, institutions, elites, and conventions. Isn't that a good thing? America seems bogged down—I mean, I know you're a conservative, but there were many areas from health care to foreign policy to the environment, and they need to be fundamentally changed. It was a very odd election in the sense that Kamala Harris was supposed to be the progressive, and yet she turned out to be the conservative. She seemed to be suggesting that not much in America needs changing. She didn't seem to want to distance herself too much from Joe Biden, whereas Trump is the candidate of change. Is that a credible argument?PETE WEHNER: No, I don't think it's credible. At least let me qualify that. He's certainly a candidate of change. I think whether it's positive or negative change is really what matters. I think it's one thing to say that institutions need to be reformed, which I agree with and have agreed with for many years and have been part of various efforts, throughout the years, to advocate for the reform of institutions. It's another thing to try and destroy institutions, to burn them down. And I think that Trump and the MAGA world is in the latter category. I think that that is the ethos which defines them. So, you know, in terms of people who voted for Trump out of the country, 50%, whatever, the number is going to end up being, vote for him. I understand the impulse, some of the frustrations that have been expressed. So that is its own topic of conversation, which we can get into. But to me, the idea that Donald Trump is the solution to the problems is not plausible. And I point out too, Andrew, that he did have one term prior to it. And in many respects, the things that people are unhappy about got worse, not better, under his watch. So if you compare what his promises have been to what his record was in the first term, I just don't think it squares. And in addition to that, the kind of things that he's promoting now, I think will make things worse. Just to take one specific area, the manufacturing crisis. There's no question that, for a whole variety of reasons, that there's people who have been in the manufacturing industry have suffered. But actually, it was worse during Trump's watch than it was under Biden's watch. So I don't think that Donald Trump is is the answer to the to the question, even a legitimate question, that's being presented or posed.AK: Pete, you've always described yourself as a conservative. You believe that now you're homeless as a conservative. I wonder what you made, though, of the Harris campaign. Her association with Liz Cheney, of course, represents the conservative wing of the Republican Party that you've been involved with all your life. You work with Cheney and Bush and Reagan. Do you blame Harris for losing the election? Did she make a series of mistakes? And what does it tell us about the Democratic Party? I mean, it's always easy—you've written extensively about the crisis of the Republican Party and its Trump-ification. But is there a similar crisis within the Democratic Party?PETE WEHNER: Well, I think there's a crisis, or at least a challenge, in the Democratic Party, which I'll turn to in a second. I mean, they've they've lost two of the last three elections to Donald Trump. So that is a cause for for self-reflection, for for sure. In terms of the Harris campaign, I'm not as critical as a lot of people are of her. I thought she ran a much better campaign than I thought that she would. It wasn't a perfect campaign by any means, but given the tasks she faced, given her own history, I thought that she did extremely well. And I don't blame her for the loss. I think there were certain intrinsic disadvantages that she had. I mean, she was essentially an incumbent in an election where the impulse for the public was change. Joe Biden's approval rating was 41%. She's going to end up with about 48% of the popular vote. That actually, to me is pretty impressive. The idea that she could have beaten, or have been ten points better, in the popular vote from the Biden approval rating would have been a spectacular achievement. I don't think it was achievable. She made mistakes. She didn't distance herself sufficiently from the Biden administration, but I don't think she ever really could have, because she was vice president. I think that the biggest stage, the biggest moment with the largest audience of all, she absolutely obliterated Donald Trump in the debate. I thought her convention speech was good. I'd sort of graded it at a B plus. I thought the convention itself made a lot of sense. I thought her rallies were very good. She was better on the stump than I thought. She had a huge amount of of energy. I thought she was not so good on interviews. And I think she stumbled at a few points, particularly when she was asked on The View where she differed from Joe Biden. She couldn't come up with anything. I think that she should have been prepared for that.AK: But to put it mildly, I mean, that was the most obvious question that everyone wanted to know. How could she have been so unprepared?PETE WEHNER: Well, I don't know if she was unprepared, I assume—AK: Or unwilling or unable to answer this fundamental question.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I'm guessing that what was going through her mind, and probably the mind of the people that she spoke with, was that there was still a lot of loyalty to Joe Biden. And so she had to be careful in how far she distanced herself from him and whether that would create some unhappiness among Biden supporters. Secondly, she was vice president. And so there's a plausibility issue here, which is: how much can you separate yourself from a president if you're vice president? That said, look, I think she should have had 2 or 3 things that she could have named. And there was a relatively easy explanation, various explanations she could have offered: look, I believe in learning. When facts change, people change. I think that, you know, in my in my earlier life, I was wrong on certain issues and name what they were, and say that hopefully I've learned from that, I hope to continue to learn. I mean, there are all sorts of ways you could answer that. But look, Andrew, I will say this, too, which is having worked on several campaigns and having observed a lot of them over the decades, it's a lot harder to run as a candidate than people can imagine. And every candidate, no matter how good they are, whether you're Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, have made mistakes. And the prism through which people view it is completely based on whether you win or not. If Trump had lost, you can imagine all of the things that we would say about, you know, really, was it wise to to close the argument talking about the penis size of Arnold Palmer or feigning masturbation with a microphone? I mean, there are there are dozens and dozens of things we would have said.AK: Yeah, I take your point, but of course he didn't. Let's talk about conservatism. You always made the argument—you were on MSNBC recently talking about why Trump is an enemy of conservatism. Is now, shall we say, the Harris wing, which is the center/right of the Democratic Party, which seems to have got into bed, so to speak, with Liz Cheney, are they really the conservatives now in America? I mean, they seem to think that America works pretty well. They always talk about America being American, and we're better than that. Is your conservative Republican Party, has it been swallowed by the Democratic Party?PETE WEHNER: I don't think it's been swallowed by the Democratic Party. And of course, it depends on what aspects of conservatism one is talking about. I would say that given the current constellation of reality in the two main parties in America, that conservatives have a better home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party right now. But I don't think it's a natural home, and it's certainly not the kind of home that conservatives have been used to in the Republican Party pre-Donald Trump. I'd say the main point in terms of the question you asked is to underscore how fundamentally unconservative the Republican Party, Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, are. You know, there's a line in the movie The Dark Knight, the Batman movie, in which Alfred is talking to Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne is trying to explain the criminal mindset to Alfred. And Alfred is saying, but you don't understand. And here he's talking about the Joker. He says, some people can't be bought, bribed, coerced. Some people just want to watch the world burn. And I think that Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have within them that kind of sensibility. I don't think it's defining to all of them, and I don't think it's completely defining to them. But I think that there is a nihilistic impulse, this effort not to reform, as I said earlier, institutions, but just to burn them to the ground, to take a wrecking ball. But, you know, Matt Gaetz as attorney general, or Pete Hegseth as defense secretary or Tulsi Gabbard as the head of the intelligence agencies, and just, out of anger, grievance, try and destroy them, try and destroy the so-called deep state. That's so fundamentally unconservative, in my estimation, that a conservative couldn't, in good conscience, find a home there. And right now, the alternative is the Democratic Party. And I don't think, on that central question of disposition and temperament, the Democrats are nearly as unconservative, nearly as radical, nearly as revolutionary, as the current-day Republican Party.AK: It all reminds me a little bit of a cowboy movie, The Magnificent Seven (or perhaps the Un-Magnificent Seven.) Talk about a natural party, Pete, but does that really work in American politics, where most African-Americans now vote for a Democratic Party that was in favor of segregation?PETE WEHNER: I'm sorry, say that again.AK: You talk about a natural party. You said, well, conservatives said that the Democrats aren't the natural party of conservatism. But can we use this term convincingly in American politics? After all, most African-Americans vote for the Democratic Party, which was the party of segregation.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. And they changed in the end, you know, it took them longer than it should have. No, I don't think that there's anything, you know, endemic or intrinsic to parties that makes them a natural home to any political movement or political philosophy. Because parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that. I do think that you can take a step back and say, look, over the last 50 years, when you chart the trajectory of the Democratic and Republican Party, there are certain trends that you can see. And so for some period of time, I think that the Democratic and Republican parties were natural homes to certain movements.AK: Is there anything we should celebrate about the election? There were a lot of warnings beforehand that there was going to be a massive gender split, and it didn't turn out to be true. Trump promised that he would get a lot of Hispanic and African-American voters. He got a lot of Hispanic and quite a few African-Americans, especially men. Could one argue that November 5th, 2024 was the first post-identity politics election? Is that something to be encouraged about?PETE WEHNER: Well, in this case, I'd say no, because I think the results of that post-identity politics is going to have really damaging consequences. I see your point, and I do think that to the extent that political parties can't count on certain groups constituencies, that's probably, as a general matter, good. It means you have to go out and earn their vote rather than reflexively rely on them. But as somebody who's been a Trump critic, and who has predicted what four more years under Donald Trump is going to be like, I just think that that overwhelms whatever good that could have come out of it. I suppose I would add, there's one good thing that's come out of this, which is there hasn't been violence. But honestly, I think that's because Donald Trump lost, and the Democratic Party believes in the peaceful transfer of power, and they're not going to do in 2024 what Donald Trump and his supporters did in 2020. I'm glad that's not happening, but I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that violence won't happen because the Democratic Party is the more responsible and civilized party in that respect.AK: How are you doing personally? Trump hasn't been shy to boast about his revengefulness. You've being one of his most articulate critics in The Times, in The Atlantic, certainly from the right, or from traditional conservatism, a very strong moral critic. How are you dealing personally with this situation?PETE WEHNER: You know, I think I'm probably dealing with it better than a lot of people would imagine given my own views on Trump. I think just disposition, temperamentally, I'm not a person who has found politics to be overwhelming or disorienting. I don't want to pretend that it's not a difficult moment, both in terms of what I think it means for the country and for what, as I said earlier, what I think it says about the country. And for somebody who grew up loving America and probably, to some extent, mythologizing America, seeing this happen is difficult. But most of my life and the spirit of my life and is based on my relationships mostly with family and with friends. And those, to me, are the things that really determine what my mood is on any given day or any week. I will say that my wife Cindy and I, in the last two weeks, have really been struck by the number of people that we have heard from who are deeply grieved and fearful of what's happening. We saw somebody a week ago Sunday, and Cindy asked this person, how are you doing? And she burst into tears. She had been abused by her husband. And she said that Donald Trump was a person just like her husband, and she couldn't fathom that America elected him. And we have a friend who's a family therapist, and she said she had spent the week before with sexual abuse victims, and the fact that Trump had been elected and that people in her family were celebrating that...other people who felt like much of what they had given their lives to was shattering. So we've really felt more, I suppose, in a listening mode, in a comforting mode, trying to help people to sort through it. It's different, Andrew, I will say, in my experience and the experience of the people around me, I think, in the country now than it was in 2016. I think 2016 could be argued that that was an aberration, a parenthesis, and I think it's clearly not the case. This is the Trump era, and I think that's hard for a lot of people to come to terms with. Other people are celebrating it. They think that this is wonderful. Donald Trump is, to them, the personification of what they want in a leader and a human being. And now we've got it.AK: Yeah, we will see. You wrote an interesting piece in The Atlantic after the election suggesting that 2024 is different from 2016. It's less shocking, more a confirmation. You wrote an interesting piece in response to what happened, "Don't Give Up on the Truth," in The Atlantic. We are where we are. But there is, if not reason to celebrate, reason to, at least, resist. Are you part of a moral resistance, in some ways, Pete, do you think, to Trump, or at least Trumpism, in America?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I think that's fair. I think some people who have been critical of Trump are going to dial back their criticism, or they just might find other things to think about or talk about or write about. And I understand that. That's not where I am. I mean, I have to think about what my posture is going to be in the Trump era. That's not clear to me yet. And I think it'll become clear to me as circumstances unfold. But, you know, what I wrote, I believed, and I continue to believe in, and the fact that Donald Trump won the election doesn't allay my concerns, it deepens them. I hope I have enough intellectual independence that if he is different than I think, and if he does things that I agree with, that I'm willing publicly to say that. I tried to do that in the first term. And I hope I can do it in a second term and I hope I'm given reasons to do it, and I hope that my foreboding of what this means for America is wrong. But I can't shake what I believe to be true. And I read the opposite views of mine and critiques of mine and try to understand what I'm getting wrong about Donald Trump. And I may be blinded on this, but I don't think I have been wrong about him. I think all of the things that I've been writing about him since 2015—actually, 2011, and go back to the birther moment—I think they've been validated. And I feel like given my role in life and the outlets that I have, that I can't help but give voice to those concerns. And whether that makes a difference or not, time will tell. It certainly didn't have an impact this time around, that's for sure.“Parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that.” -PWAK: Well, you certainly have a natural home on this show, Pete. And in your excellent Atlantic piece, you talk about the importance of truth telling. You are a truth teller, that goes without saying. What do you think is the most effective way, though, to tell the truth these days? I don't think you're a big social media guy, you're not going on X or Instagram or TikTok. How does one most effectively tell the truth in Trump's America?PETE WEHNER: That's such a good question, Andrew, and a deep one. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think in terms of what each individual has to do, they just have to find within the circumstances of their life the places that they can tell the truth. Some of that just may be with family and friends, maybe in neighborhoods and community groups. It may be in churches. It may be, if you're a writer, in The Atlantic, in The New York Times. You know, I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process. And if you're dealing with a person—for example, in my estimation of Donald Trump and what I do believe is this moral depravity, I just think that is true about him—how do you say that? How do you say that without crossing lines? How do you engage with people who are Trump supporters, as I have, many of them, and to try and point out and argue for my position, and to do so in a way that isn't disrespectful or dehumanizing? Those aren't easy questions. I'm sure I haven't gotten them right. But I think you just try the best you can in the world that you live in to try and give voice to the truth. And probably it helps to look back to others who have faced far more difficult circumstances than we have. I mentioned in my most recent Atlantic essay Solzhenitsyn and Havel who were great dissidents and spoke, in the case of Solzhenitsyn, when the Soviet Union was a country to which he was hostage to, and for Havel, there was a communist movement in Czechoslovakia. And they and so many others, Orwell in a different way, and Jesus in a different way, said that the important thing to do was to speak the truth. It doesn't mean you succeed, necessarily, when you do it, but it's important to do. Times change. Circumstances change. Inflection points can happen. And sometimes speaking the truth can create those moments. And other times when those moments open up, people who spoke the truth have a capacity to shape events in a way that they didn't before that. I should say one interesting example that apposite, maybe, you and your own history knowledge: you take someone like Winston Churchill. And Churchill was the same man in the 30s as he was in the 40s, and in the 30s he was viewed as a social pariah, an alarmist, a kind of ridiculous figure, he had very, very little influence. But events changed, the war came, and all of a sudden Churchill became arguably the greatest person of the 20th century. So there's probably a lesson in that for people who want to be truth tellers.AK: Yeah, I've always thought of you, Pete, as the moral conscience of America, although you've been involved in politics, but I can't imagine you ever running for political office. You talked about Solzhenitsyn and Havel in particular as an activist, as someone who stood up very bravely and indeed humorously to the Russian colonialists in Czechoslovakia or Soviet colonialism. Does the anti-Trump movement need a Havel, a Solzhenitsyn, a Winston Churchill? Seems to be lacking, Harris clearly wasn't. I've always wondered whether Michelle Obama could have been that person. And I know that everyone says, well, she couldn't have run. She doesn't like politics, but maybe she had almost a moral responsibility as an American. But where are we going to get an America? Where are we going to get our Churchill, our Havel, our Solzhenitsyn? All of course, white men. Maybe we need some women, too.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, you know, those are rare people. And it's not a dime a dozen. Yeah, I felt like Liz Cheney was that person in this moment more than Harris, more than others. I think I felt that way about Liz, because there was a cost, there was a very concrete and practical cost, to what she had done. And that, to me, is a sign and a symbol of courage, which is: if you do the right thing when there's a cost to doing the right thing. And I thought her articulation of why she broke with Trump and voted for Harris was extremely powerful. So I'd say of the people in the landscape in American politics right now, Liz Cheney would be supreme for me, but of course, she was tossed out of the Republican Party. She was beaten in a primary. And the Democratic Party's not a natural home for her either. So these are her wilderness years, Churchill had his, I'm not saying that Liz is Churchill, Churchill was Churchill and that's about it. But she showed enormous courage and articulation. I think the fact that for a person of my view, she made such a powerful and persuasive case, and it just didn't win over enough voters. And I think that that's an indictment not of Liz, but I think it's an indictment of an awful lot of voters in America. But that would make sense, because I see the world in a certain way, and the majority of Americans saw it differently. And this is a democracy. And so now we've got Trump and the people who voted for him, and the rest of us get to live with them.AK: Are there hierarchies of morality, Pete? There's a great deal of revisionism now on on Churchill reminding us all that he was an overt racist, a colonialist, a warmonger in some ways, although, of course, we don't use that word in terms of his opposition to Hitler. Trump made that point about Cheney, I mean, in his own vulgar way, but Cheney, of course, was also a warmonger—or, certainly her father was, millions of people—well, certainly hundreds of thousands of people—in the Middle East lost their lives because of catastrophic American wars in the region. Could one argue that Cheney's support for these catastrophic wars are equally immoral, if not more immoral, than Trump's moral transgressions?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, if you believe that narrative, I mean, I think that narrative is flawed. I don't mean that the wars weren't mistaken, but I think the way you framed it is is a caricature. But if you believe that, if you're right and I'm wrong, sure, then, of course. And there is a moral hierarchy. I mean, you know, morality is judged by the actions that you take in the moment that you live and the consequences that they create. And if a person or an individual does an action that creates massive harm and the destruction of human lives, human civilizations, if someone is advocating maliciousness and malevolence on a wide scale, that obviously has to be judged differently than if you lose your temper as a boss or somebody who works for you. So morality is a complicated subject. You also have to take into account, to some degree, the circumstances in which people lived. If you lived in the 14th century, if you lived in the 18th century, if you lived in the 20th century, if you lived in the 21st century, there were different moral standards and moral ethics and moral norms. That doesn't mean, in the case of the American founders, the slave holders, that was a grave sin, and I think probably traditionally on the on the American right, because there's been almost a defecation of the founding fathers, that they've been excused too much for tolerating slavery. Lincoln himself, who I think is the greatest American in history, his history was somewhat spotty. I think he was a magnificent figure. And he grew, but that happens. But just to come back to what you said earlier, if you were to say to me, Liz Cheney versus Donald Trump on any reasonable moral spectrum, I would say that that Liz Cheney has him beat by a country mile, by virtually any metric that you want to judge her and him on.AK: In that excellent Atlantic piece, Pete, you talked about this being a moment where we, and I'm quoting you, we need to guard our souls. But what about for those of us who might not believe in the existence of souls?PETE WEHNER: Yeah. Then I would use a different word.AK: What word would you use?PETE WEHNER: Your inner life, your interior life, your sense of humanity, how you view others. I think most people, whether soul is the word that they use, I think most people aren't strict materialists, or they don't believe in scientism. They believe that there are parts of human life, human existence, human reality that aren't materialistic, that has to do with beauty and esthetics and love and = humanity and caring for the least of these. And, you know, many people that I know that are not believers personify those high virtues, honestly, in ways that are more impressive than people I know who claim to be followers of Jesus. So I use the word soul because I think it speaks to something that is true for human life and human beings. But I understand if you're not a believer that you wouldn't use that term. But I imagine that there's some other term that would get at essentially the same thing, which is your core humanity. What makes you an estimable human being. Compassion, honor, dignity, being a peacemaker, and so forth.AK: You're also more cheerful in the sense that you want to remind everyone that, of course, we want to cultivate hope, humanistic hope. But all this needs to be understood within the historical context. You argue that, in the Atlantic piece, presumably Trump's only going to be around for four years. Things change, there are always party realignments, so, cheer us up, Pete. Why might this just be a blip in the history of humanity rather than the end of it in some way?PETE WEHNER: Yeah. It's not going to be the end of humanity. Even if my most dire warnings are realized. Look, I would say that there can be a kind of catastrophism that happens on all sides and that we need to be careful about it. Life is complicated. Human history is complicated. There are moments of glory and moments of catastrophe and disaster. You know, in the American experience, we had the 1850s that lead up to the Civil War. We had the Civil War. We had the profound difficulties in reconstruction. We had segregation, child labor laws, women can't vote. Just enormous challenges in this country. The first election, really contested election in America between Adams and Jefferson in 1800, was a vicious affair. So, you know, we've we've faced a lot. And that's just America. And, you know, you look at world history, I quote it at the end of my essay, "Don't Give Up on the Truth" in The Atlantic, a speech, one of my favorite speeches, that Bobby Kennedy gave in 1966 at University of Cape Town in South Africa, where he talked about the ripples of hope, and how the ripples of hope can overcome the worst and highest walls of oppression. Now, when Kennedy gave that speech, it was 66. It was at the apex of of apartheid, and eventually apartheid was overthrown, and—AK: Yeah, it's worth repeating the RFK quote, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." Of course, it's particularly resonant given that his son is involved in the Trump administration and is probably not someone you're particularly keen on.PETE WEHNER: No, he's, no pun intended, but I'm not particularly keen on his son. But the father I admired, and I think those words are timeless words. And we shouldn't forget them. Look, the other thing I'd say, Andrew, is that what we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is. I mean, honor is living a life—an imperfect life. We all struggle, we're all fallen, we're all flawed—But trying to advance that. And the other thing I would emphasize again is that human life, human history, the progression of countries, are not straight lines. There's forward and backward, there's zigs, there's zags, inflection points develop, and things change in ways that a person may never anticipate. You mentioned John Rauch earlier, and he and Andrew Sullivan were leading the campaign for same sex marriage. When they started that campaign, especially, Andrew, in 1989, I think he wrote a cover story in The New Republic on the conservative case for gay marriage. Now, if you would have asked either of them in the late 80s, 90s and so forth, whether gay marriage would be prevalent or even be found to be a constitutional right, they would have said that's inconceivable. It couldn't happen. And it happened. Whether you agree or not with same sex marriage, it shows capacity of events to change. And you and I could name a lot of things in which that's happened. So you don't know when those moments come, when those inflection points happen. And I also believe the American capacity for self-renewal is a kind of wonder of the world and that people will—AK: Say that again: American self-renewal is a wonder of the world.PETE WEHNER: Yeah. I think the American capacity for self-renewal is extraordinary. I think it's shown itself throughout history. Again, it's a mixed history, but—AK: But where does that come from, that American self-renewal? Is it a spiritual thing? Is it an economic thing? “I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process.” -PWPETE WEHNER: You know, I'd imagine part of it is part of the American DNA. The things that shape anybody in any country, the factors, the history...there's certainly something, I think it's reasonable to say, in America, about freedom and liberty, that is part of the American character. You know, people could go back and read Tocqueville, which is still relevant to what Americans are like. I think our political history has helped shape us. Civil society has helped shape us. So, you know, each country has a certain kind of a DNA. And I think by and large, America's has been good. So there's history to give you hope, and not just American history. So, I just think you need to keep putting one foot in front of the other. I think you have to call out things that happen that are wrong, immoral or illegal as they as they happen, and hope that over time you bend events enough in your direction. Martin Luther King Junior had that quote, which is pretty well known, about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, but that does not—AK: It's not natural, is it? As you suggest, it requires human agency, doesn't bend on its own. Finally, Pete, and you've been very generous, as always, with your time. A lot of comparisons, there always have been, with America and the Roman Republic, this shift into, sort of, decadence. There's also a fashion these days for stoicism. Some of the ideologies or the intellectual movements of the late Roman decadent, not the republic, but imperial Rome. What would you say to people—won't say necessarily Stoics formally, but people who are espousing a kind of stoicism—who will say, "Well, I'm just not going to watch the news for the next four years, Trump doesn't really affect me. I'm just going to ignore him. I'm going to go to sleep for four years, and when I wake up, things will have changed." Do we all need to stay awake? Is the stoical response to essentially ignore the political world, is that healthy in Trump's America?PETE WEHNER: I think some people need to stay awake. You know, it really would depend on the facts and circumstances, Andrew. I mean, if you're an individual who feels overwhelmed by what Trump represents and really can't process it in a very healthy way, and you find your spirit being pulled down and obsessing on him and just, you know, casting shadows over your life, then I'd say, yeah, just to the degree that you can pull the plug. Don't follow, you know, the unfolding events, and attend to your life, your inner life, and the people that you love and care for. On the other hand, if that happens more broadly, and just people shut up and don't speak out, I think that that would be a great tragedy, because I think it's important to speak the truth in its own terms. I think it's important that there are individuals who give voice to what people believe and the moral concerns that they have when they don't have the capacity to do it on a large scale. And as I said, you know, I mentioned earlier, Solzhenitsyn and Havel, and I don't pretend that America is in a situation like the two of them faced. So the challenges and sacrifices that are called on Americans today who are in the so-called resistance isn't comparable to what Solzhenitsyn and Havel and many others have faced. But you need to speak out, and you can't go to sleep. Democracy is, as you said earlier, about human agency. We're not corks in the ocean. We're not fatalistic. We shouldn't be fatalistic. We can create movements and trends and moments and trajectories and moments of and periods of honor and and virtuous chapters in the American story. But they don't happen accidentally. And you can be discouraged, but you've got to stay at it. A friend of mine once said that you could be a theoretical pessimist, but you should be an operational optimist.AK: That's a nice way of putting it. Peter Wehner, I'm not sure about American self-renewal being a wonder of the world, certainly your self-renewal is a wonder of the world. It's wonderful to have you around, and we will be calling on your wisdom, your ethical spirit of resistance against injustice, over the next four years. Keep well, keep safe, Pete, and we will talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.PETE WEHNER: Thanks. It's great to be with you, Andrew. 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 hard to know if F.H. Buckley is keen on Donald Trump. On the one hand, Buckley and his wife wrote a number of speeches for Trump in his 2016 campaign; on the other, Buckley publicly wrote Donald Trump off in 2022, arguing in the Wall Street Journal that Trump “can’t win another presidential election”. What Buckley was explicitly calling for was Trumpism without Trump. So what, exactly, is “Trumpism”. In his new book, The Roots of Liberalism, Buckley lays out a kind of aristocratic version of liberalism based upon chivalry and kindness. It’s Lord of the Rings meets Dickens and Hans Christian Andersen, with a bit of patrimonial welfare state thrown in to satisfy the Republican social conscience. Kind of interesting, I guess, for grown-ups with childishly atavistic notions of gentlemanly honor. But certainly no validation of Donald Trump himself, who is about as chivalrous or gentlemanly as Uriah Heep.F.H. BUCKLEY is a Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He is a frequent media guest and has appeared on Morning Joe, CNN, The Rush Limbaugh Show, C‑SPAN, NPR, and numerous other outlets. He is a senior editor at the American Spectator and a columnist for the New York Post, and he has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and many other newspapers. His most recent books are The Republican Workers Party (2018); The Republic of Virtue (2017); The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America (2016); The Once and Future King (2015); and American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup (2020).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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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

So how can The Dude and The Boss save America? According to the cultural critic, David Masciotra, Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski and Bruce “The Boss” Springsteen, represent the antithesis of Donald Trumps’s illiberal authoritarianism. Masciotra’s thesis of Lebowski and Springsteen as twin paragons of American liberalism is compelling. Both men have a childish faith in the goodness of others. Both offer liberal solace in an America which, I fear, is about to become as darkly surreal as The Big Lebowski. Transcript:“[Springsteen] represents, as cultural icon, a certain expression of liberalism, a big-hearted, humanistic liberalism that exercises creativity to represent diverse constituencies in our society, that believes in art as a tool of democratic engagement, and that seeks to lead with an abounding, an abiding sense of compassion and empathy. That is the kind of liberalism, both with the small and capital L, that I believe in, and that I have spent my career documenting and attempting to advance.” -David MasciotraAK: Hello, everybody. We're still processing November the 5th. I was in the countryside of Northern Virginia a few days ago, I saw a sign, for people just listening, Trump/Vance 2024 sign with "winner" underneath. Some people are happy. Most, I guess, of our listeners probably aren't, certainly a lot of our guests aren't, my old friend John Rauch was on the show yesterday talking about what he called the "catastrophic ordinariness" of the election and of contemporary America. He authored two responses to the election. Firstly, he described it in UnPopulist as a moral catastrophe. But wearing his Brookings hat, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, described it as an ordinary election. I think a lot of people are scratching their head, trying to make sense of it. Another old friend of the show, David Masciotra, cultural writer, political writer. An interesting piece in the Washington Monthly entitled "How Francis Fukuyama and The Big Lebowski Explain Trump's Victory." A very creative piece. And he is joining us from Highland Indiana, not too far from Chicago. David. The Big Lebowski and Francis Fukuyama. Those two don't normally go together, certainly in a title. Let's talk first about Fukuyama. How does Fukuyama explain November the 5th? DAVID MASCIOTRA: In his. Well, first, thanks for having me. And I should say I watched your conversation with Jonathan Rauch, and it was quite riveting and quite sobering. And you talked about Fukuyama in that discussion as well. And you referenced his book, The End of History and the Last Man, a very often misinterpreted book, but nonetheless, toward its conclusion, Fukuyama warns that without an external enemy, liberal democracies may indeed turn against themselves, and we may witness an implosion rather than an explosion. And Fukuyama said that this won't happen so much for ideological reasons, but it will happen for deeply psychological ones, namely, without a just cause for which to struggle, people will turn against the just cause itself, which in this case is liberal democracy, and out of a sense of boredom and alienation, they'll grow increasingly tired of their society and cultivate something of a death wish in which they enjoy imagining their society's downfall, or at least the downfall of some of the institutions that are central to their society. And now I would argue that after the election results, we've witnessed the transformation of imagining to inviting. So, there is a certain death wish and a sense of...alienation and detachment from that which made the United States of America a uniquely prosperous and stable country with the ability to self-correct the myriad injustices we know are part of its history. Well now, people--because they aren't aware of the institutions or norms that created this robust engine of commerce and liberty--they've turned against it, and they no longer invest in that which is necessary to preserve it.AK: That's interesting, David. The more progressives I talk to about this, the more it--there's an odd thing going on--you're all sounding very conservative. The subtitle of the piece in the Washington Monthly was "looking at constituencies or issues misses the big point. On Tuesday, nihilism was on display, even a death wish in a society wrought by cynicism." Words like nihilism and cynicism, David, historically have always been used by people like Allan Blum, whose book, of course, The Closing of the American Mind, became very powerful amongst American conservatives now 40 or 50 years ago. Would you accept that using language like nihilism and cynicism isn't always associated--I mean, you're a proud progressive. You're a man of the left. You've never disguised that. It's rather odd to imagine that the guys like you--and in his own way, John Rauch too, who talks about the moral catastrophe of the election couple of weeks ago. You're all speaking about the loss of morality of the voter, or of America. Is there any truth to that? Making some sense?DAVID MASCIOTRA: That's a that's a fair observation. And Jonathan Rauch, during your conversation and in his own writing, identifies a center right. I would say I'm center left.AK: And he's--but what's interesting, what ties you together, is that you both use the L-word, liberal, to define yourselves. He's perhaps a liberal on the right. You're a liberal on the left.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yes. And I think that the Trump era, if we can trace that back to 2015, has made thoughtful liberals more conservative in thought and articulation, because it forces a confrontation and interrogation of a certain naivete. George Will writes in his book, The Conservative Sensibility, that the progressive imagines that which is the best possible outcome and strives to make it real, whereas the conservative imagines the worst possible outcome and does everything he can to guard against it. And now it feels like we've experienced, at least electorally, the worst possible outcome. So there a certain revisitation of that which made America great, to appropriate a phrase, and look for where we went wrong in failing to preserve it. So that kind of thinking inevitably leads one to use more conservative language and deal in more conservative thought.AK: Yeah. So for you, what made America great, to use the term you just introduced, was what? Its morality? The intrinsic morality of people living in it and in the country? Is that, for you, what liberalism is?DAVID MASCIOTRA: Liberalism is a system in and the culture that emanates out of that system. So it's a constitutional order that creates or that places a premium on individual rights and allows for a flourishing free market. Now, where my conception of liberalism would enter the picture and, perhaps Jonathan Rauch and I would have some disagreements, certainly George Will and I, is that a bit of governmental regulation is necessary along with the social welfare state, to civilize the free market. But the culture that one expects to flow from that societal order and arrangement is one of aspiration, one in which citizens fully accept that they are contributing agents to this experiment in self-governance and therefore need to spend time in--to use a Walt Whitman phrase--freedom's gymnasium. Sharpening the intellect, sharpening one's sense of moral duty and obligation to the commons, to the public good. And as our society has become more individualistic and narcissistic in nature, those commitments have vanished. And as our society has become more anti-intellectual in nature, we are seeing a lack of understanding of why those commitments are even necessary. So that's why you get a result like we witnessed on Tuesday, and that I argue in my piece that you were kind enough to have me on to discuss, is a form of nihilism, and The Big Lebowski reference, of course--AK: And of course, I want to get to Lebowski, because the Fukuyama stuff is interesting, but everyone's writing about Fukuyama and the end of history and why history never really ended, of course. It's been going on for years now, but it's a particularly interesting moment. We've had Fukuyama on the show. I've never heard anyone, though, compare the success of Trump and Trumpism with The Big Lebowski. So, one of the great movies, of course, American movies. What's the connection, David, between November 5th and The Big Lebowski? DAVID MASCIOTRA: Well, The Big Lebowski is one of my favorite films. I've written about it, and I even appeared at one of the The Big Lebowski festivals that takes place in United States a number of years ago. But my mind went to the scene when The Dude is in his bathtub and these three menacing figures break into his apartment. They drop a gerbil in the bathtub. And The Dude, who was enjoying a joint by candlelight, is, of course, startled and frightened. And these three men tell him that if he does not pay the money they believe he owes them, they will come back and, in their words, "cut off your Johnson." And The Dude gives them a quizzical, bemused look. And one of them says, "You think we are kidding? We are nihilists. We believe in nothing." And then one of them screams, "We'll cut off your Johnson." Well, I thought, you know, we're looking at an electorate that increasingly, or at least a portion of the electorate, increasingly believes in nothing. So we've lost faith.AK: It's the nihilists again. And of course, another Johnson in America, there was once a president called Johnson who enjoyed waving his Johnson, I think, around in public. And now there's the head of the house is another Johnson, I think he's a little shyer than presidents LBJ. But David, coming back to this idea of nihilism. It often seems to be a word used by people who don't like what other people think and therefore just write it off as nihilism. Are you suggesting that the Trump crowd have no beliefs? Is that what nihilism for you is? I mean, he was very clear about what he believes in. You may not like it, but it doesn't seem to be nihilistic.DAVID MASCIOTRA: That's another fair point. What I'm referring to is not too long ago, we lived in a country that had a shared set of values. Those values have vanished. And those values involve adherence to our democratic norms. It's very difficult to imagine had George H. W. Bush attempted to steal the election in which Bill Clinton won, that George H. W. Bush could have run again and won. So we've lost faith in something essential to our electoral system. We've lost faith in the standards of decency that used to, albeit imperfectly, regulate our national politics. So the man to whom I just refered, Bill Clinton, was nearly run out of office for having an extramarital affair, a misdeed that cannot compare to the myriad infractions of Donald Trump. And yet, Trump's misdeeds almost give him a cultural cachet among his supporters. It almost makes him, for lack of a better word, cool. And now we see, even with Trump's appointments, I mean, of course, it remains to be seen how it plays out, that we're losing faith in credentials and experience--AK: Well they're certainly a band of outlaws and very proud to be outlaws. It could almost be a Hollywood script. But I wonder, David, whether there's a more serious critique here. You, like so many other people, both on the left and the right, are nostalgic for an age in which everyone supposedly agreed on things, a most civil and civilized age. And you go back to the Bushes, back to Clinton. But the second Bush, who now seems to have appeared as this icon, at least moral icon, many critics of Trump, was also someone who unleashed a terrible war, killing tens of thousands of people, creating enormous suffering for millions of others. And I think that would be the Trump response, that he's simply more honest, that in the old days, the Bushes of the world can speak politely and talk about consensus, and then unleash terrible suffering overseas--and at home in their neoliberal policies of globalization--Trump's simply more honest. He tells it as it is. And that isn't nihilistic, is it?DAVID MASCIOTRA: Well, you are gesturing towards an important factor in our society. Trump, of course, we know, is a dishonest man, a profoundly dishonest--AK: Well, in some ways. But in other ways, he isn't. I mean, in some ways he just tells the truth as it is. It's a truth we're uncomfortable with. But it's certainly very truthful about the impact of foreign wars on America, for example, or even the impact of globalization. DAVID MASCIOTRA: What you're describing is an authenticity. That that Trump is authentic. And authenticity has become chief among the modern virtues, which I would argue is a colossal error. Stanley Crouch, a great writer, spent decades analyzing the way in which we consider authenticity and how it inevitably leads to, to borrow his phrase, cast impurity onto the bottom. So anything that which requires effort, refinement, self-restraint, self-control, plays to the crowd as inauthentic, as artificial--AK: Those are all aristocratic values that may have once worked but don't anymore. Should we be nostalgic for the aristocratic way of the Bushes?DAVID MASCIOTRA: I think in a certain respect, we should. We shouldn't be nostalgic for George W. Bush's policies. I agree with you, the war in Iraq was catastrophic, arguably worse than anything Trump did while he was president. His notoriously poor response to Hurricane Katrina--I mean, we can go on and on cataloging the various disasters of the Bush administration. However, George W. Bush as president and the people around him did have a certain belief in the liberal order of the United States and the liberal order of the world. Institutions like NATO and the EU, and those institutions, and that order, has given the United States, and the world more broadly, an unrivaled period of peace and prosperity.AK: Well it wasn't peace, David. And the wars, the post-9/11 wars, were catastrophic. And again, they seem to be just facades--DAVID MASCIOTRA: We also had the Vietnam War, the Korean War. When I say peace, I mean we didn't have a world war break out as we did in the First World War, in the Second World War. And that's largely due to the creation and maintenance of institutions following the Second World War that were aimed at the preservation of order and, at least, amicable relations between countries that might otherwise collide.AK: You're also the author, David, of a book we've always wanted to talk about. Now we're figuring out a way to integrate it into the show. You wrote a book, an interesting book, about Bruce Springsteen. Working on a Dream: the Progressive Political Vision of Bruce Springsteen. Bruce Springsteen has made himself very clear. He turned out for Harris. Showed up with his old friend, Barack Obama. Clearly didn't have the kind of impact he wanted. You wrote an interesting piece for UnHerd a few weeks ago with the title, "Bruce Springsteen is the Last American Liberal: he's still proud to be born in the USA." Is he the model of a liberal response to the MAGA movement, Springsteen? DAVID MASCIOTRA: Well, of course, I wouldn't go so far as to say the last liberal. As most readers just probably know, writers don't compose their own headlines--AK: But he's certainly, if not the last American liberal, the quintessential American liberal.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yes. He represents, as cultural icon, a certain expression of liberalism, a big-hearted, humanistic liberalism that exercises creativity to represent diverse constituencies in our society, that believes in art as a tool of democratic engagement, and that seeks to lead with an abounding, an abiding sense of compassion and empathy. That is the kind of liberalism, both with the small and capital L, that I believe in, and that I have spent my career documenting and attempting to advance. And those are, of course, the forms of liberalism that now feel as if they are under threat. Now, to that point, you know, this could have just come down to inflation and some egregious campaign errors of Kamala Harris. But it does feel as if when you have 70 some odd million people vote for the likes of Donald Trump, that the values one can observe in the music of Bruce Springsteen or in the rhetoric of Barack Obama, for that matter, are no longer as powerful and pervasive as they were in their respective glory days. No pun intended.AK: Yeah. And of course, Springsteen is famous for singing "Glory Days." I wonder, though, where Springsteen himself is is a little bit more complex and we might be a little bit more ambivalent about him, there was a piece recently about him becoming a billionaire. So it's all very well him being proud to be born in the USA. He's part--for better or worse, I mean, it's not a criticism, but it's a reality--he's part of the super rich. He showed out for Harris, but it didn't seem to make any impact. You talked about the diversity of Springsteen. I went to one of his concerts in San Francisco earlier this year, and I have to admit, I was struck by the fact that everyone, practically everyone at the concert, was white, everyone was wealthy, everyone paid several hundred dollars to watch a 70 year old man prance around on stage and behave as if he's still 20 or 30 years old. I wonder whether Springsteen himself is also emblematic of a kind of cultural, or political, or even moral crisis of our old cultural elites. Or am I being unfair to Springsteen?DAVID MASCIOTRA: Well, I remember once attending a Springsteen show in which the only black person I saw who wasn't an employee of the arena was Clarence Clemons.AK: Right. And then Bruce, of course, always made a big deal. And there was an interesting conversation when Springsteen and Obama did a podcast together. Obama, in his own unique way, lectured Bruce a little bit about Clarence Clemons in terms of his race. But sorry. Go on.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yeah. And Springsteen has written and discussed how he had wished he had a more diverse audience. When I referred to diversity in his music, I meant the stories he aimed to tell in song certainly represented a wide range of the American experience. But when you talk about Springsteen, perhaps himself representing a moral crisis--AK: I wouldn't say a crisis, but he represents the, shall we say, the redundancy of that liberal worldview of the late 20th century. I mean, he clearly wears his heart on his sleeve. He means well. He's not a bad guy. But he doesn't reach a diverse audience. His work is built around the American working class. None of them can afford to show up to what he puts on. I mean, Chris Christie is a much more typical fan than the white working class. Does it speak of the fact that there's a...I don't know if you call it a crisis, it's just...Springsteen isn't relevant anymore in the America of the 2020s, or at least when he sang and wrote about no longer exists.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yes, I agree with that. So first of all, the working class bit was always a bit overblown with Springsteen. Springsteen, of course, was never really part of the working class, except when he was a child. But by his own admission, he never had a 9 to 5 job. And Springsteen sang about working class life like William Shakespeare wrote about teenage love. He did so with a poetic grandeur that inspired some of his best work. And outside looking in, he actually managed to offer more insights than sometimes people on the inside can amount to themselves. But you're certainly correct. I mean, the Broadway show, for example, when the tickets were something like a thousand a piece and it was $25 to buy a beer. There is a certain--AK: Yeah and in that Broadway show, which I went to--I thought it was astonishing, actually, a million times better than the show in San Francisco.DAVID MASCIOTRA: It was one of the best things he ever did.AK: He acknowledges that he made everything up, that he wasn't part of the American working class, and that he'd never worked a day in his life, and yet his whole career is is built around representing a social class and a way of life that he was never part of.“Not too long ago, we lived in a country that had a shared set of values. Those values have vanished. And those values involve adherence to our democratic norms.” -DMDAVID MASCIOTRA: Right. And he has a lyric himself: "It's a sad, funny ending when you find yourself pretending a rich man in a poor man's shirt." So there always was this hypocrisy--hypocrisy might be a little too strong--inconsistency. And he adopted a playful attitude toward it in the 90s and in later years. But to your point of relevance, I think you're on to something there. One of the crises I would measure in our society is that we no longer live in a culture of ambition and aspiration. So you hear this when people say that they want a political leader who talks like the average person, or the common man. And you hear this when "college educated" is actually used as an insult against a certain base of Democratic voters. There were fewer college-educated voters when John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan ran for president, all of whom spoke with greater eloquence and a more expansive vocabulary and a greater sense of cultural sophistication than Donald Trump or Kamala Harris did. And yet there was no objection, because people understood that we should aspire to something more sophisticated. We should aspire to something more elevated beyond the everyday vernacular of the working class. And for that reason, Springsteen was able to become something of a working-class poet, despite never living among the working class beyond his childhood. Because his poetry put to music represented something idealistic about the working class.AK: But oddly enough, it was a dream--there's was a word that Springsteen uses a lot in his work--that was bought by the middle class. It wasn't something that was--although, I think in the early days, probably certainly in New Jersey, that he had a more working-class following.DAVID MASCIOTRA: We have to deal with the interesting and frustrating reality that the people about whom Springsteen sings in those early songs like "Darkness on the Edge of Town" or "The River" would probably be Trump supporters if they were real.AK: Yeah. And in your piece you refer to, not perhaps one of his most famous albums, The Rising, but you use it to compare Springsteen with another major figure now in America, much younger man to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has a new book out, which is an important new book, The Message. You seem to be keener on Springsteen than Coates. Tell us about this comparison and what the comparison tells us about the America of the 2020s.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Well, Coates...the reason I make the comparison is that one of Springsteen's greatest artistic moments, in which he kind of resurrected his status as cultural icon, was the record he put out after the 9/11 attack on the United States, The Rising. And throughout that record he pays tribute, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly, to the first responders who ascended in the tower knowing they would perhaps die.AK: Yeah. You quote him "love and duty called you someplace higher." So he was idealizing those very brave firefighters, policemen who gave up their lives on 9/11.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Exactly. Representing the best of humanity. Whereas Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has become the literary superstar of the American left, wrote in his memoir that on 9/11, he felt nothing and did not see the first responders as human. Rather, they were part of the fire that could, in his words, crush his body.AK: Yeah, he wrote a piece, "What Is 9/11 to Descendants of Slaves?"DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yes. And my point in making that comparison, and this was before the election, was to say that the American left has its own crisis of...if we don't want to use the word nihilism, you objected to it earlier--AK: Well, I'm not objecting. I like the word. It's just curious to hear it come from somebody like yourself, a man, certainly a progressive, maybe not--you might define yourself as being on the left, but certainly more on the left and on the right.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yes, I would agree with that characterization. But that the left has its own crisis of nihilism. If if you are celebrating a man who, despite his journalistic talents and intelligence, none of which I would deny, refused to see the humanity of the first responders on the 9/11 attack and, said that he felt nothing for the victims, presumably even those who were black and impoverished, then you have your own crisis of belief, and juxtaposing that with the big hearted, humanistic liberalism of Springsteen for me shows the left a better path forward. Now, that's a path that will increasingly close after the victory of Trump, because extremism typically begets extremism, and we're probably about to undergo four years of dueling cynicism and rage and unhappy times.AK: I mean, you might respond, David, and say, well, Coates is just telling the truth. Why should a people with a history of slavery care that much about a few white people killed on 9/11 when their own people lost millions through slavery? And you compare them to Springsteen, as you've acknowledged, a man who wasn't exactly telling the truth in his heart. I mean, he's a very good artist, but he writes about a working class, which even he acknowledges, he made most of it up. So isn't Coates like Trump in an odd kind of way, aren't they just telling an unvarnished truth that people don't want to hear, an impolite truth?DAVID MASCIOTRA: I'm not sure. I typically shy away from the expression "my truth" or "his truth" because it's too relativistic. But I'll make an exception in this case. I think Coates is telling HIS truth just as Trump is telling HIS truth, if that adds up to THE truth, is much more dubious. Yes, we could certainly say that, you know, because the United States enslaved, tortured, and otherwise oppressed millions of black people, it may be hard for some black observers to get teary eyed on 9/11, but the black leaders whom I most admire didn't have that reaction. I wrote a book about Jesse Jackson after spending six years interviewing with him and traveling with him. He certainly didn't react that way on 9/11. Congressman John Lewis didn't react that way on 9/11. So, the heroes of the civil rights movement, who helped to overcome those brutal systems of oppression--and I wouldn't argue that they're overcome entirely, but they helped to revolutionize the United States--they maintained a big-hearted sense of empathy and compassion, and they recognized that the unjust loss of life demands mourning and respect, whether it's within their own community or another. So I would say that, here again, we're back to the point of ambition, whether it's intellectual ambition or moral ambition. Ambition is what allows a society to grow. And it seems like ambition has fallen far out of fashion. And that is why the country--the slim majority of the electorate that did vote and the 40% of the electorate that did not vote, or voting-age public, I should say--settled for the likes of Donald Trump.AK: I wonder what The Dude would do, if he was around, at the victory of Trump, or even at 9/11. He'd probably continue to sit in the bath tub and enjoy...enjoy whatever he does in his bathtub. I mean, he's not a believer. Isn't he the ultimate nihilist? The Dude in Lebowski?DAVID MASCIOTRA: That's an interesting interpretation. I would say that...Is The Dude a nihilist? You have this juxtaposition... The Dude kind of occupies this middle ground between the nihilists who proudly declare they believe in nothing and his friend Walter Sobchak, who's, you know, almost this raving explosion of belief. Yeah, ex-Vietnam veteran who's always confronting people with his beliefs and screaming and demanding they all adhere to his rules. I don't know if The Dude's a nihilist as much as he has a Zen detachment.AK: Right, well, I think what makes The Big Lebowski such a wonderful film, and perhaps so relevant today, is Lebowski, unlike so many Americans is unjudgmental. He's not an angry man. He's incredibly tolerant. He accepts everyone, even when they're beating him up or ripping him off. And he's so, in that sense, different from the America of the 2020s, where everyone is angry and everyone blames someone else for whatever's wrong in their lives.DAVID MASCIOTRA: That's exactly right.AK: Is that liberal or just Zen? I don't know.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yeah. It's perhaps even libertarian in a sense. But there's a very interesting and important book by Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke called Why It's Okay to Mind Your Own Business. And in it they argue--they're both political scientists although the one may be a...they may be philosophers...but that aside--they present an argument for why Americans need to do just that. Mind their own business.AK: Which means, yeah, not living politics, which certainly Lebowski is. It's probably the least political movie, Lebowski, I mean, he doesn't have a political bone in his body. Finally, David, there there's so much to talk about here, it's all very interesting. You first came on the show, you had a book out, that came out either earlier this year or last year. Yeah, it was in April of this year, Exurbia Now: The Battleground of American Democracy. And you wrote about the outskirts of suburbia, which you call "exurbia." Jonathan Rauch, wearing his Brookings cap, described this as an ordinary election. I'm not sure how much digging you've done, but did the exurbian vote determine this election? I mean, the election was determined by a few hundred thousand voters in the Midwest. Were these voters mostly on the edge of the suburb? And I'm guessing most of them voted for Trump.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Well, Trump's numbers in exurbia...I've dug around and I've been able to find the exurbian returns for Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Arizona. So three crucial swing states. If Kamala Harris had won those three states, she would be president. And Trump's support in exurbia was off the charts, as it was in 2020 and 2016, and as I predicted, it would be in 2024. I'm not sure that that would have been sufficient to deliver him the race and certainly not in the fashion that he won. Trump made gains with some groups that surprised people, other groups that didn't surprise people, but he did much better than expected. So unlike, say, in 2016, where we could have definitively and conclusively said Trump won because of a spike in turnout for him in rural America and in exurbia, here, the results are more mixed. But it remains the case that the base most committed to Trump and most fervently loyal to his agenda is rural and exurban.AK: So just outside the cities. And finally, I argued, maybe counterintuitively, that America remains split today as it was before November the 5th, so I'm not convinced that this election is the big deal that some people think it is. But you wrote an interesting piece in Salon back in 2020 arguing that Trump has poisoned American culture, but the toxin was here all along. Of course, there is more, if anything, of that toxin now. So even if Harris had won the election, that toxin was still here. And finally, David, how do we get rid of that toxin? Do we just go to put Bruce Springsteen on and go and watch Big Lebowski? I mean, how do we get beyond this toxin?DAVID MASCIOTRA: I would I would love it if that was the way to do it.AK: We'll sit in our bathtub and wait for the thugs to come along?DAVID MASCIOTRA: Right, exactly. No, what you're asking is, of course, the big question. We need to find a way to resurrect some sense of, I'll use another conservative phrase, civic virtue. And in doing--AK: And resurrection, of course, by definition, is conservative, because you're bringing something back.“Ambition is what allows a society to grow. And it seems like ambition has fallen far out of fashion.” -DMDAVID MASCIOTRA: Exactly. And we also have to resurrect, offer something more practical, we have to resurrect a sense of civics. One thing on which--I have immense respect and admiration for Jonathan Rauch--one minor quibble I would have with him from your conversation is when he said that the voters rejected the liberal intellectual class and their ideas. Some voters certainly rejected, but some voters were unaware. The lack of civic knowledge in the United States is detrimental to our institutions. I mean, a majority of Americans don't know how many justices are on the Supreme Court. They can't name more than one freedom enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So we need to find a way to make citizenship a vital part of our national identity again. And there are some practical means of doing that in the educational system. Certainly won't happen in the next four years. But to get to the less tangible matter of how to resurrect something like civic virtue and bring back ambition and aspiration in our sense of national identity, along with empathy, is much tougher. I mean, Robert Putnam says it thrives upon community and voluntary associations.AK: Putnam has been on the show, of course.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Yeah. So, I mean, this is a conversation that will develop. I wish I had the answer, and I wish it was just to listen to Born to Run in the bathtub with with a poster of The Dude hanging overhead. But as I said to you before we went on the air, I think that you have a significant insight to learn this conversation because, in many ways, your books were prescient. We certainly live with the cult of the amateur now, more so than when you wrote that book. So, I'd love to hear your ideas.AK: Well, that's very generous of you, David. And next time we appear, you're going to interview me about why the cult of the amateur is so important. So we will see you again soon. But we're going to swap seats. So, David will interview me about the relevance of Cult of the Amateur. Wonderful conversation, David. I've never thought about Lebowski or Francis Fukuyama, particularly Lebowski, in terms of what happened on November 5th. So, very insightful. Thank you, David, and we'll see you again in the not-too-distant future.DAVID MASCIOTRA: Thank you. I'm going to reread Cult of the Amateur to prepare. I may even do it in the bathtub. I look forward to our discussion.David Masciotra is an author, lecturer, and journalist. He is the author of I Am Somebody: Why Jesse Jackson Matters (I.B. Tauris, 2020), Mellencamp: American Troubadour (University Press of Kentucky), Barack Obama: Invisible Man (Eyewear Publishers, 2017), and Metallica by Metallica, a 33 1/3 book from Bloomsbury Publishers, which has been translated into Chinese. In 2010, Continuum Books published his first book, Working On a Dream: The Progressive Political Vision of Bruce Springsteen.His 2024 book, Exurbia Now: Notes from the Battleground of American Democracy, is published by Melville House Books. Masciotra writes regularly for the New Republic, Washington Monthly, Progressive, the Los Angeles Review of Books, CrimeReads, No Depression, and the Daily Ripple. He has also written for Salon, the Daily Beast, CNN, Atlantic, Washington Post, AlterNet, Indianapolis Star, and CounterPunch. Several of his political essays have been translated into Spanish for publication at Korazon de Perro. His poetry has appeared in Be About It Press, This Zine Will Change Your Life, and the Pangolin Review. Masciotra has a Master’s Degree in English Studies and Communication from Valparaiso University. He also has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of St. Francis. He is public lecturer, speaking on a wide variety of topics, from the history of protest music in the United States to the importance of bars in American culture. David Masciotra has spoken at the University of Wisconsin, University of South Carolina, Lewis University, Indiana University, the Chicago Public Library, the Lambeth Library (UK), and an additional range of colleges, libraries, arts centers, and bookstores. As a journalist, he has conducted interviews with political leaders, musicians, authors, and cultural figures, including Jesse Jackson, John Mellencamp, Noam Chomsky, all members of Metallica, David Mamet, James Lee Burke, Warren Haynes, Norah Jones, Joan Osborne, Martín Espada, Steve Earle, and Rita Dove. Masciotra lives in Indiana, and teaches literature and political science courses at the University of St. Francis and Indiana University Northwest. 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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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

So was November 5 a moral catastrophe signaling the death knell of American liberalism or just another election in the turbulent history of American democracy. According to the Brookings scholar Jonathan Rauch, the Trump-Harris election was both. On the one hand, Rauch argues, wearing his unashamedly liberal cap, November 5 was a moral catastrophe for the future of American democracy. But, on the other, slapping on his Brookings analyst’s cap, Rauch celebrates November 5 as an ordinary election. I suspect the double capped Rauch is onto a singular thing here. There is a feeling of catastrophic ordinariness about America right now. It’s that moment before a crash when everything slows down and you know something dramatic is about to happen. Enjoy the (horror) show, Rauch seems to be saying. America is about to become very unordinary. Transcript:“When I say a moral catastrophe, it means that people like me, we don't know what to do.” -Jonathan RauchAK: Hello, everybody. I'm just back from a little bit of an East Coast jaunt. I drove around rural Virginia a couple of days ago, and I saw this sign, for people who are just listening, there's a "Trump/Vance 2024" flag, and then underneath someone has put "winner." And that is clear. There's no doubt the Trump and Vance in 2024 are the clear winners in every sense. From the point of view of liberals, it's very concerning. Francis Fukuyama, who might be described as the pope of American liberalism, believes that the Trump win marks a decisive rejection of liberalism. So it's a historic change. And my guest today on the show, an old friend of of show, Jonathan Rauch, I think agrees. He's described the November election as "Tuesday's moral catastrophe." In spite of that moral catastrophe, John Rauch is still around. Just back from the south of France. It's a hard place to go, John. What do you mean by a moral catastrophe? I mean, those are strong words.JONATHAN RAUCH: I mean in a specific sense. We don't write our own headlines, of course. And that one is a little blunt. What I meant by that is that for the last eight years, people like me, including me, have done everything in our power to persuade the American electorate that Donald Trump was an unacceptable candidate from the point of view of morality and character and basic decency and observation of the fundamental norms on which our country and constitution rely. And this election, 2024, was a complete, I think, repudiation of that view. It was an ordinary election. The good news is that it was an ordinary election. We did—AK: And you wrote a piece for Brookings. You're a fellow of Brookings—JONATHAN RAUCH: Yeah, that's right.AK: —On this ordinary election. So on the one hand, it was ordinary. On the other hand, it was extraordinary. It was a moral catastrophe.JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, it was. Yeah, that's right. The good news is that it was an ordinary election. It was a rerun of 2016. It was an anti-incumbent election. It was close. It was undisputed. We've seen all that before. The bad news, for someone like me who's been saying for eight years is this this guy is not someone who should be anywhere near the White House, is that it was an ordinary election. The voters looked at everything that he's done and everything that people like me said. And they shrugged and they said, well, you know what? You're either wrong or we're not interested. They treated him as you would another candidate. And so from that point of view, this is a, I think, a decisive rejection of what folks like me have been saying. And we have to change.AK: John, I know you don't have any kids. I've got kids. And I think rule number one of parenting—and I'm certainly not the person to lecture anyone on good or bad, or certainly good parenting—rule number one of parenting always seemed to me, was if you tell a kid enough times that they can't do something, in the end, they will. And I don't mean to trivialize your argument, but what you just said to me sounded like—and correct me if I'm wrong, that the John Rauchs of the world, fellows at Brookings, authors of bestselling books like Constitution of Knowledge, for eight years, you warn the American people that the guy on the ballot, Donald Trump, was a bad deal, that he was a bad man, that he was unethical, all the rest of it. For eight years, you told them, you made it clear, and they have disobeyed you. And this is a crisis. In terms of that narrative, were you, you collectively I mean, you can't speak on behalf of your Brookings class, but weren’t you are asking for trouble by making it so clear that you disapproved of this particular candidate?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, it certainly appears that way today, doesn't it? On the other hand, one cannot deny what you said. Clearly, all the things that people like me have have said, and many, many other people, the editorial boards of many newspapers, and Frank Fukuyama, a brilliant man and wonderful scholar. They've been rejected, and so they've just clearly failed. So you're undoubtedly right. The question is, should we have just shut up this whole time? Should we not have pointed out, for example, that this is someone who led an effort to overthrow the United States government, that this is someone who lied by actual account, average of 20 times a day while he was in office? You can't really not point these things out in a liberal democracy, can you? So when I say a moral catastrophe, it means that people like me, we don't know what to do.AK: Are you saying then in a sense that it's a moral catastrophe not for America, but to quote you, for people like John Rauch, that your ideas, that you grew up with it you clearly believe in, you're one of the upholders ethically, philosophically of liberal ideals. Is this a catastrophe for yourself?JONATHAN RAUCH: That is exactly what I'm saying. You just said it better.AK: Well, you said it well, John, a moral catastrophe for yourself. And does that suggest that, really, you're beginning to question your own ideas, that more than half of America, maybe 51, 52 percent of the people who voted suggested that you were wrong?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, I'm not a populist, and in fact, as an atheistic homosexual Jew, I'm very used to being part of an unpopular minority and thinking that I was right regardless. And I don't think I can or want to change fundamentally in my view. For example, the founders, the U.S. Constitution, the benefits of small liberalism. I don't mean left wing progressivism. I'm center right myself, but I mean the ideals of the American founding and the Enlightenment. I still think that there's actually—Fukuyama was right in what he said in the early 90s. There's no real alternative to those things if what you want is peace, prosperity, freedom, and knowledge. But where I think I have to go back to square one is trying to figure out how to make that case. People like me, you know, I assumed that we were the majority, that we spoke for mainstream America, and that that Trump was a fringe candidate who had somehow managed to commandeer the commanding heights of politics. And I think someone like you is quicker to understand, no, that it's actually the other way around. A large number of the people, and now clearly a majority of the people, are on his side. And that means that we, people like me, again, liberals of the world need to recalibrate and understand we're no longer the mainstream. We're now the dissident faction. It's a very different world than we thought we lived in.AK: Although, in a way, it's a return to some. And you and I spent some time together this summer at the Liberalism for the 21st Century Conference. It was actually put on, I think, by the same people who published your "Tuesday’s Moral Catastrophe," the UnPopulist. But I wonder, in your piece, you talk about something called "the moral minority." I mean, isn't that the foundations of classical liberalism? Isn't that what John Stuart Mill, perhaps the most influential of all 19th century liberals, focused in on liberalism? What's wrong with being in the moral minority? Is there something...insecure about wanting to be in the moral majority, John?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, again, Andrew, I think you're exactly right. And the problem is that I forgot that. We had such—liberals, you know, again, I always use the word liberal in this conversation. I hope you're—AK: Yeah, with a small L. We're not talking about left-wing democrats.JONATHAN RAUCH: With a small L. Madison and Jefferson and Burke and Locke and Tocqueville and all of that. The founding ideas of liberal democracy. So we had an easy ride for many years. We assumed that we were the good guys. We were certainly right when the opponents were of fascism and communism. And then in the 90s it appeared that the world had simply come around, and that America was on a straight path to to just preserving this model forever. And what we've seen now is that that's not true. What we've seen is a lot of people feel left behind. Now, we knew a lot of people were being left behind. And at the think tank where I work, Brookings, for decades now, we have been hatching ideas every day about how to help those people, you know, retraining, trade adjustment assessment, apprenticeship programs, better forms of welfare. It's all we do all day, is try to help those who are left behind. Nonetheless, it's just as you say, I think we got complacent. I think now it's now obvious we are complacent. What else can you say after an election like this?AK: And yet you talk about this moral minority. Earlier you defined yourself as an atheist, a homosexual, a Jew—probably a secular Jew. And when I think of John Rauch, I would think is much more comfortable in a—I mean, he is a minority guy. I mean, that's your mentality. So what's changed? So, your political party—with a small P—your liberals, they're in the minority. So what?JONATHAN RAUCH: So I thought that...I was certainly in a minority in my lack of belief in God, and in being a member of a minority religion, and especially growing up gay in a world where that made you a pariah. But all of those things we saw remarkable progress. In the world I grew up in, of course, homosexuality was illegal. You couldn't serve in the military. Marriage was a ridiculous idea. Atheists were the most unpopular people in the country. Polls found that, you know, Gallup results would show that atheists were unelectable to public office. And we'd just come out of the shadow of the Holocaust. And my father, who is, we're talking about the 1950s in Phoenix, Arizona. He moved to Phoenix because as a Jew, he couldn't get a job on the East Coast, because he wasn't in the top half of his law school class. And we saw immense improvements—AK: I'm sorry to jump in here, John, and I'm not trivializing this, but if he had been in the top half, would he have got a job as a Jew?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, what he told me is that because he wasn't in the top half, he couldn't. And he had to move to Phoenix to get a job. So more than that, I can't tell you, but—AK: But that's going back to parenting. It was probably smart. You'd never be even close to being the bottom half of anything.JONATHAN RAUCH: But, you know, when he moved to Phoenix in the 50s, and when I grew up in the 60s, Jews could not join the Phoenix Country Club. So the story that I heard is the story of liberalism—again, small L-liberalism—coming through for people like me. And I thought, that's the nature of our country, where we are fundamentally, at the end of the day—we may make wrong decisions in the short term—but we are about advancing rights according to liberal doctrine. And so I now feel an outsider in the one category where I always felt an insider.AK: I think you probably seek—you would never acknowledge it publicly—but I don't think that unhappy about it.JONATHAN RAUCH: About which?AK: About being an outsider.JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, that's interesting. I am unhappy about the decision that my country has taken in a direction that I think is very, very bad for all kinds of reasons, which we can discuss. I am very unhappy that so many people would support a person whose candidacy and character I think are indefensible. I am certainly unhappy about that. And I'm unhappy about thinking that my country is a different kind of place than I thought. All of those things make me very unhappy. The broader way in which you're maybe right, and I've have never had to think about it quite this way, is: it was unhealthy for liberals to become complacent, to become insiders, to not listen, to not notice. And it may be good for us—in fact, it may be necessary for us to start from scratch, which is kind of where I think we are. AK: I wonder, John, whether one of the problems—and I'm as much of a liberal as you, although I'm naturally I'm always uncomfortable if I'm in the majority, by definition, if I'm in the majority, then I'll change my mind to go into the minority—I wonder whether one of the problems—Fukuyama's an old friend of yours, certainly the high priest, the pope of American liberalism. Of course, much misunderstood in terms of his end-of-history narrative. But he did have a—and you talked about it earlier—a kind of teleology, and he perhaps still does, the idea of history progressing towards something better. It's Martin Luther King's moral arc of the universe. Might that be one of the problems with American liberalism? That we've accepted this Fukuyama/MLK-style teleological narrative, that the world is always becoming a better place?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, I don't know that I'd put the Fukuyama thesis quite that way. It wasn't that the world's always becoming a better place, but it was a view of the moral directionality of liberalism, that is, over time, if you have liberal forms of government and economics and epistemology—that is, science, the way you go about finding knowledge—that you will over time tend to increase peace, freedom, prosperity, and knowledge. So they were saying that, and I still think that's true, Andrew. I still think that the people proposing various alternatives to liberalism, Christian nationalism, or various forms of state enterprise, or Chinese-style communism, or postmodernism or wokeism. I think those are bad ideas, and I think they won't work. I think they'll make people less free and less knowledgeable, and there will be more conflict. And so I think Frank Fukuyama was fundamentally actually right. There's really only one system in the 200,000 years of the human species which has surmounted our tribal instincts and allowed us to knit together into a global community, which has over time, increased prosperity, knowledge, diminished war and poverty. So I don't challenge that premise. Where I think you're right, and what I think we were too complacent about, is we kind of assumed that that would be on autopilot and that the people who are left behind, for example, or who are unhappy with demographic change, or the way the country was changing, that they could just be kind of dismissed, you know, that they would be happy because GDP is is growing. And that turns out, of course, to be wrong.AK:  You talk about—I don't remember if you said 20,000 or 2000 years—but is the one system over—JONATHAN RAUCH: Two hundred thousand.AK: A hundred, wow, it's even more, 100,000. I'll use that as the title for the interview, John. One system over 100,000 years that—JONATHAN RAUCH: Two hundred thousand.AK: Two hundred? We'll put it up.JONATHAN RAUCH: Three hundred, depending when you date the—AK: Yeah, maybe a million. Well, certainly a lot of years since we've overcome tribalism. But some people might respond—including some people who think of themselves as liberals. Yascha Mounk comes to mind—that the idea of overcoming tribalism is itself a kind of unrealistic, almost utopian, ideology, that we are, by definition, tribal. In fact, we've had a number of shows on the value of tribalism. There's a guy at Columbia whose book in defense of corporate and social tribalism is actually shortlisted for the F.T. Book of the Year. So are you suggesting that—in your view, at least, you use this word tribalism, it's your word, Jon, rather than mine—are you suggesting that it's fundamentally incompatible with liberalism, that for a liberal system to work, we can't think tribally? In racial, cultural, I don't know, in every sense, linguistic terms?JONATHAN RAUCH: No, I'm saying, in a way, the opposite. The great liberal theorists going back to John Locke, but especially my favorite of them, my hero, James Madison, understood that what could be called tribalism, or what can also be called partizanship of a certain type, and what Madison called faction, that this is a fundamental driver of the human species, and that you're not going to make it go away, and that the flaw of most of these other systems, you know, monarchy and autocracy and theocracy, is that they tried to stamp out the identities of individuals and of groups and tribes and simply impose one on everybody. You know, we're all now going to be the tribe of Catholics, for example. And a certain type of Catholic. You're going to stamp out all the heresies. Liberalism's innovation is to say, no. That stamping out human nature—we will always be tribal and partizan and factional. So you want to build a society where people in their factions and in their tribes can nonetheless get along through negotiation and compromise and persuasion. And then you set up mechanisms and constitutions that try to get them to do that. And then you teach norms that get them to support those things. And that's all extremely difficult. But the core of liberalism is understanding that the factions are always there, and managing them is always hard. And guess what? The things that we thought were working haven't been working so well.AK:  Yeah. So John, you're collapsing tribalism and Madison's notion of faction.JONATHAN RAUCH: Am I wrong?AK: Well, I've never thought of them quite in the same way. I mean, people are...didn't Madison mean by faction people's self-interest? So, business owners or exporters or importers or people whose interests happened to coincide? That's what faction is. Tribalism is something that we...we tend to be born in to tribes. And isn't that the problem that liberals have with tribalism? That it can't be overcome? I mean, you know, the classic one is, is race. You're born white or black. You can't choose what you're born and how you can't repaint yourself. So there is a difference between, I mean, in my sense, between tribalism and faction.JONATHAN RAUCH: I would I would dispute that actually. I think Madison—my interpretation of Madison is, right? Which is that these are all just forms of groupieness. You know, you've seen these experiments. There are tons of them. But you take students and you divide them randomly into two groups and you put one of them in red jerseys and the other in green jerseys and you tell them they're different groups. And then you put them through experiments like how altruistic they are, and they almost instantly bond into groups based on entirely random categories with people they've never known before. And so you can be born into one of those things. Of course, I actually am not convinced race is something you're born into. I think it's socially constructed to a large extent. But setting that aside, I think all of these things just come down to the natural tendency of humans to form groups and to form loyalties in those groups and then have insiders and outsiders—partizanship, which used to be pretty fungible, we saw bipartisanship all the time, has now become tribal, just in the sense that people put their identities into it. They define it as an identity. And, you know, the color jersey you wear can define your identity, and certainly your identity as a farmer can define it. So however you call it, you know, I think we're talking about the same basic phenomenon, which is what do you do about our tendency to groupieness and to—I guess I hate this term, but I'll use it—"othering," saying, the world is people like us, and people like them, and we're people like us, and we're against people like them.AK: John, Tuesday's moral catastrophe—and it was a couple of Tuesdays ago—is it a unique catastrophe? And there was an interesting piece in this weekend's Financial Times by Mark Mazower, excellent Columbia University historian, and why he said, he was suggesting that Trump's victory will change America. That goes without saying. Europe is going to respond very differently. He doesn't believe it's fascist, but he said something very interesting in the piece. He said, the U.S. is the only nation in the world currently governed by a document drawn up in the age of the Enlightenment. Of course, perhaps the most influential figure in that is your hero, Madison. Does this make what's happening in America, this rejection, in your eyes, at least, of liberalism so particularly important? Is it the final nail in the coffin of the Enlightenment, John?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, it's certainly not the final nail. This is an ongoing story. And for just the reasons we've discussed, I have hope that I and my friends and the people who are with us at the conference that you mentioned in July will be shaken out of our complacency and find ways both to solve, or help solve the kinds of problems that liberalism has, and also find better ways to explain it and its enormous advantages. I can tell you that I think Chinese communism, for example, is is not the solution. I do think it's important to note that what's happening now is not just in America. It's global. We've seen—this year has been, according to the people who look at such things—this year has been a record year for anti-incumbency all around the world. In fact, as far back as—AK: I mean, as you say in your Brookings piece, a very ordinary election, inflation historically always made it very hard for incumbents to keep their power in an election.“The question is, should we have just shut up this whole time? Should we not have pointed out, for example, that this is someone who led an effort to overthrow the United States government, that this is someone who lied by actual account, average of 20 times a day while he was in office? You can't really not point these things out in a liberal democracy, can you? So when I say a moral catastrophe, it means that people like me, we don't know what to do.” -JRJONATHAN RAUCH: Well, that's right. But everywhere you look, Japan, we had a serious upset. Germany's government has collapsed. Macron's government has collapsed. Everywhere you look, you see voters who are unhappy with the status quo and grabbing vehicles to oppose it. And sometimes those vehicles are far right-wing parties in Europe, which have been fringe or nonexistent until now. And America is part of that trend. And one of the things that folks like me need to try to figure out is why are people so damn unhappy?AK: Well, you know that, you don't need...I mean, you just need to look at the inflation numbers, the poverty numbers, the inequality numbers, the addiction numbers, the death of despair numbers. That's not hard for a guy like you to understand, is it, John?JONATHAN RAUCH: A lot of those numbers are better. A lot of the—AK: But that does still make it...I mean, they haven't gone away.JONATHAN RAUCH: Well sure, there are always problems, I'm not denying, and I'm not saying something silly. But the American economy was objectively much better than people gave it credit for. People were telling pollsters that the United States economy today is as bad as it was in the Great Depression of the 1930s. And I can tell you that's just not the case. And...increasingly people attribute what's happening not just to objective factors like economic growth and inflation, though of course those are there, I wouldn't deny it, but to anomie, to things like loneliness, to the lack of connection. David Brooks has a very big article in The Atlantic on the many ways—you alluded to some of them—that people are finding their lives coming up short and a lot of them have to do with intangible factors like do they have friends, do they feel secure if they're in trouble? Do they have someone to call? Do they feel that they live in an environment which is safe? And those things...we at Brookings pay attention to the numbers, right? These intangibles are harder to cope. AK: I wonder, it'd be really interesting, I don't know if everyone's done the research on this, John, whether your point about the age of anxiety and loneliness, David Brooks has written about it, all sorts of other people, it's one of the dominant intellectual strains of our age. But I wonder whether anyone's done any research of whether...a sense of loneliness is more dominant in the minds of Harris voters versus Trump voters. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the Trump voter is less likely to be lonely than the Harris voter, because they're less urban, less bound up in all the enemy of post-post digital capitalism.JONATHAN RAUCH: I know those numbers exist. I don't know what they show. A couple related trends, which I do know a little bit, is that indicators go in different directions. Progressives, people on the left with college degrees and all that, who are very progressive, are more neurotic and less happy than conservatives. And that stands to reason, since they seem to spend their days telling themselves that we will never have progress on race and that we live in a terrible and unjust society of settler colonialism. So there's that. On the other hand, we have a scholar at Brookings who studies happiness and hope. Happiness not in the sense of mood, you know, how cheerful I am, but life satisfaction, how good do I think my life is? And the ethnic group in America—the socioeconomic group, I should say—that is least hopeful is working class whites. And it turns out college educated whites are also low on the hope scale. And the most hopeful people in America are African-Americans.AK: Well they've been—I know this from families—they've been through so much hell historically that whatever they do now doesn't compare with what's happened in the past. Yeah that's a—JONATHAN RAUCH: Bingo. Yes. That's exactly what Carol thinks. I mean, we don't know we don't have a—AK: Who is the person at Brookings who does this?JONATHAN RAUCH: Carol Graham. She terrific. She's studying hope, actually. But that's right. The trajectory for African-Americans is much like my trajectory as a gay American, which is you've seen this remarkable progress. And that gives you hope, the trajectory for whites, especially working-class whites who really are having a bad time economically, they're looking back at a world in which they had more stock.AK: Yeah, but...I take your point on that, but my point was not on that. It was about loneliness as opposed to unhappiness. But maybe we can get her on the show. I'm guessing John, I'm the last cheerful progressive, am I?JONATHAN RAUCH: Are you cheerful, Andrew?AK: I'm very cheerful. I'm sort of...I always think Americans are miserable optimists, and I'm a cheerful pessimist. So whatever happens now makes me more cheerful. When the news is good always makes me nervous and miserable. You've talked, John, and we're going to reverse this, actually, next week you're going to interview me because you're one of the people I most respect, I'm interested in getting your take on what I think. You'll help me figure that out. You keep on mentioning complacency. You and I were at this Liberalism for the 21st Century, and I think I told you at the time, I thought it was very complacent, very elitist. It sort of reflected the problem rather than the solution. One thing that I have to admit, I disagreed with you in your moral catastrophe piece was the idea that Harris, and I'm quoting you here, ran an exemplary campaign. I mean, okay, everybody knows she got thrown in the deep end and all the rest of it. You don't need me to tell you that. But I think it was anything but exemplary. It was complacent. She had no, in my view, at least, no sense of why she wanted to be president. She rested on the Biden assumption that the economy was good and that there was no real reason to fundamentally change that. So what was, in your view, exemplary about the Harris campaign? She didn't manifest any kind of confidence. She wasn't even willing to go on the Joe Rogan Show because apparently some of her staff were uncomfortable with that. What do you admire about the Harris campaign?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, as I think you agree, she was cast into extremely challenging circles.AK: Yeah, I've said that. I acknowledged that. But—JONATHAN RAUCH: You acknowledged that. And when I say exemplary, I don't mean against a standard in which she could start from scratch, go through an entire primary campaign, develop policy proposals. And most importantly—and this really is important—not be an incumbent. She was an incumbent. She tried not to sound like she wasn't an incumbent, you know, turn the page and all of that, but the voters are not dumb. And they said, well, you are the sitting vice president of the United States. And they refused to separate her from Joe Biden, whose popularity was extremely low, low 40s, high 30s. That's a massive headwind. And those are conditions she can't change. The conditions that she could change begin with handling Biden extremely well. There were no leaks from the Harris operation trying to nudge Biden out, and that actually helped get him out. Then she was able to corral the delegates she needed in 36 hours. That seemed like a very heavy lift. People—AK: I think that reflects very poorly, actually, on the Democratic Party, that they were pushed into this.JONATHAN RAUCH: No, well, they got the delegates. Now, part of that is because the Democrats didn't have time to go through a proper primary process. And people who thought that they could somehow do an abbreviated version of that in three weeks were just on drugs. There was no way that was going to happen. She raised a stupendous amount of money. She had an extremely good team with essentially zero internal money.AK: The money was worthless. She had no idea that she was spending it. I mean, she raised ridiculous amounts of money that were just wasted.JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, I mean, I don't know. She'll probably wind up within a percentage point of Trump in the popular vote and the places—AK: Are you claiming victory, then, a moral victory, John?JONATHAN RAUCH: No, no, no. I'm saying that the places where she spent money, which are the seven swing states, the evidence that people who study this thing are saying, is that all of those places were much closer than the places that she didn't spend money. And part of that is because she was able to focus resources. But, you know, to continue, she crushed her opponent in a debate. So when I say exemplary, I mean, I think she did as good a job as you can expect someone to do in that situation. She still lost, because the country wanted a change and they understood the status quo.AK: I mean...she took no risks. She was unwilling. There was no reason...she's not in Biden's pocket. There was no reason why she couldn't have crushed Biden. When she was asked—the famous moment, to me, the whole campaign was finished when, I think it was on one of the morning shows, someone said, "Well, how would you be different from Biden?" And there was this long "um," and then she had no idea. The fact that—she'd clearly been thinking about this for years, I mean, it was obvious what might happen. But she had no idea of how she was different. I mean, what most troubles me about Harris, and this perhaps goes to the complacency of the liberal establishment, and you're not really part of that establishment, although you know it better than I do, is that complacency, their idea that actually things are pretty good, and that Biden did a good job, and the economy was good and it's not Trump, and if you just reminded people that the economy was improving and you're not Donald Trump and you're a small liberal, then you're going to win. To me, it was anything but exemplary.JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, we'll agree to disagree, but I will agree with you that that was a terrible answer. It was a bad moment.AK: But it's more than just a bad answer. The truth is—JONATHAN RAUCH: Here's where we disagree, which is: like it or not, she's the incumbent. And it is not credible for an incumbent, it just never has been, for a vice president to say, "the administration that just happened wasn't me." Because it was her. So that moment was a bad moment and she could and should have done better. But I think the screw up was that the Biden administration ignored immigration and inflation for too long. And in hindsight, that's pretty clear. But that that was baked in, right? That's the world she inherited. So I guess we could go round and round on that, you know, if they'd had a full primary process and Biden had gotten out and you had had someone who was not in government, like Josh Shapiro, or maybe Gavin Newsom, you know, all these people have their flaws. You know Gavin Newsom a lot better than I do.AK: And Newsom's been on the show. I think he's a bit too smirk.JONATHAN RAUCH: Yeah, he might be. But then I think he would have had time to develop those things. But I think what we did have is a test in this election. She ran as an avatar of the Biden administration because she was, you just can't run away from that. She's sitting vice president. And she ran into an electorate which said, you know what? We think Biden is a failed president and that makes you a failed vice president. And we don't want to fail another term of that. We want something else. That's Donald Trump. And where people like me fell on our faces is that we tried to tell them, well, Donald Trump is unacceptable. So go with the failed presidency. Go with the failed administration. And they're not willing to do that.“Liberals of the world need to recalibrate and understand we're no longer the mainstream. We're now the dissident faction. It's a very different world than we thought we lived in.” -JRAK: Right. And you write about in your excellent piece, "The Moral Catastrophe," you quote along elections determining norms, which is certainly the case in this last election. I mean, briefly, going back to Harris, what about...does the fact that she seemed to be running by committee, she's like an American car or something designed by committee, completely unwilling, I mean, she's the reverse of Trump, completely unwilling to take risks, completely unwilling to do or say anything that might offend anyone or create any kind of controversy. Is that just a problem with Harris and her camp, or is this a problem, John, with small-L liberals in America today, this unwillingness to challenge, to tell the truth? I mean, coming back to Biden, there seems to be, in my view, at least, a kind of conspiracy amongst mainstream media not to tell the truth about Biden over the last 2 or 3 years, that he was clearly...not fit to be president, that he was too old, that he'd lost something that made him barely presidential. And yet the press never focused on this. So why is our—and I'm part of your class—why is our class so unwilling to take risks.JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, there's two things there. One is about the coverage of Biden, and that's a separate conversation. And I have a minority view on that.AK: Do you agree or disagree with me?JONATHAN RAUCH: I disagree. I think that the reason that the Biden's condition wasn't broadly reported is that the administration hid, it and they clobbered you if you tried to write on it, and when The Wall Street Journal finally was able to get a story in about it April, they could only get one person to go on the record about Biden's condition. And that was former Speaker McCarthy, who is not an unbiased source. Biden held essentially no press conferences. He shut that down. He withheld himself from the press. I think he's Parkinsonian. They have good days and they have bad days. Doesn't mean Parkinson's disease, by the way. There are lots of things that can cause the things you see of him, kind of the slurred speech and the slack-jawed look and the stumbling gait. But he was hiding that. And he was abetted in hiding it by people who should not have done that.AK: But it's the whole administration. It's all these—JONATHAN RAUCH: But that's a side question. Your big question—yeah, I shouldn't have gone down that rabbit hole, because who knows? But your big point is, are liberals refusing to take risks and tell the truth? I don't know about liberals because it's a very big group. And my friends at the Cato Institute, for example, who are classical liberal libertarians, say all kinds of things that are very risky, like privatize all the schools. I do think, though, that that's the case about Democrats, and that they should, for example, have separated Biden and Harris, and other people should have separated themselves from the academic left, you know, the genderqueer people and the critical race theory, social justice, critical, everything people, they should have separated themselves from those people and they should have been willing to say that a woman is an adult human female, and that they've been afraid to do that because that part of the coalition can be so noisy. And in fact, when things are this close in the country, when you're having one 50/50 election after another, you're afraid of losing part of your base. But there, yeah, I agree with you. Democrats need to learn a page from Republicans who have been nothing if not risk takers. “Increasingly people attribute what's happening not just to objective factors like economic growth and inflation, though of course those are there, I wouldn't deny it, but to anomie, to things like loneliness, to the lack of connection.” -JRAK: That the party then needs its Sister Souljah movement. You've been very generous with your time, John, and we're going to continue this conversation. Still a lot to talk about. Back in. Back in August 2022, a couple of years ago, it seems a long time ago now, you wrote for The Atlantic: Trump's second term would look like this. And you talked about the extinction of American democracy. Where are you? I mean, you're obviously worried this these are difficult times, to put it euphemistically from your point of view. How fearful are you about this second term? I mean, we're speaking after the appointment of certain cabinet ministers, appointments for the attorney general, RFK Junior. I mean, there's a there's a whole episode to talk about here, but...when you look back to August 2022, so a couple of years ago, more than two years ago, when you talked about the Trump second term, are you more or less pessimistic about the fate of American democracy?JONATHAN RAUCH: Well, you are right that that would be a great opening point for a separate episode, because there's so much to discuss there, and I am so interested in your view of that, which has been very different from mine, and perhaps, I hope, will prove correct. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm about a nine. The things that I said in August of 2022 that they would do, they are doing, and they can do, and we know what they are, because they've either told us what they are or they've actually tried to do them in Trump's first term. And we will see them unfold. And if I'm correct about the sixth out of six of them, the one thing that he did not do in his first term, then that's the end of liberal democracy in America as we've known it. And what that sixth thing is, is the open violation of court orders, making Supreme Court orders, rulings, optional. I fully expect that they will do that. Now, I hope I'm wrong about that. But if that happens, in addition to the other five things that we predicted and that we know they want to do and that they're now setting about doing, yeah, I think we live in a fundamentally different kind of regime. It's not, of course, China, but it's in the direction of Hungary...and yeah, so I'm pretty much hair on fire. I'd like to be wrong, though. I'd like you to be right. And as you know, I give your view great weight. I view you as kind of a canary in the mineshaft of people who said, you know, I'm too hysterical. AK: I like being called the canary in the mineshaft. Jonathan Rauch, we will continue this conversation. We're going to switch hats. It's going to be my hair on fire the next time around. John's going to come back on the show and talk to me.JONATHAN RAUCH: You have a lot more hair to set on fire.AK: Yeah, well, for the moment. But we will continue this conversation. John, It's always an honor and a lot of fun to have you on the show. You are certainly the most the most human of liberals, I would say. Warts and all, you don't deny any aspect of the liberal condition. So it's always an honor to have you on the show, which is, I think, the essence of liberalism, in contrast to some of the utopianism of other ideologies. So we will—JONATHAN RAUCH: Andrew Keen meets out his compliments with parsimony. So I take that as a as a good one.AK: Good John, well, honor. And I hope you survive the next week, because I want you back on the show and you're going to interview me. So we'll talk again in the not-too-distant future. John Rauch, keep well, keep worrying. We need you to worry. If you worry, then makes it easier for the rest of us. Thank you so much.Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in the governance studies program at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He is the recipient of a National Magazine Award. His books include The Constitution of Knowledge, The Happiness Curve, and Gay Marriage. He lives in northern Virginia.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 KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. 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 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