Gary Gerstle talks about the journalist who brought down a business empire, when Ida Tarbell went after the power of John D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Corporation at the start of the twentieth century. Could anyone do the same to Facebook or Amazon today?Talking Points: America’s foundational myth is about rebelling against monopolies: a monopoly of power in the hands of the King. How does an anti-monopolistic society get dominated by monopolies?Industrialization and the free economic environment after the Civil War created different conditions. The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment to mean that corporations are individuals and therefore protected by the Bill of Rights.Resistance to monopolies reached a peak during the first Gilded Age.Some of the resistance was political, but some of it was journalistic.Journalists known as ‘muckrakers’ sought to expose the practices that produced extraordinary power.The reports of journalist Ida Tarbell ultimately led to the breakup of Standard Oil of Ohio.Journalism set the tone for the progressive reform movement.The election of 1912 was about what to do about the trusts/monopolies.Debs wanted to nationalize them; Wilson wanted to break them up; Roosvevelt said regulate them; only Taft carried take a stand.Roosevelt’s approach ultimately carried the day.What can the past tell us about today? Warren is carrying forward the breakup agenda.Previous anti-monopoly movements took a long time; don’t expect much too quickly.But the sentiments haven’t gone away. And the forces that Warren and Sanders have unleashed will continue to percolate.Mentioned in this Episode: Dark Money by Jane MayerFurther Learning: More on Ida TarbellA Talking Politics Guide to … the Gilded AgeMore on Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up big techAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Anthony Comstock, the man who tried to stamp out pornography in the final decades of the 19th century, used the US Postal Service as his weapon. Gary Gerstle tells his story, exploring the power of the Post Office, the historical suppression of vice in the US, and the challenges of regulating information in the internet age.

In the first of our American Histories series, Sarah Churchwell explains the lessons to be learned for Trump and his opponents from what happened in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson was impeached by Congress and survived his trial in the Senate by a single vote. What are 'high crimes and misdemeanours' anyway?Talking Points: What was Reconstruction?The period immediately following the Civil War and the first attempt at civil rights in the United States.The 14th and 15th amendments gave rights to black men. There were black legislators and black senators.There was also pushback, namely from what would become the Ku Klux Klan.Johnson became president after Lincoln’s assassination: his whole presidency was about overturning the gains of Reconstruction.Johnson was a unionist but also a white supremacist: he basically pardoned the entire white South. This is the conflict that led to impeachment.The immediate act that precipitated impeachment was Johonson breaking a law designed to restrain him, the Tenure of Office Act. There were 11 articles of impeachment.He ultimately survived by 1 vote in the Senate. If he had been impeached, he would have been succeeded by Benjamin Wade, a radical Republican. The moderates didn’t like this.One of the lessons of history is that it’s almost impossible to remove the president.Johnson had clearly broken the law and the Senate was hostile. Trump has much more favorable circumstances.Mentioned in this Episode: W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in AmericaFurther Learning:How impeachment worksJill Lepore on the history of impeachmentHistorian Eric Foner on ReconstructionWhat does ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ really mean? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Letting you know about an exciting new series: Over the holidays David is joined by historians Sarah Churchwell and Gary Gerstle for six special editions of Talking Politics looking at crucial moments in American history. From impeachment to enfranchisement, monopoly to pornography, deportation to abortion, these are the stories that help make sense of present, as we get ready for election season 2020.

David and Helen talk to bestselling author Michael Lewis about the effect that Trump's presidency is having on the workings of the US government and the risks we are all running as a result. From wilful ignorance to breathtaking corruption, we explore the different ways that one man can change the character of an entire political system. Plus we ask what, if anything, can be done about it.https://bit.ly/2M1yzVk

Helen Thompson, a political analyst and commentator, joins the hosts to dissect the aftermath of the Tory triumph and its implications. They discuss the mistakes made by the Lib Dems, the challenges faced by Labour, and the potential for realignment in the North and Midlands. The SNP's role and the impact on Parliament are also examined. The chapter descriptions cover topics such as campaign strategies, the role of momentum in the Labour Party, implications for Northern Ireland, Nigel Farage's views on electoral reform, and challenges faced by the Liberal Democrats.

For our last pre-election episode we talk with Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe, about what might happen to Brexit once the vote is done. What choices does Johnson face if he wins? What paths are there to a second referendum if he loses? And what will remainers do if Britain does finally leave the EU? Plus we discuss what the rest of Europe makes of it all. With Helen Thompson. Tomorrow, we talk about the result of the election as it happens.Talking Points: There are basically two scenarios: Johnson gets a majority and the withdrawal bill passes, or there’s a hung parliament.The first is slightly more probable, but the margins are getting closer.If Johnson has a majority of even one, the UK will probably leave.But we still don’t know what Johnson wants. Will he be a prisoner to the ERG or will he be a one nation Tory and go for a softer Brexit?The next crunch point will be the end of June with the extension for transition. EU leaders have been assuming a Johnson victory.There’s a conversation in Brussels about how flexible the EU should be, given Johnson’s comments on European trade.Relations within the EU have gotten more fraught.What about the UK’s security relationship with the EU? Would a hung parliament inevitably lead to a second referendum?It’s not clear that a Corbyn minority government could legislate for a referendum. You might actually get another election.The gap between Labour and the Conservatives is as wide as it has been in recent history.The Lib Dems have again fallen behind.The public seems to be uncomfortable with revoke. It’s not a vote winner.If the UK leaves, where do the remainers go? It doesn’t seem that project rejoin would have much steam in the short term.If Johnson wins, it will be on less than half of the vote. And the likelihood of a fifth Conservative victory is unlikely. There is a reason for Labour to believe that next time is their real chance.Mentioned in this Episode: On the tension between Macron and MerkelRobert Tombs in the Spectator.Further Learning: Follow Anand on Twitter hereAnand on negotiating a trade deal with EuropeAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

This week Helen and David explore some counterfactuals: What if Remain had won in 2016? What if Corbyn hadn't got on the leadership ballot in 2015? What if Scotland had voted for independence in 2014? We consider whether British politics would be very different or whether a lot of what we are seeing in 2019 was coming anyway. Plus we explore if there are any circumstances in which the stranglehold of the two main parties could be broken in a general election and why the Lib Dems have so spectacularly failed to break it this time.Talking Points: What would have happened if Remain won the referendum?Cameron would have remained prime minister.UKIP probably wouldn’t have collapsed. Johnson would still have been in a good position to become prime minister.What if Corbyn hadn’t been on the ballot for Labour leadership?The membership supports him, but he almost didn’t make the ballot. The next leader probably would have been Andy Burnham.Burnham would have fought the referendum with more enthusiasm, but the problems in the base would have remained the same.Corbyn expanded the membership by being on the ballot; he didn’t rebuild the old Labour coalition.What if Scotland had voted for independence?This would have been a disaster for Cameron: he’s a unionist to the core. Negotiations would have been extremely complicated, especially over the currency question.Scottish independence would have posed an existential question for the Labour party.Can a third party break through?It looked like the Lib Dems might do it, but the two main parties have pulled away. Is this a structural problem, or a contingency problem?First Past the Post forces voters to make hard choices, often between two unpalatable options.The revoke position is tricky, even if the donors like it. There’s no real way to reach hard core remainers in this electoral system.The Remain vote is more geographically concentrated. There are also voters who prefer remain but respect the referendum result.Mentioned in this Episode:Ken Clarke talking about First Past the PostFurther Learning: David’s review of Cameron’s memoirs for the LRBWho is Jo Swinson? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

We talk about the impact of different online platforms on the general election campaign, from Twitter and Facebook to WhatsApp and TikTok. Is micro-targeting getting more sophisticated? Is viral messaging getting more important? Or are traditional electioneering techniques still driving voter engagement? Plus we ask whether there's any scope left for a 'December surprise'. With Charles Arthur, former technology editor of the Guardian, and Jennifer Cobbe, from the Cambridge Trust and Technology Initiative.Talking Points: In 2017, Labour ran an incredibly successful social media campaign that the mainstream media outlets missed. Is 2017 repeating itself? Facebook has gotten more transparent about the ads they are running. There doesn’t seem to be a big Labour project, at least on Facebook. The Lib Dems on the other hand have a huge operation. Labour has at least a few ads that seem extremely well calibrated.Are we more resistant to political messaging on social media now? This election isn’t a binary choice. There are few single messages that you can push. (The NHS may be the exception.)   But at the end of the day, the electoral system tends to force a binary choice. Is it old politics or new technology? The messages are relatively old school. Time spent on doorsteps may still be more valuable than a Facebook ad. But in other ways, things have changed. It’s much easier to publicly screw up. And when new candidates come onto the scene, the first thing people do is scroll through their social media history.Do we overblow the consequences of a single screw up?What is political messaging trying to achieve?Persuasion is incredibly difficult. Turnout will be key. Labour will need to get out the vote. There’s certainly been a big voter registration push on social media. Younger voters are online, but not on Facebook. YouTube, for example, is more important. The Tories don’t seem to have caught on to this. In an information economy, are people more likely to switch on right before an election, or switch off?Mentioned in this episode: Tech election… Part 1The Rob Delaney adThe Sacha Baron Cohen speech on FacebookFurther Learning: Charles’ new bookCharles’ blog, “The Overspill”Jennifer’s Talking Politics Guide to… Machine LearningAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

In a special live edition recorded at the Bristol Festival of Economics we discuss the impact of the technology revolution on democratic politics. Has the rise of automation contributed to the rise of populism? Is China winning the AI wars against the West? And do any democratic politicians - from Elizabeth Warren to Jeremy Corbyn - have the policies to get big tech back under control? With Rana Foroohar, author of Don't Be Evil, and Carl Frey, author of The Technology Trap, plus Diane Coyle, founder and programme director of the Bristol Festival of Economics. Next week: the Facebook election.