Keen On

How to Save the American experiment? That’s the question the Yale historian John Fabian Witt asks this week in both a New York Times feature and his just published new book, The Radical Fund. Sometimes, Witt suggests, we need what he describes as a “calamity” to recognize and protect the American experiment in democracy. In the 1920s, the historian reminds us, this happened with the emergence of the Garland Fund, a charitable organization set up in 1922 which spawned many of the most profound economic and civil rights reforms of the mid century. Founded by Charles Garland, a disillusioned yet idealistic Harvard heir who refused his million-dollar inheritance, the Fund brought together unlikely bedfellows—from the ACLU and NAACP to labor unions—creating what Witt calls an “incubator” for progressive change. Drawing striking parallels between then and now, Witt argues that strategic philanthropy and what he calls “cross-movement dialogue” can reinvigorate American democracy in a similarly turbulent age of cultu

For financial journalist Elizabeth MacBride, the New American economy is like the old one - only worse. Describing it as the “Frankenstein version of neo-liberalism”, MacBride explains that business has overtaken government to create ever-more-powerful bankers like Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon. But all is not lost. In her upcoming new book, Capital Evolution, co-authored with the VC Seth Levine, MacBride argues that there’s a new consensus taking shape - what she calls “Dynamic Capitalism” - which balances profits with purpose. So if we can get beyond today’s neo-liberal Frankenstein moment, she promises, America will be able to address the great 21st-century challenges of inequality and climate change. I have to admit I’m not convinced. Rather than capital evolution, I see the growing political power of Wall Street players like Dimon and Fink. We shall see. But when a Wall Street CEO like Jamie Dimon announces $10 billion bets on national security (as he did early this week), it’s no surprise that the loudest

Churchill described Communist Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. For Pulitzer Prize winning Princeton historian, Paul Starr, America might be the new Soviet Union. It’s a such contradiction, in fact, that he entitles his new book American Contradiction, in an attempt to describe the dominant narrative of “revolution and revenge” from the 1950s to today’s America. But unlike Churchill, who unwrapped the Russian enigma through national interest, Starr finds only more contradictory contradictions about America. The civil rights revolution triggered the Goldwater/Reagan/MAGA revenge. Obama’s hope intensified the reactionary backlash. Economic progress created deeper cultural despair. Each new development triggers an old question, each fresh solution an even staler problem. After 250 years tracing America’s conflicts from slavery through Trump, the distinguished historian admits he has no idea how it ends (or even begins). Perhaps that’s the biggest contradiction of all: a brilliant, yet pa

At 85, the venerable Jeffrey Archer has lived through enough crises to stay calm and carry on whatever the stormy political weather. The best-selling author—who has sold 275 million books and, as a Conservative MP and party chairman, served Margaret Thatcher for 11 years—speaks with the authority of someone who witnessed the Iron Lady’s firm politics up close and personal. But Mrs Thatcher isn’t the only British grande dame who Archer now mourns. His latest William Warwick thriller End Game, set against the backdrop of the 2012 London Olympics, is the story of a plot against Queen Elizabeth II, the beloved monarch who, in contrast with Mrs T, unified Britain. And then there’s what Archer definitely calls his “final novel”—a World War II story to be published next year that he believes will be “bigger than Cain and Abel.” But he also weighs in on today’s political chaos in Britain and America: Trump’s absurd contradictions, the chilling specter of Farage and Robinson, Starmer’s political problems, and why Ma

History rarely repeats itself, especially speculative bubbles. As it becomes increasingly obvious that today’s AI bubble will dramatically burst, the real question is not when but how.What makes this boom profoundly different from the DotCom crash of the nineties is OpenAI’s attempt to create an AI private monopoly by positioning itself at the center of trillions of dollars worth of self-serving “deals”. Sam Altman wants to simultaneously be the gambler, the slot machine owner, and the house. It’s a gamble that is, of course, brazenly rigged: he’s trying to simultaneously make OpenAI too important to fail and too well-financed to go public.That Was The Week’s Keith Teare cutely describes this imperial play as “Come To Daddy.” But it’s more complicated—and more dangerous. By weaving OpenAI into the heart of America’s AI economy, Altman isn’t just building a company; he’s constructing a systemic chokepoint not just for Silicon Valley and Wall Street, but possibly for an entire global economy dependent on AI exu

Tom Brokaw famously described America’s World War II servicemen as the “Greatest Generation”. But according to the historian David Nasaw, the Americans who fought in the Second World War are better understood as The Wounded Generation. His eponymous new book describes the pain and hardships that 16 million veterans endured upon their return home - a tragic story of PTSD, racism and family breakup. Brokaw celebrated the nobility with which these ex-soldiers got on with civilian life without either complaining or even talking about the war. But for Nasaw, this silence wasn’t just stoicism—it was often undiagnosed and sometimes even untreatable trauma.1. WWII Was America’s Longest and Most Brutal War The average soldier served nearly three years in uniform (compared to less than one year in WWI), with 75% deployed overseas. Combat on the European front was relentless, especially in the final year, with severe manpower shortages keeping GIs on the front lines for weeks or months without relief.2. Millions Return

According to the platform economist Sangeet Paul Choudary, author of Reshuffle, today’s AI hype is a feature rather than a bug in Silicon Valley. It’s a deliberate mechanism to attract capital in an “attention-poor, capital-heavy economy” while distracting from the lack of short-term business results. So who will ultimately win and who will lose in today’s AI arms race? While Choudary predicts power will concentrate around infrastructure players like Nvidia and enterprise workflow companies like Microsoft and Google, he warns that OpenAI risks becoming “the Cisco of this revolution” unless it moves beyond the commoditizing model layer. More troubling, for Choudary, is AI’s societal impact. We cannot trust Big Tech with our “agentic future,” he cautions—particularly as technologies like OpenAI’s Pulse preview eliminate the last vestige of user agency that we still possess. While pessimistic about US and Chinese models built on data hoarding and state-backed monopolies, the Dubai-based Choudary sees promise in

It’s springtime for charlatans. At least according to Quico Toro, coauthor (with my old friend Moises Naim) of Charlatans, a new screed about how grifters, swindlers and hucksters are bamboozling the media, the markets and the masses. If you listen to Toro, you wouldn’t want to get out of bed in the morning. Everywhere - on our screens, in our churches, even in the White House - there lurk charlatans intent on stealing our souls. As you can tell from my rat-a-tat scepticism, I’m not totally convinced by such hysterical fearmongering. Though he’s probably right that social isolation and AI-powered scams are making us sitting ducks for scammers. Anyway, at least there’s no chapter about huckster podcasters in Charlatans. So you are safe here from bamboozlers of all stripes. 1. The Harm Standard Is Everything Quico’s core thesis: charlatans aren’t just persuasive people you disagree with - they leave a trail of destroyed lives. No harm = not a charlatan (even if you find them distasteful, like the astrology busi

Next Monday is Columbus Day. Or should it be Indigenous People’s Day? According to the historian Matthew Restall we should be celebrating both Columbus and Indigenous People on Monday. The author of the timely The Nine Lives of Christopher Columbus, Restall places Genoa’s most famous sailor as a prisoner of history - endlessly protean to reflect each era’s changing values. The many lives of Columbus, then, is a mirror of how we have thought differently about him over the last 500 years. As history’s greatest saint and sinner, Christopher Columbus might be the ultimate Rorschach test. Tell me what you’ll be celebrating next Monday and I’ll tell you who you are. Happy hols!1. Columbus Was a “Manic Narcissist” Who Believed He Was God’s Agent Restall discovered Columbus wasn’t likable—he descended into believing he was divinely chosen and could even be found in the Old Testament. This grandiosity was partly his undoing as a colonial administrator.2. Columbus Failed as a Colonizer and Administrator Unlike the conq

Last weekend, the English reggae band UB 40 played in the Orpheum in Los Angeles and included in the set their 1980 song “Tyler”. Tyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it’s not soTyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it’s not soTyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it’s not soTyler is guilty white judges said soWhat right do we got to say it’s not soIn the audience was the song’s muse Gary Tyler who, as a sixteen year old in 1974, was put on death row for a crime he didn’t commit:Appeal to the governor, of LouisianaYou may get an answer the process is slowFederal court won, too much to openHe’s been there for five years and they won’t let him goThis week, Tyler released his autobiography, Stitching Freedom, in which he tells the story of the 41 years he spent in Angola high security prison for his “crime”. Yes, the process was slow - shamefully slow. It’s the shockingly true story of injustice, defiance and hope in Louisiana’s blood

Just be yourself many career coaches tell us. But for the psychologist and entrepreneur Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, the reverse is true. Don’t Be Yourself Chamorro-Premuzic advises in his new book, arguing that authenticity Is overrated and what to do instead. Drawing from extensive behavioral science research, Chamorro-Premuzic contends that success comes not from unleashing your unfiltered self but from understanding where “the right to be you ends and your obligation to others begins.” Authenticity has not only become a privilege for the elite and a trap for everyone else, he argues, but increasingly impossible to distinguish from AI-generated fakery. So don’t be yourself, Chamorro-Premuzic suggests, in defiantly inauthentic advice for both our careers and our lives. 1. Strategic Self-Presentation Beats Radical HonestySuccess comes from “strategic impression management” rather than authentic self-expression. The person who confidently claims “I’ve done this a hundred times” gets the job over the honest cand

What unites America, it used to be said, is a common commitment to “freedom”. But in our disunited times, it's worth remembering that two incompatible versions of freedom have actually divided rather than brought the United States together. As the historian Nicholas Buccola notes in his intriguing new book One Man’s Freedom, these competing freedoms are represented in the thinking of the two icons of modern American conservatism and liberalism: Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King. For Goldwater, freedom meant liberation from government interference—the right to be left alone to pursue economic success without federal meddling. For King, it meant empowerment—ensuring people had genuine capacity to participate fully in society. And as Buccola demonstrates, these competing visions persist in today’s debates over everything from healthcare to voting rights. When conservatives champion ‘medical freedom’ to refuse vaccines while liberals demand ‘reproductive freedom’ through government-protected abortion access

We’ve done a couple (here and here) of shows recently about the war on cars. But we never discussed the connections, both literal and metaphorical, between the damage of “Big Car” and “Big University” . According to the tenured Emory law professor Deepa Das Acevedo, what she calls in her new book, The War on Tenure, is really an attempt to transform the modern university into an academic version of Uber. By getting rid of tenure, Acevedo argues, academia is creating a new precariat of adjunct professors who are living in their cars. What she calls the “uberification” of academia is, so to speak, driving an assault not just on tenure, but on free thought and intellectual innovation. The war on tenure, then, is part of the broader neo-liberal project to replace full-time jobs with precarious labor. Academics - you have nothing to lose but your cars!1. The Charlie Kirk Fallout is a Watershed MomentIn just one month, an estimated 40-60 professors have been fired over social media posts about the assassination - w

One of the most painful lessons of the Kirk assassination is that conservatives are running rings around progressives in political mobilization - especially of young Americans. So how to make the left relevant in America again? For the philosopher Michael Brownstein, co-author of Somebody Should Do Something, progressives need to learn to lose both cleverly and loudly. And they can learn from NRA on this. Despite holding positions unpopular with most Americans, Brownstein acknowledges that the NRA created a powerful social identity around gun ownership and leveraged it for decades of legislative victories through masterful political strategy and organization. Drawing from social science research on collective action, Brownstein argues that highly theatrical defeats—like the recent Texas Democrats’ walkout or John Lewis’ bloody fate on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965—can catalyze change by forcing opponents into untenable positions. The key isn’t winning every battle, but making individual actions visible eno

“Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown,” were, of course, the closing words from Polanski’s 1974 movie, Chinatown. But the point of Jeff Chang’s new biography of Bruce Lee, Water Mirror Echo, is that by 1973, when Lee died, Asian America was more than just Chinatown. Lee made Asian America, Chang argues, by giving Asian Americans dignity. Chang shows how Lee’s journey from segregated Seattle and San Francisco neighborhoods to global stardom paralleled the rise of Asian American political consciousness. His films weren’t just action movies but anti-colonial spectacles - kicking down “No Chinese and Dogs” signs, fighting for workers against bosses, defending communities against gentrification. After Bruce Lee, chinatown became more, so much more, than just chinatown.1. Lee was an “anchor baby” who embodied the immigrant struggle Born in San Francisco in 1940 during Chinese Exclusion, Lee lived in segregated neighborhoods and learned firsthand what it meant to be a racialized minority - making him a powerful symbol fo

Back in 1990, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur called Jim Fruchterman chose purpose over profit. In his new book, Technology for Good, Fruchterman explains how nonprofit leaders like him are using software and data to solve our most pressing social problems. Thirty five years ago, when his investors vetoed a reading machine for the blind because the market was only $1 million annually, Fruchterman walked away from his $25 million-funded AI company to start his first nonprofit. Today, he’s still on the front line of the battle to show that technology’s greatest potential lies not in making billionaires richer, but in serving the 90% of humanity that big tech conveniently ignores.1. When profit and purpose clash, profit usually wins Fruchterman argues that when companies face a choice between social good and making money, they “pretty much always pick making more.” His own experience—investors vetoing a reading machine for the blind despite having the technology ready—exemplifies this. Even OpenAI, which started w

It’s not exactly news that the Nazis didn’t like the Jews. But according to the Rutgers historian Jochen Hellbeck, author of World Enemy Number One, the Nazi obsession went so far as to believe that the Soviet Union was owned and operated by a global cabal of Jews. And so, Hellbeck argues, it was not the Western powers but Communist Russia that Nazi Germany viewed as an existential threat—in fact, “World Enemy No. 1.” Jewish revolutionaries, the Nazis believed, had seized power in 1917 and were preparing the Soviet state to destroy Germany and the world. This paranoid delusion drove Nazi Germany’s most catastrophic decision: launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941. While Hitler made tactical alliances and fought on multiple fronts, Hellbeck demonstrates through his meticulous archival research that the destruction of “Judeo-Bolshevism” remained the Nazis’ primary ideological mission. Drawing on overlooked Soviet sources, including war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg’s writings, Hellbeck shows how this twisted wor

The numbers are mind blowing. According to Roadkill authors Henrietta Moore and Arthur Kay, cars have killed more people than both world wars combined. That’s how toxic our relationship with cars has been over the last century, they argue. The UN figures they cite—60 to 80 million direct deaths since the automobile’s invention—don’t even include premature deaths from air pollution or the millions seriously injured. Yet we’ve become “car blind,” Moore and Kay contend, unable to see how we’ve surrendered 80% of urban public space to vehicles that sit idle 96% of the time, creating what they call a hidden “car industrial complex” that reshapes cities in its image. So what to do? They advocate for “choice not obligation”—redesigning cities so people can drive if they want but aren’t forced to. They point to successful experiments from Barcelona’s superblocks to Dallas’s highway cap parks, where reclaimed streets have actually increased business revenue by up to 34% in some cases. Their goal isn’t to ban cars but

It’s the $320,000 question both parents and students are asking themselves: Is that four-year liberal arts degree really worth it? According to Brandeis University President Arthur Levine, it’s a question they should, indeed, be asking. In his co-authored book The Great Upheaval, Levine argues that the United States is experiencing a profound transformation not seen since the Industrial Revolution—when America’s classical colleges adapted to meet the needs of an emerging industrial economy. So what, exactly, does that mean for a useful liberal arts education today? Should students really invest their time in women’s studies in our AI age of Claude and ChatGPT?1. America is experiencing its second great transformation in historyLevine argues we’re in a shift from national analog industrial economies to global digital knowledge economies—comparable only to the Industrial Revolution. This creates massive winners and losers, with educational level becoming the primary dividing line in society.2. The $320K liberal

Some liberals might shake their virtuous heads and tut-tut disapprovingly. But, as the Brookings scholar William Galston argues, Donald Trump’s Old Testament politics of retribution has exposed the limitations of liberal thought. In his new book, Anger, Fear, Domination, Galston argues that liberals must recognize the dark passions driving politics and incorporate them into their own language. The power of political speech, Galston reminds us, depends on the recognition and promise of human passion. Those passions don’t have to be so hatefully retributive as Trump’s, of course. But contemporary liberals, Galston argues, must recognize that humans aren’t simply calculating machines and shape their language accordingly. Only then, he warns, will they be able to take on and defeat the dark passions currently corroding American politics. 1. Liberals Have Been Politically Naive About Human Nature Galston argues liberals have expected “dark passions” (anger, fear, domination) to disappear through rational discourse