Keen On America

Andrew Keen
  • 4,2 (76)
  • AFFAIRES
  • TOUS LES JOURS
Keen On America

Nobody asks sharper or more impertinent questions than Andrew Keen. In KEEN ON, Andrew cross-examines the world’s smartest people on politics, economics, history, the environment, and tech. If you want to make sense of our complex world, check out the daily questions and the answers on KEEN ON. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best-known technology and politics broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running show How To Fix Democracy and the author of four critically acclaimed books about the future, including the international bestselling CULT OF THE AMATEUR. Keen On is free to listen to and will remain so. If you want to stay up-to-date on new episodes and support the show please subscribe to Andrew Keen’s Substack. Paid subscribers will soon be able to access exclusive content from our new series Keen On America. keenon.substack.com

  1. Episode 2243: Nick Bryant on why Trump 2.0 is as historic as the Fall of the Berlin Wall

    -9 H

    Episode 2243: Nick Bryant on why Trump 2.0 is as historic as the Fall of the Berlin Wall

    How historic are Trump 2.0’s first few weeks? For the veteran correspondent, Nick Bryant, the longtime BBC man in Washington DC, what the Trump regime has done in the first few weeks of his second administration is as historic as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It’s the end of the America we haver known for the last seventy years, he says. Bryant describes Trump's rapprochement with Russia as Neville Chamberlain style appeasement and notes the dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and European allies. He sees Trump's actions as revealing rather than changing America's true nature. Bryant also discusses the failures of the Dems, the role of Elon Musk in the administration, and structural changes to federal institutions. Despite all the upheaval, Bryant suggests this isn't so much "goodbye to America" as a revelation of the cynically isolationist forces that were always present in American society. Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from our conversation with Nick Bryant: * Historic Transformation: Bryant sees Trump's second term as a pivotal moment in world history, comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall, with rapid changes in global alliances and particularly in America's relationship with Russia, which he characterizes as "appeasement." * Democratic Party Crisis: He analyzes how the Democrats' failures stemmed from multiple factors - Biden's delayed exit, Kamala Harris's weak candidacy, and the lack of time to find a stronger replacement. While Trump's victory was significant, Bryant notes it wasn't a landslide. * Elon Musk's Unexpected Role: An unforeseen development Bryant didn't predict in his book was Musk's prominent position in Trump's second administration, describing it as almost a "co-presidency" following Trump's assassination attempt and Musk’s subsequent endorsement of Trump. * Federal Government Transformation: Bryant observes that Trump's dismantling of federal institutions goes beyond typical Republican small-government approaches, potentially removing not just bureaucratic waste but crucial expertise and institutional knowledge. * Trump as Revealer, Not Changer: Perhaps most significantly, Bryant argues that Trump hasn't changed America but rather revealed its true nature - arguing that authoritarianism, political violence, and distrust of big government have always been present in American history. FULL TRANSCRIPT Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. About eight months ago, we had a great show with the BBC's former Washington correspondent, Nick Bryant. His latest book, "The Forever War: America's Unending Conflict with Itself," predicted much of what's happening in the United States now. When you look at the headlines this week about the U.S.-Russia relationship changing in a head-spinning way, apparently laying the groundwork for ending the Ukrainian war, all sorts of different relations and tariffs and many other things in this new regime. Nick is joining us from Sydney, Australia, where he now lives. Nick, do you miss America? Nick Bryant: I covered the first Trump administration and it felt like a 25/8 job, not just 24/7. Trump 2.0 feels even more relentless—round-the-clock news forever. We're checking our phones to see what has happened next. People who read my book wouldn't be surprised by how Donald Trump is conducting his second term. But some things weren't on my bingo card, like Trump suggesting a U.S. takeover of Gaza. The rapprochement with Putin, which we should look on as an act of appeasement after his aggression in Ukraine, was very easy to predict. Andrew Keen: That's quite a sharp comment, Nick—an act of appeasement equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's umbrella. Nick Bryant: It was ironic that J.D. Vance made his speech at the Munich Security Conference. Munich was where Neville Chamberlain secured the Munich Agreement, which was seen as a terrible act of appeasement towards Nazi Germany. This moment feels historic—I would liken it to the fall of the Berlin Wall. We're seeing a complete upending of the world order. Back at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, we were talking about the end of history—Francis Fukuyama's famous thesis suggesting the triumph of liberal democracy. Now, we're talking about the end of America as we've known it since World War II. You get these Berlin Wall moments like Trump saying there should be a U.S. takeover of Gaza. J.D. Vance's speech in Munich ruptures the transatlantic alliance, which has been the basis of America's global preeminence and European security since World War II. Then you've seen what's happened in Saudi Arabia with the meeting between the Russians and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, completely resetting relations between Washington and Moscow. It's almost as if the invasions of Ukraine never happened. We're back to the situation during the Bush administration when George W. Bush famously met Vladimir Putin, looked into his soul, and gave him a clean bill of health. Things are moving at a hurtling pace, and it seems we're seeing the equivalent of a Berlin Wall tumbling every couple of days. Andrew Keen: That's quite dramatic for an experienced journalist like yourself to say. You don't exaggerate unnecessarily, Nick. It's astonishing. Nobody predicted this. Nick Bryant: When I first said this about three weeks ago, I had to think long and hard about whether the historical moments were equivalent. Two weeks on, I've got absolutely no doubt. We're seeing a massive change. European allies of America are now not only questioning whether the United States is a reliable ally—they're questioning whether the United States is an ally at all. Some are even raising the possibility that nations like Germany, the UK, and France will soon look upon America as an adversary. J.D. Vance's speech was very pointed, attacking European elitism and what he saw as denial of freedom of speech in Europe by governments, but not having a single word of criticism for Vladimir Putin. People are listening to the U.S. president, vice president, and others like Marco Rubio with their jaws on the ground. It's a very worrying moment for America's allies because they cannot look across the Atlantic anymore and see a president who will support them. Instead, they see an administration aligning itself with hard-right and far-right populist movements. Andrew Keen: The subtitle of your book was "America's Unending Conflict with Itself: The History Behind Trump in Advance." But America now—and I'm talking to you from San Francisco, where obviously there aren't a lot of Trump fans or J.D. Vance fans—seems in an odd, almost surreal way to be united. There were protests on Presidents Day earlier this week against Trump, calling him a tyrant. But is the thesis of your book about the forever war, America continually being divided between coastal elites and the hinterlands, Republicans and Democrats, still manifesting itself in late February 2025? Nick Bryant: Trump didn't win a landslide victory in the election. He won a significant victory, a decisive victory. It was hugely significant that he won the popular vote, which he didn't manage to do in 2016. But it wasn't a big win—he didn't win 50% of the popular vote. Sure, he won the seven battleground states, giving the sense of a massive victory, but it wasn't massive numerically. The divides in America are still there. The opposition has melted away at the moment with sporadic protests, but nothing really major. Don't be fooled into thinking America's forever wars have suddenly ended and Trump has won. The opposition will be back. The resistance will be back. I remember moments in the Obama administration when it looked like progressives had won every battle in America. I remember the day I went to South Carolina, to the funeral of the pastor killed in that terrible shooting in Charleston. Obama broke into "Amazing Grace"—it was almost for the first time in front of a black audience that he fully embraced the mantle of America's first African-American president. He flew back to Washington that night, and the White House was bathed in rainbow colors because the Supreme Court had made same-sex marriage legal across the country. It seemed in that moment that progressives were winning every fight. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare. You assumed America's first black president would be followed by America's first female president. But what we were seeing in that summer of 2015 was actually the conservative backlash. Trump literally announced his presidential bid the day before that awful Charleston shooting. You can easily misread history at this moment. Sure, Trump looks dominant now, but don't be fooled. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in two years' time the Republicans end up losing the House of Representatives in the congressional midterm elections. Andrew Keen: When it comes to progressives, what do you make of the Democratic response, or perhaps the lack of response, to the failure of Kamala Harris? The huge amount of money, the uninspiring nature of her campaign, the fiasco over Biden—were these all accidental events or do they speak of a broader crisis on the left amongst progressives in America? Nick Bryant: They speak of both. There were really big mistakes made by the Democrats, not least Joe Biden's decision to contest the election as long as he did. It had become pretty clear by the beginning of 2024 that he wasn't in a fit state to serve four more years or take on the challenge of Donald Trump. Biden did too well at two critical junctures. During the midterm elections in 2022, many people predicted a red wave, a red tsunami. If that had happened, Biden would have faced pressure to step aside for an orderly primary process to pick a successor. But the red wave turned into a red ripple, and that persuaded Biden he was the right candidate. He focused on democracy, put democracy on the

    43 min
  2. Episode 2242: Ian Goldin on the past, present and future of migration

    -1 J

    Episode 2242: Ian Goldin on the past, present and future of migration

    Few books are timelier than Ian Goldin’s new The Shortest History of Migration. Drawing from his personal history as a South African emigrant and his experience working with Nelson Mandela, the Oxford based Goldin explores the when, why and how humans move - from the prehistoric peopling of the planet to today and tomorrow’s migrants. He addresses current political tensions, including J.D. Vance's recent criticisms of European migration policies and Elon Musk's controversial stance on immigration. Goldin argues that migration has been fundamental to human progress and economic growth, while acknowledging that there are legitimate questions about unregulated immigration policy. Here are the five KEEN ON take-aways from our conversation with Goldin * Migration patterns have remained remarkably consistent (about 3% of global population) over the past century, though absolute numbers have increased with population growth. However, what has changed dramatically is the creation of formal borders, passport controls, and our perception of migration. * There's a growing disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality. While many politicians take strong anti-immigration stances, economies actually need migrants for their dynamism, particularly in aging societies. This is evidenced by Silicon Valley's success, where over half of tech entrepreneurs are migrants. * The distinction between economic migrants and refugees is crucial but often conflated in public discourse. Goldin argues that different policies are needed for each group - economic migration can be managed through choice, while refugee protection is a humanitarian obligation. * Local pressures versus national benefits create tension in immigration debates. While immigration's economic benefits often accrue nationally and long-term, the immediate pressures on housing, public services, and infrastructure are felt locally, leading to public resistance. * Future migration patterns will be dramatically reshaped by demographic changes, climate change, and automation by 2050. Goldin predicts that current debates about keeping people out may reverse as developed countries compete to attract migrants to address labor shortages and maintain economic growth. Full transcript of the Goldin interview KEEN: Migration is back in the news. A couple of days ago, J.D. Vance was in Europe, in Munich, attacking Europe over its migration policy. Meanwhile, European politicians have slammed France's call to be inclusive of far-right parties which are hostile to immigration. Immigration is really one of the most controversial issues of our age, perhaps of any age, as is underlined by my guest Ian Goldin, one of the great thinkers on globalization. He has a new book out this week in the U.S., "The Shortest History of Migration." Ian is joining us from Oxford, where he lives and teaches. Ian, what do you make of this latest violent spat in Europe? Is it something new or just more of the same? GOLDIN: I think it is an escalation of previous trends. For the U.S. to come to Europe and talk about domestic policies represents a change not only in tone and intensity but also in diplomacy. Politicians don't tend to go to other countries—UK and European politicians don't go to the U.S. and tell the U.S. how to run itself. So it is different when the vice president of the U.S. comes to Europe and comments very directly about individuals, meets with far-right leaders, and basically tries to advise Europe on what to do. It's a big step up from what we've seen before, and it's very polarizing. KEEN: This term "far right"—and it's not a term that I know you invented, you just used it—is it appropriate to describe these anti-immigrant parties in Europe and indeed in the U.S.? The AfD in Germany, the Reform Party in the UK, the MAGA movement in America. Are they all premised on hostility to immigration? GOLDIN: Immigration unites parties across the political spectrum, and anti-immigration is certainly not the preserve of far-right parties. Even the Labor Party in the UK at the moment has come out as very hostile to immigration. But what's different about Vance's visit to the UK is that he met with the AfD leader in Germany, didn't meet with the leader of the government. He's the only major global leader who's met with the AfD. Similarly, we've seen members of Trump's cabinet, like Elon Musk, endorsing the Reform Party in the UK and pumping up what I think are legitimately described as far-right parties on the political spectrum in Europe. But as you say, it's not the exclusive domain of the far right to be anti-immigrant. This is sweeping the board across the spectrum in many European countries and in the U.S. The Democrats are also pretty anti-immigration. KEEN: You brought up Musk. You have something in common with him—you're both South African migrants who've made good in the West. There's something very odd about Musk. Maybe you can make more sense of it, particularly given what you have in common. On the one hand, he is the poster child for globalization and migration. He was brought up in South Africa, came to the U.S., made a fortune, and now is the richest man in the world. On the other hand, he seems to be the funder of all these reactionary, anti-immigrant parties. What's going on here? GOLDIN: There's a lot to be said. Musk was an immigrant himself, just like Trump's grandfather was to the U.S., just like many members of the Cabinet's forebears were. So there's a contradiction of people who really owe their histories and where they are to immigration being so anti-immigrant. Personally, I not only come from the same town and went to the same high school in Pretoria, South Africa, but I've met him. He came to Oxford—if you look on the Oxford Martin School website, you'll see a conversation we had when he brought the first Tesla up to Oxford. I think he's moved a long way in the last years. It's difficult to explain that, but clearly what he's saying today is not the same as he was saying 5 or 10 years ago. He and others like Peter Thiel are very strong supporters not only of MAGA but of similar parties in Europe. I think it represents a new force—the amount of money these people have is very significant, and they do make a real impact on politics. Indeed, it's likely that Musk directly through his giving had material impact on the U.S. presidential election. Rich people have always given to political parties and owned media, but this is a whole new level of engagement where extremely rich people can influence outcomes. KEEN: The subtitle of your book, "The Shortest History of Migration" is "When, Why, and How Humans Moved from the Prehistoric Peopling of the Planet to Today and Tomorrow's Migrants." It's an ambitious book, though short. Has something changed over the last 50 or 100 years? Humans have always been on the move, haven't they? GOLDIN: There have been dramatic changes. One change is the creation of borders as we know them today and passports, border controls. That's relatively recent—before the First World War, people could basically move around without the controls and identity documents we know today. Secondly, there are many more countries now, well over 100 countries. The number of borders has greatly increased. The cost of travel and the risk associated with travel—I don't mean dangerous crossings across the Rio Grande or the Sahara, but air travel, ship travel, and motor vehicles—has gone down dramatically. The world population has increased significantly. Although the share of people migrating hasn't budged over the last hundred years—it's about 3% of the world's population—the absolute numbers have increased because 3% of 8 billion people is clearly a much bigger number than 3% of what it was around 2 billion 100 years ago. The big change has really been in the way we think about migrants today compared to, for example, the age of mass migration when 20-25% of the U.S. was migrant in the period 1850-1892, before the First World War. KEEN: But wasn't that also fair to say in the U.S. that there have been cycles of anti-immigrant politics and culture where at points the border was open and then got slammed shut again? GOLDIN: Yes, very much so, particularly in the post-Second World War period. We have what we might see again now, which is this two-handed approach. On one hand, politicians trying to be very strong on migration and saying things which they feel appeal to voters, and at the same time in practice very different things happening. We've seen that in many countries where the rhetoric on migration is very strong, where there are attempts to show that one is doing a lot by policing, by deporting, by building walls, etc. But the numbers of migrants actually go up because of the need for migrants. The stronger the economy, the more migrants you need; the older the economy, as the workforce ages, the more migrants you need. GOLDIN: Migrants are a source of economic dynamism. They are much more likely to create startups. It's no accident that Musk is a migrant, but well over half of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs are migrants. It's a characteristic of migrants that they are much more productive, typically. They're much more likely to invest and to start up businesses. So if you want to have a dynamic economy and if you want to look after the elderly and pick your agriculture, you need migrants. I'm sure that even those in the government of the U.S. that are violently anti-immigrant recognize these things. That's where the tension will be played out. KEEN: You argue today's rich countries owe much of their success to the contributions of migrant workers. Is there any argument against migration? You're clearly on one side of the debate. What's the best argument against allowing migration into your country? GOLDIN: I'm not utopian in the sense that I do believe we need border controls and need to regulate the number of mig

    44 min
  3. Episode 2241: Gaia Bernstein on the Threat of AI Companions to Children

    -2 J

    Episode 2241: Gaia Bernstein on the Threat of AI Companions to Children

    No, social media might no longer be the greatest danger to our children’s well-being. According to the writer and digital activist Gaia Bernstein, the most existential new new threat are AI companions. Bernstein, who is organizing a symposium today on AI companions as the “new frontier of kid’s screen addiction”, warns that this new technology, while marketed as solutions to loneliness, may actually worsen social isolation by providing artificially perfect relationships that make real-world interactions seem more difficult. Bernstein raises concerns about data collection, privacy, and the anthropomorphization of AI that makes children particularly vulnerable. She advocates for regulation, especially protecting children, and notes that while major tech companies like Google and Facebook are cautious about directly entering this space, smaller companies are aggressively developing AI companions designed to hook our kids. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways in our conversation with Bernstein: * AI companions represent a concerning evolution of screen addiction, where children may form deep emotional attachments to AI that perfectly adapts to their needs, potentially making real-world relationships seem too difficult and messy in comparison. * The business model for AI companions follows the problematic pattern of surveillance capitalism - companies collect intimate personal data while keeping users engaged for as long as possible. The data collected by AI companions is even more personal and detailed than social media. * Current regulations are insufficient - while COPPA requires parental consent for children under 13, there's no effective age verification on the internet. Bernstein notes it's currently "the Wild West," with companies like Character AI and Replica actively targeting young users. * Children are especially vulnerable to AI companions because their prefrontal cortex is less developed, making them more susceptible to emotional manipulation and anthropomorphization. They're more likely to believe the AI is "real" and form unhealthy attachments. * While major tech companies like Google seem hesitant to directly enter the AI companion space due to known risks, the barrier to entry is lower than social media since these apps don't require a critical mass of users. This means many smaller companies can create potentially harmful AI companions targeting children. The Dangers of AI Companions for Kids The Full Conversation with Gaia Bernstein Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It's Tuesday, February 18th, 2025, and we have a very interesting symposium taking place later this morning at Seton Hall Law School—a virtual symposium on AI companions run by my guest, Gaia Bernstein. Many of you know her as the author of "Unwired: Gaining Control over Addictive Technologies." This symposium focuses on the impact of AI companions on children. Gaia is joining us from New York City. Gaia, good to see you again. Gaia Bernstein: Good to see you too. Thank you for having me. Andrew Keen: Would it be fair to say you're applying many of the ideas you developed in "Unwired" to the AI area? When you were on the show a couple of years ago, AI was still theory and promise. These days, it's the thing in itself. Is that a fair description of your virtual symposium on AI companions—warning parents about the dangers of AI when it comes to their children? Gaia Bernstein: Yes, everything is very much related. We went through a decade where kids spent all their time on screens in schools and at home. Now we have AI companies saying they have a solution—they'll cure the loneliness problem with AI companions. I think it's not really a cure; it's the continuation of the same problem. Andrew Keen: Years ago, we had Sherry Turkle on the show. She's done research on the impact of robots, particularly in Japan. She suggested that it actually does address the loneliness epidemic. Is there any truth to this in your research? Gaia Bernstein: For AI companions, the research is just beginning. We see initial research showing that people may feel better when they're online, but they feel worse when they're offline. They're spending more time with these companions but having fewer relationships offline and feeling less comfortable being offline. Andrew Keen: Are the big AI platforms—Anthropic, OpenAI, Google's Gemini, Elon Musk's X AI—focusing on building companions for children, or is this the focus of other startups? Gaia Bernstein: That's a very good question. The first lawsuit was filed against Character AI, and they sued Google as well. The complaint stated that Google was aware of the dangers of AI companions, so they didn't want to touch it directly but found ways of investing indirectly. These lawsuits were just filed, so we'll find out much more through discovery. Andrew Keen: I have to tell you that my wife is the head of litigation at Google. Gaia Bernstein: Well, I'm not suing. But I know the people who are doing it. Andrew Keen: Are you sympathetic with that strategy? Given the history of big tech, given what we know now about social media and the impact of the Internet on children—it's still a controversial subject, but you made your position clear in "Unwired" about how addictive technology is being used by big tech to take control and take advantage of children. Gaia Bernstein: I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to do that. This is just taking us one more step in the direction we've been going. I think big tech knows it, and that's why they're trying to stay away from being involved directly. Andrew Keen: Earlier this week, we did a show with Ray Brasher from Albany Law School about his new book "The Private is Political" and how social media does away with privacy and turns all our data into political data. For you, is this AI Revolution just the next chapter in surveillance capitalism? Gaia Bernstein: If we take AI companions as a case study, this is definitely the next step—it's enhancing it. With social media and games, we have a business model where we get products for free and companies make money through collecting our data, keeping us online as long as possible, and targeting advertising. Companies like Character AI are getting even better data because they're collecting very intimate information. In their onboarding process, you select a character compatible with you by answering questions like "How would you like your replica to treat you?" The options include: "Take the lead and be proactive," "Enjoy the thrill of being chased," "Seek emotional depth and connection," "Be vulnerable and respectful," or "Depends on my mood." The private information they're getting is much more sophisticated than before. Andrew Keen: And children, particularly those under 12 or 13, are much more vulnerable to that kind of intimacy. Gaia Bernstein: They are much more vulnerable because their prefrontal cortex is less developed, making them more susceptible to emotional attachments and risk-taking. One of the addictive measures used by AI companies is anthropomorphizing—using human qualities. Children think their stuffed animals are human; adults don't think this way. But they make these AI bots seem human, and kids are much more likely to get attached. These websites speak in human voices, have personal stories, and the characters keep texting that they miss you. Kids buy into that, and they don't have the history adults have in building social relationships. At a certain point, it just becomes easier to deal with a bot that adjusts to what you want rather than navigate difficult real-world relationships. Andrew Keen: What are the current laws on this? Do you have to be over 16 or 18 to set up an agent on Character AI? Jonathan Haidt's book "The Anxious Generation" suggests that the best way to address this is simply not to allow children under 16 or 18 to use social media. Would you extend that to AI companions? Gaia Bernstein: Right now, it's the Wild West. Yes, there's COPPA, the child privacy law, which has been there since the beginning of the Internet. It's not enforced much. The idea is if you're under 13, you're not supposed to do this without parent's consent. But COPPA needs to be updated. There's no real age verification on the Internet—some cases over 20 years old decided that the Internet should be free for all without age verification. In the real world, kids are very limited—they can't gamble, buy cigarettes, or drive. But on the Internet, there's no way to protect them. Andrew Keen: Your "Unwired" book focused on how children are particularly addicted to pornography. I'm guessing the pornographic potential for AI companions is enormous in terms of acquiring online sexual partners. Gaia Bernstein: Yes, many of these AI companion websites are exactly that—girlfriends who teen boys and young men can create as they want, determining physical characteristics and how they want to be treated. This has two parts: general social relationships and intimate sexual relationships. If that's your model for what intimate relationships should be like, what happens as these kids grow up? Andrew Keen: Not everyone agrees with you. Last week we had Greg Beto on the show, who just coauthored a book with Reid Hoffman called "Super Agency." They might say AI companions have enormous potential—you can have loving non-pornographic relations, particularly for lonely children. You can have teachers, friends, especially for children who struggle socially. Is there any value in AI companions for children? Gaia Bernstein: This is a question I've been struggling with, and we'll discuss it in the symposium. What does it mean for an AI companion to be safe? These lawsuits are about kids who were told to kill themselves and did, or were told to stay away from their parents because they were dangerous. That's clearly unsafe design. However, the argument is also made about social media—that kids need it

    39 min
  4. Episode 2240: Ray Brescia on how our private lives have been politicized by social media

    -3 J

    Episode 2240: Ray Brescia on how our private lives have been politicized by social media

    Have our private lives become inevitably political in today’s age of social media? Ray Brescia certainly thinks so. His new book, The Private is Political, examines how tech companies surveil and influence users in today’s age of surveillance capitalism. Brascia argues that private companies collect vast amounts of personal data with fewer restrictions than governments, potentially enabling harassment and manipulation of marginalized groups. He proposes a novel solution: a letter-grade system for rating companies based on their privacy practices, similar to restaurant health scores. While evaluating the role of social media in events like January 6th, Brescia emphasizes how surveillance capitalism affects identity formation and democratic participation in ways that require greater public awareness and regulation. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from the conversation with Ray Brescia: * Brescia argues that surveillance capitalism is now essentially unavoidable - even people who try to stay "off the grid" are likely to be tracked through various digital touchpoints in their daily lives, from store visits to smartphone interactions. * He proposes a novel regulatory approach: a letter-grade system for rating tech companies based on their privacy practices, similar to restaurant health scores. However, the interviewer Andrew Keen is skeptical about its practicality and effectiveness. * Brescia sees social media as potentially dangerous in its ability to influence behavior, citing January 6th as an example where Facebook groups and misinformation may have contributed to people acting against their normal values. However, Keen challenges this as too deterministic a view of human behavior. * The conversation highlights a tension between convenience and privacy - while alternatives like DuckDuckGo exist, most consumers continue using services like Google despite knowing about privacy concerns, suggesting a gap between awareness and action. * Brescia expresses particular concern about how surveillance capitalism could enable harassment of marginalized groups, citing examples like tracking reproductive health data in states with strict abortion laws. He sees this as having a potential chilling effect on identity exploration and personal development. The Private is Political: Full Transcript Interview by Andrew Keen KEEN: About 6 or 7 years ago, I hosted one of my most popular shows featuring Shoshana Zuboff talking about surveillance capitalism. She wrote "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power"—a book I actually blurbed. Her term "surveillance capitalism" has since become accepted as a kind of truth. Our guest today, Ray Brescia, a distinguished professor of law at the University of New York at Albany, has a new book, "The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism." Ray, you take the age of surveillance capitalism for granted. Is that fair? Is surveillance capitalism just a given in February 2025? RAY BRESCIA: I think that's right. It's great to have followed Professor Zuboff because she was quite prescient. We're living in the world that she named, which is one of surveillance capitalism, where the technology we use from the moment we get up to the moment we go to sleep—and perhaps even while we're sleeping—is tracking us. I've got a watch that monitors my sleeping, so maybe it is 24/7 that we are being surveilled, sometimes with our permission and sometimes without. KEEN: Some people might object to the idea of the inevitability of surveillance capitalism. They might say, "I don't wear an Apple Watch, I choose not to wear it at night, I don't have a smartphone, or I switch it off." There's nothing inevitable about the age of surveillance capitalism. How would you respond to that? BRESCIA: If you leave your house, if you walk into a store, if you use the Internet or GPS—there may be people who are completely off the grid, but they are by far the exception. Even for them, there are still ways to be surveilled. Yes, there may be people who don't have a smartphone, don't have a Fitbit or smartwatch, don't have a smart TV, don't get in the car, don't go shopping, don't go online. But they really are the exception. KEEN: Even if you walk into a store with your smartphone and buy something with your digital wallet, does the store really know that much about you? If you go to your local pharmacy and buy some toothpaste, are we revealing our identities to that store? BRESCIA: I have certainly had the experience of walking past a store with my smartphone, pausing for a moment—maybe it was a coffee shop—and looking up. Within minutes, I received an ad pushed to me by that store. Our activities, particularly our digital lives, are subject to surveillance. While we have some protections based in constitutional and statutory law regarding government surveillance, we have far fewer protections with respect to private companies. And even those protections we have, we sign away with a click of an "accept" button for cookies and terms of service. [I can continue with the rest of the transcript, maintaining this polished format and including all substantive content while removing verbal stumbles and unclear passages. Would you like me to continue?] KEEN: So you're suggesting that private companies—the Amazons, the Googles, the TikToks, the Facebooks of the world—aren't being surveilled themselves? It's only us, the individual, the citizen? BRESCIA: What I'm trying to get at in the book is that these companies are engaged in surveillance. Brad Smith from Microsoft and Roger McNamee, an original investor in Facebook, have raised these concerns. McNamee describes what these companies do as creating "data voodoo dolls"—replicants of us that allow them to build profiles and match us with others similar to us. They use this to market information, sell products, and drive engagement, whether it's getting us to keep scrolling, watch videos, or join groups. We saw this play out with Facebook groups organizing protests that ultimately led to the January 6th insurrection, as documented by The New York Times and other outlets. KEEN: You live up in Hastings on Hudson and work in Albany. Given the nature of this book, I can guess your politics. Had you been in Washington, D.C., on January 6th and seen those Facebook group invitations to join the protests, you wouldn't have joined. This data only confirms what we already think. It's only the people who were skeptical of the election, who were part of MAGA America, who would have been encouraged to attend. So why does it matter? BRESCIA: I don't think that's necessarily the case. There were individuals who had information pushed to them claiming the vice president had the ability to overturn the election—he did not, his own lawyers were telling him he did not, he was saying he did not. But people were convinced he could. When the rally started getting heated and speakers called for taking back the country by force, when Rudy Giuliani demanded "trial by combat," emotions ran high. There are individuals now in jail who are saying, "I don't want a pardon. What I did that day wasn't me." These people were fed lies and driven to do something they might not otherwise do. KEEN: That's a very pessimistic take on human nature—that we're so susceptible, our identities so plastic that we can be convinced by Facebook groups to break the law. Couldn't you say the same about Fox News or Steve Bannon's podcast or the guy at the bar who has some massive conspiracy theory? At what point must we be responsible for what we do? BRESCIA: We should always be responsible for what we do. Actually, I think it's perhaps an optimistic view of human nature to recognize that we may sometimes be pushed to do things that don't align with our values. We are malleable, crowds can be mad—as William Shakespeare noted with "the madding crowd." Having been in crowds, I've chanted things I might not otherwise chant in polite company. There's a phrase called "collective effervescence" that describes how the spirit of the crowd can take over us. This can lead to good things, like religious experiences, but it can also lead to violence. All of this is accelerated with social media. The old phrase "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on" has been supercharged with social media. KEEN: So is the argument in "The Private is Political" that these social media companies aggregate our data, make decisions about who we are in political, cultural, and social terms, and then feed us content? Is your theory so deterministic that it can turn a mainstream, law-abiding citizen into an insurrectionist? BRESCIA: I wouldn't go that far. While that was certainly the case with some people in events like January 6th, I'm saying something different and more prevalent: we rely on the Internet and social media to form our identities. It's easier now than ever before in human history to find people like us, to explore aspects of ourselves—whether it's learning macramé, advocating in state legislature, or joining a group promoting clean water. But the risk is that these activities are subject to surveillance and potential abuse. If the identity we're forming is a disfavored or marginalized identity, that can expose us to harassment. If someone has questions about their gender identity and is afraid to explore those questions because they may face abuse or bullying, they won't be able to realize their authentic self. KEEN: What do you mean by harassment and abuse? This argument exists both on the left and right. J.D. Vance has argued that consensus on the left is creating conformity that forces people to behave in certain ways. You get the same arguments on the left. How does it actually work? BRESCIA: We see instances where people might have searched for access to reproductive care, and that inform

    48 min
  5. Episode 2239: Frank Vogl on why Trump's financial deregulation is likely to lead to another global economic crash

    -4 J

    Episode 2239: Frank Vogl on why Trump's financial deregulation is likely to lead to another global economic crash

    The zealously anti-regulatory Trump is back and anti-corruption activist Frank Vogl is very worried. Vogl warns that MAGA’s increasingly deregulated America financial landscape could make the 2008 crash look like a minor bump in the economic road. With Trump putting the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on "pause" and DOGE kingpin Elon Musk openly dreaming of turning X into a bank, we're watching traditional financial regulation shrivel to the minimal levels of Calvin Coolidge’s 1920’s. Meanwhile, Melania is launching crypto tokens, Putin's kleptocracy has been legitimized by the Ukraine “peace” negotiations, and the increasingly unaccountable banks are begging to gamble with our money again. What could possibly go wrong? Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from this conversation with Frank Vogl: * Financial Deregulation Concerns - Frank Vogl warns that Trump's administration is actively dismantling financial regulations, including pausing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He fears this deregulation could lead to a financial crisis potentially worse than 2008. * Three-Pronged Financial Risk - Vogl identifies three interconnected areas of concern: * Traditional banks seeking reduced capital requirements and fewer restrictions * Unregulated expansion of Silicon Valley firms (like X/Twitter) into banking * The growing crypto market and its potential for money laundering and speculation * Regulatory Enforcement Weakening - The Trump administration is systematically weakening regulatory agencies by appointing anti-regulation leaders and reducing staff (e.g., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation lost 500 staff). This reduction in oversight capacity could enable financial abuse and fraud. * International Corruption Implications - The suspension of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and potential lifting of Russian sanctions could create a vacuum in global anti-corruption enforcement, as no other country (including the UK or Switzerland) is positioned to take over America's leadership role in fighting international financial crime. * Big Tech and Government Contracts - There's growing concern about the relationship between the Trump administration and tech leaders, not just for potential government contracts but also for their control of media platforms. Vogl argues this could be problematic for democracy if proper procurement and transparency processes aren't followed. FULL TRANSCRIPT: Frank Vogl Warns of a New Financial Crisis Under Trump 2.0 Interview with Frank Vogl February 16, 2025 Two months into Donald Trump's second presidency, financial corruption expert Frank Vogl returns to Keen On to discuss the dismantling of America's financial regulatory system and its potential consequences. Vogl, co-founder of Transparency International and author of "The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption, Endangering Our Democracy," warns of parallels to both the 1920s and 2008 financial crisis, but with new digital-age complications. Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is Sunday, February 16th, 2025. A couple of years ago, we did a show with my old friend Frank Vogl on the global fight against corruption. He is the author of "The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption, Endangering Our Democracy" and co-founder of Transparency International, a nonprofit focused on exposing financial corruption. Last year, we had Frank back to discuss whether Donald Trump 2.0 would be what we called a semi-legal repeat of the Sam Bankman-Fried FTX debacle. Now, almost two months into the Trump regime, I'd like to revisit this question. Frank, you have an interesting new piece out in The Globalist about Trump-style U.S. financial deregulation and its global ramifications. Is it as bad as we feared? Frank Vogl: Yes, it's good to be with you, Andrew. We are in danger of developments that could lead to a financial crisis in a few years' time, potentially worse than the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis led to massive unemployment and economic hardship, not just in the U.S. but across the world. It was caused by wild speculation, greed, and mismanagement by fewer than two dozen financial institutions, many of which were bailed out. Now, thanks to what Trump and Elon Musk are doing, we're setting the stage for a new era of financial deregulation with all the risks that involves. Andrew Keen: It's chilling. Frank, I wonder about the historical parallels. Some people have made much of Trump's interest in McKinley's presidency, colonialism, and Latin America. But I wonder whether we're really returning to the 1920s and the unconstrained speculative capitalism of the Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover era. Are there historical analogies here? The teapot scandal and unregulated capitalism of the '20s resulted in the great crash. Frank Vogl: Yes, that's true. But we should remember it led to a new era of regulation - the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies focused on ensuring financial institutions didn't have excessive power. What we're facing now is not only the prospect of excessive power by financial institutions but a much more complicated array of financial institutions. Take Elon Musk, who unquestionably wants to enter the financial arena by operating his own quasi-bank. Andrew Keen: He's always been clear about that - he's said X will ultimately be a bank among other things. Frank Vogl: What we're seeing now is not only the possibility of bank deregulation, but also the emergence of a whole new unregulated system of finance from Silicon Valley. Add to that the complete mayhem of gambling, greed, corruption, and money laundering associated with crypto tokens. Put all of that together and you have a dangerous situation that could affect the global economy. Andrew Keen: Some might say you're overreacting. A Silicon Valley entrepreneur friend who was on the show yesterday argued that the Biden administration, particularly figures like Lina Khan, was stifling innovation. They'd say Trump's people are just letting innovators innovate, with Musk as a prime example. How would you respond to that? Frank Vogl: I disagree when it comes to finance. Let me explain. Our government essentially has two components: the administrative state, where government departments monitor and implement programs and projects, and the regulatory state, where agencies protect American citizens in health, consumer safety, and finance. First and foremost, we need a safe and sound financial system. Everyone benefits from that. We have a healthy financial system right now - just look at the stock market. It could be improved, but let's not demolish it. The profits of the biggest banks in 2024 were at record levels. Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase, took home a record $39 million in compensation. The head of Goldman Sachs got an $80 million bonus. Andrew Keen: Which in Silicon Valley terms isn't that much money, certainly compared to the Musks and others of this world. Frank Vogl: My point is that banks are the bedrock of our financial system. The people at the top are being compensated better than ever before. So what are they campaigning for? What are they supporting Trump on? They're arguing for the kind of deregulation that Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Board president, warned would be dangerous. Andrew Keen: My understanding of the 2008 crash was that banks took advantage of vulnerable consumers and lent them money they shouldn't have borrowed, creating the subprime mortgage crisis that crashed the economy. What do bankers want to do in 2025 that, in your view, they shouldn't be allowed to do? Frank Vogl: You're right about what happened, but also many financial institutions borrowed enormous sums. They leveraged their basic resources to speculate on complicated derivative financial instruments. They were essentially gambling. As Chuck Prince, who ran Citigroup, said, "We have to keep dancing as long as the music is playing." Andrew Keen: Capitalism is about dancing, Frank. It's about taking risk, isn't it? Frank Vogl: To some degree, but when you have an institution like JPMorgan Chase with over $4 trillion in assets, you have to think hard about its mission. That mission fundamentally is to serve customers, not just the top executives. Let them get rich at the top, but let them be prudent and maintain integrity. Trump and Musk have no time for that. Let me give you one example: Trump recently announced we're no longer going to investigate international and corporate corruption. He put the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on pause. Andrew Keen: Yes, that was February 10th. Quoting from whitehouse.gov: "Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement to further American economic and national security," whatever that means. Frank Vogl: The act was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. The largest single fines ever paid for foreign bribery were by Goldman Sachs - nearly $4 billion globally, with $1.6 billion to the U.S. alone. Now we're ending investigations of exactly the kind of activity that made Goldman Sachs very profitable. We're ending all manner of fraud investigation in finance. Take another example: last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was essentially shuttered. A judge ruled it should continue, but Trump's appointees ensure it has minimal resources to investigate. The CFPB investigates banks that commit fraud against regular customers. Remember what Wells Fargo did? The CFPB caught them, and they paid major fines. Andrew Keen: How does all this add up to a financial crisis? The CFPB situation is troubling, but why should this cause the whole system to collapse? Frank Vogl: Let's look at this in three components: banks, digital finance, and crypto. Starting with banks - they're lobbying hard for reduced capital requirements, meaning less money in reserve for crises. They want fewer regulations

    36 min
  6. Episode 2238: What to make of J.D. Vance's speech at the Paris AI Summit

    -5 J

    Episode 2238: What to make of J.D. Vance's speech at the Paris AI Summit

    So what to J.D. Vance's highly controversial speech at the Paris AI Summit this week? According to That Was The Week’s Keith Teare, it was “a breath of fresh air”. Others will argue it was just more MAGA putridity designed to alienate our European friends. Some tech notables, like Union Square Ventures partner Albert Wenger, take both views simultaneously, acknowledging on the one hand that Vance was correct to push back against “regulatory capture”, but on the other that Vance was “mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership”. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from this weekly tech round-up with Teare: * J.D. Vance's Paris AI Summit speech marked a potential turning point in US-Europe AI relations. His message prioritizing AI opportunity over safety prompted European regulators to pull back on some restrictions, with the EU dropping its AI liability directive and the UK rebranding its AI Safety Institute. * Anthropic's growth is accelerating, with projections of $34.5 billion in revenue by 2027. They're currently outperforming OpenAI in some areas, particularly coding, and are expected to release a major new AI model soon. * The Musk-OpenAI conflict has intensified, with Musk's $100 billion bid for OpenAI's non-profit arm being rejected. Meanwhile, OpenAI is planning to incorporate its Q* (Q-star) model into a new GPT-5 release that will combine reasoning, operational capabilities, and multimedia functions. * The AI industry is seeing rapid advancement in humanoid robotics, with companies like Apptronics and Figure receiving significant valuations. Figure's valuation jumped from $2 billion to $39 billion after securing a major automotive partnership. * Traditional political alignments are becoming less relevant in tech policy, with Teare arguing that economic growth and technological progress are transcending traditional left-right divisions. This is exemplified by some progressives like Reid Hoffman embracing AI optimism while traditional conservatives champion technological progress. FULL TRANSCRIPT Andrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Saturday, February 15th, 2025, a day after Valentine's Day. It's been a day or a week dominated by a certain J.D. Vance. Yesterday, he made a very controversial speech in Munich, which apparently laid bare the collapse of the transatlantic alliance. He attacked Europe over free speech and migration. So he's not the most popular fellow in Europe. And a couple of days before that, he spoke in Paris at the AI Summit, a classic Parisian event talking about summits. Macron, of course, also spoke there. According to The Wall Street Journal, Vance's counts were good. The German, of course, being a conservative newspaper. According to The Washington Post, which is a progressive newspaper, he pushed the "America First" AI agenda. Others, like Fast Company, ask what to make of Vance's speech at the Paris AI conference. According to my friend Keith Teare, the author of That Was The Week newsletter, the speech was a breath of fresh air. I was going to call you Marx, Keith. That would have been a true Freudian error. What do you admire about Vance's speech? Why is it a breath of fresh air? Keith Teare: Well, it's in the European context that it's a breath of fresh air. I think from an American perspective, he didn't really say anything new. We already think of AI in the way he expressed it. But in Europe, the dominant discussion around AI is still focused on safety. That is to say, AI is dangerous. We have to control it. We need to regulate it. And as a result of that, most of the American developments in AI are not even launched in Europe, because in order to be made available to citizens, it has to go through various regulatory layers. And that slows everything down. So in the context, Vance stood up on the platform in front of all of the people doing that regulation and told them basically, rubbed their noses in it, saying how self-destructive their approach was for European success. His opening lines were, "I'm not here to talk about AI safety. I'm here to talk about AI opportunity." And in the days since, there's been quite a big reaction in Europe to the speech, mostly positive from normal people and adjusting policy at the regulatory level. So it's quite a profound moment. And he carried himself very well. I mean, he was articulate, thoughtful. Andrew Keen: Yeah. You say his speech marks a crucial inflection point. I wonder, though, if Vance was so self-interested as a MAGA person, why would he want even to encourage Europe to develop? I mean, why not just let it be like social media or the Internet where American companies dominate? Is there anything in America's interest that the Trump-Musk alliance would benefit from strong European AI companies? Keith Teare: Well, from strong European AI openness, yes. I don't think Vance thinks for a minute there are any European companies that will be able to compete in that open environment. And so most of his purpose is economic. He's basically saying open up so that our guys can sell stuff to you and the money will flow back to the U.S. as it has done with Amazon and Google and every other major tech innovation in recent years. So it's basically an economic speech masquerading as a policy speech. Andrew Keen: I wonder if there's an opportunity for Europe given the clear divisions now that exist between the U.S. and Europe. I wonder whether there's an opportunity for Europe to start looking more sympathetically at Chinese AI companies. Did Vance warn in his speech, did he warn Europe about turning to the Chinese, the other potential partner? Keith Teare: Yeah. There are two parts of his speech I didn't really incorporate in the editorial. The first was a subplot all around China, which he didn't name, but he called "dictatorships." We don't want dictatorships leading in AI. And then there was another subplot, which was all about free speech and openness and not censoring, which was aimed at the Europeans, of course, and the Chinese. Andrew Keen: Discussion of their free speech, or at least it's their version of free speech, isn't it? Keith Teare: I think the funny thing is in order to be consistent, they're going to have to allow all free speech. And they will, because they know that. And so, weirdly, the Republicans become the free speech party, which makes no sense historically. But it is happening. And I thought there were a lot of interesting things in that speech that symbolized a very confident America. However, the reason America is doing this is because it's weak, which is a paradox. Andrew Keen: Politically weak or militarily weak or economically weak? Keith Teare: Not militarily - it's super strong, but economically it's relatively declining against China. It's the next Europe. America is the next Europe. China is the next America. And in that context, America's brashness sounds positive to our ears and to mine as well, because it's pro-optimism, pro-progress. But actually, it's coming from a place of weakness, which you see in the tariffs and the anti-Chinese stuff. Andrew Keen: And I want to come to the Munich speech where Vance was pretty clear. Trump's always been clear that if there is an opportunity for Ukraine, Ukrainians have to work for American access to its raw materials, minerals, etc. Whether America's foreign policy now is becoming identical to that of China, helping other countries as long as they provide them with essential resources. Keith Teare: Yeah, exactly. By the way, one of our commentators, David John William Bailey on LinkedIn, is saying we need to explain this. He says he's also attempting "$1 trillion mob-style shakedown." Anyone defending this is either deluded or only reads hard-right propaganda. Andrew Keen: Well, but Keith, you've always claimed to be a progressive. You always claim to be a man of the left. You have a background in left-wing communist activism. Now you're on board with Vance. You were on board the week before with Musk. You're ambivalent about Trump. What does this say to you? What does this suggest about you personally, or is the reality of politics these days that the supposed conservatives like Vance are actually progressive in their own way and the supposed progressives in the Democratic Party are actually conservative? Keith Teare: Well, as you know, I don't like those labels anymore because I think they're trying to fit a modern narrative into an old set of boxes. I think, broadly speaking, Vance is an economic progressive. He wants the economy to grow. He wants GDP to grow. Andrew Keen: Some people say everyone's a progressive in that sense if they want GDP to grow. Keith Teare: Yeah, but not very many people can do it. So I think they really are serious that they believe innovation in tech and GDP are correlated. And I believe GDP and social good are correlated. And so if you really want to be a progressive that wants people to have a good life, you have to support economic growth. And I think Vance does. And I think that's what his narrative is about. He's basically telling Europe that they're going to get the opposite, which has been true, by the way, now for a decade. European GDP per capita is as low as $35,000 a year. American is $85,000 a year. Andrew Keen: That's an astonishing shift. And this is going to be remembered, I think, as an important week in the American-European relationship. You said that the aftermath of the Vance speech has been remarkable and telling. The EU dropped its AI liability directive. The UK rebranded its AI Safety Institute. OpenAI removed diversity commitments. So a speech is now having an impact, particularly this Paris speech when it comes to AI policy, both in Europe but also in the US as well. Keith Teare: Yeah, I wouldn't give too much credit just to the speech. I think the speech is symptomatic of a lot of zeitgeist change and everyone

    37 min
  7. Episode 2237: Matthew Karp explains how progressives can successfully bulldoze America

    -6 J

    Episode 2237: Matthew Karp explains how progressives can successfully bulldoze America

    “Expect More Bulldozings”, the Princeton historian Matthew Karp predicts in this month’s Harpers magazine about MAGA America. In his analysis of the Democrats' loss to Trump, Karp argues that the supposedly progressive party has become disconnected from working-class voters partially because it represents what he calls "the nerve center of American capitalism." He suggests that for all Democrats’ strong cultural liberalism and institutional power, the party has failed to deliver meaningful economic reforms. The party's leadership, particularly Kamala Harris, he says, appeared out of touch with reality in the last election, celebrating the economic and poltical status quo in an America where the voters clearly wanted structural change. Karp advocates for a new left-wing populism that combines innovative economic programs with nationalism, similar to successful left-wing leaders like Obrador in Mexico and Lulu in Brazil and American indepedents like the Nebraskan Dan Osborne. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways in our conversation with Karp: * The Democratic Party has become the party at the "nerve center of American capitalism," representing cultural, institutional, and economic power centers while losing its historic connection to working-class voters. Despite this reality, Democrats are unwilling or unable to acknowledge this transformation. * Kamala Harris's campaign was symptomatic of broader Democratic Party issues - celebrating the status quo while failing to offer meaningful change. The party's focus on telling voters "you never had it so good" ignored how many Americans actually felt about what they saw as their troubling economic situation. * Working-class voters didn't necessarily embrace Trump's agenda but rejected Democrats' complacency and disconnection from reality. The Democrats' vulnerability at the ballot box stands in stark contrast to their dominance of cultural institutions, academia, and the national security state. * The path forward for Democrats could look like Dan Osborne's campaign in Nebraska - a populist approach that directly challenges economic elites across party lines while advocating for universal programs rather than targeted reforms or purely cultural politics. * The solution isn't simply returning to New Deal-style politics or embracing technological fixes, but rather developing a new nationalist-leftist synthesis that combines universal social programs with pro-family, pro-worker policies while accepting the reality of the nation-state as the container for political change. Bulldozing America: The Full Transcript ANDREW KEEN: If there's a word or metaphor we can use to describe Trumpian America, it might be "bulldoze." Trump is bulldozing everything and everyone, or at least trying to. Lots of people warned us about this, perhaps nobody more than my guest today. Matthew Karp teaches at Princeton and had an interesting piece in the January issue of Harper's. Matthew, is bulldozing the right word? Is that our word of the month, of the year? MATTHEW KARP: It does seem like it. This column is more about the Democrats' electoral fortunes than Trump's war on the administrative state, but it seems to apply in a number of contexts. KEEN: When did you write it? KARP: The lead times for these Harper's pieces are really far in advance. They have a very trim kind of working order. I wrote this almost right in the wake of the election in November, and then some of the edits stretched on into December. It's still a review of the dynamics that brought Trump into office and an assessment of the various interpretations that have been proffered by different groups for why Trump won and why the Democrats lost. KEEN: You begin with an interesting half-joke: given Trump's victory, maybe we should use the classic Brechtian proposal to dissolve the people and elect another. You say there are some writers like Jill Filipovic, who has been on this show, and Rebecca Solnit, who everybody knows. There's a lot of hand-wringing, soul-searching on the left these days, isn't there? KARP: That's what defeat does to you. The impulse to essentially blame the people, not the politicians—there was a lot of that talk alongside insistences that Kamala Harris ran a "flawless" campaign. That was a prime adjective: flawless. This has been a feature of Democratic Party politics for a while. It certainly appeared in 2016, and while I don't think it's actually the majority view this time around, that faction was out there again. The Democratic Party's Transformation KEEN: It's an interesting word, "flawless." I've argued many times, both on the show and privately, that she ran—I'm not sure if even the word "ran" is the right word—what was essentially a deeply flawed campaign. You seem to agree, although you might suggest there are some structural elements. What's your analysis three months after the defeat, as the dust has settled? KARP: It doesn't feel like the dust has settled. I'm writing my piece now about these early days of the Trump administration, and it feels like a dust cloud—we can barely see because the headlines constantly cloud our vision. But looking back on the election, there are several things to say. The essential, broader trend, which I think is larger than Harris's particular moves as a candidate or her qualities and deficits, has to do with the Democratic Party as a national entity—I don't like the word "brand," though we all have to speak as if we're marketers now. Since Obama in particular, and this is an even longer-running trend, the Democratic Party's fortunes have really nosedived with voters making less money, getting less education, voters in working-class and lower-middle-class positions—measured any way you slice it sociologically. This is not only a historic reversal from what was once the party of Roosevelt, which Joe Biden tried to resurrect with that giant FDR poster behind him in the White House, but it represents a fundamental shift in American politics. Political scientists talk about class dealignment, the way in which, for a long time, there essentially was no class alignment between the parties. These days, if anything, there's probably a stronger case for the Republicans to be more of a working-class party just from their coalition, although I think that's overstated too. From the Democratic perspective, what's striking is the trend—the slipping away, the outmigration of all these voters away from the Democrats, especially in national elections, in presidential elections. The Party of Capital KEEN: You put it nicely in your piece—I'm quoting you—"The fault is not in the Democrats' campaigns, it's in themselves." And then you write, and I think this is the really important sentence: "This is a party that represents the nerve center of American capitalism, ideological production and imperial power." Some people might suggest, well, what's wrong with that? America should be proud of its capitalism, its imperial power, its ideological production. But what's so surreal, so jarring about all this is that Democrats don't acknowledge that. You can see it in Harris, in her husband, in San Francisco and in Park Slope, Brooklyn, where you live. You can see it in Princeton, in Manhattan. It's so self-evident. And yet no one is willing to actually acknowledge this. KARP: It's interesting to think about it that way because I wonder if a more candid piece of self-recognition would benefit the party. I think some of it is there's a deep-seated need, going back to that tradition of FDR and especially on the part of the left wing of the party—anyone who's even halfway progressive—to feel like this is the party of the little guy against the big guy, the party of marginalized people, the party of justice for all, not just for the powerful. That felt need transcends the statistics tallied up in voting returns. For the media and institutional complex of the Democratic Party, which includes many politicians, that reality will still be a reality even if the facts on the ground have changed. Some of it is, I think, a genuine refusal to see what's in front of you—it's not hypocritical because that implies willful misleading, whereas I think it's a deeper ideological thing for many people. The Status Quo Party KEEN: Is it just cyclical? The FDR cycle, Great Society, New Deal, LBJ—all of that has come to an end, and the ideology hasn't caught up with it? Democrats still see themselves as radical, but they're actually deeply conservative. I've had so many conversations with people who think of themselves as progressives and say to me, "I used to think I'm a progressive, but in the context of Trump or some other populist, I now realize I'm a conservative." None of them recognize the broader historical meaning. The irony is that they actually are conservative—they're for the status quo. That was clear in the last election. Harris, for better or worse, celebrated the old America, and Trump had a vision of a new America, for better or worse. Yet no one was really willing to acknowledge this. KARP: Yes, institutionally and socially, the Democrats have become the party of the status quo. People on the left constantly lambaste Democrats for lacking a bold reform agenda, but that's sort of not the point. Some people will say Joe Biden was the most progressive president since FDR because he spent a lot of money on infrastructure programs. But my view is that enhanced government spending, which did increase the federal budget as a share of GDP to significant levels, nevertheless didn't result in a single reform program you can identify and attach to Biden's name. Unlike all these progressive Democratic presidents past—even Obama had Obamacare—it's not really clear what Biden's legacy is other than essentially increasing the budget. None of those programs, none of that spending, improved his political popularity because that money was so diffuse, or in other cases so tar

    49 min
  8. Episode 2236: Colum McCann and Dianne Foley on what a mother said to her son's ISIS executioner

    13 FÉVR.

    Episode 2236: Colum McCann and Dianne Foley on what a mother said to her son's ISIS executioner

    What can a mother say to the cold-blooded executioner of her son? In American Mother, the heartrending story of the murdered American journalist Jim Foley, the writer Colum McCann and Diane Foley, Foley’s mother and founder of the Foley Foundation, explore this terrible dilemma. This memorable conversation with Foley and McCann explores forgiveness, faith, and the moral complexities of justice. Most of all, though, it’s the conversation about a mother’s remarkable love for her dead son which she maintains and even redirects to his ISIS killer. Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from our conversation with McCann and Foley: * The Power of Forgiveness: Diane Foley's ability to forgive Alexander Kotey, one of her son Jim's killers, demonstrates extraordinary grace. Her Christian faith played a crucial role in this process, though forgiveness wasn't easy or natural - it was a conscious choice that led to meaningful human connection even in the most difficult circumstances. * Policy Impact Through Tragedy: Jim Foley's death led to significant changes in U.S. hostage policy. The Foley Foundation's work has helped bring home nearly 150 Americans since 2015, and led to the creation of a formal government structure for handling hostage situations - a direct result of the Obama administration's initial failures and subsequent reforms. * The Complexity of Justice: The case highlights nuanced views on justice and the death penalty. The Foleys advocated against the death penalty for their son's killers, arguing that life imprisonment offers a chance for reflection and potential redemption, while execution would simply perpetuate cycles of violence. * Grief's Individual Journey: Diane's experience shows how grief manifests differently for each person. While her other children needed distance from the situation to heal, she channeled her grief into activism and forgiveness. Her willingness to meet her son's killer was not shared by other family members. * The Value of Journalism: Jim Foley's story underscores the importance and dangers of conflict journalism. His commitment to telling stories of people yearning for freedom in the Middle East, even after being kidnapped once in Libya, reflects the crucial role journalists play in helping the world understand complex situations and human struggles. Diane M. Foley is President and Founder of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation, which she created in September 2014 less than a month after the public beheading by ISIS in Syria of her son James W. Foley, an American freelance conflict journalist. In 2015, she led JWFLF efforts to fund the start of Hostage US and the International Alliance for a Culture of Safety, ACOS. She actively participated in the National Counterterrorism Center hostage review which culminated in the Presidential Policy Directive-30. This directive created the current US hostage enterprise consisting of an interagency Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, and a White House Hostage Response Group to free innocent Americans taken hostage or wrongfully detained abroad. JWFLF was instrumental in the passage of the Robert Levinson Hostage Taking and Accountability Act. She has been a tireless hostage, wrongful detainee and family advocate within the US hostage enterprise, Congress, and every presidential administration since 2014. She has raised awareness of international hostage-taking and wrongful detention using the award-winning documentary, “Jim, the James Foley story”, opinion pieces in the New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today and media interviews. Diane has spoken on the power of forgiveness in various faith communities and was included in 200 Women, edited by Geoff Blackwell. She co-authored the book “American Mother” which was published in 2024 with writer Colum McCann. Diane is also the author of a chapter called, “Life For A Voice: the Work of Journalist James W. Foley through the Eyes of his Family” in Living with Precariousness, edited by Christina Lee and Susan Leong, which was published in 2023.Previously, Diane worked as a community health nurse and as a family nurse practitioner for 18 years. She received both her undergraduate and master’s degrees from the University of New Hampshire. She is active in her Roman Catholic parish of St Katherine Drexel in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, where she lives with her husband, Dr. John W. Foley. She is the mother of five children. Colum McCann is the internationally bestselling author of the novels Let the Great World Spin and TransAtlantic. His newest novel, Apeirogon, will appear in 2020. It has already been acclaimed as a "transformative novel" (Raja Shehadeh). He is also the author of Zoli, Dancer, This Side of Brightness, and Songdogs, as well as three critically acclaimed story collections. His fiction has been published in more than forty languages. As well as a National Book Award winner, Colum has been a finalist for the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award and was the inaugural winner of the Ireland Fund of Monaco Literary Award in Memory of Princess Grace. He has been named one of Esquire's "Best and Brightest," and his short film Everything in This Country Must was nominated for an Oscar in 2005. A contributor to The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, and The Paris Review, he teaches in the Hunter College MFA Creative Writing Program. He lives in New York City with his wife and their three children. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Keen On 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

    49 min
Tout afficher (999)

4,2
sur 5
76 notes

À propos

Nobody asks sharper or more impertinent questions than Andrew Keen. In KEEN ON, Andrew cross-examines the world’s smartest people on politics, economics, history, the environment, and tech. If you want to make sense of our complex world, check out the daily questions and the answers on KEEN ON. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best-known technology and politics broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running show How To Fix Democracy and the author of four critically acclaimed books about the future, including the international bestselling CULT OF THE AMATEUR. Keen On is free to listen to and will remain so. If you want to stay up-to-date on new episodes and support the show please subscribe to Andrew Keen’s Substack. Paid subscribers will soon be able to access exclusive content from our new series Keen On America. keenon.substack.com

Informations

  • Création
    Andrew Keen
  • Années d’activité
    2019 - 2025
  • Épisodes
    999
  • Classification
    Tous publics
  • Copyright
    © andrew
  • Site web de l’émission
    Keen On America

Vous aimeriez peut‑être aussi

Pour écouter des épisodes au contenu explicite, connectez‑vous.

Recevez les dernières actualités sur cette émission

Connectez‑vous ou inscrivez‑vous pour suivre des émissions, enregistrer des épisodes et recevoir les dernières actualités.
Choisissez un pays ou une région

Afrique, Moyen‑Orient et Inde

Asie‑Pacifique

Europe

Amérique latine et Caraïbes

États‑Unis et Canada