Keen On

Andrew Keen
Keen On

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

    11 HR. AGO

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

    1 DAY AGO

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

    2 DAYS AGO

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

    3 DAYS AGO

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

    4 DAYS AGO

    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
  6. Episodes 2235: Jeffrey Toobin on whether we all deserve second chances

    5 DAYS AGO

    Episodes 2235: Jeffrey Toobin on whether we all deserve second chances

    If there’s anyone who knows the value of a pardon, it’s Jeffrey Toobin, the publicly shamed and now rehabilitated CNN legal analyst. In his latest book, The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, Toobin examines the history and evolution of presidential pardons, focusing particularly on Gerald Ford's controversial pardon of Richard Nixon. Toobin argues that while historical opinion has shifted to favor Ford's decision, he believes the pardon was wrong as it prevented Nixon’s accountability for Watergate related crimes. He also criticizes recent pardon controversies, including Trump's pardons of January 6th rioters and Biden's pardon of his son Hunter. Toobin expresses concern that Trump's use of pardons reflects an authoritarian approach to power, favoring political allies over the rule of law. Here are the 5 KEEN ON Takeaways from this conversation with Jeffrey Toobin: * Presidential Pardon Power is Unique: Toobin emphasizes that the pardon power is anomalous in the American system because it has no checks and balances - it comes directly from monarchical powers and allows presidents to act unilaterally without oversight from courts or Congress. * Mercy vs. Power Distinction: Toobin argues there's a meaningful difference between pardons used for mercy (like Obama's clemency for low-level drug offenders) versus pardons used as exercises of power (like Trump's pardons of January 6th rioters or Biden's pardon of his son Hunter). * The Nixon Pardon Legacy: While historical opinion has shifted to view Ford's pardon of Nixon more favorably, Toobin believes it was wrong because it prevented accountability and reinforced the idea that powerful people are above the law. * Evolution of Presidential Immunity: Toobin highlights a dramatic shift in legal thinking from the Nixon era to today. In the 1970s, everyone agreed presidents could be prosecuted after leaving office, whereas the current Supreme Court has ruled presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions even after their term. * The Increasing Politicization of Pardoning: Toobin observes that pardons have become increasingly partisan and transactional, especially in recent years. He notes that even the legal community is now deeply divided along political lines regarding controversial pardons, with little or no unified "legal establishment" perspective remaining. Jeffrey Toobin, the longtime CNN legal commentator, is the author of ten books, including The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, The Run of His Life: The People vs. O.J. Simpson, Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism, American Heiress, The Oath, Too Close to Call, and A Vast Conspiracy. A magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, he lives with his family in New York. 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

    44 min
  7. Episode 2234: Walter Mosley on Easy Rawlins, King Oliver and the history of fictional black American detectives

    6 DAYS AGO

    Episode 2234: Walter Mosley on Easy Rawlins, King Oliver and the history of fictional black American detectives

    The acclaimed American writer Walter Mosley has a new King Oliver book out: Been Wrong So Long It Feels Like Right, a novel that follows Oliver's search for both a missing woman and his estranged father who was released from prison nine years ago. But before getting to his latest mystery, I couldn’t resist asking Mosley to compare his most famous fictional character, Easy Rawlins, with King Oliver. Mosley explains how Oliver, a contemporary detective in New York, faces different, perhaps less racialized challenges than Rawlins did in 1940s Los Angeles. We then moved onto to Mosley’s observations about crime and punishment in white and black America as well as the importance of jazz music in his writing. Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from this conversation with Walter Mosley: * The difference between his two detective characters reflects changing times in America: Easy Rawlins operates in a strictly black-and-white 1940s Los Angeles where his race defines everything, while Joe King Oliver works in contemporary New York where racial boundaries are more fluid, even if racism still exists. * Mosley's writing process is remarkably disciplined and productive (or so he says) - he writes three hours every day without fail, enabling him to complete two to three books annually while also working on television and film projects. * The character Joe King Oliver was named after the famous jazz musician - this reflects both the musical qualities Mosley sees in writing and the character's connection to his fictional missing father, who named him after the jazz great who mentored Louis Armstrong. * Been Wrong So Long It Feels Like Right interweaves two plots: a case involving a runaway wife and a personal quest to find Oliver's estranged father who was secretly released from prison nine years ago, exploring themes of family reconciliation. * Growing up as an only child with a Jewish mother and African-American father influenced Mosley's perspective on American identity - though he sees such multicultural backgrounds as common to many Americans' experiences rather than unique to his situation. Walter Mosley is one of America's most celebrated and beloved writers. His books have won numerous awards and have been translated into more than twenty languages. Mosley is the author of the acclaimed Easy Rawlins series of mysteries, including national bestsellers Cinnamon Kiss, Little Scarlet, and Bad Boy Brawly Brown; the Fearless Jones series, including Fearless Jones, Fear Itself, and Fear of the Dark; the novels Blue Light and RL's Dream; and two collections of stories featuring Socrates Fortlow, Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, for which he received the Anisfield-Wolf Award, and Walkin' the Dog. He lives in New York City. 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

    38 min
  8. Episode 2233: John Kay on why (almost) everything we are told about business is wrong

    FEB 10

    Episode 2233: John Kay on why (almost) everything we are told about business is wrong

    According to the Scottish economist Sir John Kay, author of The Corporation in the 21st Century, the Magnificent Seven tech companies that supposedly control the global economy aren’t quite as magnificent as we are led to believe. These corporations aren’t even really capitalist, he says, noting that companies like Amazon and Apple own surprisingly few physical assets and thus should be considered providers of “capital as a service”. Kay claims that today's big tech companies probably won’t maintain their dominance, citing historical examples like Cisco and U.S. Steel. He criticizes the contemporary corporate focus on individual leadership, deal-making and shareholder value, advocating instead for businesses built on trust and collective capabilities. And Kay expresses a deep skepticism about both Donald Trump's tariff policies and Elon Musk's recent involvement in government reform, suggesting that Musk’s success might have even undermined his sanity. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from this conversation with John Kay * Corporate dominance is typically temporary, not permanent. Kay uses historical examples like U.S. Steel, IBM, and Cisco to demonstrate that even the most powerful companies often decline or lose their dominance over time, suggesting today's "Magnificent Seven" tech giants may face similar fates. * Modern corporations operate on a "capital as a service" model, owning surprisingly few physical assets. Unlike Henry Ford's vertically integrated empire, companies like Amazon and Apple primarily buy or lease the capabilities they need, with much of their value based on expected future profits rather than tangible assets. * Business success is driven by collective capabilities, not individual genius. Kay challenges the "great man" theory of business history, arguing that innovations and progress come from teams of people working together with collective knowledge, rather than from singular visionary leaders. * The term "capitalism" is outdated and misleading. Kay prefers "pluralist" or "market economy" to better describe modern economic systems, where value is created through networks of capabilities rather than traditional capital ownership. * Corporate success should be built on trust relationships and long-term value creation, not short-term financial engineering. Kay criticizes the focus on deal-making and shareholder value maximization, citing examples like ICI and Marks & Spencer where this approach led to decline. Sir John Kay, fellow of St John’s College, Oxford, has a distinguished career in academia, business, and finance. His writing, which includes the best-selling Other People’s Money and a regular column for the Financial Times, has been recognized by numerous awards. 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

    46 min
4.2
out of 5
76 Ratings

About

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

You Might Also Like

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes, and get the latest updates.

Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada