Keen On America

Επεισόδια

• Around the World in One Long Depression: Liaquat Ahamed on 1873 & the Making of the Global Economy 02.06.2026 1ώ

  “Be optimistic about the boom, but don’t buy the stock.” — Liaquat Ahamed on the AI bubble Yesterday, Alexander Starritt argued that the 2008 financial crash ruined the lives of his generation. But compared with the great crash of 1873, 2008 looks like a tremor. The Pulitzer Prize-winning economic historian Liaquat Ahamed has a new book out today, 1873, which presents this 19th century economic crash as the first truly global financial crisis. In 1870, three globalising infrastructure projects were completed in quick succession: the US transcontinental railroad, the Suez Canal, and the Trans-India railroad linking Bombay to Calcutta. Into this newly integrated global economy, the Franco-Prussian War injected a trillion-dollar-equivalent indemnity that the Rothschilds helped France raise — and the resulting dramatic capital flows produced three simultaneous bubbles in Berlin, Vienna, and New York. A French journalist named Jules Verne worked out that for the first time, you could circumnavigate the globe in less than eighty days. Around the world in one global economic crisis. The lesson for posterity, Ahamed warns, is that the authorities made a catastrophic error by doubling down on the gold standard, producing decades of deflation that triggered an anti-semitic and anti-globalist populism, and ultimately led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. So what does that tell us about today’s AI boom, which is about to be rocketed by three trillion-dollar IPOs? Be optimistic about the boom, the wise Ahamed says. But don’t buy the stock. Five Takeaways •       Jules Verne and the First Global Economy: In 1870, three iconic infrastructure projects were completed: the US transcontinental railroad, the Suez Canal, and the Trans-India railroad linking Bombay to Calcutta. A French newspaper noted that for the first time, a traveller could circle the globe in less than eighty days. Jules Verne read the article and found his next novel. The point for Ahamed: this moment marked the creation of a genuinely integrated global economy for the first time in history. And with global integration came the first global financial crisis. The boom of the 1850s and 1860s was not irrational. It reflected real economic growth. The crash came from what happened next. •       The Trillion-Dollar Indemnity and Three Simultaneous Bubbles: Under the peace treaty ending the Franco-Prussian War, France was required to pay Germany an indemnity worth the equivalent of $1.2 trillion in today’s money. With the help of the Rothschilds, France raised this sum in six months. The resulting capital injection caused the Berlin and Vienna equity markets to rise 200–300 percent. Simultaneously, European capital fleeing the war flowed into US railroad construction, inflating that bubble further. A third bubble formed in foreign borrowing on the London capital markets, as money chased yield in countries that should never have been given credit. Three bubbles, one crash. •       The Wrong Lesson from 1873: Gold Standard Orthodoxy: When the crash came, the authorities made a catastrophic error: they concluded that the gold standard had worked because the 1850s and 1860s boom had happened under it. They failed to see that the crash itself was partly produced by the gold standard’s rigidities. The resulting decade of deflation crushed farmers, debtors, and ordinary people across Europe and America, fuelling anti-globalist populism. The same orthodoxy — applied by Montagu Norman and others in the 1920s — helped cause the Great Depression. We always fight the last war. •       The Rothschilds: Scapegoated Despite Being Innocent: The Rothschilds were at the centre of the 1873 boom as the world’s leading bond underwriters. Presciently, they kept a low profile during the most speculative phase of the bubble. When the crash came, they were viciously scapegoated — part of the wave of antisemitism that swept Europe in the wake of the depression. Ahamed’s irony: the Rothschilds were blamed for a crisis they had been cautious enough to partially avoid. The story of 1873 is, among other things, a story of how financial panic turns into political persecution. •       The AI Boom: Be Optimistic, Don’t Buy the Stock: Andrew’s final question: should we buy Anthropic and OpenAI when they go public? Ahamed’s answer, via the lesson of every bubble from 1873 to 1929 to the dot-com era: bull markets are usually driven by real fundamentals — until the last phase, when they become untethered. The 1920s were rational until 1927; the dot-com era was rational until 1997. The dilemma: the last irrational phase may still produce 40 percent gains. Ahamed’s advice: be optimistic about the AI boom. It reflects real productivity growth. But don’t buy the stock. About the Guest Liaquat Ahamed is a financial historian and investment manager. He graduated with degrees in economics from Cambridge and Harvard, worked at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., and had a twenty-five-year career as a professional investment manager based in London and New York before turning to writing. He is the author of 1873: The Rothschilds, the First Great Depression, and the Making of the Modern World (Penguin Press, June 2, 2026) and Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World (winner of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize, the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Gold Medal, and the Financial Times Best Business Book of the Year). He lives in Washington, D.C. References: •       1873: The Rothschilds, the First Great Depression, and the Making of the Modern World by Liaquat Ahamed (Penguin Press, June 2, 2026). •       Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World by Liaquat Ahamed (Penguin Press, 2009) — the Pulitzer Prize-winning predecessor, referenced throughout. •       Episode 2928: Alexander Starritt on Drayton and Mackenzie — directly referenced at the opening; the 2008 companion. •       James Surowiecki, “Why Stocks Keep Going Up,” The Atlantic — referenced in the final exchange. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstack
• Drayton and Mackenzie: Alexander Starritt on How the 2008 Crash Ruined Everything 01.06.2026 50λ

  “To explain the lives of people living in this moment, to look at the historical forces that are shaping all of us, you have to look at business and technology. In our period, what is it that’s shaping us? I would suggest it’s the long fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and the technology revolution that’s been happening in California.” — Alexander Starritt How to write a novel about our times? For Alexander Starritt, it means juxtaposing friendship and ambition alongside the grand historical forces of the age. Just as George Eliot did in Middlemarch. Whereas for Eliot, those forces were the 1832 Reform Acts and the industrial revolution, Starritt’s forces are the 2008 financial crisis and the digital revolution. His novel, Drayton and Mackenzie, longlisted for the Financial Times Business Book of the Year, follows two ambitious Gen X’ers through the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The 2008 crash, Starritt says, ruined the lives of many of his generation. Rather than being in a Gramscian interregnum, our brave new 21st century world is already visible. But in contrast with many progressive critics of our neo-liberalism age, Starritt isn’t apocalyptic about the future. Think of Drayton and Mackenzie as Middlemarch and McKinsey. Revolutions will come and go, but, for Alexander Starritt, friendship and ambition are unchanging. Five Takeaways •       The First Novel on the FT Business Book List in 15 Years: The Financial Times and Schroders Business Book of the Year longlist typically features books on China, AI, and tech giants. In 2025, for the first time in fifteen years, it included a novel. Starritt’s reading of why: there’s a gap. The literary and cultural worlds have become so estranged from the business world that very few writers are even attempting to write seriously about the forces that actually shape people’s lives. That gap, he says, says as much about the cultural moment as any quality the book itself might have. •       George Eliot’s Method: Historical Forces as the Engine of Fiction: When George Eliot wrote Middlemarch, the historical forces she was dramatising were the Reform Acts and the industrial revolution. Starritt’s equivalent: the 2008 financial crisis and the California tech revolution. His method is Eliot’s — use a closely observed relationship (in his case, a male friendship rather than a marriage) as the engine through which the reader experiences history. The friendship gives the historical canvas an emotional charge. The historical canvas gives the friendship its full weight. Neither works without the other. •       Male Friendship: The Most Important Relationship Nobody Writes About: We’ve all read too many books and seen too many films about romantic and sexual relationships. Starritt’s observation: there is another type of relationship — friendship — that is incredibly important to almost all of us, and that gets almost no literary attention. Drayton and Mackenzie is his attempt to take it seriously. The friendship between James (straight-lined, disciplined, brilliant) and Roland (impulsive, self-sabotaging, charming) evolves from incomprehension to something described by the Financial Times as “unbreakable” — and the reviewer admitted that by the end, their vision wasn’t the clearest. •       The Post-Liberal World Is Already Here: Everyone quotes Gramsci’s interregnum — the old world is dying, the new one hasn’t been born yet. Starritt’s counter: the new world has already been born. You can see it everywhere across the Western world. British jobs for British workers. Reshoring manufacturing. Keeping out undesirable foreigners. There is, he notes, quite a lot of consensus about these things, even if the discourse around them is contested. The post-liberal world is already here. The question is not whether it will arrive but what we do with it. •       European Optimism: The Separation From America May Be for Europe’s Own Good: Starritt’s closing optimism, which he acknowledges may not be welcome news for American listeners: the painful separation from America that America is forcing upon Europe is probably, in the long run, for Europe’s own good. Rather than relying on the White House, Europeans can take responsibility for themselves. David Runciman’s idea: democracy needs to be renewed every generation. The external pressure of China, Russia, and an America that no longer wants to help may be the forcing function that produces that renewal. Maybe we can get some agency back. About the Guest Alexander Starritt is a Scottish novelist and entrepreneur. He was born in 1985 and is the author of Drayton and Mackenzie (Atlantic Monthly Press, June 2, 2026), We Germans (winner of the Dayton Literary Peace Prize), and The Beast (a 2017 Spectator book of the year). He was a founding team member of the policy platform Apolitical. He lives in London. References: •       Drayton and Mackenzie by Alexander Starritt (Atlantic Monthly Press, June 2, 2026). •       George Eliot, Middlemarch — Starritt’s primary literary model, referenced explicitly. •       Adrian Wooldridge, “Bring Back the Big Business Novel,” Bloomberg — the piece referenced at the opening. •       David Runciman — referenced for his argument about democratic renewal. •       Michael Chabon, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay — the Financial Times comparison. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: the FT Business Book longlist and the first novel in 15 years (02:03) - The gap in culture: literary and business worlds estranged (02:50) - Adrian Wooldridge: bring back the big business no...
• Ecocivilization and Our Discontents: Jeremy Lent on Why TINA Is Wrong 31.05.2026 45λ

  “When you’re in a world that is careening out of control, where we’ve broken through seven of the nine safe dimensions of safe operating space that scientists have discovered, it’s unrealistic in my view to focus on those little things and think that will lead to a real better outcome. What’s realistic is backcasting.” — Jeremy Lent There Is An Alternative. That is the central argument of Jeremy Lent’s new book, Ecocivilization: Making a World That Works for All. Margaret Thatcher’s historically materialist TINA — THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE — was both the most seductive and disempowering message the neoliberal establishment ever produced. As long as everyone believes in the inevitability of free market capitalism, nothing will ever really change. Anti-agency is the name of agency. We just push for slightly higher carbon taxes and slightly fewer fossil fuel subsidies and give it the euphemism of “progress.” For Lent, however, this is environmental capitulation. Jeremy Lent imagines a genuinely sustainable world — one where humans have a long-term relationship with the living Earth. From that vantage point, the steps that look realistic to the incrementalists seem timid or counterproductive. He reminds us that we’ve broken through seven of the nine safe operating dimensions that scientists have identified for a stable Earth system. No, incrementalism isn’t realism. Rather than progress, it’s a trance-like slide into the apocalypse. Rather than state control or free markets, the alternative Lent introduces in Ecocivilization is the commons — Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom’s third way in which humans self-organise in the collaborative ways of the natural world. It is already happening, he says, in places as far apart as Cleveland, Ohio and Jackson, Mississippi. Maggie was wrong, the Anglo-American Lent insists. TINA is bunk. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE. Five Takeaways •       The Consensus Trance: Why Nobody Is Freaking Out: Everyone knows who’s in and who’s out in Washington today. Everyone knows their team’s sports score. Almost nobody is aware of some of the bigger existential questions facing all of us. Lent’s explanation: we have media owned by billionaires who don’t benefit from people freaking out. The entire system is designed to lull people into what he calls a “consensus trance.” We broke through seven of the nine safe operating dimensions that scientists have identified for a stable Earth system. In normal times that would be front-page news every day. Instead: the news cycle moves on. •       Backcasting vs Incrementalism: The Two Realisms: There are two ways to use the word “realistic.” Realistic given the forces of destruction and oppression all around us right now: push for slightly higher taxes on the uber-wealthy, slightly fewer fossil fuel subsidies. Realistic given what a genuinely sustainable world would actually look like: start from the destination and work backwards. The first kind of realism may be taking us in the wrong direction. Lent’s argument: when you’re in a world careening out of control, the timid steps of incremental realism are not realistic. Backcasting is. •       The Commons: Ostrom’s Third Way: The political debate of the last hundred years has been between state control and free markets. Both have failed. Lent’s alternative, via Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom: the commons. Not the state owning things. Not markets extracting profit. Humans self-organising together in the way they evolved to do — collaboratively, cooperatively, with attention to the common good. Ostrom showed, empirically, that commons governance works. The Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi: these are working prototypes of what Lent means. •       TINA Is the Most Disempowering Message Ever Produced: Margaret Thatcher’s “there is no alternative” — shortened to TINA — is, for Lent, the central ideological achievement of neoliberalism. As long as everyone believes there is no alternative, people will just try to improve the situation that little bit and nothing will change fundamentally. Ecocivilization is Lent’s counter-argument: there is an alternative. The first step is to believe it. Once you believe it, the second step is to figure out what the practical steps are to get there. The book is those practical steps. •       The Authoritarian Moment: Why People Vote for Strongmen: People drawn to authoritarian strongmen feel in their gut that the system is designed to screw them. They’re right about that. They’re wrong about the solution — the strongmen are offering greater inequality dressed as populism. Lent’s prescription: what AOC, Bernie Sanders, Mamdani represent is the alternative — the courage to actually stand for human dignity. When things swing to one extreme, they tend to swing back. We could be surprised at the speed of change. It’s already happening in local communities — islands of coherence in a sea of chaos — and it can happen at the mainstream level too. About the Guest Jeremy Lent is an author and speaker described by George Monbiot as “one of the greatest thinkers of our age.” He is the founder of the Deep Transformation Network and the nonprofit Liology Institute. He is the author of Ecocivilization: Making a World That Works for All (Melville House, May 26, 2026), The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning, and The Web of Meaning: Integrating Science and Traditional Wisdom to Find Our Place in the Universe. He lives in Berkeley, California. References: •       Ecocivilization: Making a World That Works for All by Jeremy Lent (Melville House, May 26, 2026). •       Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons — the Nobel Prize-winning work on commons governance referenced throughout. •       Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics — referenced in the conversation as a related framework. •       Wilkinson and Pickett, The Spirit Level — the study showing higher well-being in more equal societies, referenced by Lent. •       The Evergreen Cooperatives, Cleveland, Ohio — referenced as a working prototype of commons governance. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. Website
• Anthropic Trounces OpenAI with Its Papal Pivot: Value Investing in Our AI Age 30.05.2026 39λ

  “I don’t look to companies to be moral guides. I want them to be good companies. When you invest in the stock market, you want them to be growing fast and making profit. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.” — Keith Teare If it’s Saturday, it must be our weekly tech show. Before we went live, That Was the Week publisher Keith Teare told me it wasn’t a big news week. He was wrong, of course (as he often is). The really BIG news this week, which Keith conveniently missed, is that Anthropic overtook OpenAI as the world’s most valuable AI startup. Dario Amodei’s AI startup raised $65 billion this week, putting its valuation at $900 billion, way ahead of OpenAI’s last round at $730 billion. Keith says, without any proof, that they’ve cooked their numbers. Which makes this week’s news even tastier. The more interesting story, for Keith at least, is Sam Altman’s latest pivot: that humans need stakes in the AI platforms whose wealth they help create. Rather than Patagonia-style moral corporations (which Keith says would make him “throw up”), it should be the responsibility of the state or government to make capitalism more moral. But even slippery Sam got outpivoted this week by Anthropic, who sent a co-founder to Rome to do a deal with the Pope. Leo XIV’s new encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” is Anthropic’s papal pivot. It’s the smart model for value investing in the AI age. Five Takeaways •       Anthropic Tops OpenAI — But the Numbers May Be Wrong: Anthropic raised $65 billion this week at a $900 billion valuation, overtaking OpenAI’s last round at $730 billion. The VCs backing it — Green Oaks, Sequoia, Altimeter, Dragoneer — are credible. Andrew’s argument: they’ve seen the books. Keith’s counter: the VCs are playing a different game. They expect two to three times their money at IPO and they’ll probably get it — not because the revenue numbers are solid, but because the only way is up right now. The real test: the S-1, which requires audited accounts. Keith’s prediction: the revenue numbers will look different when the SEC sees them. •       Dario’s Credibility Problem — But Claude 4.8 Is Fantastic: Keith has consistently characterised Dario Amodei as “slightly juvenile” and has long been sceptical of Anthropic’s public positioning. This week he cites Om Malik and the All In podcast in support of the revenue numbers critique. But he is careful to separate the man from the product: Claude 4.8, released two days ago, is “fantastic.” At SignalRank, Keith’s firm, Claude rebuilt an entire agent valuation workflow in an hour that would have taken days manually. Andrew’s observation: Andrew is now Anthropic’s newest fan. He has replaced Spurs with Anthropic as his team. •       Altman’s Pivot: From UBI to Ownership: Sam Altman has shifted his public narrative on AI and labour. Previously: UBI — universal basic income — as the answer to mass unemployment. Now: ownership. Humans need to own stakes in the AI platforms whose wealth they help generate. Not welfare. Not redistribution. Ownership. Keith’s verdict: it’s an interesting and significant move. More interesting than Amodei’s continued fearmongering about AI devastation. Andrew notes that Altman seems to have genuinely grown up in the last two months. His tone is markedly different. •       Patagonia Capitalism Would Make Keith Throw Up: The week’s interview of the week: Eric Ries on Incorruptible, arguing that great companies stay great by choosing a higher moral purpose — the Patagonia model. Keith’s response: it would make him throw up. He doesn’t want companies to be moral guides. He wants them to be profit machines. Moral guidance is the job of politics. And politics, he acknowledges, is massively disappointing. He does agree with Ries on one thing: Sundar Pichai, as an individual, should care about the future. But Google’s job is to make money. That’s it. •       Where Does Moral Guidance Come From? The Populists: Andrew’s closing question: if not corporations, not politicians, not the pope — where does moral guidance come from? Keith’s reluctant answer: the populists. Because the people care. They care about the future. And in the absence of politicians they can trust, they go elsewhere. Keith sees this as inevitable rather than desirable. Populism is the unintended consequence of political failure. The people filling the gap that broken institutions left. It’s not a solution. It’s a symptom. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and Andrew’s regular TWTW co-host. References: •       That Was the Week by Keith Teare. •       Om Malik, “The Copy and the Guru” — the post on Anthropic’s revenue numbers referenced in the conversation. •       All In Podcast — referenced for the Anthropic S-1 revenue discussion. •       Episode 2921: Eric Ries on Incorruptible — the interview of the week discussed in the show. •       Episode 2915: Keith Teare on capitalism and AI — the preceding TWTW, referenced at the opening. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: ten days since the last TWTW (01:01) - The big news: Anthropic tops OpenAI at $900 billion (01:53) - Keith’s reaction: both true and BS (02:22) - OpenAI is further ahead on IPO filing (03:15) - Om Malik and the revenue numbers: what does misleading mean? (03:41) - The All In podcast and Dario’s credibility (04:21) - Anthropic’s $65 billion raise: the VCs’ game (04:42) - But Claude 4.8 is fantastic: the SignalRank story (06:16) - Dario vs Sam: who’s more grown up? (07:00) - Altman’s pivot: from UBI to ownership (08:00) - Keith admits he was wrong about OpenAI’s dominance (09:47) - What did Keith get wrong? (10:36) - Corporate vs consumer AI dominance (15:00) - Agentic AI: the big theme in Keith’s newsletter (20:00) - The pope: Leo XIV and AI (25:00) - Moral cap...
• 1776 as 1917: Sarah Pearsall's World History of the American Revolution 29.05.2026 50λ

  “The thirteen colonies that became the United States were not even half of the British colonies that existed in the eighteenth century. We need to think about why some colonies rebelled and others did not.” — Sarah Pearsall Earlier today, the historian Dominic Erdozain came on the show to argue that American patriotism has the same exceptionalist Puritan roots as British imperialism. But not all historians of the American revolution would agree. Take, for example, Sarah Pearsall, author of Freedom Round the Globe, who turns 1776 inside out to present the American rebellion as a kind of world revolution. 1776 as 1917. American patriotism as an explosion of borderless humanity. Pearsall argues that 1776 was as globally significant in its revolutionary promise as 1789, 1848 or 1917. She reminds us that there were at least 26, possibly as many as 32 British colonies in existence in 1775 — in the Caribbean, in Canada, in East and West Florida. And the radical ideas that drove the Declaration of Independence — security, happiness, respect — were being asserted simultaneously all over the world. So in Edinburgh debating clubs, Caribbean sugar plantations and West African castles, the American revolution was welcomed as a global revolution. Universal rather than exceptional. The Tea Party as the Storming of the Winter Palace. Five Takeaways •       32 British Colonies, Not 13: The Forgotten Empire: People talk about the thirteen colonies as if they were all the British colonies in North America. They weren’t. There were at least 26, possibly as many as 32, depending on how you count groups of islands. British colonies in the Caribbean. In Canada. In East and West Florida. Each had its own relationship to the British Empire, its own internal tensions, its own calculations about the costs and benefits of rebellion. The question Pearsall asks — why did some rebel and others not? — is the question that opens up the global story. •       The Caribbean Undermines the Slavery Thesis: There is a popular argument that the American Revolution was primarily fought to preserve slavery — that the colonists feared British abolition and revolted to protect the institution. Pearsall’s counter: if this were the main driver, the Caribbean colonies would have been the first to join. They were far more dependent on slavery than the mainland colonies. They did not join. The relationship between slavery and the revolution is genuinely complicated — not simple in either direction. The Caribbean story is the evidence that demands a more nuanced account. •       From St Kitts to Kolkata: The Declaration’s Global Keywords: Pearsall’s organising device: she takes thirteen key words from the Declaration of Independence and finds the spark of each in a far-flung location. Security in the Six Nations cornfields of upstate New York, where it meant something very different to the Haudenosaunee than to the Philadelphia delegates. Happiness in the debating clubs of Edinburgh, where women were demanding it alongside men for the first time. Respect in the streets of Kolkata. This device lets her write about the globe without losing the Declaration as her anchor. •       Americans Were Already Thinking Globally in 1776: One of Pearsall’s more surprising findings: Americans in 1776 were far more aware of global events than we tend to assume. They were reading about events in India. The Boston Tea Party is unintelligible without knowing that tea was an Asian commodity and that the East India Company was simultaneously extracting profit from Asia and from the American colonies. Colonists compared themselves explicitly to Indians under the Company’s thumb. They saw the connections. The isolation of American history as a subject of study is a modern academic choice, not an eighteenth-century reality. •       Read the Declaration, Not the Constitution: Pearsall’s July 4 Prescription: Andrew asks Pearsall what she’ll be doing on July 4 and suggests people should read the Constitution. Pearsall gently corrects him: the Declaration of Independence. Two very different documents from very different moments. The Declaration, published on July 4, 1776, is short, bold, and reaches toward universal ideals. The Constitution, ratified in 1788, is a compromise document about how to govern. On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, Pearsall’s prescription: read the Declaration. The IndyCar races and the UFC match at the White House can wait. About the Guest Sarah Pearsall is a prize-winning historian at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Freedom Round the Globe: A World History of the American Revolution (Knopf/Penguin Random House, May 2026). She previously taught at the University of Cambridge, where she was a colleague of Christopher Clark. She grew up in the United States and lives in Baltimore, Maryland. References: •       Freedom Round the Globe: A World History of the American Revolution by Sarah M. S. Pearsall (Knopf/Penguin Random House, May 2026). •       Christopher Clark, Revolutionary Spring: Europe Aflame and the Fight for a New World, 1848–1849 — referenced in the conversation; Pearsall’s former Cambridge colleague and friend. •       Episode 2924: Dominic Erdozain on To Love a Country — the morning’s companion episode, directly referenced. •       Episode 2922: Alexandra Natapoff on America Unfinished — the week’s America 250 series. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Erdozain this morning, Pearsall this afternoon (01:57) - A meta vantage point: turning the revolution inside out
• To Love or Hate the United States? Dominic Erdozain on the Problem of American Patriotism 29.05.2026 43λ

  “We must perpetrate the paradox that our American cultural tradition lies in the future.” — Randolph Bourne, via Dominic Erdozain Should Americans be proud of their country? The Anglo-American historian Dominic Erdozain thinks not. His new book, To Love a Country, argues that there’s a problem with American patriotism. Americans shouldn’t love their country, Erdozain says. It’s not a good place. His argument is that American patriotism has the same Puritan root as British imperialism. The idea of a chosen people, a city on the hill, a nation with a special mission is a kind of moral virus. He says it infected America in the great awakenings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and has provided moral cover for slavery, military aggression abroad, and the denial of rights at home. So what America needs, he argues, is a new set of foundational myths laid out by progressives like Jane Addams, Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison and Martin Luther King Jr. This would establish a new kind of American patriotism which is forward-looking and internationalist rather than nativist or exceptionalist. Erdozain even gives Gandhi a shoutout as a model of American patriotism, although one wonders what the Indian pacifist would have made of this. So what will the Atlanta-based Erdozain be doing on July 4? Hiding under his bed, perhaps, rather than enjoying the hotdogs and fireworks. In hiding from hundreds of millions of patriotic Americans. Five Takeaways •       The Puritan Root of American Exceptionalism: The idea of America as a chosen people, a city on a hill with a special mission to the world, was not invented in America. It was inherited from English Puritanism. As it spread through the first and second great awakenings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — what some scholars call the New Englandization of America — it became the canopy under which very different kinds of people sheltered. You didn’t have to be a Puritan in any theological sense. You just had to accept the premise that America was righteously exceptional. And once you accepted that, a great deal of scrutiny became unavailable. •       Nationalism Is Immune to Failure: One of Erdozain’s sharpest observations, via historian Lindsey O’Rourke’s work on American interventionism: nationalism can absorb any amount of failure. The defeat in Vietnam, the disaster of Iraq, the failure of Afghanistan — a certain kind of nationalism insulates itself from the lessons these events might teach. It’s always someone else’s fault. It’s always a particular administration’s failure, never the national premise. This makes exceptionalism uniquely resistant to the ordinary mechanism of democratic accountability. •       Randolph Bourne and the Patriotism of the Future: Erdozain’s most original historical recovery: Randolph Bourne, a radical journalist writing during the First World War, who argued that nativism and nationalism were European imports, backward-looking and derivative. Bourne’s phrase: “we must perpetrate the paradox that our American cultural tradition lies in the future.” A patriotism faithful to the diversity of modern America — its bustling pluralism, its immigrant energy — cannot be built by looking backward to the founders. It must be built by looking forward to the founders we have not yet had. •       Alternative Founders: Addams, Douglass, Garrison, King: Erdozain proposes replacing — or at least supplementing — the canonical founders with a different cast. Jane Addams, who said the question is not what can we teach the bewildered immigrant but what can we learn from them. Frederick Douglass, who held America to account for its foundational promises. William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist. Martin Luther King Jr., who went to India to learn about nonviolence from Gandhi. These are the people, Erdozain argues, who offer a patriotism adequate to the diversity and complexity of twenty-first century America. •       JFK’s Strategy of Peace: The Possibility of Reinvention: Erdozain ends the book with Kennedy’s strategy of peace speech at American University in June 1963 — two months before his assassination. By then, Kennedy had come to believe that the impetus for war was coming from within his own country, from his own military and CIA, not from the Soviets. His speech — conceding nothing to communism as an ideology, but immensely generous about the Russian people and about Khrushchev as a leader — is Erdozain’s model for what reinvention looks like. The Bay of Pigs taught him something. By the end, he was talking about Vietnam as not America’s fight. Lessons can be learned, even in office, even at the last moment. About the Guest Dominic Erdozain is a historian and writer, graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, and visiting professor of history at Emory University in Atlanta. He is the author of To Love a Country: The Problem of Patriotism in America (Crown, June 2, 2026) and One Nation Under Guns. He grew up in Preston, Lancashire, supports Liverpool FC, and lives in Atlanta, Georgia. References: •       To Love a Country: The Problem of Patriotism in America by Dominic Erdozain (Crown, June 2, 2026). •       Randolph Bourne — radical journalist and critic of American nationalism during the First World War. His phrase “our American cultural tradition lies in the future” is the book’s central provocation. •       Jane Addams — co-founder of Hull House, Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Referenced as an alternative founder. •       JFK’s Strategy of Peace speech, American University, June 10, 1963 — the closing argument of the book. •       Episode 2922: Alexandra Natapoff on America Unfinished — directly referenced at the opening. •       Episode 2923: Joe Cunningham on Life of the Party — directly referenced at the opening. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube<...
• Life of the Party: Joe Cunningham on How Democrats Lost America’s Trust and How They Can Win It Back 28.05.2026 48λ

   “I deliver it with the credibility of having won a district that Trump carried by 13 points. Not only how to speak to these voters, but how to win them back.” — Joe Cunningham Yesterday’s guest was Alexandra Natapoff, co-editor of America Unfinished — a collection of essays by illustrious Harvard Law School professors grading the march toward justice in the United States over the last 250 years. America got about a C+ from this progressive clique. “Could do better” their report cards suggested. Today’s guest is a very different kind of Democrat. Joe Cunningham is a lawyer and personal injury attorney in Charleston, South Carolina, a one-term US representative, and the author of Life of the Party: How Democrats Lost America’s Trust and How They Can Win It Back. Cunningham got his law degree at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law. Harvard, he jokes, was his safety school. In contrast with Harvard Law professors, Cunningham’s credibility is hard to dress up. He was the first Democrat to win South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District in over forty years, in a seat Trump carried by 13 points. He was also the first Democrat in elected office to publicly warn against Biden seeking re-election. His diagnosis of what went wrong is that the Democratic Party abandoned kitchen-table economic issues in favour of culture wars, dismissed legitimate voter concerns as bigotry, and told people what they should care about rather than listening to what they actually cared about. The party, he argues, replaced empathy with arrogance. It’s as if it’s been colonized by morally prickly Harvard Law professors. Professor Cunningham gives the Dems a D+. Could do significantly better. Five Takeaways •       Winning Trump +13: The Credibility Argument: Cunningham’s case for why his diagnosis should be taken seriously is not his ideology but his record. He won South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District in 2018 — a heavily gerrymandered seat that Trump had carried by 13 points — making him the first Democrat to hold it in over forty years. He was also the first elected Democrat to publicly warn against Biden seeking re-election. His prescriptions don’t come from a think tank or an op-ed page. They come from a man who has actually won where Democrats can’t win, and lost where Democrats keep losing. •       The Party Replaced Empathy with Arrogance: Cunningham’s central diagnosis: the Democratic Party stopped listening and started lecturing. It told people what they should care about — immigration wasn’t an issue in West Virginia because West Virginia is far from the border. It told people the economy was fine when they couldn’t afford their bills. It dismissed legitimate concerns about crime, immigration, and cultural change as bigotry rather than trying to understand them. The result: voters who felt condescended to left. The party that was founded on speaking for ordinary people no longer speaks their language. •       Big Publishing’s Progressive Insularity: The book didn’t get picked up by a major publisher. Cunningham was told, more or less directly, that a book this critical of the Democratic Party — of Biden, of Harris, of the party’s leadership — was too much. He published it himself, through South Battery Press, named for a street in Charleston. Andrew’s observation: isn’t this itself evidence of what the book argues? If progressive culture controls big media and big publishing, those institutions will inevitably filter out self-criticism and reinforce the insularity that caused the problem in the first place. •       The Geriatric Oligarchy and the Technology Frontier: Cunningham uses the phrase “geriatric oligarchy” — the same phenomenon Andrew has been calling a gerontocracy — to describe Congress’s inability to grapple with technology, AI, and social media. The vast majority of members of Congress cannot understand the problems that are emerging: social media preying on children, identity theft, artificially inflated prices, the environmental impact of data centres. The party needs new leaders who understand these issues. The answer to data centres is not a blanket ban — it’s community-level decisions and proper regulation. •       The Party Needs Bloodletting, Not Just Rebrand: Cunningham’s sharpest prescription for the Democratic Party: a coming-to-Jesus moment or genuine accountability for what led to 2024. After the debate, Democratic officials stood outside the White House claiming Biden was fine. His staff said he’d go to bed earlier, wake up later, and shorten his workday — as if this would reassure Americans. Cunningham’s verdict: lessons will be repeated until they’re learned. The party needs a Newsom-level confrontation — real winners and real losers — not the bloodless triangulation it currently offers. Only then can it earn back trust. About the Guest Joe Cunningham is a personal injury attorney and former US Representative from South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, the first Democrat to win that seat in nearly forty years. An attorney and ocean engineer by training, he was the Democratic nominee for Governor of South Carolina in 2022. He is the author of Life of the Party: How Democrats Lost America’s Trust and How They Can Win It Back (South Battery Press, May 20, 2026). He lives in Charleston, South Carolina, with his wife Ashley and their children. References: •       Life of the Party: How Democrats Lost America’s Trust and How They Can Win It Back by Joe Cunningham (South Battery Press, May 20, 2026). Available at lifeofthepartybook.com. •       Episode 2922: Alexandra Natapoff on America Unfinished — the preceding episode referenced at the opening; the Harvard Law contrast. •       Episode 2912: Michael Clinton on Longevity Nation — the gerontocracy argument directly referenced. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Natapoff’s Harvard Law vs Cunningham’s Charlesto...
• Is America Unfinished or Just Getting Started? Alexandra Natapoff on 250 Years of Justice and Injustice in the United States 27.05.2026 44λ

  “As long as democracy is a collective endeavour of all the people who belong to it, in some sense it can never be finished — because we are constantly bequeathing to the next generation the opportunity and the freedom to have these conversations over and over again.” — Alexandra Natapoff It’s less than six weeks until America’s 250th birthday. The official America 250 store is selling T-shirts while Harvard Law School is doing something slightly less commercial. 62 HLS professors have written 1,000-word essays, assembled into a single volume to be published on July 4. Entitled America Unfinished: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Law and Governance, it’s co-edited by Alexandra Natapoff, a Harvard Law professor who spent years as a federal public defender in Baltimore. The title, of course, is borrowed from the Gettysburg Address, where Lincoln charged the living with completing “the unfinished work” of those who died in the Civil War. So is America unfinished or is it just getting started? For Natapoff and other Harvard Law School professors like this year’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Jill Lepore, the answer is suitably complex. Yes and no and maybe. Everything all at once. The essays focus on 250 years of both justice and injustice in America. Perhaps the only thing all authors agree on is the central role of capitalism in the history of the United States. Follow the money, Natapoff suggests. Those dollars will transport the reader to the heart of the American story. That said, America Unfinished will certainly cost you less than a three-year Harvard Law degree. And if you wait six months, the book will be available at no cost online. So follow the money. It will take you to some unexpectedly free places. Five Takeaways •       The Gettysburg Address as the Title’s Source: The book does not merely allude to Lincoln’s famous speech — it reproduces it at the front, so readers can go back to the original. In the Address, Lincoln charged the living with completing “the unfinished work” of those who died at Gettysburg — the work of building a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Natapoff and Charles chose this frame because it captures both the challenge and the hope: democracy is unfinished in the sense that it demands active work from every generation. It is not a gift that has been fully delivered. It is a task being handed on. •       America and Democracy Are Not the Same Thing: Andrew’s challenge — you use the words interchangeably — earns a concession. Natapoff’s work in criminal justice has led her to argue repeatedly that the American criminal system fails many tests of democracy: it is exclusive, inegalitarian, overly coercive, inconsistent with democratic principles. So ‘America’ and ‘democracy’ are not synonyms in the book. Many of the 62 essays disagree about the state of various pieces of governance. The book’s inquiry is whether it is fair to call any particular piece of American legal governance a democracy — which both editors consider a compliment, and not a certainty. •       A Federal Public Defender in Baltimore: The Biography Behind the Scholarship: Before she became a law professor, Natapoff was a federal public defender in Baltimore’s federal courts. Her job was to be adverse to the federal government all day every day, defending some of the most vulnerable and dispossessed people in the city against the massive resources and power of the federal apparatus. Those years shaped everything: her subsequent twenty years of scholarship on criminal courts, plea bargaining, misdemeanors, and race and inequality; her book Punishment Without Crime; and her contribution to America Unfinished. In her reading, the experience of her clients — people facing off against the federal government — is now more widely shared than it used to be. •       It’s the Money, Not the Lawyers: Dan Wang’s recent book Breakneck contrasts China, run by engineers, and America, run by lawyers. Natapoff’s counter, via the book’s economic governance essays: it’s much more complicated than that. Six very different scholars who disagree about almost everything converge on a perhaps surprising answer: it’s the money. Financial interests, corporate interests, the ownership class — in one way or another, they’ve been running America. The lawyers helped. They were part of the management scheme. But they weren’t making the decisions. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. •       Molly Brady’s Essay: Property Law and the Destruction of Community: Asked to pick her favourite essay without starting a fight with 61 colleagues, Natapoff flags the very last one: Professor Maureen “Molly” Brady on property law. Brady argues that property law has permitted suburban sprawl and the destruction of physical community — the kind of infrastructure that makes analog life (libraries, neighbours, public space) possible — while being profligate in its support for social media and the dispersed, thinner version of community. She exhorts us to remember how law has contributed positively to communities we are proud of, and to stand up for that vision. For Natapoff, it captures both the critical nature of this moment and why lawyering still holds out some important promise. About the Guest Alexandra Natapoff is the Lee S. Kreindler Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, a 2016 Guggenheim Fellow, and a graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School. She began her legal career as a federal public defender in Baltimore. She is the author of Punishment Without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal (Basic Books) and Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice (NYU Press). She is co-editor, with Guy-Uriel Charles, of America Unfinished: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Law and Governance (MIT Press, July 4, 2026). References: •       America Unfinished: Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Law and Governance, co-edited by Alexandra Natapoff and Guy-Uriel Charles (MIT Press, July 4, 2026). Open access from January 2027. •       Alexandra Natapoff, Punishment Without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal (Basic Books, 2018). •       Dan Wang, Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future — referenced in the interview as the “America run by lawyers” contrast. •       Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (1863) — reproduced at the front of the book; the source of the title. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since ...
• Beyond the Lean Startup: Eric Ries on Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Ones Stay Great, 26.05.2026 45λ

  “I took it for granted that we were trying to make the world a better place. But I think in retrospect that was naïve. What kind of change? For whom? We kind of forgot to specify what the purpose of all this disruption was.” — Eric Ries In 2011, Eric Ries published The Lean Startup, a book that reflected the optimistic zeitgeist about disruptive Silicon Valley companies. Fifteen years later, in Incorruptible: Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Companies Stay Great, Ries reflects today’s totally different zeitgeist about the value of companies inside and outside Silicon Valley. Back in 2011, everybody loved tech. Ries, creator of the Lean Startup method and founder of the Long-Term Stock Exchange, admits he was naïve in his positive view of disruptive corporations. In Incorruptible, Ries argues that corporate corruption is structural, rather than a problem of bad actors. As organisations grow (ie: become more disruptive), the systems that govern them — ownership, incentives, charters, accountability — quietly reshape behaviour. Success itself becomes a form of financial gravity, diverting companies away from their original purpose. Ries proposes that we design organisations to be incorruptible from the beginning. It’s the Patagonia model. When the outdoor clothing company almost went bankrupt in the 1990s, their bank agreed to restructure their loans if they would suspend their charitable donations for a couple of years. No deal, the CEO said. The bank blinked and Patagonia remained Patagonia. Now, Ries argues, every corporation should try to emulate Patagonia and become the incorruptible corporation. We must all join Eric Ries in getting beyond the lean startup. Five Takeaways •       Corporate Corruption Is Structural, Not Ethical: For decades, we’ve explained corporate failures as problems of bad actors, moral weakness, or isolated scandals. Ries’ argument: that story doesn’t match reality. Again and again, companies founded with strong ideals drift toward short-term thinking, extractive behaviour, and mission abandonment — often despite the best intentions of people inside them. The failure is structural. As organisations grow, the systems that govern them — ownership structures, incentives, charters — quietly reshape behaviour. Success becomes financial gravity, bending companies away from their purpose. •       The Patagonia Model: Organisational Strength, Not Moral Righteousness: When Patagonia nearly went bankrupt in the 1990s due to outsourcing to poor-quality foreign factories, their lead lender agreed to restructure the loans on one condition: suspend charitable donations during the restructuring. Reasonable request — any other company would have said yes. Patagonia said no. The bank blinked. Ries’ reading: this is not moral righteousness. It is organisational strength. The ability to resist external pressure and stay true to a core principle. That is what makes a company not just good but great. Also: Black Wednesday, the day of their layoffs, is still referred to by name inside the company. •       The Wrong Distinction: For-Profit vs Non-Profit: Ries argues that the distinction between for-profit and non-profit is fundamentally a tax code distinction that has come to define how we think about organisations in ways that are misleading and harmful. He proposes a reframe: if profit means the maximisation of human flourishing, then the Smithsonian is very for-profit and Philip Morris is very non-profit. This reframe changes what we should demand of governance, of accountability, of what organisations are for. It is simultaneously an economic and a political argument. •       Civic Infrastructure: The Political Dimension: Ries’ book ends with a chapter on what he calls civic infrastructure — the kinds of organisations that set the rules of the road for others. He argues that the principles of incorruptible design apply not just to companies but to the institutions of governance. The darkness of the current political moment is, for him, partly a failure of organisational design. When this darkness passes, he argues, the generation that follows will have to rebuild civic infrastructure in the way the generation that survived the Depression built the institutions that governed the second half of the twentieth century. •       The Anakin/Padamé Problem: Ries’ Mea Culpa: Ries opens with a reference to the famous internet meme — Anakin says he’s going to change the world, and Padamé asks: for the better? He grins mischievously. Ries used to find it funny. Then it stopped being funny. When he wrote The Lean Startup, he assumed the purpose of disruption was to make the world a better place. He took it for granted. He now thinks that was naïve. The lesson: you have to specify the purpose. What kind of change? For whom? That is the question that Incorruptible is trying to answer. About the Guest Eric Ries is the creator of the Lean Startup method and the author of the New York Times bestseller The Lean Startup, The Leader’s Guide, and The Startup Way. As a founder, he has put his ideas into practice with the Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE), Answer.AI, Virgil, and IMVU. He is the author of Incorruptible: Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Companies Stay Great (Authors Equity/Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. References: •       Incorruptible: Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Companies Stay Great by Eric Ries (Authors Equity, May 26, 2026). •       The Lean Startup by Eric Ries (Crown Business, 2011). •       The Startup Way by Eric Ries (Currency, 2017). •       More information and bonus materials at incorruptible.co. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSp...
• God Forgives, Brothers Don’t: Jasper Craven on the Damage West Point Has Done to American Boys 25.05.2026 45λ

  “There is a pretty powerful strain in America today in which men feel some need to be violent and domineering to sort of prove their masculinity. And there’s sort of less intense but still prevalent strains that infect many other types of men.” — Jasper Craven Today is Memorial Day — America’s annual celebration of its warriors and military ethic. But for Jasper Craven, author of God Forgives, Brothers Don’t: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood, it should be a day of muted self-reflection rather than bellicose celebration. Especially in May 2026 with America involved in another ludicrous overseas war. Craven’s argument is that from George Washington onwards, America has fused military manliness with a self-destructive masculine identity. Thus young men are trained at top military academies like West Point to be unthinkingly domineering and violent. But for Craven, America — a continent surrounded by oceans to the east and west and by friendly neighbours to the north and south — has no need for the unreflective militarism fetishised by its military academies and culture. So what has West Point wrought? A nation of Pete Hegseths, Jasper Craven implies. Happy (ie: peaceful) Memorial Day everyone. Five Takeaways •       Military Manliness and American Identity: From Washington to Hegseth: From the Founding Fathers — most of whom were Revolutionary War veterans — America has explicitly fused military manliness with core masculine identity. Boys who want to define themselves as Americans have felt a need to be strong, to serve, to defend. The archetype has only been beefed up over time: through the steroid era and into the world of Navy SEALs and special operators. The result is a culture where men feel the need to be violent and domineering to prove their masculinity, from carrying AK-47s to protests to becoming ICE agents. The problem: the archetype has no relationship to actual national security needs. •       West Point and the Civil War: A Fuse, Not a Remedy: West Point was created to produce a well-schooled officer class. What Craven argues: when you allocate massive resources to building a military, you will feel the consequences. Before the Civil War, West Point was segregated into northern and southern companies — which exacerbated tensions rather than building union. When war broke out, many West Point officers defected to the Confederacy, including Robert E. Lee, who had been superintendent. West Point officers on opposite sides then killed each other in their thousands. Many lawmakers called for West Point to be abolished. They were not heeded. •       Race, Integration, and the Military’s Complex Legacy: Craven acknowledges the military’s partial role in racial integration: Truman’s executive order in 1948 desegregated the armed forces, which was a genuine milestone ahead of civilian institutions. But he is careful about what this means. Integration at the institutional level did not eliminate racism within the culture. And the same military that desegregated also produced the culture of violence, dehumanisation of the other, and misogyny and homophobia that Craven chronicles throughout the book. Partial credit is still only partial credit. •       January 6th and the Politicisation of the Officer Class: In Trump’s first term, General Mattis and General Kelly and others demonstrated real courage in reining in Trump’s worst impulses. By the end of that term, they had all been replaced by loyalists. During the transition to Biden, Trump’s military cronies at the Pentagon went dark. January 6th was largely carried out by military veterans. More than 100 senior retired military officers penned an op-ed supporting what Trump had done. In Trump’s second term, the politicisation of the officer class has only accelerated. The non-political professional officer class is now divided. •       ROTC, Not West Point: Craven’s Prescription: Craven’s preferred model: ROTC — military training supplemental to traditional liberal arts education. Survey data shows ROTC officers, because of exposure to Plato, Shakespeare, and the rest, are more well-rounded and better thinkers than West Point graduates. At West Point, it is essentially all STEM. Craven’s prescription: introduce the humanities, expose cadets to civilians, break the silos. Ideally, West Point could become a national university that includes military programmes alongside the training of doctors and aid workers. The military-civilian divide is as much the military’s creation as the civilian’s. About the Guest Jasper Craven is a freelance reporter covering the military and veterans’ issues. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Harper’s Magazine, Politico, The Baffler, and the New Republic. He is the author of God Forgives, Brothers Don’t: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood (Atria/One Signal Publishers, May 19, 2026) and the co-author, with Suzanne Gordon and Steve Early, of Our Veterans. He lives in Brooklyn, New York. References: •       God Forgives, Brothers Don’t: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood by Jasper Craven (Atria/One Signal Publishers, May 19, 2026). •       Sebastian Junger, Tribe — referenced in the publishers’ framing as a companion text. •       Chris Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning — referenced as a companion text. •       Episode 2907: Brandon Webb on Puddle Jumpers — the companion episode referenced at the opening; the pro-military counterpart to Craven’s critique. •       Episode 2909: Adrian Goldsworthy on Athens vs Sparta — also referenced at the opening. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple Podcasts
• What Albert Camus Teaches Us About America: David Masciotra on a Country of Strangers, 24.05.2026 34λ

  “We’ve learned how to tolerate acts of violence, acts of widespread death, disease — that other developed nations simply don’t tolerate. And that tolerance manifesting in myriad political failures — all of which go back to our refusal to maturely deal with mortality and issues of grief.” — David Masciotra Earlier this week, we talked to Ece Temelkuran about her book Nation of Strangers, a manifesto about strangers finding one another. But for the cultural critic David Masciotra, strangerdom is the problem rather than the solution. Contemporary America, he argues in his new essay A Country of Strangers, has become a place of death, despair and indifference. Masciotra takes his cue from Albert Camus’ 1942 novella The Stranger. Camus’ Meursault — the narrator of The Stranger — is a man completely detached from meaning. He attends his own mother’s funeral without feeling anything. He murders an Arab man on a beach without motive. He faces his execution with a shrug. Masciotra’s argument is that the United States has become Meursault writ large. America’s failure is existential rather than political. It is a failure to mourn — a sustained refusal to engage with death, grief, and the weight of history that produces a society of strangers who cannot connect with one another across race, class, or geography. So is Masciotra right? Are we all Meursault now? What can Albert Camus teach us about America? Five Takeaways •       Meursault and America: The Same Detachment: Camus’ The Stranger is narrated by Meursault — a man who attends his mother’s memorial without feeling, murders an Arab man on a beach without motive, and faces execution with indifference. The novel, Camus said, was his attempt to detail “man’s confrontation with absurdity in its nakedness.” Masciotra’s argument: this is America now. A country that has adopted Meursault’s emotional posture toward mass death. Columbine stopped the nation in 1999. Mass shootings now barely register. That is not political failure. It is existential failure. •       A Failure to Mourn: Masciotra’s central thesis: America’s deepest problem is its refusal to mourn. Not guilt — he is careful to distinguish mourning from guilt. You can have a national memory that reckons with both what you celebrate and what you grieve. If the Founding Fathers are worth preserving in active memory, so are the people they enslaved. Never properly dealing with the Civil War allowed the resurgence of white supremacist movements. Never properly mourning mass shootings allows them to accelerate. The failure to grieve is not sentimental. It is political. •       Is Meursault Autistic? The Spectrum Reading: Some contemporary critics read Meursault as someone on the autism spectrum — a man whose emotional detachment reflects neurodivergence rather than moral failure. Masciotra is skeptical. His reading: Camus’ portrait is one of moral refusal, not neurological condition. The distinction matters for the American parallel: if America’s indifference is a structural feature rather than a disease, the remedy is not therapy but political and cultural change. You can’t medicate a country into empathy. •       The Colonial Murder and the Racial Hierarchy: Meursault murders an Arab man in French Algeria and feels nothing. Some critics fault Camus for not making colonialism more explicit. Masciotra defends Camus: Meursault doesn’t care about anything, including his own mother’s death. His indifference to his Arab victim’s humanity is the point, not an evasion. The parallel to America: the hierarchy of victims, where Black Americans have historically ranked lower in the eyes of law and institution. David Shipler’s 1997 book A Country of Strangers documented the same failure of Black and white Americans to actually talk to one another. •       You Are the First Close White Friends I’ve Had: Masciotra’s friend Alana — a highly educated, cultured Black woman who lived in Chicago — once told him and his wife: “You are the first close white friends I’ve had.” They said the same back. This, Masciotra argues, is the country of strangers in daily life. Not the horror stories of overt racism. The quieter failure of self-imposed segregation that persists in a society that preaches diversity but, judging from its own behaviour, doesn’t really want it. About the Guest David Masciotra is a cultural critic and the author of six books, including Exurbia Now: The Battleground of American Democracy, I Am Somebody: Why Jesse Jackson Matters, and Mellencamp: American Troubadour. He has written for the Progressive, the New Republic, Liberties, and many other publications about politics, literature, and music. His Substack is Absurdia Now. References: •       A Country of Strangers: Death, Despair and Indifference in the US by David Masciotra, CounterPunch, May 1, 2026. •       Albert Camus, The Stranger (1942). Camus’ novella, the primary text of the conversation. •       Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel — referenced in the conversation. •       François Ozon, The Stranger (2024 film) — the adaptation that prompted the essay. •       David Shipler, A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America (1997) — referenced in the conversation. •       Episode 2903: Ece Temelkuran on Nation of Strangers — the companion episode referenced at the opening. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Temelkuran’s nation of strangers and Masciotra’s country of strangers (01...
• Boy Meets Girl Meets AI Therapist: Fred Lunzer on Sike, Fictional Realism, and the Future of Love 23.05.2026 40λ

  “If you write something you think is really fanciful today, tomorrow’s news headlines might be telling the exact same story. That’s the challenge of writing realism today — when everything feels so sci-fi and so dystopic.” — Fred Lunzer Boy meets girl meets AI therapist. That is the premise of Sike, the debut novel by Fred Lunzer. Adrian is a rap ghostwriter who has never met any of the rappers he writes for. After a relationship collapse, he signs up for Sike — a Facebook-style AI psychotherapy app that tracks your every move and emotion via smart glasses and guides you toward mental contentment. He meets Maquie, a venture capitalist and Sike refusnik. You can imagine the rest. Sike is a self-consciously “realist” love story set in a world where AI therapy is ubiquitous. Lunzer wanted to write AI fiction that is realistic rather than dystopian or utopian. He started it speculatively. By the time he’d finished, ChatGPT had launched and what he’d once fancifully imagined had become reality. It’s the futuristic writer’s permanent predicament. Make the future believable before it becomes so familiar that we barely notice it. Turn science fiction into social realism. Five Takeaways •       AI Fiction Without Dystopia: The Gap Lunzer Is Filling: Almost all AI fiction is either utopian or dystopian. James Bond loves gadgets. Most literary fiction treats technology as vaguely grubby and pushes it into genre. Lunzer’s ambition: find the realism. Write about a world where AI is already everywhere, the initial fears are already past, and we’ve reached the same ambivalent relationship with it that we have with our smartphones. We don’t know what model we have. We barely think about it. That’s where the interesting questions live. •       Reality Caught Up Before He Finished: Lunzer wrote Sike speculatively. By the time he finished, ChatGPT had launched. William Gibson’s observation: the future is already here, just unevenly distributed. His corollary: if you write something fanciful today, it’s tomorrow’s news story. Lunzer’s solution to this perpetual problem is to stop writing near-future speculation and instead set the story in a world where the technology is already past its introduction — where the hype is over and the real reckoning begins. •       Realism Is the Hardest Genre Right Now: Andrew’s observation: the best AI fiction is realist. Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun treats unimaginable things as taken for granted. That’s the technique. Lunzer agrees — and notes that realism is particularly hard to write now because everything already feels surreal. Trump, AI, the state of the world: if you’d described any of it thirty years ago, people would have called it fiction. The challenge of the realist novelist in 2026 is to find the quiet normality inside the chaos. •       Non-Polarising AI Fiction: Lunzer deliberately avoided writing a book that slams Meta, or that is obviously pro- or anti-AI. He calls it non-polarised. In Sike, some characters love the AI therapy app, some refuse to use it. No one is obviously right. The book’s thesis — insofar as it has one — is that the interesting questions about AI are not the ones about whether it’s good or bad, but the ones that arise once you’ve stopped arguing about that and started living with it. •       The Economics of Writing: Trenches, Not Glamour: Lunzer has a day job — AI researcher at Sony. Sike was his first published novel, not his first written. Before it: a travel narrative about the Japanese restaurant industry that went nowhere, and a novel about a global pandemic finished in early 2020 and overtaken by COVID before any publisher would touch it. His verdict on the publishing world: not glamorous. A lot of books. A lot of writers. Not much money except for a few. He got an advance. Most debut novelists don’t earn it back. The lesson he draws from Norman Mailer: writing a good novel is like learning to play the piano well. It just takes time. About the Guest Fred Lunzer is an AI researcher at Sony and the author of Sike: A Novel (Celadon Books, 2024; paperback 2026). He was born in London and lives in West Sussex, England. References: •       Sike: A Novel by Fred Lunzer (Celadon Books, 2024; paperback 2026). •       Kazuo Ishiguro, Klara and the Sun — the key comparison text referenced in the interview. •       William Gibson — two quotes referenced: “The future is already here, just unevenly distributed”; and the observation about reality catching up with fiction. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 
• Unvaccinated Under God: Kira Ganga Kieffer on Religion and Vaccine Hesitancy in Modern America 22.05.2026 46λ

  “Vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. should be understood as religious expression — not as the product of scientific misinformation. These debates have been proxies for existential concerns about justice and morality.” — Kira Ganga Kieffer Are anti-vaxxers simply bizarre anti-science crazies egged on by conspiracists like RFK Jr? For Kira Ganga Kieffer, author of Unvaccinated Under God, what she calls “vaccine hesitancy” in America is actually a more complicated and prescient affair. The prevailing narrative — that vaccine-hesitant people lack scientific facts or serve their own individual agendas — misunderstands what’s actually happening. Kieffer’s argument is that vaccine hesitancy is best understood as a kind of religiosity. Not in the narrow context of church doctrine, but in the broader sense of meaning-making, moral reasoning, and an intensely individualist relationship with the body that is deeply rooted in American evangelical and alternative-spiritual tradition. This hesitancy, Kieffer shows, is not new. It has been present since the smallpox vaccine in the eighteenth century. What recurs across very different eras and very different communities is a set of metaphysical rather than scientific concerns expressed in the language of wellness, purity, and bodily sovereignty. The most interesting political implication of Kieffer’s argument is that the same hyperindividualistic anti-modern instinct behind vaccine hesitancy also drives the wellness movement, the rejection of AI, and the political coalition that coalesced around RFK Jr. She sees this as a broad and growing constituency that neither party has fully understood nor spoken to. Rather than crazies, today’s anti-vaxxers might offer a window onto tomorrow’s American politics. Five Takeaways •       Vaccine Hesitancy Is Moral Meaning-Making, Not Ignorance: The dominant public health framing: vaccine-hesitant people lack scientific knowledge. Kieffer’s reframe: they are engaged in profound moral reasoning about the body, purity, parental responsibility, and the relationship between the individual and the state. The parent who fears the MMR vaccine is not asking a scientific question. They are asking: if I consent to this intervention and my child is harmed, am I responsible? That is a theological question — about guilt, intention, and moral agency — dressed in the language of health. •       Evangelical Hyperindividualism Is the Root: Kieffer’s structural argument: American evangelical Christianity is, at its core, an individualist proposition. You are saved by your personal choices. This translates directly into the wellness culture’s logic of bodily salvation: you are saved from illness, aging, and death by your personal choices about diet, supplements, and vaccines. The individual body becomes the site of spiritual as well as physical salvation. This hyperindividualism is very American — and very old. It predates the wellness movement and will outlast it. •       Vaccine Hesitancy Has Been Present Since the Eighteenth Century: Kieffer’s most important historical corrective: vaccine hesitancy did not begin with COVID, with MMR, or with the anti-vaccine movement of the 1990s. It has been present since the smallpox inoculations of colonial Massachusetts. What recurs across very different eras is not the same people or the same science — it’s the same core concerns: bodily purity, parental moral responsibility, and distrust of external authority over the body. Each generation clothes these concerns in the available language. Today it is wellness. Earlier it was religious freedom. •       RFK Jr.: Evangelical Crusader or Wellness Influencer? RFK Jr. shares many characteristics of the evangelical crusader — a sense of special mission, a narrative of persecution, a world divided into the awakened and the deceived. But Kieffer is careful not to put words in his mouth. What she observes: in his crusade for wellness and his critique of organised medicine, he channels the same instincts she traces throughout the book. His coalition is now showing signs of disillusionment — followers who believed he was a true believer are finding that political power complicates purity. They are looking for someone else. •       The Anti-Modern Instinct Will Shape American Politics: The same hyperindividualist, anti-modern instinct that drives vaccine hesitancy also drives the rejection of AI, the wellness movement’s critique of pharmaceutical medicine, and the political formations that coalesced around RFK Jr. Kieffer sees a broad and growing constituency that packages distrust of modernity in spiritual terms: what is essentially good is nature, humanity, the unmediated body. Neither party has fully understood or spoken to this constituency. As skepticism about AI and hypertechnology grows, Kieffer expects it to become more politically significant, not less. About the Guest Kira Ganga Kieffer is a scholar of American religions, history, culture, and politics. She holds a PhD in Religious Studies from Boston University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Fairfield University. She is the author of Unvaccinated Under God: Religion and Vaccine Hesitancy in Modern America (Princeton University Press, May 19, 2026). She lives in Westport, Connecticut. References: •       Unvaccinated Under God: Religion and Vaccine Hesitancy in Modern America by Kira Ganga Kieffer (Princeton University Press, May 19, 2026). •       Matthew Avery Sutton, Chosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity — referenced in the opening; the preceding KOA episode on American religion. •       Episode 2913: David Ost on Red Pill Politics — the companion episode on the anti-modern political impulse that Kieffer’s book helps explain. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify<...
• How to Win a Trade War: Soumaya Keynes on Trump, China, and Her Great-Great-Uncle Maynard 21.05.2026 41λ

  “The rules-based system just hasn’t worked. China’s system is so opaque that you can’t see the subsidies. And when you’ve got China not interested in new rules and the US not interested in a referee, you’ve got two of the world’s biggest actors who aren’t on board.” — Soumaya Keynes It would have been nice to get John Maynard Keynes on the show to get his critique of Trump’s trade war. But in the long run, we’re all dead — even old Maynard. So instead, we found his great-great-niece, Soumaya Keynes — Financial Times columnist and co-author of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy. Having already appeared on Jon Stewart this week, Soumaya has a bit of Keynesian star quality about her. But she’s also a first-rate economist. Her thesis is that the old rules-based trading system that her great-great-uncle helped design after World War II is gone. And it ain’t coming back. China’s subsidies are so opaque that rules can’t be written to constrain them, let alone enforced. The US is no longer willing to submit to a referee. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. So — now what? Keynes says we must think like a trade warrior. Donald Trump should leverage the tools available — but use them strategically. Trump’s error in his second term was not being tough on China while being too tough on everyone else, especially allies like Canada and Mexico. Soumaya Keynes’ most contemporary idea might be her most Keynesian one. John Maynard Keynes proposed penalties for countries running large trade surpluses as well as those running deficits — recognising that global imbalances are a two-sided problem. That idea didn’t make it into the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. Eighty years later, in equally anxious economic times, his optimistic great-great-niece is reviving it. Five Takeaways •       Can Trade Wars Be Won? Yes, Sometimes: The conventional wisdom: no one wins a trade war. Keynes and Bown agree — in theory. In practice, countries in a weaker position cave. History has examples: France in the late nineteenth century told its trading partners they were renegotiating treaties, and the smaller partners complied. Trump’s tariffs in his first term produced concessions. The problem is not that trade wars can’t be won. It’s that the smaller power’s only defence — coordinating with other smaller powers — is extremely hard to sustain. There’s always an incentive to cut a deal first. •       China Is the Doper on the Sports Field: Keynes’s sharpest analogy: the global trading system is like a sports game that needs rules to ensure a level playing field. China’s subsidies — cheap credit, corporate handouts, opaque support for state-linked companies — are the equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. The problem is that unlike doping in sport, China’s subsidies are invisible. You can write a rule saying China won’t give these handouts. But you can’t verify compliance. And without enforcement, rules are meaningless. The WTO has not solved this. Nothing has solved this. •       Trump Was Right About China, Wrong About Everything Else: Keynes is careful here. She credits Robert Lighthizer in Trump’s first term with identifying China as the real problem and building a focused strategy. In the second term, Trump put tariffs on everyone simultaneously — which dissipated leverage, alienated the coalition of allies needed to pressure Beijing, and mixed up the problem of China’s subsidies with grievances against Canada, Mexico, and the EU. If you were genuinely tough on China, you wouldn’t have put tariffs on everyone. You would have been more targeted. •       The Rules-Based System Is Gone and Isn’t Coming Back: Why can’t we return to the system Keynes’s great-great-uncle helped build? Two reasons. China’s subsidies are too opaque to write enforceable rules against. And the US has lost confidence in any international referee — a long and complex story, but the result is that America won’t submit to neutral adjudication. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. Yearning for the old approach is not an option. A new strategy is needed — and that’s what the book is about. •       AI and the Next Trade War: Services: AI is central to the US-China conflict already — chip restrictions, military advantage, economic supremacy. But Keynes’s less-noticed observation: AI could fundamentally reshape international services trade. The UK, for example, is a massive services exporter — finance, legal, consulting, accounting. If AI eliminates demand for those services, the UK faces a new current account crisis, new trade tensions, a new wave of economic conflict. Nobody knows how this plays out. Which is why, she suggests, the tools in the book will remain relevant for longer than the current tariff cycle. About the Guests Soumaya Keynes is an economics columnist at the Financial Times and host of The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes. Before joining the FT she spent eight years at The Economist. She co-founded the Trade Talks podcast with Chad Bown during Trump’s first term. Chad P. Bown is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Chief Economist at the US State Department under President Biden. Together they are the authors of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). References: •       How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy by Soumaya Keynes and Chad P. Bown (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). •       Soumaya Keynes on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, May 19, 2026 — referenced in the interview. •       Episode 2892: Jason Pack on the Iran war — the companion episode on America’s strategic distractions from the China problem. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouT...
• Bad Entrepreneurs and Even Worse Artists: Does Capitalism Have a Future in the AI Age? 20.05.2026 43λ

  “The end of labor means the end of paid slavery. And the opening up of freedom — that is to say, choice of how to spend your time. The only question, a big question, is how do you eat?” — Keith Teare Does capitalism have a future in our AI age? For Musk, Silicon Valley’s baddest bad entrepreneur, the answer might surprise. Musk seems to think that in the long run, money and wealth will disappear in an age of abundant intelligence. Which, presumably, will include hundreds of billions of his own dollars. Although given Musk’s determination to sue and take money from OpenAI, some might be slightly sceptical of his real faith in a post-money cornucopia. It’s not just Musk and That Was the Week publisher Keith Teare who are reimagining capitalism in our AI age. The former World Bank chief economist, Branko Milanovic, drawing on Karl Marx and Adam Smith in equal measure, argues that if AI eliminates the labor component of production, things will become free — thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of capitalism. Keith agrees — and goes further than Milanovic. The end of paid labor, he insists, borrowing also from Marx, is not a catastrophe. It’s the end of what he calls “paid slavery” and the opening of genuine freedom. I’m not so sure. If nobody has to work, we’ll all become bad artists. The cult of the amateur. The future is of bad entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and even worse artists. Hyper-capitalism in our age of AI. Five Takeaways •       The Musk-OpenAI Trial: A Big Yawn That Cost Millions: An Oakland jury rejected Elon Musk’s claim against OpenAI in under two hours — not because OpenAI didn’t do what Musk alleged, but because the statute of limitations had expired. Someone should have caught this before two weeks of trial. Musk has vowed to appeal, but it’s hard to see how you get around a statute of limitations. Keith’s verdict: sideshow, big yawn, ego contest. The lawyers won. The real question — who owns OpenAI after it converts to for-profit — was never going to be answered here. •       Sam Altman’s Credibility Problem: The New York Times took five takeaways from the trial, one of which was that Sam Altman has a credibility problem. Keith’s response: not new information. What the trial did reveal is the depth of mutual animosity between Musk and Altman — two people who, despite everything, share more beliefs about where AI is going than almost anyone else in the world. Keith on who he’d back in a Stalin vs Hitler choice: Stalin, 100 times out of 100. Which is not to say he’s enthusiastic about either. •       Krugman on Europe: Right Analysis, Wrong Conclusion: Paul Krugman, touring Europe, argues that GDP per capita understates European quality of life. A third of US income buys more than a third of US lifestyle in Europe — healthcare, education, travel, housing are all significantly cheaper. Keith agrees with the analysis. His counter: Europe’s structural hostility to innovation means it can maintain its lifestyle but not grow it. The social democratic model is sustainable until it isn’t. It needs to unlock innovation or it will slowly fall behind. Hard to do when you’re spending your time writing regulations. •       Milanovic’s AI Thesis: When Things Are Free: Branko Milanovic — Marxist and neoclassical economist — argues that if AI eliminates the labor component of production, value in the classical Adam Smith/Ricardo/Marx sense disappears, and things approach free. Keith agrees and goes further: this isn’t just Marxist logic, it’s classical economics. The organic composition of capital. If variable capital — mostly labor — tends toward zero, costs tend toward zero, prices tend toward zero, and the distinction between capitalism and its opposite dissolves. Musk says the same thing. Agree or disagree, it’s the most interesting economic argument of our time. •       The End of Paid Labor Is the End of Paid Slavery: Keith’s most provocative position. The end of paid labor is not something to fear. It is freedom — the opening up of genuine choice about how to spend your time. What remains are human-to-human activities: care work, travel companionship, live music, the masseur. These will be in demand. They just won’t constitute most of what 8 billion people do. The question of how the previously employed population participates in society — eats, lives, has purpose — is real and large. Keith’s position: it’s not an inconceivable problem. Andrew’s counter: if nobody has to work, we’ll all become bad artists. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and Andrew’s regular TWTW co-host. References: •       That Was the Week by Keith Teare. •       Branko Milanovic, “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Capitalism from a Marxist and Neoclassical Point of View,” Substack. •       Paul Krugman, “Is Europe in Economic Decline?” The New York Times / Substack. •       Episode 2910: Keith Teare and Jonathan Rauch on AI — the preceding special edition, directly referenced. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:  
• When California Was an Island: Peter Keating on the Cartography That Maps How We See the World 19.05.2026 50λ

  “Maps are communicating vast quantities of new knowledge that was only estimated. They convey this imaginative energy — an imaginative energy that maps today have lost, because today maps are so functional, so utilitarian.” — Peter Keating In the sixteenth century, Spanish cartographers represented California as an island. They weren’t being careless. Nor were they drawing New Yorker covers. These 16th century cartographers were, instead, mapping the limits of both what they knew and what they imagined. Cartography is as much an art as a science and maps always mirror how we see the world. Thus Peter Keating’s beautifully illustrated new book, Power Lines: Maps That Shaped the Way We See the World. Assembling nearly 100 of history’s most consequential political maps, Keating’s thesis is that maps are not neutral. They are arguments. Every map centers something — a religion, an empire, a people — and pushes something else to the margins. The story of cartography, then, is the story of power. Five Takeaways •       California Was an Island: The Power of Imagined Geography: In the sixteenth century, Spanish cartographers drew California as a large island off the coast of America. They weren’t being careless — they were mapping the edge of what was known and imaginable. Before any map can draw a border, Keating argues, it has to decide what is real. The T-and-O medieval maps placed Jerusalem at the center of the world, with the biblically admitted lands of Europe, Africa, and Asia radiating outward. Only slowly, and with great difficulty, did the Western cartographic tradition absorb the fact that there was a whole continent between their imagination and the Pacific. •       The Oldest Tension in Cartography: Sacred vs Scientific: Keating identifies two traditions in constant tension throughout Western history. The cosmographical tradition: center what you know and believe, place your gods and sacred lands at the middle of the world, and mix fantasy with inquiry. The scientific tradition: starting with Ptolemy in ancient Greece and independently in ancient China, create maps that generals and kings could actually use to expand territory, find resources, and identify enemies. With Rome’s Christianisation, the cosmographical tradition dominated for nearly a thousand years. The Ptolemaic scientific tradition only re-emerged with the Renaissance and exploration. •       Poland: The Most Erased Country in Cartographic History: Keating’s answer to his own question — which country has been wiped off maps most often yet survived? Poland. It disappeared from maps at least three times, divided and partitioned by more geographically fortunate powers — Habsburgs, Russians, Nazis — whose cultural and military might seemed overwhelming. And yet Poland survived every erasure in the hearts of its people. A 1956 map of Poland as a carnation, published by the communist government as a May Day celebration, reads — Keating argues — as subversive under the surface: a nation asserting its existence against the regime that claimed to represent it. •       Lincoln’s Favorite Map: The Slave Density Survey: The most powerful map in the book: the 1861 Coast Survey, a non-ideological government project that shaded American counties by the density of enslaved populations. Lincoln studied it obsessively. He reasoned that where enslaved people were densest, Union troops could arrive as liberators and find support. Where they were rare — in predominantly white areas of the South — he could pursue accommodation and peace. The map shaped the Emancipation Proclamation’s geography. And because enslaved populations had settled where the delta soils were richest, the map also explains the cultural and political geography of the American South today. •       The Two-Color Election Map Is Making Democracy Worse: Every two years, Americans are shown the same red-and-blue electoral map. Keating’s verdict: it is a bad projection, a winner-take-all distortion, and a representation of the Electoral College’s biases rather than actual political sentiment. Research shows that two-color maps increase cynicism, cause people to underestimate the number of fellow-partisans in other states, and erode faith in politics. In a democracy, maps should reflect actual political support. The United States is overdue for population-based electoral maps. About the Guest Peter Keating is a narrative journalist whose work has appeared in GQ, Mother Jones, National Geographic, and Politico. He was a longtime columnist and founding member of the Investigative Unit at ESPN, where he was part of teams that won three National Magazine Awards. He is the author of Power Lines: Maps That Shaped the Way We See the World (Black Dog & Leventhal, May 12, 2026) and Dingers! A Short History of the Long Ball. He lives in Montclair, New Jersey. References: •       Power Lines: Maps That Shaped the Way We See the World by Peter Keating (Black Dog & Leventhal, May 12, 2026). •       Saul Steinberg’s “View of the World from 9th Avenue,” The New Yorker, 1976 — the famous New Yorker cover discussed in the interview. •       Episode 2908: Audun Dahl on moral judgements — the parallel episode on how framing shapes perception. •       Episode 2909: Adrian Goldsworthy on Athens and Sparta — referenced in the conversation. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - California as an island: sixteenth-century Spanish maps (02:14) - What imagined maps teach us: the limits of knowledge (04:30) - The New Yorker cover of 1976: New York’s view of the world (05:22) - Two traditions in tension: cosmographical vs scientific (08:13) - Geo...
• Don’t Use the F-Word: David Ost on Why the Red Pill, Not Fascism, Demystifies the Far Right 18.05.2026 46λ

  “Fascism is the term that is everywhere and nowhere in contemporary political discussions. We can talk about right-wing populism — but the type of politics they share with classic fascism is what I call red pill politics.” — David Ost Please don’t use the F-word. At least to describe the politics of Trump, Orbán, Meloni, Netanyahu, Modi, Farage et al. Rather than fascism, the best way to demystify far-right populism is via the movie The Matrix through its idea of “red pill” politics. David Ost’s new book, Red Pill Politics: Demystifying Today’s Far Right, argues that to grasp the threat we need to stop stepping out of the Third Reich and into The Matrix. The red pill, borrowed from the 1999 dystopian classic, has been appropriated by the far right as a metaphor for seeing through the liberal hegemony they claim distorts reality. Popping a red pill himself, Ost argues that while today’s far right shares the essential DNA of classical fascism, it nonetheless operates in a world in which outright dictatorship isn’t viable. Mussolini, Ost warns, didn’t become totalitarian until four years after taking power. Fascism, then, is a process. It takes time. Even dystopias require patience. The book is also a manifesto for left counter-politics. Yes, Law and Justice in Poland and Orbán in Hungary have both been voted out, Ost acknowledges. But in Poland, he warns, the Tusk government won power in 2023 and then governed timidly, afraid of alienating the center, failing its own base on abortion and LGBT rights, and then losing the presidential election. So the lesson from Eastern Europe is that economic left populism, not liberal caution, is the best antidote to red pill politics. Mamdani not Starmer. Otherwise the F-word will once again become a reality. Five Takeaways •       The F-Word Has Become Meaningless: Every application of “fascism” to Trump, Orbán, or Meloni is immediately met with the counter: “Are we killing you? Are we throwing you in jail?” And seemingly the matter is put to rest. Ost’s argument: the f-word has become a conversation-stopper rather than a conversation-starter. It lets the far right off the hook by setting the bar at Nazi-level violence. The actual threat — the delegitimisation of institutions, the treatment of opponents as traitors, the erosion of democratic norms — is already underway, without the gas chambers that the f-word implies. •       Opponents vs Traitors: The Defining Distinction: In a democracy, you have opponents. You disagree with them, you campaign against them, you try to vote them out. In far-right politics, you have traitors. People who disagree with you are not legitimate participants in a political contest — they are enemies of the nation, people who do not belong, people who are working against the interests of the real people. This distinction — not violence, not the gas chambers, but the redefinition of legitimate opposition as treachery — is Ost’s clearest marker of the transition from normal democratic politics to something else. •       Mussolini’s Four Years: How Long Before Dictatorship? When Mussolini first came to power, there were still elections. He tried to rig the game — to gerrymander, to use contemporary parlance — and institutionalise his authority. He only turned to outright dictatorship after four years in power. That was a different time. But the pattern — of coming to power through elections and then slowly making it impossible to be removed through elections — is not unique to Italy. Ost argues we may currently be in the equivalent of Mussolini’s first four years in several countries simultaneously. •       What Eastern Europe Teaches America: The Tusk Warning: Law and Justice in Poland governed for eight years and was voted out in 2023. The lesson should be hopeful. But the coalition that replaced it, led by Donald Tusk, governed timidly — afraid of doing anything that might alienate the center, failing to deliver on abortion rights and domestic partnerships, and then lost the presidential election. Ost’s verdict: a Biden mistake. When the center-left or left comes to power, it must be consequentially left populist — not just different from the right in tone and temperament, but materially different in what it does for regular people. Caution is its own kind of failure. •       Mamdani as Real-World Exhibit A: Ost was writing the book when Zohran Mamdani won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Mamdani campaigned explicitly to speak to voters who had voted for Trump — asking why they were moving in that direction and arguing that a universalist left could speak to their material concerns without abandoning minorities. For Ost, this is the model: economic populism that is genuinely redistributionist, that speaks to small cities and rural areas, that is tough on the issues rather than cautious about public opinion. A left that actually stands for something. About the Guest David Ost is an emeritus professor of politics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. He is the author of Red Pill Politics: Demystifying Today’s Far Right (The New Press, May 19, 2026), The Defeat of Solidarity: Anger and Politics in Postcommunist Europe, Solidarity and the Politics of Anti-Politics, and other books. He has written for a wide range of scholarly and popular publications, has done research in Polish factories, and once drove a NYC taxi. He lives in Ithaca, New York. References: •       Red Pill Politics: Demystifying Today’s Far Right by David Ost (The New Press, May 19, 2026). •       Jonathan Rauch, “Yes, It’s Fascism,” The Atlantic — the piece Andrew references at the opening, and the episode we produced around it. •       Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works — cited as the book Ost’s is in conversation with. •       Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die — Levitsky blurbs the book. •       Episode 2894: Marc Loustau on making Hungary boring again — the companion episode on Orbán’s defeat, referenced directly. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube
• Don't Retire, Rewire: Michael Clinton's Longevity Nation 18.05.2026 42λ

  “Retirement is a false construct created a hundred years ago by the government. It was basically created when Social Security was born. Prior to that, people worked until they died — because they didn’t live as long.” — Michael Clinton At the ripe young age of 70, Michael Clinton hiked nine days to Everest Base Camp and ran the Tenzing-Hillary Marathon down. Now 72, he is president of his own longevity consultancy, a columnist for Esquire and Men’s Health, a private pilot, part-owner of a vineyard in Argentina, and the author of Longevity Nation: The People, Ideas, and Trends Changing the Second Half of Our Lives (Atria/Beyond Words, May 5, 2026). Rather than about living forever, Longevity Nation dares us to redefine what the second half of our lives can look like. And Clinton wants us to reinvent society accordingly. A hundred years ago, he reminds us, only seven million Americans were over 65. Today there are 62 million, which will quickly grow to 80 million. The whole world is aging, and its institutions are not keeping up. Retirement, Michael Clinton explains, is a false construct invented a century ago by industrial age governments. Rewire, the septuagenarian marathoner says. Don’t retire. Five Takeaways •       This Is What 72 Looks Like Today: Clinton’s opening provocation: at 70, he hiked to Everest Base Camp and ran the marathon down. He’s visited 125 countries, run marathons on all seven continents, holds two master’s degrees, and is a private pilot. His point is not to brag. It is that the cultural image of what 70 or 80 looks like has not caught up with the reality of what a subset of 70 and 80-year-olds — and, increasingly, a growing proportion of 70 and 80-year-olds — actually look like and are capable of. When he was 40, 72 seemed ancient. Now he is 72. It doesn’t. •       GLP-1: Hotel California or Longevity’s First Democratised Drug? The sharpest exchange in the interview. Andrew’s framing: GLP-1 is Hotel California — you can check in but not check out. Stop taking it and the weight and inflammation return. Clinton’s response: yes, that seems to be the story right now, and nobody knows the long-term play. But GLP-1 is coming to Medicare this summer, price cut in half, and it may become the first truly democratised longevity drug — reducing obesity, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk across the income spectrum, not just for the wealthy. Exciting and uncertain in equal measure. •       Retirement Is a False Construct: Social Security was created at a moment when most Americans died before collecting it. Life expectancy was 62. The retirement age was 65. The construct was built for a world that no longer exists. Clinton’s prescription: don’t retire. Rewire. You don’t have to do the same thing, but do something. Stay engaged. Stay purposeful. If you’re 65 and live another thirty years, the retirement construct — move to Florida, play golf, wait — is not merely insufficient. It is actively harmful to cognitive and physical health. •       Longevity Nation vs Gerontocracy: Andrew raises the counter-argument: is longevity nation actually gerontocracy? Trump, Biden, Trump. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Nancy Pelosi. A class of elderly people who won’t step aside, hoarding power and preventing generational renewal. Clinton’s response: he is opposed to formal retirement ages for anyone. His answer to the political hoarding of power is not age limits but engagement — people need purpose, and purpose should be redirected, not cut off. Andrew’s unspoken counter: this is easy to say when you’re not the one being blocked by an eighty-year-old senator. •       Who Do You Want Around Your Deathbed? Clinton’s most personal observation, via the book he co-authored: as you think about living longer, ask yourself — who are the five people you would want around your deathbed? And are you maintaining those relationships? The grandson of a funeral director, Clinton has a different relationship with death than most. His prescription: the longer you live, the more important it becomes to keep your closest relationships strong. Longevity without community is not longevity. It is just duration. About the Guest Michael Clinton is the former president and publishing director of Hearst Magazines, founder of Roar Forward, and the author of Longevity Nation: The People, Ideas, and Trends Changing the Second Half of Our Lives (Atria/Beyond Words, May 5, 2026) and Roar: Into the Second Half of Your Life (Before It’s Too Late). He is a columnist for Men’s Health and Esquire, a private pilot, a marathon runner on all seven continents, and a part-owner of a vineyard in Argentina. He lives in New York City and Water Mill, Long Island. References: •       Longevity Nation: The People, Ideas, and Trends Changing the Second Half of Our Lives by Michael Clinton (Atria/Beyond Words, May 5, 2026). •       Stanford Center on Longevity, New Map of Life — cited by Clinton as one of the major research frameworks behind the book. •       Samuel Moyn, Gerontocratic Nation — the Yale professor’s forthcoming counter-argument, referenced by Andrew. •       Cara Swisher, Cara Swisher Wants to Live Forever — the CNN series referenced at the opening as the sceptical counterpart to Clinton’s optimism. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Cara Swisher wants to live forever (01:33) - How old are you, Michael? 72 and proud (01:57) - The Everest Base Camp hike at 70 (02:17) - Is the longevity boom a coastal elite phenomenon? (03:15) - A hundred years ago: seven million over-65s; today, 62 million (03:46) - The cultural shift:...
• How to Watch the World Cup Like a Genius: Nick Greene on Why the Best Team Doesn’t Always Win 17.05.2026 1ώ

  “Soccer matches are poorly designed experiments — you don’t necessarily find out which team was better. But any soccer fan will tell you that. Oftentimes, the better team does not win.” — Nick Greene, via a NASA scientist On June 11, the World Cup comes to North America. Fifty-six years ago, I watched the searing injustice of Johann Cruyff’s Holland getting robbed in the 1974 final by Germany. Today I talk with someone who explains how this kind of injustice is built into the game’s DNA. Nick Greene — long-suffering Newcastle United fan and author of How to Watch Basketball Like a Genius — has a new book, How to Watch Soccer Like a Genius, which tells us what architects, stuntwomen, paleoanthropologists and computer scientists tell us about the beautiful game. What they tell us is that the game isn’t fair. One NASA scientist tells Greene that soccer is a “poorly designed experiment” because the low-scoring nature of the game means results don’t reliably identify the better team. Thus the dark fate of the free-scoring, brilliantly inventive Hungarians in 1954 and the Dutch in 1974. So if you want to watch the World Cup like a genius, don’t expect the best team to win the tournament. Which may explain why Greene suspects that England — where the pain of World Cup injustice is a national fetish — will win in 2026. On penalties probably. Arsenal style. After 120 minutes of goalless football. Five Takeaways •       Soccer Is a Poorly Designed Experiment: A NASA scientist published a peer-reviewed paper concluding that soccer is a “poorly designed experiment” — the low number of goals means results don’t reliably identify the better team. Greene’s observation: any soccer fan could have told him that, and saved the journal space. But this is also what makes the game what it is. Unlike basketball’s seven-game playoff series — which gives the best team enough chances to emerge on top — a single World Cup match, in a single-elimination tournament, means one error can have outsized consequences. The imperfect and the human are inseparable. •       Justice Has Nothing to Do With It: The 1974 Dutch vs 2004 Greece: Andrew’s most painful memory: the 1974 World Cup final, where the magnificent Dutch side led by Cruyff was beaten by the Germans. The Dutch didn’t win, but they are remembered as one of the greatest teams in history. The 2004 Greek side, which won Euro 2004 by parking the bus and grinding nil-nil victories, actually won — and are remembered as a fluke. The lesson Greene draws: the shared understanding built into soccer watching is that winning is only one metric, and often not the most important one. It is an imperfect and profoundly human enterprise. •       How to Appreciate Defense: The cliché American complaint about soccer is the low scoring. Greene’s response: this is partly a failure to appreciate defense, which in soccer can look like the absence of good offense. He discusses Italy’s history of outstanding defensive play — the Catenaccio system, Paolo Maldini, Beckenbauer — and the intelligence required to prevent goals. Andrew’s contribution: his wife, who watches American football, taught him that defense is where the sophistication lives. The same is true of soccer. The genius watcher watches the defenders. •       VAR: Too Much, Going in the Right Direction: Greene’s measured verdict on VAR — video assistant refereeing. His worst case: when it ruins a goal celebration. The player scores, the crowd erupts, the flag goes up, three minutes of review, okay everyone start celebrating again. That destroys the cathartic moment that makes soccer’s rare goals so electrifying. His prediction: VAR will evolve toward the coach’s challenge model used in American football and basketball — a limited number of challenges per half, preserving the flow of the game while correcting the worst errors. It’s relatively young. It’ll be futted and fidgeted with. •       Don’t Bet On It. Watch the Game: Greene’s best advice for American newcomers to soccer. Not about tactics, not about history. Betting on soccer is a mug’s game — partly because results don’t reliably reflect the better team (the NASA paper again), and partly because talking about your bets is the least interesting conversation you can have about sport. His prediction for the tournament: England. Reasoning: Harry Kane is playing. Andrew’s reaction: Kane is a Spurs man, so reluctant endorsement. But please, Nick. Don’t. About the Guest Nick Greene is a contributing writer at Slate and the author of How to Watch Soccer Like a Genius: What Architects, Stuntwomen, Paleoanthropologists, and Computer Scientists Reveal About the World’s Game (Abrams Press, May 12, 2026) and How to Watch Basketball Like a Genius (Abrams Press, 2021). His work has appeared in the Washington Post, Chicago Magazine, and elsewhere. He is a Newcastle United fan and lives in Berkeley, California. References: •       How to Watch Soccer Like a Genius by Nick Greene (Abrams Press, May 12, 2026). •       Simon Kuper, Going to the Match — referenced in the introduction as a recent KOA episode on nine consecutive World Cups. •       Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World — referenced as the prior KOA World Cup episode. •       David Winner, Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Soccer — blurbed the book; relevant to the 1974 Dutch discussion. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 
• Can Keith Teare Convince Jonathan Rauch That AI Is Benign? That Was the Week, Special Edition 16.05.2026 55λ

  “The dangers are human, not AI. What’s dangerous is what a human does with AI, not what the AI does itself. In fact, even the idea that there is such a thing as the AI in itself is a mistake.” — Keith Teare I’m in Korea this week. So rather than doing a traditional one-on-one That Was the Week tech summary, Keith Teare and I are trying something different. We invited Jonathan Rauch — Brookings Institution senior fellow, serial author and one of the most rigorous minds in Washington — onto the show to discuss AI. Rauch had a simple mission. He wanted to find out why Keith Teare is just about the only person in the universe who believes that AI is benign. Jon had five buckets of doom to dump on Keith: labour market disruption, political upheaval, mental health and cognition, malicious actors, and the biggest daddy of all — AI developing consciousness, setting its own agenda, and killing everyone (even Keith). But Keith maintained his Yorkshire stoicism under intense scrutiny from the analogue Rauch machine. AI is a word-counting machine, he explained. Large language models train on words, not experience. They split words into a probabilistic graph of correlations. When you ask a question, a large statistical engine fires, word by word. In that sense, he says, AI is no cleverer than a calculator. The idea that it has awareness, consciousness, or a plan is mythological. What’s dangerous is what a human does with AI, not what AI does itself. The dangers, he says, are human. Jon wasn’t entirely reassured (his Brookings brand is scepticism, after all). What worries him most is that humans will handle these technologies irresponsibly. On that, he and Keith agree. The short-term labour disruption will be significant. White-collar service provision — legal, accounting, junior consulting — is already going. Jobs will go too. Work, Keith insists, will not. But nobody in politics is having the conversation about what comes next. Not JD. Not AOC. Only Keith and Jon. Five Takeaways •       AI Is a Word-Counting Machine: Keith’s Core Argument: Large language models train on words and only words. They split those words into a probabilistic graph — how close is word A to word B? When you ask a question, a large statistical engine fires, producing output word by word. There is no awareness. There is no consciousness. There is no plan. The idea that such a system could develop its own agenda is mythological. It’s no cleverer than a calculator. It’s just a very big, very fast calculator. Rauch’s counter: the brain is also just dumb neurons. We get emergence from dumb neurons. Keith’s reply: what the AI can do is constrained by what humans allow it to do. The agency is human. •       Doomerism as Business Model: Before engaging with any specific AI doom argument, Keith signals a prior: whenever there is ambiguity in a major technological change, a business model emerges to monetize doubt. It was true of nuclear power. It was true of climate change. It is true of AI. This doesn’t mean the fears are groundless — they wouldn’t sell if they weren’t reasonable. But it means they should be approached with prior scepticism. The doom argument works precisely because AI genuinely contains possible negative outcomes. The business model packages and amplifies those possibilities beyond their actual probability. •       The Guardrails Are Human: Keith’s metaphor: AI sits in a prison where humans decide what the doors are. If you give it access to email, it can email. If you don’t, it can’t. It cannot take actions it has not been permitted to take. The word “guardrails” is commonly used, and it’s apt: the constraints on what AI can do are entirely under human control. The word output is the statistical engine — that’s not controllable. But its ability to act on words is highly constrained. The danger is not what AI does. It is what humans choose to allow AI to do. •       Jobs vs Work: The Labour Disruption Argument: Rauch’s young friends in junior consulting are watching their jobs go in real time. Keith distinguishes between jobs — paid labour — and work, which is closer to effort and creative agency. Jobs can go. Work, he argues, will not — humans will always be reinterpreting the future they want and working to make it happen. But the short-term disruption will be significant: white-collar service provision (legal, accounting, consulting), teaching, driving. The wealth creation AI enables could supplement the end of paid labour. But no one in government is having that conversation. •       Rauch’s Verdict: Clarified, Not Reassured: After fifty minutes with Keith Teare, Jonathan Rauch reaches a considered position: his worst fear — that AI becomes an autonomous engine of anti-human malfeasance — is unlikely to happen unless humans make it happen. His residual concern: that humans will not handle these technologies as maturely as one could wish. He’s not optimistic about political systems that are already too rigid, too partisan, and too dysfunctional to adjust as they did to the industrialization of the late nineteenth century. On that, he and Keith agree. Nobody knows. Not Keith. Not Andrew. And, despite his brilliance, not Jonathan Rauch. About the Guests Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch. Jonathan Rauch is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, The Happiness Curve, Kindly Inquisitors, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, and many other books. He is based in Washington, D.C. References: •       That Was the Week by Keith Teare. •       The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch. •       Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies — the AI doom book referenced in the conversation. •       Sam Harris and Tristan Harris podcast on AI risk — referenced by Rauch as the catalyst for his questions. •       Episode 2902: Keith Teare on his jobless AI future vision — the preceding TWTW episode directly referenced. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.