TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

    Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, The Electorette, and Embrace The Void.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © All rights reserved

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Has liberalism become pathological? Sep 17, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary  For many years, non-Americans have assumed that the right-wing extremism that has powered the political career of Donald Trump was just an American phenomenon. But this is simply untrue. Far-right parties have been elected in nations like Italy, Poland and Hungary, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government is a coalition of openly racist and genocidal parties. And for the first time in modern history, far-right political parties are placing first in public opinion surveys in the UK, France, and Germany.These trends aren’t in place in every country, of course, but they do suggest that there is something deeply wrong with left liberalism as practiced in many nations. That’s especially true in the UK where Labour Party prime minister Keir Starmer has been systematically ceding policy ground to reactionaries like Nigel Farage in a way that would make even Chuck Schumer blush.Both Democrats and Labour seem to be operating under the impression that making concessions to the right wing will somehow mollify voters but the voting data keeps showing that this does not work. How has liberalism become so moribund? Is it a misunderstanding of how politics works, simple cowardice, or something deeply pathological about liberalism’s philosophical approach to governance versus politicking?I’d argue that it’s all of these things, and joining me in this episode to discuss is Toby Buckle, he’s host of the Political Philosophy Podcast and columnist who’s written recently about the lingering negative impact of the philosopher John Rawls. We also discuss the concept of “reactionary centrism,” a term that some American progressives have been using to describe people who self-describe as liberal but seem to almost never criticize the radical right. I don’t think it’s an accurate term, even though I agree that it describes something very real.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—Democrats won’t be able to defeat Trumpism without constantly telling the public about its awfulness—How far-right Christians replaced Jesus with Nietzsche—JB Pritzker standing up for Chicago and civil rights is the model for Democrats to follow—Politics has become more about psychology than ideology, but the broader left has failed to realize this—Reactionaries will always invent ‘phantom libs’ to be angry at—Republicans treat politics like viral marketing, Democrats do not—Americans want big ideas, but Trump’s opponents aren’t providing themAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction03:48 — John Rawls: A philosopher whose liberalism doesn't work in the 21st century06:18 — Liberalism's unearned sense of victory09:25 — Conservatism has lost its post-WWII memory of why fascism is terrible and stupid18:32 — Immanuel Kant's hollowing out of liberalism25:23 — An introduction to "reactionary centrism" via UK prime minister Keir Starmer37:16 — Isn't reactionary centrism mostly just conservatism?49:44 — Sam Harris and libertarianism masquerading asz liberalism01:00:53 — The bad politics of popularism01:09:47 — Most people vote according to values, not according to policies01:20:08 — Reactionary centrism encompasses conservatism, pathological liberalism, and the amoral01:25:01 — What the positive liberal case looks likeAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Toby Buckle. Hey, Toby, welcome to Theory of Change.TOBY BUCKLE: Hey, Matthew, thanks for having me.SHEFFIELD: Yes, good to have you. Well, so we have a lot to discuss here. I will confess that some of my favorite episodes are the political philosophy episodes. Because, as John Maynard Keynes said, the ideas of dead economists and philosophers animate things much more than people realize.And so--BUCKLE: "Madmen in authority, hearing voices in the air are usually distilling their their fervor from some academic scribbler."SHEFFIELD: Yep, that is right. Yeah. And to that end though, you published two pieces that I think are, worth discussing together. The first one that you came out with was a discussion of [00:04:00] the political philosopher John Rawls, who is somebody who I suspect a lot of people have never heard of. But this guy has a lot of influence on both the UK and the US. So, if you could maybe give a little background for people who aren't familiar with him and then we can go from there.BUCKLE: Yeah, it's an interesting dichotomy isn't it, in that if you are in political theory, he will be talked about as the most important liberal political philosopher of the 20th century.Possibly the most important political philosopher sort of period, certainly of the latter half. And yet it's not a household name, right? Rawls has never had the cut through of a Marx, or Rousseau, or something like that. Crowds have never gathered in the streets, chatting his slogans. He has had something of an influence at the elite level.So I use Obama as an example. Obama has clearly read Rawls and cites him a few times. It's also the type of thinking that would show up in, something like Supreme Court judgments. Something like Planned Parenthood versus Casey is quite Rawlsian in its reasoning. So there's a lot going on with Rawls.And I'm sort of happy to get into whatever particular areas he wrote big books like, like Theory of Justice is a doorstopper, Political Liberalism is a doorstopper. These came out in the late seventies and early nineties respectively, to give you an idea of timeframe. But the idea I really zeroed in on is this idea of neutrality.It's actually not how Rawls himself describes it, but it's how we sort of talk about it now. At its simplest, it's the idea that liberalism or the liberal state should be something like the referee of politics, neutrally, fairly deciding siding [00:06:00] between different players in the game, something like that.And I argued, I think that is a way of understanding liberalism that was always a bit confused, but is particularly maladaptive in the current moment. But there's, a lot of other stuff to Rawls as well.Liberalism's unearned sense of victorySHEFFIELD: This idea of neutrality though that it sees, liberalism as sort of having assumed the default position of all of reasoning and society, science, et cetera, and says, okay, so therefore now that we won our job is to manage this situation.And and to, be the, referee, as you said, between the all, between all the sides and all, the constituencies. And to position ourselves as above, above it all in a lot of ways.BUCKLE: Yeah. So one issue I'd take with that, I'm not saying you are arguing with it, but with that characterization is, yeah, I think that's exactly right.We've won, now everyone's playing the same game, and so now will be the referee. I think that's sort of the thought process of, like I say, elite liberals. This probably wasn't something that, like a proverbial man on the street thought, but elite, Supreme Court justices, right? Yeah. Stevens was huge on neutrality, for instance.The problem with that is he didn't win, like people talk about liberal hegemony or the liberal world order, but what, liberal hegemony, what liberal world order, the American constitutional design is partially liberal, but partially influenced by other philosophies are. Society is partially liberal, but partially conservative, partially reactionary. Liberal and what liberal world order, like if you look at the governments around the world, there's only a handful of liberal [00:08:00] ones.They're mostly conservative author or authoritarian regimes. Like liberalism is one power of amongst many. I don't mean to say it's powerless. We have the ability to get our views out there. We have the ability to wield power. We have the ability to fight, but it's not as if we suddenly reached a point sometime in the nineties or whenever one imagines this to be where liberalism just won.I don't think that sort of. Victory is possible, but yet that is one of the things that this worldview imagines, or perhaps to put it more charitably, it imagines a fundamental pluralism of comprehensive worldviews, but that there can be a point in the middle what Ians call an overlapping consensus on which everyone agrees.The center of the Venn diagram where everyone agrees to the basic rules of the constitutional order and that will be stable and permanent. That's sort of the Rawlsian project, and to a degree through like, like I say, maybe the nineties, the early two thousands, you could kind of look at the world and maybe see that like everyone bought into the same set of rules to an extent, but I think it was always a bit elusory to think that consensus could ever be stable or permanent.You get moments of overlap and then moments where they pull apart again.Conservatism has lost its post-WWII memory of why fascism is terrible and stupidSHEFFIELD: You do. And I think the reason that they had this illusion was that, that the political right after Nazim and fascism basically decided, oh, well we can't support these people because they are violent criminals. And so they stopped supporting them. Like that's ultimately what happened.But the, memory of that was lost over time. And you see that pretty much in every country. The further away [00:10:00] we get from World War II and the historical, personal, literal memory of fascism, the conservative mind seems more willing to to make common cause with it.I think this is what we're seeing here. and the problem for, Rawls and other mid 20th century liberals, people who came of age during that time, is that they mistook something that was a temporary lull, a temporary, temporary break of outbreak of sanity, if you will, among conservatives. They mistook that first for them having changed their psychological state. And I it was fundamentally erroneous, as you said.BUCKLE: I think we, yeah, we no longer have anyone in living memory of World War ii.That has to be part of it. I'd also add a couple of other things. Through, from the 70s through to 2008, you had like a long period of relatively stable and benign macroeconomic conditions, sometimes called the great moderation. You don't have these big swings in inflation and interest rates, for instance.You also have a period starting with, I know Goldwater in 64 or something of the southern strategy in which Republicans increasingly poach the white anti civil rights Southern block. But what that means is that instead of views about race being aligned to party, they cross cut parties. So politicians who want to appeal to racism have to do so in a coded way.They have to use dog whistles like states rights or welfare queens, stuff like this. And I think that allowed an illusion that. We were moving beyond these issues that no one was really a vient racist anymore. Whereas in fact, what it [00:12:00] was, the structures of our political coalitions were acting in such a way that it obfuscated the reality of American racism.Now, what happened through maybe the Obama period is that realignment ends. Everyone in that southern block is now Republican, and anyone who is anti-racist, or at least it's a deal breaker for them, is now Democrat. And so there's no longer that structural incentive to sanitize your language to talking dog whistles.Donald Trump can come along and be as overt as he likes about it, and when Donald Trump first starts saying these things in 2016, there's this shock of, oh, you can't say that because historically you couldn't. There would be consequences. Within the coalition that the Republicans managed. But Trump didn't create that reality, but he revealed it.He revealed a reality in which views on race now directly tied to political partisanship. So, so that's another one. There's a few, but through all of those, the overall picture is the same, which is that for us, our current period feels, it feels disordered and different, well certainly disordered, but in many senses this period of fairly benign nine economic conditions of cultural consensus, of more civilized speech.That was the aberration. That was the weird, unusual bit. So a long way to come back to where you started. I think you're exactly right. I think the sort of type of political culture. We were raised into, feels like the norm to us because we were raised in it. But that's actually the weird bet or the unusual bet.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is. And the other thing about that, post World War II [00:14:00] dynamic is that because so much of Europe was completely trashed everybody knew that the only entities that could pick up the pieces were the government because the private sector was destroyed. It didn't have the money, it had no power to tax.in many cases, their capacities were literally destroyed. So this was a moment in which it was obvious to pretty much everyone that the government has to step in and we need to not fear it because the government's really the only thing that can help. And that I think, did put, it was the fact though that in the US there wasn't that mass destruction of, the economy that also made it possible more possible for these, reactionary viewpoints to, to have currency.Because people didn't see the need for government. The thing about government, is that it's supposed to be, at least in the mind of liberalism, it's supposed to be there in the background and you never think about it. It's supposed to be a thing that you rely on but don't really understand and you don't have to understand.Like that's the goal of Rawlsian liberalism is to create a state that takes care of you and you don't have to know how or why. And the problem is that's unsustainable as a political matter.BUCKLE: Maybe, although to complicate that story a little, I don't think it's, because I think the story can sometimes be told that like it's just World War II and the aftermath of that, which certainly was a huge part of it.There's, I mean, there, there's also like ideological foundations and sort of the ideas and theories being laid decades in advance of that, of, as early as like the 1910s, the 1920s liberalism is increasingly [00:16:00] reevaluating how it sees the role of the state. It's increasingly reevaluating how it conceptualizes both practically and morally.Questions of poverty, of inequality, And, you get the reform movements of that sort of era. And then, through the thirties and so on, you have the age of canes, you have the age of ideas about a more attractive state, gaining a more, active, sorry, state gaining increasing currency, both in elite circles and also sort of the population.So by the time you come to the end of World War I, there's almost already this blueprint that, economists and elite thinkers have designed about what they want to do with the, new world order. And you get, FDR and all of that. In, the US you get the beverage report in the uk, which really is a sort of fundamental redesign of the society, but it's not something that just came out of nowhere.This was sort of in the intellectual work for decades. And then, ultimate causality is always really hard, right? With these things. Like why did things happen? But then in many ways, when you get the sort of Reagan and Thatcher revolutions, it's sort of the same in reverse. in that the, ideas, the economi…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Americans want big ideas, but Trump’s opponents aren’t providing them Aug 26, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary One of the most enduring myths of the Trump years has been that everyone who votes for him does so because they agree with him. Obviously a lot of his supporters do, but polls have consistently shown that Trump is a historically unpopular president with issue positions that most Americans have never supported.And yet, it remains the case that a majority of voters in the last election decided to vote for him anyway. We’ve talked in previous episodes of Theory of Change about how part of this is due to the enormous reach of right-wing media. It is the mainstream media for millions of Americans–whether they deliberately choose to watch it or not.But media saturation isn’t the only factor. Another significant factor behind Trump’s durable political appeal is that his opponents have been unable to present a larger alternative vision to MAGA. That matters because a lot of people aren’t interested in policy minutiae, they want to hear your big-picture vision.Democrats simply have not done this. And as a result, the party is facing some of its lowest approval ratings in years–including from people who identify as Democrats.Joining me to talk about all this is someone who has been doing this work from the ground up for over a decade: Seth Flaxman. He’s the co-founder of Catalyst for American Futures a new liberal group that’s building a broader-left political coalition that focuses on improving the country so that everyone has a fair chance, ideas that they’ve put into a new book called Out of Many, One: Writings on American Universalism and on a website, The All American.Previously, Seth led Democracy Works for twelve years, an organization that helps tens of millions of Americans get trusted election information.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Theory of Change brings you in-depth conversations on politics, technology, and media like nowhere else. Please subscribe to stay in touch!Related Content* Black Americans expect more from Democrats, but do party leaders realize this?* Unions, churches, and local media were many Americans’ anchors to democracy, as they’ve faded, so has public faith in the country* Republicans took over the judiciary while liberals were pretending that jurisprudence was a science* The 2024 election was decided by people who disliked both Harris and Trump* How religious fundamentalism’s intellectual collapse powers Trump’s politics of despair* Bureaucratic obsessions are ruining America’s educational system* Harris’s loss has permanently discredited timid Democratic approaches to Trumpist authoritarianismAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction10:18 — American universalism as a political philosophy14:22 — The spirit of St. Louis and the civil war18:29 — Understanding modern authoritarianism21:14 — Building majority support for democracy24:31 — The need for open debate and disagreement28:02 — Problems with Democratic party messaging34:24 — The missing movement infrastructure37:19 — Economic solutions beyond neoliberalism41:09 — Learning from right-wing political tactics46:19 — The role of government in the modern economy49:38 — The importance of public rallies and engagement54:32 — Creating a new culture of political discourse58:28 — Working in coalitions despite disagreements01:01:59 — Lessons from the civil rights movement01:05:01 — Closing thoughts and contact informationAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Seth Flaxman. Hey Seth, welcome to Theory of Change.SETH FLAXMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Glad to be here.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, good to have you. Well, so, why don't we start off a bit before we get into the discussion just tell us a bit about your background and how you got into politics and what you've been doing since.FLAXMAN: Great, thank you. I mean, I I, don't even know if I would say I've been in politics. I've been working on strengthening US democracy for almost my entire professional career the last 15, 16 years or so. And I got into this space because I thought our democracy was in a really dangerous position. And for me, the warning lights like 2000 and going back 2009, 2010 maybe, were just low turnout in everything, especially anything local or primary election related. But then the rise of birtherism was terrifying to me. Also Proposition 8 was very scary to me at the time. [00:04:00] And I wasn't sure what to do because, for most of my peers, Barack Obama's president, everything's fine. And so I just felt like I was in a very different wavelength and I felt like the thing I can do is use this new force in our society technology to try to increase voter engagement because we know technology can do one thing very well if it makes things easier and more people will do it.So I spent a long time just trying to get the, like bugs and kinks out of the voting system, where can I make things easier and increased participation? And after doing that for 12 years and three presidential cycles, I came to the conclusion that it was valuable work. It was like critical for our democracy, but it was not going to solve the democracy crisis that we were facing.And. So I've been spending the last few years trying to understand what is this global rise of authoritarianism in addition to this, how it looks like in America and like what do other countries do about it? What have we done about it historically? And trying to help scale up different strategies and leaders that I think can get us outta this democracy crisis.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And that is a, good point regarding like, just participation because one of the things that, that I do on this show is there is look at people who don't participate and, often what they say in polls is it's not difficult to vote it's not difficult to register to vote.They just don't, they don't see the need to. They don't see a difference between the parties. They, whatever their objections are, they have, a bunch of them. And so, but it boils down to, it's not that it's too hard for them, it's, they don't want to, they're choosing not to because they think the system has failed. Yeah.FLAXMAN: And, that is an absolutely true segment of the non-voter population. It might even be as high as [00:06:00] 60 percent of it. Sometimes it's 50, but it changes by state. It Changes by age. If you look at census data, then the census will ask people often, like, why reasons they don't vote. It's part of the data that people don't often dig into. And you'll find often a collection of, like almost up though a dozen different process issues that people have. And you add it up and it does it does matter.And we know, from just like the modern economy internet age, when you like, make something easier, it changes customer behavior. that's why Amazon invented one click. So like, it's just, it's, yes, and it's, a part of the issue, and, but it's, certainly not the, whole issue. And I was, I'm very proud to spend so many years solving that problem to the extent that I could and, one can, but it's a necessary part of improving our democracy. But it's not going to be sufficient.SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, especially because, there's just so many barriers, which we'll talk about between what people need, what they think they need, and then whether the politicians are listening at all.And so, so, all right. And then, so currently you are working with the catalyst for American Futures and publishing over on the website called the All American. So, so tell us about The these endeavors.FLAXMAN: Yeah. this, came together working with my two co-founders Ilyse Hogue, who is most well-known for leading NARAL for over 10 years. And Peter Teague, who was a leader in philanthropy working on climate change. And we came to the conclusion that the civil society broadly is not ready for the authoritarian crisis that we're in. We're missing all sorts of infrastructure movements united front, that building that's needed.And I'm sure we'll go into it, but it, I don't think any of us [00:08:00] set out being like, oh, we, really want to build this new organization. We built it, because we felt like the country's in crisis and there are just like missing pieces of the solution.We needed to get stood up as quickly as possible in order to one, build a united front, which is how a lot of other countries successfully defeat authoritarian surges. And a key component of a United front is that it's a, it's a Coalition of multiple different. Ideologically distinct movements. And right now we have the progressive movement, which is important, but it's not going to be a united front by itself. And we have sort of a center right faction that's not yet a movement, but it's, building some effort, but there's a huge gap for a lot of Americans who feel politically homeless right now. And we needed to give them an on-ramp into United Front that could be a place, a new political home for them to organize from that authentically reflected their values and was rooted in sort of what we would say, like patriotic and universalist values that are sort of the normy values that a lot of Americans have, but they're not really the central organizing principle in movement spaces.SHEFFIELD: Well, and that's you're that's what the book that you guys have put together is really about. And it's called out of Many One Writings on American. I'm literally looking at itFLAXMAN: I know, I'm like, I don't have my copy of the book. Oh, actually, should I grab my prop?SHEFFIELD: Oh I’ve got it right here, I’m reading off it!FLAXMAN: Okay, great. All right, great. Thank you.SHEFFIELD: Okay. So it’s “Out of Many, One: Writings on American Universalism.”And so I mean, that, that's somebody might look at that and say, oh, that I have no idea what the hell that means, Seth. So, why don't we get into that through the essay that you wrote in there called The Spirit of St. Louis.FLAXMAN: Sure, Happy [00:10:00] to. We are not inventing the political philosophy of American universalism. It's a very old tradition. I think it's probably the best tradition in America sort of from a political theory perspective. And it's the idea that we're all endowed with equal rights and equal freedoms.American universalism and the ‘Spirit of St. Louis’FLAXMAN: And we want to elevate the, that idea at the heart of our work of, we're working for universal freedom, universal rights, universal opportunity. It's the idea that's powered every successful movement in American history has been that the expansion of freedom, equality, rights, and opportunity to all Americans who've been excluded.And that's the north star that we wanted to organize under. And so the my essay is focused on what I think is one of the most sort of strangely lost. Stories of a united front that came together and saved the country, essentially in 1861 in St. Louis. And it was a coalition that stretched across political divides, racial divides, workers business, and essentially, I mean, this, I, can really nerd out on this story.Do you want me, like what, level of nerding outon this story do you want to go into?SHEFFIELD: Oh, well, well, the story I, yeah, it's a story worth telling because like, that's what we do on the show why I, want people to tell theFLAXMAN: Okay, great. Okay. this is, a pro nerd, pro-wonk podcast.So essentially in 1861 in St. Louis, the largest arsenal of weapons outside the country, outside Washington, DC is there. And there is a plot to seize this, we to seize this arsenal of weapons. And as soon as it's seized by the [00:12:00] governor they're going to secede. And the plot is uncovered uncovered by the congressman at the time, who is the only Republican anti-slavery congressman in a slave state in the country. And he wires the Buchanan administration for support. because it's, still two months before Lincoln actually is inaugurated. And some of the cabinet members are complicit. Buchanan doesn't believe them. And so this Congressman Frank Blair calls on this coalition to come together to essentially save the city. And the people in this coalition hated each other. And so the, core of it you have to understand sort of who lives in St. Louis at the time, and the, bulk of St.Louis are Germans and Austrians. It's maybe like 60, 70% German and Austrian. And all these Germans hate each other. The Americans call them all the Dutch, the first wave comes in the thirties. They're more economic immigrants, 1830s, that is, they're economic immigrants. They're Lutheran, they're Catholic, they're Jewish, and they hate the second wave, which are these overeducated liberals and leftists who lead a failed revolution in Germany in 1848.And so those revolutionaries lose, they're trying to install constitutional republic in Germany against, the princes. And the princes kicked them out. So they flee to St. Louis and they blame each other. For losing this revolution. And they, don't want to talk to each other. They don't want to work together. They try to set up a political club that falls apart after three years with infighting. And these leftists these are literally the compatriots of Marx and Engels. This is the revolution. They, fight in 48, they come together in this united front when the city [00:14:00] is in crisis. And, the future of the country is in crisis. And they are, all vehemently anti-Catholic because they also blame the Catholic church for losing their revolution. But they call upon another party into the coalition that's entirely Catholic and they. called themselves at the time.FLAXMAN: there's like a, book written by one of the members of it. of the book is called The Colored Aristocracy of St. Louis. And it's written by a member of this aristocracy and they're from the pre Louisiana purchase French colonial era. And they're major land, landowners and business owners. And they don't have political voting rights, but because of their businesses and their wealth, they're actually the primary, one of the primary funders of the Republican Party in St. Louis and can control a decisive share of votes through their businesses as purchases purchasers or their tenants because they're landlords. And so they're despite being Catholic, they work with these anti-Catholic Germans. Where in that situation, the religious bigotry is a bigger hurdle almost in the racism to work together as part of a coalition. And and then there's the business community. And so anyway, I'm spending a lot of time just talking about like how diverse this coalition was in terms of having political opponents inside it. And they defeat five plots to steal the arsenal together through every means at their disposal. They are, tracking, there are spies hired to follow all the leaders around the city in this united front. And so they then hire every private investigator in the city to track the spies who are tracking them. And they play for time in the St. Louis courts and they play in the state [00:16:00] legislature to keep the state legislature from passing bills that would take away their freedoms. And they eventually organize under the banner of a ho of the wide awais, which then becomes the home gua…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Terrified Trump is slinging ‘zombie food’ to distract his base from Jeffrey Epstein Aug 10, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary 

    Donald Trump in an unfamiliar situation. After years of being able to tell his followers what to think about almost everything, many of the MAGA faithful are upset at his administration for refusing to release the government’s files on the infamous sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.

    When he was running for office last year, Trump and many of the people who work in the highest levels of his administration repeatedly promised that they would release the documents on Epstein, including FBI, director Kash Patel, Deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Now, both Bondi and Trump are saying that they will not be releasing the Epstein files.

    This refusal has been extremely upsetting to many Trump voters because believing that imaginary Democratic pedophiles secretly rule the world has become almost the cornerstone of being a Republican in the Trump era.  Faced such massive inter-party descent, the administration has taken to a strategy that they reportedly refer to as “zombie food,” throwing out stories that they know know to be nonsense in order to distract MAGA partisans from Trump’s Epstein betrayal.

    In the past several weeks, Trump has offered a veritable zombie food buffet of narratives to supporters. But the biggest dish by far seems to be a new effort re-frame the 2016 Russian hack and influence campaign as actually a secret plot by Trump’s former opponent, Hillary Clinton, and former President Barack Obama.

    None of this is real, needless say, but I think particular episode is worth digging into further in real-time since we can see right now how zombie food is made and served up to the MAGA masses. Joining the show to discuss is Renée DiResta, a long-time friend of the show who has direct knowledge of this particular history because she was one of numerous experts who worked with the Senate Intelligence Committee to analyze the Russian hacking and disinformation campaign.

    The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere

    Theory of Change brings you in-depth conversations on politics, technology, and media like nowhere else. Please subscribe to stay in touch!

    Related Content

    ◘ The internet is a safe space for lying now, thanks to congressional Republicans

    ◘ Covid contrarians were far more wrong than scientists were

    ◘ What today’s internet propagandists owe to yesterday’s tobacco advertising executives

    ◘ Countering the economics of disinformation

    ◘ America’s political divide is psychological more than ideological

    ◘ What’s actually in Tulsi Gabbard’s document dump?

    Audio Chapters

    00:00 — Introduction

    08:26 — Marco Rubio and Senate Republicans said Russia tried to help Trump in 2016

    12:21 — Trump’s “zombie food” distraction strategy

    15:13 — The Sydney Sweeney hoax controversy

    18:29 — File dumps as fake disclosure

    22:25 — Tulsi Gabbard’s desperation to reconcile with Trump after Iran debacle

    28:22 — Russian trolls only praised Clinton to damn her

    30:06 — Russian troll tactics

    34:15 — Right-wing figures falsely conflating media headlines with government actions

    37:30 — John Durham turned up nothing compared to Robert Mueller

    41:56 — Kash Patel’s burn bag story

    44:20 — What the Durham Report annex actually says

    48:48 — Right-wing media’s lower reading comprehension?

    55:48 — Russian idiom snafus

    01:00:05 — Conclusion


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Sydney Sweeney and ‘Phantom Lib Syndrome’ Aug 08, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryRight-wing Republicans have lost in the marketplace of ideas. Their policy views that evolution never happened, that tax cuts increase revenues, and that science is a big left-wing conspiracy are laughable. Whenever reactionaries attempt to debate progressives and liberals, as they recently tried against Mehdi Hasan, they fall flat on their faces.The millionaire grifters you see talking to themselves on YouTube or talk radio are too afraid to debate actual progressive pundits, so instead, the reactionary right picks battles with imaginary Democrats. I know this because I used to do it in my former career as a right-wing activist. It’s a dead-simple method: Find an obscure person you can say is “on the left” and then make that person’s little-viewed TikTok video somehow representative of everyone on the center-to-left.Rupert Murdoch’s Fox cable channel pioneered this tactic decades ago with its infamous “War on Christmas” lies. In actuality, celebrating Christmas was popularized by the liberal cultural Christian Charles Dickens. The original right-wing Protestants, the Puritans like Oliver Cromwell, hated Christmas and banned it from being celebrated for its supposed pagan and papist origins.But truth does not matter to reactionary authoritarians. Only power. And we saw that most recently in the recent hoax generated by right-wing media over actress Sydney Sweeney’s decision to do an ad campaign for a jean manufacturer that we won’t name.Most people didn’t care about the Sweeney spot. It was one of thousands of celeb paid endorsements. A handful of people noted that using “jeans” as a play on the word “genes” had unfortunate echoes of eugenics, but mostly it was ignored—until far-right extremists like Libs of TikTok and Charlie Kirk seized on a handful of scattered online comments and inflated them into proof of a massive “woke” meltdown. In reality, the outrage they claimed to be responding to didn’t exist; they had manufactured it, using a well-worn tactic called nutpicking to pretend that Democrats nationwide were outraged by an ad they had never even seen.In this live Theory of Change episode, Noah Berlatsky of Everything Is Horrible joins to talk about the right’s history of lying about the left, the center’s falling for it, and why Donald Trump is desperate to have Americans talk about anything but his failed administration and cover-up for Jeffrey Epstein.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content* The right-wing freakout about sorority dance videos is more disturbing than it looks* How 1970s right-wing college students invented canceling people and many of today’s political consulting tools* Inside the cult of Turning Point USA* It’s not just schools: Reactionaries are targeting public libraries as well* The fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is being considered for a Trump pardon reveals his absolute desperation* Trump’s many broken campaign promisesChapters00:00 — Introduction05:33 — Right-wing envy of progressive cultural influence09:53 — History of manufactured controversies14:25 — Beauty standards and eugenics19:01 — Trump's comments on minorities23:49 — Republicans love canceling people28:41 — History of Christmas celebrations32:36 — Trump's failed campaign promises36:46 — Economic policy failures40:21 — Right-wing media tactics44:36 — Online harassment campaigns48:43 — Trump and Epstein connection55:55 — The importance of distraction for TrumpTranscriptThe following is a computer-generated transcript of the audio. It is provided for convenience purposes only and is not proof-read.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: ​[00:00:00] This is Theory of Change. I'm Matthew Sheffield. Thanks for joining me for another episode. And we're doing a live one today with Noah Berlatsky to talk about one of the most absurd and stupid fake controversies cooked up by the right wing in a number of years. And I'm talking of course about Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle and the ad campaign that she did for them, featuring some her wearing a jean jacket and pants, and which it was. Basically kind of a play off of a very kind of infamous Franklin, ad from the, nineties, I guess it was the nineties. Yeah. Featuring Brooke Shields when she was 14 years old and, that was kind of creepy. And they were trying to basically do an edgy, quote unquote, type of ad and, get controversy, but it didn't work initially, and like people weren't really paying attention to it. and, there, there was a little bit of commentary here and there of people talking about beauty standards and euro, euro centra and that sort of thing.But overall, people are just like, oh, Sydney Sweeney did an ad. and a lot of people had never heard of Sydney Sweeney. Like, I think that's the thing that I, when I, have [00:02:00] posted about a, thread about it, a couple of, or yesterday I've gotten so many replies from people saying, who the hell is Sydney Sweeney? Have you have people said that to you, Noah?NOAH BERLATSKY: Not, I mean, I haven't talked about it a ton, but I haven't uhhuh, I mean, I kind of know who she is. I don't know that Oh, you do? Yeah.SHEFFIELD: You're, a, you, are a media and political writer, so Of course, so,BERLATSKY: yeah. But, yeah, I mean, I'm not that surprised 'cause she's, she's a relatively new, her, stardom is relatively new and she, I don't think she's been in any huge kinda blockbuster hits quite yet, so,SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So I'm not sure. It's not surprising that people wouldn't know necessarily, I think. but, I guess before we get further into it, so, Noah just give, people a little background of your site and, and how you got into all this, if you wouldBERLATSKY: please. Sure. I'm a freelance writer. I write about politics and culture.my site is Everything is Horrible, which is a newsletter on Substack. and I've written about Sydnee Sweeney a couple times. most recently I talked about this ad a little bit. and, yeah, I've talked about her movie Immaculate. And, she's kind of been a figure who the right's been interested in for a while.sort of both positive. I mean, they've kind of both praised and attacked her. She's kind of a figure that the right thinks about, so I've talked about that a little.SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, let me, yeah, that's right. and, she's interesting as a figure for the right, because, they, they were trying to make Taylor Swift, their mascot, a few years ago, and I think after that didn't work.Now they're [00:04:00] trying, they've tried to make Sydney Sweeney as sort of their avatar, which is really bizarre because like, that's the, one of the funniest. And the most absurd things about right-wing cultural commentary, is that, or cultural output is that they can't make anything artistic. and so, these people who have these avatars of, Greek sculptures and, Renaissance paintings, et cetera, et cetera, and they're talking about, oh, I'm here to protect the culture from the ravages of the left.Well, guess what? The left runs all of these museums. and they're the ones, you know who, well,BERLATSKY: I think that's right, and I think that there's, I think that the left and Democrats don't really think about that as an advantage or don't necessarily capitalize it on it the way they could. I mean, I was kind of thinking about this with, kind of, people are like, who's the Joe Rogan of the left?Right? Are, because Joe Rogan's kind of has a big audience and people think, oh, well, he's. Got this direct line to a lot of young men, even though his audience is not that young. and I was thinking about that. And the truth is, I mean, there's a lot of cultural product that is made by people on the left, whether you're talking about museums, whether you're talking about like Taylor Swift, who's, a Democrat and who is endorsing Democrats or Beyonce.The right’s envy of progressive cultural influenceBERLATSKY: I mean, there's just a lot of culture that comes from sort of the broadly progressive side of the spectrum. and, but you know, there's not a, what there isn't is there's not a lot of effort to people are willing to spend a lot of money to find the [00:06:00] next Joe Rogan, but like less money to do things like fund alternative weeklies, which help cultivate this kind of.Art scene, which is often quite progressive and, is interesting to people who are progressive and gets them interested in culture and in politics. the le I mean, the left doesn't really have an arts policy. I mean, that used to be, there was one of those in the thirties, right?I mean FDR was like, we're gonna fund, well that's, yeah. We kind of don't do that and Then they're like, well, why don't we have Joe Rogan? And it's like, you've got this large infrastructure, which you could do more to fund if you want it. And the right kind of knows that, which is why they're defunding it.Right. the, right is like attacking arts funding. And they're doing that because a lot of the arts are, sort of broadly progressive and they want, don't want people to be able to like, make a living doing that or communicate.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's true. And and, essentially what they're trying to do is so, so mainstream culture, the reactionary, right.and I think it's important not to call them conservative because, conservatives want to keep things how they are. and Donald Trump is anything but conservative. conservative is somebody like Joe Manchin or Ki or, ki Sinema, that's a conservative. or like George will, or like those are conservatives.Donald Trump is a reactionary and authoritarian, fascist, whatever those words we want to use, I think. but like, they're, against, they are anti-American. Literally. They hate this country, how it is. And, the people that are in it, like they want to go back to, pre Jim Crow, they want to go back to the Jim Crow South.Like that's, and they say that frequently, like they, they [00:08:00] talk all the time about, oh, well, black people were better off, during segregation. There was less crime, there was less murder, and there was more opportunities and more capitalism. So they say these kind of, so they're letting us know what they want.They're anti-American. And, and we can see that I think with all of these fake controversies, that the right wing has been gin up for such a long time and for decades. And, the, and a few years ago, the folks at Media Matters did a clip, that talked about what I think the, set, what set the template for all of these fake controversy like Sydney Sweeney and the Genes is the war on Christmas.And so I'm gonna roll this clip that Media Matters put together of Fox News people making everything up about the war on Christmas.Fox News clip: Well, the war on Christmas is not real. They tell you all the time. It's totally fake. And if you believe in it, you're dumb. You watch Fox News or something. Isn't it amazing?The, attack, the assault, it's just unbridled and seemingly unprecedented against Christmas. It has to do with, at the root of It, it has to do with two things. Abortion and, the gay rights agenda. today we're talking a lot about sexual harassment. Well, cases like this are examples of spiritual harassment.And look, this is a part of the larger, not just war on Christmas, but the war against Christianity. Look, I'm tired of, we talk, we're gonna talk about this all the way through Christmas. You name one person who's said that Obama's waging a war on Christmas. I've heard many people on these airwaves talking about it.I've been on panels talking. Is this really happening? Yeah, I mean, I haven't said it. We've talked, I don't remember anybody saying Obama's changing. I talked about Christmas. Who's war on Christmas? Obama is Obama. I think we won the War on terror. I mean the war on Christmas already hostile toward Christmas and hostile toward Christians.History of manufactured controversiesFox News clip: The war on Christmas, heads to Sin City because there wasn't anybody else fighting this war on Christmas. I'll take kudos for that. [00:10:00] War on Christmas. And John, you've got a book for that title? Yeah, I did write a book about it and it, I thought maybe we'd be done with it. And the war on Christmas may be worse than ever.There is an attack on Christmas, which is kind of the tip of the spear when it comes to, and even greeter, battle brew.SHEFFIELD: and that video actually goes on for two more minutes. Like, this is the kind of b******t that the right wing has been shoveling for decades. as we saw in that clip. I mean, bill O'Reilly, that was Guy, hasn't been on Fox in a long time since he, got hired for harassing women.and, like, and there, there's a reason that I'm calling this, this attitude or this PR strategy, phantom Lib syndrome. And, I have to give credit to, one of my, Twitter followers who came up with a phrase, very excellent phrase. And, the reason it's phantom lib is that when you look at right-wing policy outputs, they don't exist.They literally don't exist. And in terms of like po they don't write policy papers that are coherent. and, the things that they do essentially amount to. The, what's your policy on next? Cut the budget. That's it. Like their model for how to respond to natural disasters is Katrina, their model. Like, and we saw that during COVID, when they had this, the policy that the Trump White House desperately wanted to do was just let people die.let it rip and let you know, kill grandma. And some of them even explicitly said that. so, so their policies are so dumb and so abhorrent. No one except for the most psychotic people, like, who run the Republican party would want to vote for that. and so they have to, so they can't argue for their policies or against, [00:12:00] more even centrist or liberal progressive.They can't argue against any of the other ones. So instead they make up liberals to get angry at, I think. And that's the phantom lib 'cause who, who better to argue with than someone that you meet up?BERLATSKY: Yeah, I mean, I think so I guess I think two things. I mean, I know you, there's a, you were talking about this New York Times article, which looked at who was actually talking about the, Sidney Sweeney.And it was, it's not democratic leaders or even mostly big accounts. It's mostly been, there were some smaller accounts and they kind of get cherrypicked and then the right kind of works itself up to yell at them is kind of your take. and I think that's true that they do that a lot.I think it's also, I mean, I think with Sidney Sweeney in that ad, they're not, I mean, like I said before, the right's been Richard Hanania especially touted Sidney Sweeney as a kind of, like at that she was an attack on the left just by existing. Because she's, conventionally attractive white woman, and he thought that that was somehow triggering for the left to ha as if there aren't any other, conventionally attractive.SHEFFIELD: Which is so absurd because like they also complain that Hollywood is filled with liberal leftists. So the, leftists are either controlling all of the women or none of them.BERLATSKY: Well, they also, I mean, the rights also vary anti-sex. So, there…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Trump’s war on statisticians and the ‘liberal bias’ of reality Aug 06, 2025
    Show notes

    On Tuesday, Brad DeLong joined me for a live Theory of Change episode to discuss Donald Trump’s firing of Erika McEntarfer, the former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and how it is part of a decades-long war on sound economics and expertise in general waged by reactionary Republicans. We also discussed Brad’s own efforts to get economics as a discipline to understand complexity, and then wrapped with a discussion about the economy and artificial intelligence, one of his current research interestsVideo Timecodes00:00 — The Erosion of Expertise and Trust01:54 — Introduction and background04:35 — Historical context of labor statistics07:12 — Republican response to BLS firing10:35 — The problem of Republican truth-telling14:26 — The importance of judgment and expertise18:05 — Trump's broader attack on expertise26:01 — The first wave of AI development30:20 — The crypto grift and AI investment36:24 — The need for independent statistics45:27 — The value of government investment54:24 — Understanding AI's current state01:04:11 — The role of liberal education01:13:08 — The future of AI applications01:19:58 — Musk, Trump and the tech elite01:26:23 — Right-wing epistemology and AITranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: All right. So, for everybody who is, joining us, we're doing, this is a [00:02:00] live theory of change show and, we are here today with Brad Long of the, well, various places where you are at, but, primarily, your own Substack, we're going to be doing that. and, you are also you also have some affiliations. you're a professor at the University of California Berkeley.Brad DeLong: That’s the big one. Yes.SHEFFIELD: Yes. Okay.Brad DeLong: Important one.SHEFFIELD: Yes. and also, so, and I wanted to bring Brad on to do this with me today to talk about obviously, Donald Trump's firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head, Erika McEntarfer, after he had the bad jobs support, a bad jobs number. But it's obviously, this is part of a much broader picture, I think, of the reactionary right’s hatred of expertise, and, continually exemplifying that, that old phrase from Stephen Colbert, that reality has a liberal bias.DELONG: A liberal bias.SHEFFIELD: It seems that's what they think.DELONG: Yes. In many ways, it is the end of a long and honorable American tradition. as another Erica, Groen, my class, my graduate school classmate, who was an earlier commissioner of labor statistics, as she said, I think on Bloomberg's surveillance this morning.It was in 1884 that Carol Wright, the first Commissioner of Labor Statistics, said that his contract with the American people was that they were going to produce the best possible numbers they could and get them out without worrying at all what implications they had for any kind of political movement.or social reform. Or social order, right. cause that it was not their job. [00:04:00] to do anything other than to get the most accurate numbers they could out and that they pledged, that's what they would do for the American people. Donald Trump is now trying to break that. He is going to face a lot of resistance from the bureaucracy, which is in this case an extraordinarily good thing because the bureaucracy does indeed do its job as best it can, and they are indeed addicted to the idea that it is their job to produce the numbers.Historical context of labor statisticsDELONG: That indeed, back in the 1870s, in the 1880s, people found themselves in furious political debates here in America. some of them saying that America was getting more prosperous, others pointing to falling prices of our farm goods and saying it was becoming less. Some of them saying that income distribution was becoming more equal.Others saying that from what they saw, it was becoming more unequal. And a whole bunch of people got together and said, we disagree on a huge amount, but we all agree we do not have reliable information about this, and we should spend some serious money creating governmental institutions that will in fact produce serious and accurate information.and that's what people interested in America, interested in, good governance, interested in a actual functioning, political sphere that does its job, got behind in the 1870s and 1880s. And that is the reason for the statistics movement. And first, the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics, and then the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, were started as a result of that 140 year tradition.And now with I say the complete absence, the complete absence of any kind of pushback from. Any Republican whatsoever against this with no [00:06:00] resignations from Trump's staff with no hearings called by any senators with nobody in Trump's orbit willing to say, by and large, the economic news is likely to be good over the next four years.And by doing this, you have just made it certain that no one will believe it, right? That you've actually shot yourself in the foot fairly significantly. And the right thing for you to do is to say, you flew off the handle and actually, will you please come back and work for us? You're a great, person that after all you were confirmed, what was it, 93 to six with JD Vance voting, yes.are you saying that, does Trump saying that JD Vance made a big mistake in choosing a partisan democratic apparat to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in which case the wokeness is coming from inside the White House in a very severe fashion. You don't wanna say that. You wanna say you overreacted, you flew off the handle, and we should walk this back.Republican response to BLS firingDELONG: Nobody is saying that to Trump. In fact, Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy were writing to the Commissioner of Labor statistics even as she was being fired, saying, why are you producing lousy numbers? Right? and the answer is that you have to, that this particular set of numbers comes from the reports that corporations make as they pay Social security and other contributions into the government.And, those things arrive. They arrive with sometimes a lag. You know that not every piece of paper gets in all the time at the right moment, andSHEFFIELD: As a,DELONG: of paper are [00:08:00] missing, you guess what they are. But then you get the real pieces of paper later on. This causes problems for the statistics.There is an industry of economists, about how the Bureau of Labor statistics, is unlikely to hit turning points accurately because it will assume there is more inertia in the missing data in the system than there in fact is. And when the new data comes in, you say, oh, the economy actually started growing two months ago, or, oh, the economy actually started shrinking three months ago.And they frantically attempt to construct better models to do this without a great deal of success.SHEFFIELD: because it's flying blind in aDELONG: to demand that you produce numbers that are not revised. Is either a demand that you go out, you send your goons out and start firing or start fining people who don't get their social insurance contribution paperwork in on time, which is you make the government a lot more oppressive and nasty in terms of filling out forms.or you delay everything a month or two months, or you report on what the level of payroll employment in July was, not at the start of August, but at the start of October. And if that's what Susan Collins wants to see, she's an idiot. And if none of the members of her staff told her, wait a minute, if you complain about this.Then you are either calling for data to be delayed for two further months so it can be properly checked and assessed. or you are simply wanting to make some kind of headlines about how you can't trust government statistics for partisan advantage. And neither is a professional occupation for a senator. yet apparently Susan Collins staff has no one on it who will say, wait a minute. Susan Collins herself, who is after all my [00:10:00] 52nd favorite senator, was willing to go whole hog in on this, and she has not asked Donald Trump to reconsider the firing of the Commissioner of Labor statistics, which means essentially that the entire Republican party is gone, from the perspective of actually wanting.Ideas that are true rather than ideas that are convenient go out there in the world.The problem of Republican truth-tellingSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, it is notable that, the guy who was the previous Trump appointee. as the BLS head, has, in fact, he just came out with a statement criticizing, her or criticizing Trump for firing Erica the qar far. and, but yeah, it, only emphasizes your point though, that these are only the former Republicans, who are engaging in truth telling, in this regard.Like the actual people who are elected who could do something are, too intimidated and they're too intimidated by the Trumpian cancel culture against accountability. because like that's really, there, there's, this double game that has always been played since William F. Buckley came along and created, he, and others, created the, post-war reactionary movement that took over the Republican Party in which one party acts entirely in bad faith at all times.And everyone has to pretend that they don't. And so they attack all expertise and all data that, that counteract their beliefs and opinions. And then, everyone just has to pretend that it's serious. and this is why the Republican Party has, a higher approval rating than the Democratic Party does, because Democrats actually are willing to [00:12:00] criticize their own party, whereas Republicans don't.DELONG: yeah. No, I do remember being struck right in the last Trump administration, that, Economists, Robert Barrow and came out with a prediction that the then Trump McConnell Ryan tax cut would be a huge boost to American economic growth. Would in fact raise the level of investment in America by so much that by the time it had worked its way through, we would fully have two fifths additional as much machinery and buildings and infrastructure and, capital as we had now.And that enormous increase in capital investment would drive a huge boom to American labor, productivity and wages. And Larry Summers and Jason Ferman took them on the grounds that this was nonsense. what Barrow and Boskin were saying and said, we should at least be able to get together and not do this, and to get together and get behind.Say the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Brookings Urban Tax Policy Center, or the Tax Foundation to assess what the lab impact of a, like tax cut is likely to be. And Boskin wrote a very weird response, right? that it was very much that he was not going to sacrifice his analytical judgment to any other bunch of people, even the highly respected tax foundation or the highly respected joint tax center.and it was very important that the impact of this tax cut would be determined by how the regulations would be written. And it was very important for people like him to be in the room when the detailed regulations were written. and you read this and I read this [00:14:00] and I thought, gee.If I actually believe that this con, this policy, if I actually believe this policy would produce a huge investment boom in America and cause a doubling of productivity growth over the next decade, I would not be defensive. I would say I will not sacrifice my judgment. I would say, well, my judgment here is correct and your judgment is faulty.The importance of judgment and expertiseDELONG: And I will bet substantial amounts that my judgment is correct. And to the extent that the tax policy center and so forth are not in line with them, they need to reform their procedures because they're making bad estimates rather than the milk toast. we disagree. piece. So as I wound up thinking about it, I wound up concluding this is like the person blinking in the hostage video trying to blink in Morse code to say SOS, right?That is that Boskin thinks he is a force for good in the Republican party. And, telling public things I regard to be bald faced lies about the likely effects of tax cuts. things that Republicans have been telling since the Reagan tax cut of 1980, is his price of admission to the room where it happens.And do you know that it's better than he do this than the, true crazies run things. And so please don't be mean. and that seemed to me to be no way to be a professor. I must say. And. Do you know, the fact that there, none of them out there saying, this is really a bad idea.theSHEFFIELD: No, it's notable the, they'reBrad DeLong: you even like, makes me even less happy,SHEFFIELD: well, and it's the fact they're saying nothing, I thinkDELONG: yeah. The fact they're saying [00:16:00] nothing is interesting, at least they're not saying that, gee, this is a wonderful thing that will boost economic growth.SHEFFIELD: it shows that they don't believe that they do think it's wrong. because, again, if they thought this was just a neutral thing or it was a good thing, they would be saying thatDELONG: there would be saying that, right? That there are, a bunch of people who said back when, oh, who was it? Was it.Mitt Romney was running, it was then running for president and having a meeting. And the question was, what economic growth should we project? And Jeb Bush says, let's raise this by a percentage point. And a bunch of the, economists go along. Marty Feldstein, my teacher, who, the late teacher who I adored dearly, who is a dear, man, who is a brilliant man, was a brilliant man, all went along.As opposed to say, back in the Clinton administration, when Gene Sperling was asking Larry Katz to put an economic growth number forward. and Katz said, I think you should say X because there's an 80% chance we'll exceed that over the next four years. And, Spurling said, fine, you know that all the numbers sound reasonable.It's a reasonable one for budgeting and I would like to be in the position where you can validate me later on by saying I was pessimistic about what the effects of these policies were. that's not something you would have on the other side of the aisle. And that's, I think, a genuine loss for America.SHEFFIELD: It is. Yeah. and, of course this firing, is just of a piece with Trump's larger attack on expertise. And, probably the two biggest other areas that we're seeing this is with RFK Junior and [00:18:00] the, the Department of Health and Human Services. But, and in regards.Trump's broader attack on expertiseSHEFFIELD: To in particular funding of the National Science Foundation, that they're putting, freezing all these grants and prohibiting certain words from being used like, or, you get flagged if you use the word woman, literally.DELONG: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: and I, wanna talk about, just so you know, this is a larger trend, but there does seem to be, I think there, there's like a, so there, I think, oh, wait for that. it, it seems like there are some, oh, hold on, weDELONG: Sorry,SHEFFIELD: okay.DELONG: I did not. Okay.SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, hey, this is live recording here. So things like that happened, my dog just walked in the door behind me. I don't know if anybody could see that. but yeah, so I think though that there are so within, the broader, say, Le Center to left.Sometimes there are people who they don't know this history of bad faith and deliberate ignorance on the part of reactionaries, and they seem to think, and I think, Thomas Chatterton Williams as an example, he just came out with a book claiming that, if only liberals had been not so x like then the reactionaries would not be so, so deliberately ignorant and malicious.and it's like…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    In an age of fictionalized reality, we need literary criticism more than ever Aug 03, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary  If you’ve watched or listened to this podcast for a while, you probably know by now that Theory of Change is about stories—larger trends that happen and the narratives we tell ourselves about them.We’re finite beings; we exist for a moment within a small slice of spacetime. To understand anything at all about externality, we have to simplify it. But sometimes simplification makes things more complicated and confusing.The historical moment we’re sharing together is incredibly messy and confusing which is why I firmly believe that while the 20th century was the age of the economist, the 21st century is the domain of the philosopher—an era of interpretation.That’s why I’m excited to bring you today’s discussion with Virginia Heffernan, a really fantastic writer and thinker whose work you may have seen in the New Republic, Wired, or at her Substack, “Magic and Loss.” Virginia has written a lot of great journalism over the years, but at heart, she’s a literary critic—a profession that I think is very well-suited to interpret our interesting times in which the division between text and sub-text is often impossible to delineate.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content• “This Present Darkness” and the fictionalization of evangelicalism• How an oversharing Christian blogger inadvertently documented his own radicalization• Why 90s Christian pulp fiction explains today’s Republican Party• How Democrats got trapped in the fictional politics of “The West Wing”• Jeffrey Epstein as the synechdoche of cruelty across political ideologies• The Big Ten rises up against TrumpAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:42 — The 21st century as the return of philosophy10:54 — Oral versus written traditions13:32 — The fragile nature of reason within society19:33 — The end of purist capitalism and communism20:35 — Universities as places of public goods versus privatized goods26:34 — Jeffrey Epstein as a synecdoche of corrupt compromise34:02 — QAnon as projected right-wing Christian fear about internal predation41:45 — Lewis, Tolkien, and the rise of fictionalized group interpretations of reality51:08 — Richard Rorty's continued relevance58:19 — Opposition to cruelty as a guiding principle01:04:53 — Understanding why people believe lies01:08:10 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Virginia Heffernan. Hey, Virginia. Welcome to Theory of Change.VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN: I’m so glad we’re doing this.SHEFFIELD: Yes, me too. Absolutely. Well, so why don't we start with that the title of your Substack is called politics–or the subtitle of it, I should say, is called “Politics for English Majors.” What do you mean by that?HEFFERNAN: Well, so title is the same as my book title from 2016 book, Magic and Loss, and I can tell you about that title if you are interested. But essentially comes from engineering. That's lossy. Lossy sound representation is representation that loses something obscure from the sound that we might not be able to perceive with our ears. But that can be quantified. And that's the loss.And then the magic is sort of that term of art. From tech or a term of marketing from tech that, any te technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. It was a big Steve Jobs word. So the book was about, the internet was about those two sides of the internet, something obscurity lost for which we're grieving and something gained that almost tripped our minds into kind of superstitious thinking, into magical thinking.And so that's the title of the book. That's the title of the of the, of, the Substack, which began a bit to be about tech 'cause that's what I had written about for so long. But I'm trained as a literary critic. I did a PhD at Harvard in, in, in English. And the topic of the dissertation was sort of finance and various novels about finance and in particular about inflation.So. short, the [00:04:00] idea that to save money is to lose it American fiction at the turn of the 20th century. And that has all kinds of consequences for nostalgia and preciousness money and value. so all those things were propelling this Substack as I went into to write it.And I really, but I had also very much since 2012, been writing about tech and politics since the digital election of 20 20 12, which I was, I wrote about Yahoo News. Just, pounding the pavement, going to the conventions, studying the Pinterest of, MIT, Romney's wife, like that kind of thing.So I, and, I had my old podcast Trump cast had just been ca ended because we thought Trump's reign of terror was over right after Trump's, after Trump lost the 2020 election.I looked forward to not writing about politics, to writing back about tech because I figured the ship of state had been righted with Biden as president and that politics would become boring again, and that I'd be able to write full time about AI, which I, was writing about for Wired at the time about AI and also some biotech with Ozempic and other drugs.And I figured that would be that would be my future. But then Trump was reelected and so it stopped being tech and politics and wanted to be, or I felt it wanted to be ta politics again, but all of it. Including the book Magic and Loss all the way through has been influenced by training, and I can only call it that as a iterate critic.I, don't say that to establish my authority as much as to say that's what I was soaking in for so long. My father was a literary critic. And it's, these things are hard to get out of once you have hermeneutic strategies and, methodologies, but also a [00:06:00] lot of politics seems to me. To come down to textual analysis.So a very simple one is, originalism, right? Like, it's crazy to hear people talk, to talk, hear constitutional law. People talk about originalism or to hear religious folks talk about fundamentalism without using the tools of literary criticism. Originalism has, there's a lot of faith that you can read words the way they are originally either intended or laid down, or, and this is kind of the work of literary criticism, is to understand why there's nothing simple and transparent about language that's put on a page.There's nothing that you can see through to either the intention of an author or to reality. And. Maybe you can, right? So that's another argument. But the fact that people have arguments about originalism absent the language of literary criticism and the methodology of literary criticism is just leaving a lot on the table.It's leaving a lot of tools on the table and I've seen computer scientists and other people kind of in philosophers, swoop in on conversations in, public domains in other domains and say like, you know what? We have something to offer here. This is Aristotle, and psychologists coming in with physicists or and so on.And that I'm an academic at heart. I like interdisciplinary studies, and I think it can be very useful to use some of the techniques of literary criticism, and I could give more examples of that to, understand kinds of facets of American politics.The 21st century as the return of philosophySHEFFIELD: Yeah, I definitely think that's right. And and, in a lot of ways the, politics of this moment, the, of the 21st century, I see it as the, this is the century of philosophy. The 20th century was the century of [00:08:00] economics. But we're, and, going back to philosophy as the, nexus of politics that is the historical reality of it.And that even, like the term economics, that, that comes from oikonomia, which, is the Greek word. And, Aristotle was one that put that in. So this wasn't a discipline that arose on its own. It was created by philosophy, just like so many it created so many other things, including religion.HEFFERNAN: I really, appreciate, and I do, I agree by the way, if with the implication that literary criticism or criticism is a subset of philosophy I, double majored in philosophy in English. My problem with philosophy and Aristotle as an example is just that I could read so little of it in the original.I mean, certainly not ancient philosophers, but also French philosophers and so on. So what I like about the, that I think some people forget when they think that what I, we study in English departments is, literature, right? We are trying to focus on just literature in English or in the American language and paying close attention to the way the English language works.So I have much, much less to say about than I do about what Whitman for obvious reasons. And I am not confident to. Even if I can get through a copy of Madam Bovary in French, not capable of reading it very deeply. Because my vocabulary's limited, because my understanding the grammar's limited because I haven't been soaking in it and I just am skeptical of the translations that I get when it comes to ancient texts.I'm not sure, you just did like a lovely translation. We had to, do in the PhD program I was in, we had to have two ancient language, sorry, two ancient, two modern languages. And one of my ancient languages was old English. So [00:10:00] we can do those translations, but it's incredible how revelatory they are when you press on them and you wonder how much you might be missing.So anyway, just emphasize that. Literary cri English literary criticism in English and American literate literature is a subset of philosophy, especially since it's got this incredible laser-like focus on the English, and particularly in my case, the American language.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And if we look at Socrates asa philosopher, you know, he explicitly said, I don't want to write anything, because to write down something means to, lose the meaning of what I was saying and that it can be misinterpreted. Uh, that people willsay that I was trying to say something when I wasn't trying to say it. And and I, but if I'm talking to them. They can be completely clear as to what my intentions were. and,Oral versus written traditionsSHEFFIELD: IThat's obviouslytrue.HEFFERNAN: I mean, I love thatSHEFFIELD: Yeah.HEFFERNAN: I don't know if Walter NG's work but he was, I think, a, minister in one of the founders of, Media Studies, if you take the University of Toronto with Marshall McCluen at the, as the avatar of it, as the birthplace of media studies.And he he contrasted the oral and written traditions in a somewhat similar way to say that, there's something that written language always ends with QED. It's like, I'm going to close the case. I'm not listening, I'm not, and I can do this as a, like, as a compulsive filibuster.I can like shut out the other person so that I can make my point. But that is in dialogue, not what dialogue, what conversation with other people exist to do. And very few people are talking aloud in a room where most writers are just writing in a room and making meaning together as Socrates did in dialogue is a wonderful, is maybe the only way to [00:12:00] really extend extend your thinking on a matter.I think David Graver and David Gro, who wrote the dawn of Everything together in that book, talk about how. Some, there's some neuroscience and I'm not going to get it right, but that says we can only hold a thought in our brain for a certain number of seconds.SHEFFIELD: Working memory as it's called. HEFFERNAN: Yeah, right. But in conversation, we could hold a thought forever. We could run, and you and I could probably go for hours here. And,SHEFFIELD: We could, but we won't do that, guys, I promise.HEFFERNAN: We'll spare you our mutual filibuster. But but anyway, so, so I think you, that's, I think that point about spoken language is absolutely right. I think that literary critics see themselves as in some kind of dialogue with another text.And that's the way we get around the idea that we're just, writing in our own heads. There's something incredibly intimate about reading about close readings. Justalmost begin to imagine, the author has. An infinite number of choices about what next word to use.And you're on a precipice in the spaces between words of what's going to happen next, and when you can start to make guesses about what it might be or sort of understand why that word was chosen. It's almost like riding the rails of someone's very nervous system, and that is, I think, a kind of intimacy that is like a Socratic dialogue.The fragile nature of reason within societySHEFFIELD: This is so relevant now because we're in this historical moment for humanity in which. There is a minority of people who do believe in the scientific method and what it means and apply it to their own lives, but we're the minority and we have always been the minorityand, yet, excuse me, and yet the that minority has [00:14:00] always operated as if it was the majority.HEFFERNAN: Yes. Right.SHEFFIELD: has a more functional and, a, an epistemic process in which can, layer upon itself, add, infinitum. It supposes that everyone else agrees with that, but in fact, the majority of people don't agree with it and probably have never really fully under understoodit.HEFFERNAN: I mean, I'm not sure. So do you mean by scientific method,SHEFFIELD: Well, I just mean the idea that, you know. That we can improve our understanding of reality by observing it and then creating hypotheses about how certain aspects of it function and then testing those hypotheses, like, and, then if they're not true, then we abandon those hypotheses. So it's, it is about continually falsifying our ideas and being open to the idea that nothing is always true.Oris indubitably true? As, as Carl Popper had, said very convincingly with regard to science, but that applies beyond science. Like the, that you have to keep an openness to revising your priors as peopleSometimes say,HEFFERNAN: I,I I just want, for listeners, it seems important to flag maybe where our opinions diverge and I mean, you can probably imagine that as someone who was sort of. Had was woken out of my own dogmatic slumbers by a philosopher. I started doing analytic philosophy when I was in college at the University of Virginia, and then the University of Virginia hired Richard Brody, a philosopher, but he refused to be in the philosophy department because he was had written his way out of philosophy and in particular analytic philosophy.First, he had been enchanted by continental philosophers including darida, including some of the ones most loathed by analytic [00:16:00] philosophers, and then had. Started to think that he mostly wanted to, be a literary critic and a lit, and for various reasons. And so he started the Department of the Humanities.And by that point I was exhausted by a JA and by sense data and little pennies that looked like an ellipse. And what we could do if there were actually data that floated before our eyes. I don't want to reduce analytic philosophy to just that, but there was some strange stuff going around that seemed to be taking me down a a path I didn't know.And because I was much more drawn to poetry than science I, and for many, contingent reasons came to believe that poetry had greater explanatory power for me than scientific method. So I wouldn't want to say that it's the tools of literary criticism that interests me more than the tools of scie…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    AI is not the main problem—how we use it can be Jul 26, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary 

    People often say that history repeats itself—so often, in fact, that the phrase has become a cliché. Yet when it comes to technology, that sentiment holds a lot of truth. We don’t just reinvent the tools of our ancestors; we also recycle the same debates, challenges, and controversies that have surrounded earlier innovations, often without realizing it.

    That is especially true with today’s artificial intelligence technologies. While AI may feel like a bold leap into the future, its foundations rest on decades-old ideas, and the controversies it stirs up—about ethics, economics, and control—echo the same fundamental arguments that once surrounded everything from the introduction of calculators in schools to the chaotic rise of the early internet.

    Technology and the social debates it provokes are as old as humanity itself. And as technological development continues to accelerate, these conversations will only become more urgent. In this episode, I discuss all this with Dave Karpf, a political scientist and associate professor at George Washington University where he specializes in technology’s political history.

    The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.

    Related Content

    —Large language models are unleashing the power of mediocrity

    —Big finance and corporate monopolies have blocked the original promise of the internet

    —How libertarianism bifurcated into neoliberalism and corporate authoritarianism

    —Discussing the famous ‘Californian ideology’ essay 30 years after the fact with its co-author

    —Grok’s ‘Mecha Hitler’ meltdown and MAGA’s broken epistemology

    —The strange nexus of Christian fundamentalism and techno-salvationism

    —The political history of Bitcoin is not what you may think

    —Why Elon Musk and other technology investors have become so politically extreme

    Audio Chapters

    00:00 —Introduction

    12:21 —'Satisficing,' mediocrity, and large language models

    17:42 —Corporations used interns to kill jobs before they used AI

    23:46 —AI as a technology isn't a problem, it's how it's used

    26:58 —Escaping bad epistemology is the 'first singularity' for humanity

    33:24 —Societal elites ignored reactionism and now are shocked that it's monstrous

    38:46 —View of the world's complexity as the ultimate dividing line of politics

    41:54 —'Crypto is libertarian, AI is communist'

    47:56 —Is the U.S. left ignoring technology to the peril of democracy?

    50:48 —How to use AI responsibly as a regular person

    55:59 —Student AI use in assignments is a response to larger problems

    57:57 —The center-to-left needs to stop obsessing over policy fantasies

    Audio Transcript

    Available only to paid Patreon and Substack subscribers


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Why mediocrity seems to be the key to innovation in evolution and technology Jul 22, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary Large language models, the computer programs often referred to as artificial intelligence are everywhere these days. There's a lot of hype, a lot of doomerism, and a lot of nay-saying.But despite what all the commentators are saying, the current AI technology is neither a magical god-being nor a tremendous scam. It’s just a really useful technology that is going to be here in the long term, regardless of any of our individual opinions of it. That makes it worth thinking about in more practical terms for what it means to us—you and me. How do LLMs actually work and how do we live with them?Joining me to talk about this is someone who has been asking those kinds of questions long before ChatGPT entered the international conversation. Venkatesh Rao is a writer, independent researcher, and consultant best known for his influential former blog Ribbonfarm and his incisive takes on technology, culture, and organizational behavior. Currently, he writes on his own website now called Contraptions.In the episode, we talk about Venkat’s distinct approach to AI, seeing it as an emergent, messy, and deeply human technology shaped by what he calls mediocrity. That might sound like a knock, but it's actually something much more—a compliment both to humans and the human-created technologies that we are exploring here today.I hope you'll enjoy.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Related ContentGrok’s ‘Mecha Hitler’ meltdown and MAGA’s rage about the Epstein files show the consequences of broken epistemologiesThe strange nexus of Christian fundamentalism and techno-salvationismWhy social media moderation debates are more about epistemology than technologyThe political history of BitcoinHow faulty facial recognition software led to a man’s false arrestWhy Elon Musk and other technology investors have become so politically extremeAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction09:29 — Arthur C. Clarke's magic and current technology15:00 — AI's practical applications18:05 — The concept of mediocrity23:06 — Evolution and mediocrity27:44 — Supply chains and resilience31:01 — The importance of reserves and openness35:25 — Copyright and historical context43:15 — Technological evolution and commodification52:24 — The philosophical implications of AI as mirror57:09 — Embodiment and somatic reasoning in AIAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: I'm really looking forward to this discussion because I think that you are one of the far too few people who is taking a more measured approach to AI. There's, it's it's almost, it's 99% of people it seems like, that are commenting about it, tend to be relentlessly hyping it or saying that it's just a bunch of nonsense.And that neither one of those approaches seem to be correct, I think. And you've, written as much, quite a bit.VENKATESH RAO: Yeah, it's as with any big technology, I think if you start fundamentally with a stance of curiosity and trying to figure out what exactly you're even looking at, and that's your first order of business, you'll fundamentally go down interesting routes, whether you end up being critical or, positive about it or you're like paying more attention to the upside or downside.If you don't start with curiosity, usually you end up in one sort of derp or the other. Either it's very predictable, optimistic derp, or very predictable, critical derp. So I think is the key. And I think, the discourse we are hearing in public, you don't see much curiosity and evidence because all the actually curious people who I think are in fact the majority, [00:04:00] they're too busy actually having fun playing with the technology to like in the meta commentary around it. And of course the, and scientists working directly on the production side of the technology. typically far too busy to join in the public discourse, except occasionally, and when they do, often they're like incomprehensible to regular people. So the net effect ends up being what you're talking about, right?Like you have a lot of unimaginative incurious discourse on both the positive and negative sides.SHEFFIELD: You do. and I actually see a strong parallel in this discourse with, with regard to vaccines. I think, especially mRNA, that that here, was this technology that had been around actually for a long time. And that's also true with language models or what was, you got the ELIZA coming out in the sixties.So as a technology, these are not, new things per se, but obviously they're much different, it goes without saying. And the same thing is true with mRNA. So it was proven in the lab in some sense already for quite a long time. But because the people who had developed them were just so far removed from the public discourse that a lot of people had this natural suspicion of it, for, something that's unfamiliar.So I, I can't necessarily fault that it's, it is a failure of, discourse on, on all sides in many ways.RAO: Yeah, I would agree with that. And I think it's the degree of the reaction rather than the direction of it that I think I use primarily to sort my responses like, any new technology, whether it's extremely minor or very profound, like in this case, I do believe it's a very profound new technology. Ultimately it's still made of like atoms based on laws of [00:06:00] physics. It has its properties. Some of them are unexpected, some of them are expected. Some you can model and, anticipate other things. You just have to like, fuck around and find out what it does. And sometimes you will, I know blow yourself up.Other times you will miraculous effects. And you brought up vaccines and, yeah, I know you've spoken with Rene, who's been at the, Rene Rista, who's been at the forefront of the vaccine debates for a while. And vaccines are interesting case. like Rene was the one who told me about the original vaccines way back in the day, the exact same discourse, repeated itself. And, I, think the key to recognize is that there's never going to be anything like a holy grail technology that only has positive effects and no negative effects, and. never going to be actually be a technology that only has negative effects and no positive effects as well. And on the, second category, I like to think of bombs, right?Like nuclear power is generally understood as a dangerous, but generally positive technology. But if you ask people, do you think nuclear bombs are a good thing? Most would say uniformly bad. But if you look at, certain ideas for terraforming, other planets, they're based on exploding nuclear bombs and like causing positive climate change and making them habitable for humans.So even, or you want to blow apart an asteroid that's coming at earth, maybe a nuclear bomb is the right tool you need. So everything has both sides and I think where it throws people who are not used to working directly with technology and like getting a sense of it's hands-on behavior as a real thing, is they tend to. Inflated to mythical proportions of either light or dark varieties, and insist on taking it in. As a mythical thing. It's [00:08:00] either a monster or an angel. It cannot be anything in between. just hey, we do this with other human beings as well. Like your friends and people around you that you know well, you tend to like, give them a lot of benefit of the doubt.And they inhabit a narrow range of human fallibility. It's there's good people, bad people, no outright cartoon villains and no outright, absolute saints, right? But, when you encounter like a very distant culture, often you will do that kind of extreme. So I think part of that is what's, going on. and in general I'm like, yeah, critics need their room to have their reactions. think, one of the thing one of the ways in which I differ from a lot of other people in this discourse is actually happy to ignore the extremists on both side. I don't think they matter in the long run at all. they'll be forgotten in a generation and even if they're extremely noisy now. actually safe to ignore them. You don't have to counter them. You can for the noise to settle. You don't have to treat this as a debate that you must win because this is the extremes. They can have a powerful effects, right?if they get control of say, regulatory app paras like how AI is regulated at the government level or international level, then you should start paying attention because they can have serious impact. But if all they're doing is shit posting and whining on social media and writing like, inflamed editorials, they're safe to ignore.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Arthur C. Clarke's magic and current technologySHEFFIELD: and, there's a, there's another interesting parallel in that, Arthur C. Clark is famous for, saying that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable for magic and people often apply that I. To these fanciful, sci-fi things that, wouldn't exist for thousands of years, if ever.But it actually applies to technologies that exist in the current day. and and you really do see that not just with vaccines, but like with television, with, [00:10:00] as you said, nuclear power. just a variety of things. the internet was supposedly going to turn everybody into a satanist, and so was rock music.Rock music was going to turn everybody into a, satanist and turn everyone gay. Like these were all things that, were very confidently proclaimed by various people who were not, didn't, know how these technologies worked or really what they could be, or the limitations that they had.RAO: Yeah. And that's partly because, that's partly why I feel comfortable completely ignoring them. But I do enjoy analyzing the responses of people who are consequential. yes, I, know you, you a lot of interest in unpacking the critical discourse. I think for me, a lot more. Value is to be found in analyzing the That's neither critical nor super positive, but just puzzle that responds to the mystery of the thing, right? Because there are things that are courtesy Clark type mysteries, but only to lay people like you ask the experts who build the technology, they understand what's going on, even if the lay people don't.And a generation or two later, even the lay people catch on.AI is interesting in that even the people who know the most about the technology and are working at the, in the depths of it, they struggle to understand what's going on, how to make up, mental models of it. And I've been thinking about this aspect in terms of a wonderful book I read a couple of years ago by Benjamin LaBute.It's called When We Cease to Understand The World. won a couple of major prizes. He's a Chilean author, but he, it's semi-fictional, semi factual. Collection of like biographical stories of famous physicists who were the first to encounter really profoundly new ideas and thoughts that were like, crazy enough to drive people insane.So the idea of a black hole, things like that, right? the book is [00:12:00] fascinating and a recurring theme that happens is these pioneers who are the first to encounter these mysterious realities, they often don't know how to even wrap their minds around it. And many of them literally go insane or have like other psychotic, reactions to it. so this was a labate theory, but then I came up with a three phase response theory for this kind of, profound new technology. I, think of it as the first phase is the Laban, when the first wave of people encounters this technology and has like an unprocessed first order response to it. Then you have what I call a Lovecraftian phase after, HP Lovecraft, the science fiction author, you're starting to wrap your mind around what it is, what its shape is, how it behaves, but it's still fundamentally horrifying to you. And at that point you come up with basically love.Craft and mental models of what it is. And we've already like speed run to that phase of AI. Like literally we are using Lovecraftian models. We are calling AI OTs soho Gods for, those who are not familiar is it's a species of ancient alien that Lovecraft imagines this part of the world. But it's it's an interesting kind of ancient alien. It's basically protoplasm matter that's just f. Just below the threshold of being sentient or conscious. And it was created by another alien race that created it as like a slave, organic technology. But then it gets just smart enough to, get into a war with the other regular aliens. And it's not surprising at all that the sh got turned out to be a very interesting mental model for the Lovecraftian phase of AI. And then the third phrase that I think of is, I call it ardian after JG Ballard. Another, luminary of science fiction and the ardian phases. It's not that you fundamentally sorted out the mystery or solved Arthur c Clark's, sort conundrum of, it looks like magic and you can't unpack it. At some level you've [00:14:00] normalized your relationships with it, right? so we get in planes all the time and fly at 40,000 feet in this amazing technology. We don't understand it.I'm an aerospace engineer by trade a long time. Haven't worked in aerospace for a long time. But yeah, one of the interesting things is we still don't understand fluid dynamics well enough to like have a clear non mysterious explanation for how lift works in wings. Like we have, like the mathematics and we get it. But at some level we don't understand how flight works. it's still mysterious magical technology, it's not. A horror, right? Every time you get into a plane, you don't think about kullu and OTs and other things eating you up.You don't have the paranoid psychotic reactions that the early physicists had to like fundamental physics discoveries. So flying in airplanes, despite remaining kind of magical, has reached its ardian kind of normalized phase. And I think they're starting to see that with AI too.AI's practical applicationsRAO: Like I'm fascinated by the number of Astoundingly banal, but still very powerful things, people are using, AI for. Like a couple of examples from my own life, I found, one of my hobbies is like tinkering with electronics. I'm not very good at it, but you can buy these cheap bags of assorted parts from Chinese stores and it'll come with chips and parts and stuff. with like sometimes, a little chart showing the part numbers or something. You can just take a photograph of that, upload it to chat GPT and say, what is this? Explain these components to me, and then suggest some experimental toy circuits I can build with this to learn how these components work. So that's like a kind of banal. Use I'm doing with it. That's not profound. That doesn't have a spiritual or epistemological dimension, but it's normalized. The magic has been normalized. And another one from my home life is my wife has discovered that it's a really great, mentor for, helping [00:16:00] her make her own skincare products.So she likes making face creams and things like that. And she's using it as a consultant, chemist and formulary. And again, it's a lot of really banal conversations of which ingredient will make the face cream more oily or less oily. But you're seeing this all over. yes, the critics are still having their, don't know, pull clutching reactions.The crazy theological, boosters are s…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Republicans treat politics like viral marketing, Democrats don’t Jul 16, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary In the aftermath of every presidential election, a flood of analysis pours in during the following weeks. But the real data actually takes a lot longer to come in. And now, several months after the fact—nearly a year actually—all of the most serious validated voter studies have come in, and they have some interesting findings for the losing party.One of the things that has become apparent from all of these analyses is that the Republican Party’s leadership and political consultant class has far more modern political strategies that fit within the social media age than Democrats.Joining me today to talk about how both parties are adapting or not adapting to the social media age is my friend Rynn Reed. She is a political strategist and also the founder of Creator Congress, a new group that is connecting progressive content creators and influencers, giving them services and connections to each other and to political actors. In our discussion, we talk about the 2024 election and how the Democratic Party and its allied groups spent almost all of their money on television ads, despite the fact that many Americans do not watch traditional television because they fast-forward, mute, or block web advertising.We also talk about how right-wing Americans have done much more to fund cultural products that are not necessarily political but have deep political undertones. Over the decades, Republicans have invested billions of dollars in selling their larger values and political brand while Democrats seem to think that a barrage of easily ignored video ads can counteract it.This is a serious issue for Democrats because Donald Trump's 2024 election victory was largely thanks to people who had never voted before or who rarely vote. They had the idea to vote for Trump because of the advocacy media and cultural conservative content that they consumed on a regular basis told them they shouldn’t vote for Kamala Harris because she's an extremist.That’s an absurd viewpoint given Trump’s long record of authoritarianism, but since millions of people pay little attention to politics, his narrative was successful enough to win the day. If Democrats want the grand rejection of authoritarianism they frequently say they desire, they will need to dramatically modernize their campaigning.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Theory of Change and Flux are listener supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe to stay in touch on either Substack or Patreon. Paid subscribers get full access.Related Content—Reactionary comedians are changing the political landscape for young Americans—How right-wing media manipulated a father—and a nation—Low-quality pundits like Jordan Peterson succeed by telling their audiences what they want to hear—Why right-wing billionaires are funding ‘post-left’ grifters—The John Birch Society and the birth of the far-right rage machine—How political propaganda hacks believers’ psychologyAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:33 — Non-voters and young voters have few opinions but are willing to develop them if given the chance08:29 — The Trump-as-moderate myth11:12 — How Trump made Republican consultants more innovative by throwing out the obsolete ones17:20 — Democrats haven't realized most people think America has been on the wrong track for a long time25:59 — What Trump and Republicans instinctively know about viral marketing31:32 — After a loss, Republicans change tactics, Democrats argue about policies38:41 — The role of authenticity in politics40:25 — The data mirage in political campaigns46:23 — The future of democratic engagement52:36 — Creator CongressAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: The year after an election, as you know, a lot of research organizations come out with validated voter studies, and so now there's been like, I guess six or seven publicly released ones and from various organizations. And, everybody has their takes, but they do line up in a lot of similar ways . And sometimes these ideas contradict the exit poll data, but, a lot of times they don't.And this year I don't feel like there was a lot of contradiction. What [00:04:00] did you think?RYNN REED: Yeah, no, I don't think that think the pol felt pretty aligned with the data that we were seeing, or at least the takes Iwas listening to about the reports. I think it's really difficult to tease out. something that I've just been thinking about a lot is teasing out the focus on.The electoral college and the states we needed to win, whether it was in the Sunbelt or the blue wall and, how that can discourage voters. I think especially after Trump's election in 2016, losing electoral college, but winning the popular vote like two things happened. I think it discouraged voters that might've turned out otherwise, and I think it led to some of the suppression time.I really, I just think people were like, what's the point if I'm not in one of these places like. the electoral college is all that matters. And then I think like what we lose there is momentum. We don't have, handed Trump a mandate, not really, but like perceptively because he won the popular vote.But I think a lot of that had to do with some of the messaging tactics. And I think it's really hard to out the effects of the polls and what happened after with like how we messaged and where we targeted.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. and, I think the other kind of side effect of the way that the, Harris campaign and its various allies did their spending and, focus is that because they did focus overwhelmingly on the swing states. that it didn't buck up a lot of these congressional candidates.And so those people, who, and obviously, all the studies do indicate that the non-voters would have supported Trump more this year. But on the other hand, if you focus specifically on your select people who do like Kamala Harris at least, somewhat. there probably are some house races that were lost. I think that's pretty clear, especially in New York and California.REED: Yeah, and I, and what I heard on the ground is from [00:06:00] these races are people that were supporting in congressional races as they were being completely ignored by, by, the spends and by, by the party real large. Ithink really interesting to me and I think there's some like counter data that's really interesting.There was a really good citations needed episode on this where they cover some of the exit polling and, what might have been missed in that non-voter account and how actually difficult it is to say how a non voter would vote. it's worth a listen. I, thought it was really interesting.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Non-voters and young voters have few opinions but are willing to develop them if given the chanceSHEFFIELD: studying the non-voter, it is tricky because a lot of times they are more likely to say that they supported the winner of therace than, they actually might have been. Or they don't really have firm opinions. AndREED: and that's somethinginto a little bit. It's like when we're talking about, especially like young male voters, like how firm their opinions are at any given time or young people generally. Like overwhelmingly up until this election, young people have swung tremendously to the left, especially during first Trump's first And, young voters just have very polarized opinions. They're still forming their thoughts. I think it they're just not a like hard set group that we can just be like, yes, this is how they're gonna vote throughout their lives and, going forward.SHEFFIELD: yeah, although there is some research that does indicate that your political opinions when you were a certain, when you were young, are a bit more fixed for a lot of people than they might, otherwise want to think.REED: Really.SHEFFIELD: Um, yeah, unfortunately.REED: I feel likePretty dramatically or had lots of like iterations or add-ons, butSHEFFIELD: mine certainly did, but what, tell me what you mean in your context.REED: I think, I was just reactionary. think I called myself like a Chomsky libertarian at some point. I was very like, what do we need [00:08:00] government for Mutual aid is theSHEFFIELD: I.REED: things like that and like bucked systems, or would've been like a third party supporter until I started working in politics and realized the limits of my own ideologies and had toFigure out powerSHEFFIELD: oh.REED: were and how to be a good, good soldier in that way.SHEFFIELD: And to actually take politics seriously as a polREED: actually.SHEFFIELD: matter of policy. Yeah. Yeah.The Trump-as-moderate mythSHEFFIELD: and that, yeah, like that is definitely a, a huge problem of Republicans that they and, having been one, I can say that, most of them know almost nothing about policy. and, and Donald Trump is a perfect example of that.he's a guy that, probably, obviously had some kind, some racist attitudes and things like that, in a of ways was just a conventional New York resident. not against the government and probably, for it overall. but, and he, he was a moderate Republican.At least if you look at when he very first came on the scene, there were two groups of people who supported him and it was the anti-immigration people, and then it was moderate Republicans. That's the irony. That was an attraction for some people for Trump, and it still continues to be like, there's I've seen a number of polls over the years that, a lot of people, even now still think that Donald Trump is more, that he's less conservative than, most Republicans even, even though it's very clear now that he just does whatever the, far right Republicans tell him to.REED: And, but isn't that partially, I mean about the kind of establishment versus non-establishment. Like they can like we shock test and project onto him the versions of things that they wanna see because he doesn't fit an archetype of [00:10:00] politician.SHEFFIELD: I think that's a huge part of it, but also just the, his rhetoric that he. Talks about and that, like I, and you can even see it on this budget bill that, the Republicans have been working on for so long that, just, recently as we're recording this on the 3rd of July that he had said the day before on the 2nd of July that, you know, I always tell Republicans you don't touch, Medicare and Medicaid and social security. and then somebody was like, but wait, we are touching Medicaid.REED: Yeah, and I think this term in particular, I've noticed his like slides into kind of cogent speech, especially around like Iran and Israel was really interesting, the kind of decisive ness of his media appearances versus the bill where he like weaves and, ducks and is not, I just won't commit to anything.The Republicans in general have actually been really good about this. We were trying to like, find clips of them saying they wouldn't cut Medicaid, and they were very strategic, very aligned and never said, never said those wordsHow Trump made Republican consultants more innovative by throwing out the obsolete onesSHEFFIELD: The other thing I think hasn't really been talked about in some of these studies is the role of television advertising in democratic campaigns versus Republican campaigns.it's just. Insanely disproportionate that Republicans put their money a lot more in digital, a lot more in media, like for, produced media advocacy media. Whereas Democrats tend to dump everything into two buckets usually, which is TV ads and on the ground, door to door knocking and within political science, both of those things are pretty clearly not effective. And that's it. It, there's just this weird irony, tragic irony of democratic politics [00:12:00] in that there are so many political science professors, who lean democratic, and yet the party doesn't actually learn anything from them. It seemsREED: I feel like it's such an outsourcing to the class too. we just have these like deeply like entrenched consulting class that just refuse to learn and have no real impetus to, I, can't, totally track the difference because I'm just like, don't understand the Republican side as well, but.feel like we have more consultancies that do non-innovative stuff and just refuse to update their priors. We'll have mail campaigns sending out, and this, we saw this with Acacia's Race, right? Like AOCs Race when Crowley sent out 25 mailers or something, some kind of absurd amount and, they just weren't clocking. They weren't clocking where to go with things. And I think I've seen male firms doing that up to this day and just their client's money a little bit. and Cuomo's race too, right? I was seeing that although Momani actually put a ton into TV ads, which I thought was really interesting, I think 70% of his race, of hisSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Although he did a lot of produced.REED: of earned media and a lot of digital, so he up the difference with free media.SHEFFIELD: With regard to the Republican consulting class, it is a different that they, things, changed because of Donald Trump, because when he first came on the scene, pretty much all of the Republican consultant class hated him because they thought he was a liberal a rhino that was actually like, people forget that's how things, that's what never Trump was originally for most of these people. It was that he was a rhino and, Republican in name only and a liberal who's gonna betray the party and make them get in the league with the Democrats.REED: [00:14:00] Sure.SHEFFIELD: so they wouldn't work for him, but also Trump hated them as well. So basically this sort of, calcified layer of Republican consultants, he threw them out in the street and he had brought in these people who were state level operatives, basically, like Corey Lewandowski or Susie Wiles. And and they had no. They had no priors to use your wording for it. And so they were willing to do whatever seemed best, or to import techniques that they learned from commercial marketing.And, because, commercial marketing doesn't work the way that. Camp, especially presidential campaign marketing works.REED: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: they, figured out a long time ago that TV ads, all they do is establish branding. That's all they really are for. They establish prestige, but they don't motivate or persuade.They just remind people that you're there. And so yeah, so now the Republican consultant class is this entirely new. Wave of people who are. They're not set in their ways. They, haven't been doing the same stuff since the eighties or nineties. and and this is why they've been able to, like they were able to see again, the Trump campaign was, they were open about this in 2024, that, our goal.Here is going to bring in non participate, people who don't traditionally vote. And we're gonna be focusing on young men in particular. And and beefing up trump's numbers among Hispanics and, black people. And I. They said they were gonna do it and then they achieved what they said they were gonna do.And it's not like Democrats couldn't see that coming. 'cause it was in the New York Times. Seems every few weeks. and Politico and everywhere else,REED: Totally. it's an interesting thing. I think what they seem to really understand and to your point about Investing in TV [00:16:00] ads being like just present, like presence in the media space. Democrats are always just about presence and never about persuasion, where I feel like…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Tupac Shakur and the political soul of hip-hop Jul 11, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary  Politics is a battle over elections and policies, but underneath it’s really a battle over stories, the cultural myths that shape our sense of identity, power, and possibility. And few stories loom larger in the American imagination than the saga of Tupac Shakur, the rapper and actor whose influence continues to resonate across the globe nearly 30 years after his death.It’s easy to see why. The problems of poverty, racism, capitalism, and inequality are as present today as they were when Tupac and other early hip-hop musicians began telling stories that no one else would.Talking about all of this with me today is Dean Van Nguyen. He’s the author of a new biography of Tupac Shakur called “Words for My Comrades: A Political History of Tupac Shakur” that highlights the political legacy that was lost when the emcee was gunned down in the streets of Las Vegas in 1996. While today’s rap industry has largely been absorbed by the capitalism its pioneers once resisted, the radical spirit Tupac embodied still echoes—sometimes in unexpected places.One of those places is Donald Trump’s political movement. In a bizarre turn, Trump has increasingly styled himself as a hip-hop folk hero—and, surprisingly, more than a few rappers have gone along with it. This is a conversation about symbolism, masculinity, memory, and resistance.The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Theory of Change and Flux are listener supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe to stay in touch!Related Content—A flashback look at how Donald Trump reached out to hip-hop stars to push his 2024 message —Nicki Minaj, Snoop Dogg, and toxic gravitation: How reactionaries bond over mutual narcissism 🔒—Why the decline of the black church is helping Republicans reach new voters—Doja Cat and the lies we tell ourselves about sex and race—Many Black Americans don’t like Democrats, but they loathe Republicans even more, which disdain will prove stronger?Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction05:53 — Tupac’s continued global resonance09:14 — The origins of hip-hop and its commercialization11:35 — Tupac’s legacy of contradictions18:41 — The Black Panthers’ influence on Tupac’s mother23:50 — Masculinity and gender within hip-hop29:06 — Gender and sexuality in the Black Panther Party35:56 — Obama and Trump in rap39:12 — Former Panthers still have hope for the future despite Trump41:31 — Trump’s 2024 campaign reached out heavily to hip-hop artists46:22 — ‘Coolness’ as a non-political voter persuasion method50:22 — How Van Nguyen brought oral history into his book58:19 — Eazy-E, another political West Coast emcee 01:01:55 — The meanings of ‘thug life’Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Dean Van Nguyen. Hey, Dean. Welcome to Theory of Change.DEAN VAN NGUYEN: Thank you. Thanks for having me.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So this book is, it's a really important book, actually, I think especially because it's connecting a lot of ideas that got started during the life of Tupac Shakur, obviously by him, but also by other people.And he's a guy that continues to remain relevant despite having been killed decades ago. And you write in the introduction of the book that you see him as America's last revolutionary figure. Tell us about that.VAN NGUYEN: I think America actually isn't a nation that tends to create these. Figures. It's been a, a stable political, system for quite a while now. So I think when you see where Tupac's icon has resonated mostly across the world, and it tends to be in countries that have histories of colonialism and colonial oppression and anti-colonial uprising such as my own country, which is Ireland and nations that have suffered brutal dictatorships and have had uprisings against that and things of that nature.So he, I think his icon has grown to, to be almost this, almost like avara figure where he. He represents [00:04:00] ideals, like to see his image ignites certain feelings within people or certain ideas within people of, revolution and resistance. And I don't think there's actually too many Americans as you could actually say that about.Yeah, I think if you got, like there was, of the, figures in the book as well who's icon, who's I comparing to a little bit is like Bob Marley. Che Guevara. So, yeah, I think I, I can't really think of anyone who's come since him that really matches that, that that symbol that he's become, side of the us.SHEFFIELD: If we expand outside of the us other non-American figures can you think of people after Tupac generally that are, that widely known and recognized as revolutionary icons?​I think he's certainly, I think, the single most recognizable icon that hip hop produced. I think maybe the other one might be Eminem, but I'm not sure that when people, recognize who m Andm is when they see him, but he, doesn't ignite the same se a set of principles that like, that Tupac does.VAN NGUYEN: S so, yeah, and I think that he's probably even eclipsed, say, Panther forebears certainly in terms of his ability to be recognized just from pictures of 'em and things like that. Like he's, I think he's more famous than Huey Newton, Bobby Seal and Eldridge Cleaver, and people like that.yeah, I, it's hard to, it's hard to think of o other, even his contemporaries really, who match him in that regard.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think that's right. And it's, there's a lot of reasons for that. one of them obviously is cultural fragmentation. I think that's a huge part in that. But it's also, as you say, that his music is about telling stories in a way that is. A lot more authentic compared to especially the people who came after him.Tupac's continued global resonanceSHEFFIELD: your connection as you mentioned earlier, that you're from Ireland and you had a particular interest in [00:06:00] Tupac as a kid growing up. tell us about that.VAN NGUYEN: Yeah, so I, I from a school system where I think is probably stereotypical what you might expect, a Catholics, the Catholic, Irish school system to be as in like school uniforms. I went to an all boys school. Most of the schools, I think in Ireland at the time, probably still now, I'm not sure were, single sex and.it was just, it was a very drab existence with no really extracurricular activities to speak of. So I think for us that we found and to be a, an escape or, certainly something to be interested in. For some, and for some of us gangster rap was, popular. There was another set of kids, like Kurt Cobain was the guy for them.And like for us, I think probably above everyone else it was, Tupac. He had died by the time I got interested interested in him already. But I think that even added to the mystique around him. and yeah. And I think that there's, but you, like even, I, was just talking to last weekend actually, my, I had a friend over who's from New York and is partner for the first time.And she had just been down in, I'm from Dublin and she had just been in Galway, which is another town that's on the other side of the country, but she was saying she'd seen a mural of Tupac there. and yeah, in the, book a little bit, I mentioned some of the murals that have popped up about him and there's just, there is something in the Irish psyche that seems to, like him.I, had to take out some instances in the book I've just seen anecdotally that kind of shows Irish people's affinity for him. And I think again, it just speaks to that he resonates in countries with a particular history. and I, say I go into some of those, the other nations and places like Sierra Leone and the Solomon Islands in the book as well.So, yeah, I think he was just, that was, he was just the guy for us. And in terms of probably the rapper, we most particularly, certainly some people anyway, most particularly [00:08:00] gravitate towards and certainly who, could like evoke a real sort of sense of. loyalty and, interest in maybe more so than guys like Nas and Wu-Tang Klan.We also all listen to. But yeah, tu, Tupac just seems to, stand above all the rest.SHEFFIELD: yeah, and I, think there's it, the, obviously the fact that he, died so young and so suddenly, that obviously it, put him to a higher status. But on the other hand, there were a lot of, guys who died young and didn't get anywhere near that iconic status.So it's worth thinking about him. and also the other thing about Tupac, I think that makes him stand out is that because he was there, in in the beginning of the genre, and then never. a chance to sell it. who knows whether he would've or not. It's hard to say, right? But, he didn't, and, but he was able to preserve that original ethos hip hop and rap. And so talk, talk, talk about that though. Like how rap originally was as a medium.The origins of hiphop and its commercializationVAN NGUYEN: in, in, in the book, I, had, if I saw it as there being an opportunity to do a tangential narrative on how hip hop came from radical origins like I, I go into Tupac's Black Panther parentage and his, heritage and, hip hop was born in New York on the same streets where the Panthers, hop the newspapers and had offices and it was.Just it was just slightly, just, a couple of years after their, the peak of their influence in New York. But it's, I think that it was still, it's from, it's like it's from the same streets. It's from the, conditions in which the Panthers sought [00:10:00] to, recruit and, sought to, provide relief for, in terms of the poverty that a lot of the people who lived in those areas were experiencing.oh, it hip hop was a, was it was a youth movement, really no commercial interests, at all. And I think you see as, it grows, it's the commercialization of it becomes obviously incredibly intense. And I think when you think about like original hip hop, it, came, there was various, sections to, or segments to where you had, break dancing, graffiti.These are called like the parts of the five elements that they call, they say of hip hop. But the only one I think the capitalism finds any great use for is rap music. So it becomes the dominating strand, which is why kind of rap and hip hop become, synonyms of each other really.yeah, that's, I wanted to tell that story and I think with Tupac, he, he's, he exists within obviously the commercialization of it. he was a massive selling, he was like a massive selling artist in his own lifetime. But I think in, in, it's almost in his aftermath that some, of his contemporaries, have become among the richest people in the US and they've created this billionaire class of, rap artists.There was almost this, race to see who could become hip hop's first official billionaire for a while. so yeah, as you say, it's, I. It would've been interesting to know how he would've, how he would've seen that.Tupac's legacy of contradictionsVAN NGUYEN: I, I, I tend to believe that be he would've held onto to his, Panther principles in terms of the Panthers were a, Marxist Leninist movement.he held onto a lot of those socialist principles in life, which he, spoke about in his interviews and in his songs. But, yeah, you never really know what the, indignity of aging will do to his people. But I do tend to, [00:12:00] I rather, when I consider how he would've aged, I prefer to look at his, the Panthers of his parents generation who, who never really strayed from their original principles rather than maybe some of his own contemporaries who became just, highly interested in, in, in the entertainment industry and how, kinda high, how much wealth they could accumulate from that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. and, they didn't have a, an ideologyVAN NGUYEN: Yeah, exactly. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: any sort, of political education on their own. it, that, that tension between capitalism the, the allure and opportunity of capitalism for people who were creating this new musical genre, it was immense.the gravitational force of that was huge. But yet at the same time they, came from an environment in which there was really no way out for a lot of black Americans who were, they were, they went to these terrible schools. the, governments wouldn't spend more money on them, or if they did, they wouldn't provide resources out of school.So kids were basically just stranded there in a lot of different ways. and it was an environment in which sports and, hip hop was the only way out, which is, and, a lot of times people who are, right wing racist will look at that and they'll mock it, but they don't understand that th that, that, that was the only way out like that was, if you don't have a, an education, how are you going to pull yourself up by your bootstraps?And like that contradiction, it was something that. The Tupac, I think, much more than a lot of other rappers really did explore that a lot in, part because of his own family [00:14:00] ideology that he was brought up with.VAN NGUYEN: Yeah. And you mentioned there, there, is these, this lasting joke. I think Dave Chappelle was one of the people who made it about, oh. Music and as you say, sports being the only, the only roots out of poverty and those jokes are, think are still made just because they seem so long lasting.And I think when I talk about the, how, hip hop becomes consumed by, capitalism. One thing I say about it is it's more so than nearly any other art form. It does capture as well the, crush of capitalism. it, it gives, I. It's probably the clear, it's consistently given the clearest dispatches of what it is to, exist in the, at the bottom of the capitalist system.And, and to be at the, say, the bottom of the sharp end of it. But I, two, I think one is, one thing is that most wrappers rappers be when they, when, trying to solve, trying to achieve upward mobility through capitalism, they, that it become, that's a core theme of rap music.And very few, certainly in the mainstream have ever put forward socialist ideas within their music or, esp like socialist principles or a socialist perspective to say that the system isn't, is set up. That it's always going to have this kind of class at the bottom who are, struggling.there are some like rap rappers like Paris and, a no name, but I think of the one, obviously the, one to every esp any sort of sost principles in his music and in his interviews that became clearly the most famous was Tupac. And I think that he, obviously, he inherited those from his mother. And, and yeah, and like he, unlike, most, he was, very, I mean he, hated wealth inequality as one of the real that people always talk about the duality of Tupac or the contradictions of his, music and how he [00:16:00] could, put forward one set of ideas and then maybe contradict himself within, a couple of tracks later.But if you look at. That is hatred. He had a wealth inequality. it's one of the real consistencies of his life. And he always maintained that it wasn't right for the rich to have so much and the poor, to have so little. yeah, and I'd say it would've been, it would've been interesting to that he hopefully would've, he would've kept those had he had, he died.But I tend to believe he, he would, like even he was planning his own company around the time of his death, but within that he had like plans for like, school programs. And I think he wanted to have a kinda, an egalitarian slant to it. so yeah, was, very in tuned with that, side of America,…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 23 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights