The Good Fight: Recent Episodes
Yascha Mounk
The podcast that searches for the ideas, policies and strategies that can beat authoritarian populism.
www.persuasion.community
Yascha Mounk and Adam Bodnar examine why Poland’s celebrated victory over illiberalism is now very much in doubt.Adam Bodnar is a Professor of Law at SWPS University in Warsaw, heading the Department for Rule of Law and Human Rights. He is also a Senator of the Republic of Poland, elected in October 2023, and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He previously served as Minister of Justice (December 2023–July 2025) and as Ombudsman of Poland (2015–2021).In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Adam Bodnar discuss the post-populist dilemma, how Poland’s pro-democratic coalition defeated an illiberal government in 2023 as well as the challenges it has faced since, and what lessons Poland’s experience has for the United States.This conversation was recorded at the Liberalism for the 21st Century conference in Washington, D.C., which is organized by the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama explore why any theory of politics must begin with an account of what makes us human.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is In the Realm of the Last Man. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column at Persuasion. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss why human nature has been so central to Fukuyama’s political thought, what modern evolutionary biology and anthropology tell us about the myth of primordial individualism, and whether human beings are best understood as fundamentally social creatures or fundamentally self-interested ones.Enjoying this discussion? In an event exclusively for readers of American Purpose and Persuasion, Yascha Mounk will be interviewing Francis Fukuyama about his life and thought at 5pm on Sunday, September 6 at The Abbey Centre, London. Find out more and get tickets here. Paying subscribers of Persuasion and American Purpose can access a code for a free ticket here.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, features content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Daron Acemoglu examine how the digital age severed the link between economic growth and shared prosperity.Daron Acemoglu is an economist at MIT and a recipient of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics. His latest book is What Happened to Liberal Democracy?In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Daron Acemoglu discuss why liberal democracy’s post-war formula for shared prosperity broke down, how the rise of a college-educated professional class produced a cultural backlash against “social engineering,” and how to shape the future of artificial intelligence.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, features content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama examine what people still get wrong about “the end of history.”Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is In the Realm of the Last Man. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column at Persuasion. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the true meaning of “the end of history,” why the struggle for recognition—rather than material interest—is the engine of historical progress, and how his thesis holds up 35 years on.Enjoying this discussion? In an event exclusively for readers of American Purpose and Persuasion, Yascha Mounk will be interviewing Francis Fukuyama about his life and thought at 5pm on Sunday, September 6 at The Abbey Centre, London. Find out more and get tickets here. Paying subscribers of Persuasion and American Purpose can access a code for a free ticket here.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, features content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Katja Hoyer also discuss what the Islamist attack on Berlin’s Pride parade says about the state of Germany.Katja Hoyer is a visiting Research Fellow at King’s College London and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Her latest book is Weimar: Life on the Edge of Catastrophe.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Katja Hoyer discuss why the Weimar comparison is so tempting (and so often misleading), what genuine enthusiasm for democracy in 1919 Germany can teach us about how democracies fail, and whether political fragmentation or economic crisis was the more decisive factor in Weimar’s collapse.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Francis Fukuyama discusses the experiences and individuals that shaped him.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is In the Realm of the Last Man. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column at Persuasion.We have a treat for you today! To mark the publication of Francis Fukuyama’s memoir In the Realm of the Last Man, we’re launching a multi-part series about his intellectual eras. Here, Francis Fukuyama reflects on his life, from his family’s experience of Japanese-American internment, to surprising family secrets discovered in letters, to the political and social fallout after changing his mind about the Iraq War.Enjoying this discussion? In an event exclusively for readers of American Purpose and Persuasion, Yascha Mounk will be interviewing Francis Fukuyama about his life and thought at 5pm on Sunday, September 6 at The Abbey Centre, London. Find out more and get tickets here. Paying subscribers of Persuasion and American Purpose can access a code for a free ticket here.And, if you’ll be in Oxford, UK on Friday, September 4, Francis Fukuyama will be in conversation with Nigel Warburton about his memoir—learn more and get tickets here.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, features content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Claude Steele discuss why diversity can produce anxiety—and how it differs from prejudice. Claude Steele is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University. His latest book is Churn: The Absurd Abyss of Race in America.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Claude Steele discuss why diversity produces psychological tension even in the absence of explicit prejudice, whether American schools are truly as racially segregated today as they were in the 1950s, and how the fear of being stereotyped affects both minority and majority group members in integrated settings.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Francis Fukuyama, Linda Chavez, and Rachel Janfaza join Yascha Mounk to discuss what a radical liberal agenda might look like today.In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Linda Chavez, and Rachel Janfaza explore whether Gen Z’s political instincts are genuinely liberal, what a renewed liberalism needs to reclaim from the republican tradition, and how to rebuild a culture of public-spiritedness in an age of anti-establishment politics. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University and the founder of American Purpose. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents.Linda Chavez is the Vice Chair of the Renew Democracy Initiative, founded by Garry Kasparov. She previously served in the Reagan administration and has been a syndicated columnist and political commentator for decades.Rachel Janfaza is the founder of Up and Up, where she researches and writes about the political beliefs and cultural attitudes of Gen Z.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and John Harpham examine how early modern thinkers justified slavery long before modern theories of race took hold.John Samuel Harpham is Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics and Letters and Wick Cary Assistant Professor at the Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage at the University of Oklahoma. He is the author of The Intellectual Origins of American Slavery. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and John Harpham discuss why the standard racial account of slavery’s origins misses the earliest justifications for the practice, how Aristotelian and Roman conceptions of freedom and slavery shaped the intellectual world of the first English colonists, and what this history means for our understanding of slavery today. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Will you be in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday July 15? I will be interviewing Francis Fukuyama about how liberalism should respond to the postliberal threat. Find out more and get your free ticket here! —YaschaYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey discuss why ideas, not capital accumulation, made the modern world rich.Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, sometimes described as “the conscience of economics,” holds the Isaiah Berlin Chair in Liberal Thought at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey discuss why liberalism drives economic growth, how the gradual erosion of inherited hierarchy unleashed centuries of innovation, and what liberals should think about the trans debate.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.That liberalism is under threat is now a cliché—yet this has done nothing to stem the global resurgence of illiberalism. Part of the problem is that liberalism is often considered too “thin” to win over the allegiance of citizens, and that liberals are too afraid of speaking in moral terms. Liberalism’s opponents, by contrast, speak to people’s passions and deepest moral sentiments.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, aims to change that narrative. In podcast conversations and long-form pieces, we feature content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Arvind Narayanan discuss why the real transformation from AI will take decades rather than months—and what that means for how we should prepare.Arvind Narayanan is a professor of computer science at Princeton University.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Arvind Narayanan discuss why AI’s transformative impact will unfold over decades rather than months, whether human accountability can survive the rise of AI agents in the workplace, and what the economy will look like once AI has automated every task that can be precisely specified.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Ivan Krastev examine what the country’s founding ideals mean on its 250th anniversary. Ivan Krastev is Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies and the Albert Hirschman Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM) in Vienna. He is a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the advisory and governing boards of several international organizations, including the European Investment Bank, the International Crisis Group, and GLOBSEC.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ivan Krastev discuss what the 250th anniversary of the United States reveals about America’s crisis of self-confidence, whether America and Europe are converging rather than diverging, and how competition with China will reshape American identity in the decades ahead.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.That liberalism is under threat is now a cliché—yet this has done nothing to stem the global resurgence of illiberalism. Part of the problem is that liberalism is often considered too “thin” to win over the allegiance of citizens, and that liberals are too afraid of speaking in moral terms. Liberalism’s opponents, by contrast, speak to people’s passions and deepest moral sentiments.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, aims to change that narrative. In podcast conversations and long-form pieces, we feature content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Charles Fain Lehman explore how strategic policing drove the decline in violent crime—and why Baltimore was left behind.Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at City Journal, where he covers crime, policing, and urban policy.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Charles Fain Lehman discuss why Baltimore failed to follow the crime declines that transformed other American cities, what the evidence tells us about why strategic policing works, and how focused deterrence breaks cycles of retaliatory violence.Watch the conversation below—the full video is behind the paywall on this page!If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Matthew Yglesias, Claire Ainsley, and Yascha Mounk debate whether progressives have abandoned the working-class voters they once claimed to represent.Will you be in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday July 15? I will be interviewing Francis Fukuyama about how liberalism should respond to the postliberal threat. Find out more and get your free ticket here! —YaschaIn this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Matthew Yglesias, Claire Ainsley, and Yascha Mounk examine why center-left parties are losing ground across democracies, whether structural forces or strategic failures are to blame, and what lessons from Canada, Australia, and the UK might offer a path forward for the left.Matthew Yglesias is the founder and author of Slow Boring, a Substack newsletter focused on policy and politics. He is the author of One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger and a longtime commentator on economics, housing, and Democratic Party strategy.Claire Ainsley is Director of the Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute. A British political strategist and policy expert, she previously served as Executive Director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and as a senior adviser in the Labour government of Keir Starmer. Note: This episode was recorded on June 3, 2026.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Mark Leonard discuss whether the West can defend itself without America.Mark Leonard is co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, the first pan-European think–tank. His latest book is Surviving Chaos: Geopolitics When the Rules Fail.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Mark Leonard discuss why Europe is behind, the global impact of China’s rise, and whether Europe can learn to defend itself without the United States.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Curtis Yarvin, Minna Salami, and Yascha Mounk discuss whether we can ever be free in a liberal society in a discussion moderated by Roger Hearing.In this special episode of The Good Fight, recorded at the How The Light Gets In Festival, Roger Hearing moderates a debate between Curtis Yarvin, Minna Salami, and Yascha Mounk on whether liberalism can ever be neutral, what a truly free society would look like, and whether liberalism’s heyday is over. Find out more about the Institute of Arts and Ideas—and book tickets to this year’s How The Light Gets In Festival in September—here. Watch the video of the debate here.Roger Hearing is a broadcaster and journalist with over 30 years experience presenting and reporting for BBC News and Bloomberg.Minna Salami is an award-winning Nigerian-Finnish and Swedish author, cultural critic, and independent scholar based in London. She is the author of Can Feminism Be African?: A Most Paradoxical Question.Curtis Yarvin is a political blogger and software developer.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Sam Moyn also discuss whether some people deserve to have more votes than others.Samuel Moyn is the Kent Professor of Law and History at Yale University. His books include Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War, The Last Utopia, and Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World. Cohost of the Digging a Hole podcast, he is a frequent contributor to The New York Times and many other publications.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sam Moyn discuss whether a truly fair democracy might weigh different citizens’ votes differently, whether the emphasis on human rights have got us into the mess we’re in today, and to what extent our democracy is in danger from populism.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and David Bau delve into the emerging science of AI interpretability and what we can learn from billions of neural signals.David Bau is Assistant Professor at Northeastern University and Director of the National Deep Inference Fabric, researching the emergent internal mechanisms of deep generative networks in both Natural Language Processing and Computer Vision.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Bau discuss how AI models actually produce their results and reflect about problems, whether the “thinking” process that models show users reveals their authentic thought processes, and how researchers can decode the internal representations of neural networks to understand what information they contain and use. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Rebecca Haw Allensworth examine how professional licensing has become America’s most important—and most restrictive—regulatory institution.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | AppleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Steve Stewart-Williams examine what science reveals about biological and psychological differences between men and women.Steve Stewart-Williams is a professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham’s Malaysia campus and runs The Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Newsletter. His latest book is A Billion Years of Sex Differences.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Steve Stewart-Williams discuss why women and men are more similar than is often thought and what the real sex differences between men and women are, from casual sex to career choices.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Jeremiah Johnson examine the disconnect between economic data and public sentiment about young Americans’ prospects. Jeremiah Johnson is the co-founder of the Center for New Liberalism. He hosts the New Liberal Podcast and writes at Infinite Scroll.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jeremiah Johnson discuss why young Americans think the economy is worse than it actually is, whether social media has made us permanently pessimistic about institutions, and how elite failures are now exposed in real time. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Paige Harden discuss twin studies, heritability research, and why genetic influence varies across different traits and populations.Kathryn Paige Harden is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, where she leads the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and serves as Director of Clinical Training. Her latest book is Original Sin: On the Genetics of Vice, the Problem of Blame, and the Future of Forgiveness.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Paige Harden discuss why twin studies reveal the substantial influence of genetics on human behavior, how genetic effects actually increase rather than decrease over a person’s lifetime, and why acknowledging genetic influences shouldn’t be seen as incompatible with progressive politics.Watch this conversation on our YouTube Channel!If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and H.W. Brands discuss the first U.S. president’s life and legacy.H. W. Brands holds the Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of more than a dozen biographies and histories. His latest book is American Patriarch: The Life of George Washington.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and H. W. Brands discuss why Washington’s reputation has endured despite the controversial legacies of other founding fathers, how his frontier upbringing shaped his character, and what Washington’s voluntary relinquishment of power reveals about leadership and ambition. Watch this conversation on our YouTube Channel!If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and James Traub examine how progressive teaching methods are producing citizens who can't think critically.James Traub is a journalist, author and scholar. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Institute For The Humanities and the Society of American Historians.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and James Traub discuss why progressive pedagogy is failing American students, how classical schools are achieving better outcomes through traditional teaching methods, and whether learning facts versus critical thinking represents a false choice in education.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Marc Lipsitch also discuss how worried we should be about Hantavirus and Ebola.Marc Lipsitch is the Berberian Professor at Stanford University, with appointments in Infectious Diseases, Biology, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Marc Lipsitch discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of gain-of-function research, how scientific incentives may be encouraging risky experimentation—and the recent outbreaks of hantavirus and ebola.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Amanda Ripley, Jesse Singal, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Yascha Mounk explore Trump’s failed cultural revolution.In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Amanda Ripley, Jesse Singal, and Thomas Chatterton Williams explore whether Trump has succeeded in remaking American culture in his image, the rise of white identity politics and its psychological drivers, and how America might break free from cycles of political revenge and backlash. Amanda Ripley is the founder of Good Conflict. Her latest book is High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out.Jesse Singal is the co-host of Blocked and Reported and the author of The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can’t Cure Our Social Ills. Thomas Chatterton Williams is a staff writer at The Atlantic. His latest book is Summer of Our Discontent.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Al Roth discuss what we miss when we separate economics from human emotion.Alvin E. Roth is the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2012. His latest book is Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Al Roth discuss the impact of moral disgust on solving economic problems, whether we should allow financial payments for organ donation, and what the rise of OnlyFans tells us about changing attitudes towards the self and economic transactions.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Timothy Garton Ash discuss how Britain’s shift toward populism reflects broader European trends.Timothy Garton Ash is the author of Homelands: A Personal History of Europe and writes the newsletter History of the Present. His upcoming book, Europe in 7½ Chapters, will be published in October 2026.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Timothy Garton Ash discuss the crisis of Labour and rise of Reform, why Europeans are struggling to adapt to a new political, cultural, and technological age, and the future of the war in Ukraine. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Laurenz Guenther discuss why ordinary voters and political elites disagree on immigration, crime, and social issues.Laurenz Guenther is a political economist at the Toulouse School of Economics and a Fellow at the Institute for European Policymaking at Bocconi University. His research and Substack focus on representation, populism, and immigration in Western democracies.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Laurenz Guenther discuss why there’s a massive representation gap between political elites and voters on cultural issues, how this explains the rise of populist parties like the AfD in Germany, and whether new parties can successfully occupy the economically left but socially conservative political space.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Lant Pritchett discuss why development requires building state capability, not just charitable interventions.Lant Pritchett is a development economist from Idaho. Having now thrice retired, he is currently a Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics in the School of Public Policy and the co-founder and Research Director of Labor Mobility Partnerships (LaMP).In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Lant Pritchett discuss why the traditional foreign aid approach to development is fundamentally misguided, how countries actually achieve prosperity through organic national transformation, and whether the classic path to development remains viable in the 21st century. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and David Bromwich discuss grade inflation, political conformity, and the crisis of trust in higher education.David Bromwich has taught literature at Yale University since 1988. His books include Hazlitt: the Mind of a Critic, The Intellectual Life of Edmund Burke, How Words Make Things Happen, and Politics by Other Means: Higher Education and Group Thinking.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Bromwich discuss why Americans have lost faith in universities, how grade inflation and political conformity undermine academic credibility, and whether the opacity of elite admissions processes can be reformed.Note: David Bromwich asked us to be clear that the views he expresses are his own and not those of any institution or group within an institution.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Luis Garicano discuss how AI will reshape labor markets, productivity, and economic growth.Luis Garicano is Professor of Public Policy at the London School of Economics.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Luis Garicano discuss the economic magnitude of AI’s transformative potential, whether artificial intelligence complements or replaces human workers, and why Silicon Valley predictions about automation consistently miss the mark. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Jacob Mchangama discuss how democracies and dictatorships alike have turned against online speech freedom.Jacob Mchangama is the Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech and a research professor at Vanderbilt University, as well as a Senior Fellow at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. His latest book, with Jeff Kosseff, is The Future of Free Speech: Reversing the Global Decline of Democracy's Most Essential Freedom.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jacob Mchangama discuss why we’re experiencing a global free speech recession despite technological advances, how hate speech laws are being weaponized against their original intent, and whether democracies can resist the authoritarian playbook for controlling online discourse.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Michael Shermer delve into the art of debunking dangerous ideas without silencing free speech.Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and the host of the podcast The Michael Shermer Show. His new book is Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Michael Shermer discuss conspiracy theories from the plausible to the wild, how to assess whether a conspiracy theory is accurate, and discovering the truth in a convoluted world. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Ivan Krastev also discuss the war in Iran—and what it means for Trump’s future.Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, and Albert Hirschman Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ivan Krastev discuss how Viktor Orbán’s 16-year rule in Hungary came to an end, why democratic institutions proved more resilient than many expected, and what lessons this holds for understanding the limits of competitive authoritarianism. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Andrés Velasco discuss why the current energy crisis won’t repeat the 1970s—and what dangers lurk in today’s financial markets.Andrés Velasco is the Dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Andres Velasco discuss whether the Middle East war will trigger a 1970s-style economic crisis, why AI valuations could spark the next financial meltdown, and what signs to watch for in predicting future market crashes. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Ruy Teixeira examine how the Democratic Party’s cultural evolution drove away working-class voters—and ask whether it may be too late to change course.Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was co-founder and politics editor of the Substack newsletter, The Liberal Patriot. His latest book, with John B. Judis, is Where Have All the Democrats Gone?In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ruy Teixeira discuss why The Liberal Patriot is shutting down after five years, how the Great Awokening is still driving the Democratic Party, and whether the Democrats have learned the right lessons from Trump’s 2024 victory.Persuasion is a registered non-profit and relies on paying subscribers to pay the bills. If you would like to make a donation, please click here. We’re so grateful for your support!If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Kathleen Stock discuss whether liberal arguments for medically assisted suicide fail to hold up under scrutiny.Kathleen Stock is a contributing writer at UnHerd, a frequent columnist at The Sunday Times and The Times, and a co-director of The Lesbian Project, which she runs with journalist and activist Julie Bindel.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Kathleen Stock discuss why liberal arguments for assisted dying are less coherent than they appear, whether palliative care offers a more merciful alternative to medically assisted death, and how different legal regimes around the world reveal the practical challenges of institutionalizing end-of-life choices. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Sebastian Mallaby discuss why tech leaders both fear and accelerate dangerous AI development, and whether open-source models pose unacceptable risks.Sebastian Mallaby is the author of several books including The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence. A former Financial Times contributing editor and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, Mallaby is the Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sebastian Mallaby discuss why AI developers simultaneously fear and advance potentially dangerous technology, whether open-source AI models pose unacceptable security risks, and how China and the United States differ in their approaches to AI safety. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and David Autor discuss how policy failures made trade disruption worse—and why we're still making the same mistakes.David Autor is the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor in the MIT Department of Economics, codirector of the NBER Labor Studies Program and the James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Center on Inequality and Shaping the Future of Work.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Autor discuss whether the economic pessimism of the 2010s was justified, what lessons we failed to learn from the China trade shock, and how artificial intelligence will reshape the American job market. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and David Goodhart explore how the domination of mobile, university-educated “anywheres” sparked the populist revolt.David Goodhart is a journalist, author and think tanker, and currently head of the demography unit at the Policy Exchange think tank. His latest book is The Care Dilemma: Freedom, Family and Fertility.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Goodhart discuss why the triumphalist worldview of the early 2000s has collapsed, how the “anywhere” versus “somewhere” divide explains contemporary populism, and whether meritocracy is creating an insulated professional class that damages the communities it leaves behind. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Shashank Joshi examine whether the United States and Israel are achieving their strategic objectives in the Middle East.Shashank Joshi is Defence Editor at The Economist, where he writes on a wide range of national security, defence and intelligence issues.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Shashank Joshi discuss how the war of attrition between the United States, Israel, and Iran is unfolding, whether military successes justify the enormous economic and strategic costs, and why Iran’s nuclear program remains largely untouched despite being a primary justification for the conflict.Note: This episode was recorded on March 18, 2026.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Ibram X. Kendi also discuss anti-racism, equity, and education.Ibram X. Kendi is Professor of History and the founding director of the Howard University Institute for Advanced Study, an interdisciplinary research enterprise examining global racism. His latest book is Chain of Ideas: The Origins of Our Authoritarian Age.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ibram X. Kendi discuss whether great replacement theory is the common basis for political movements from India to Argentina, the role of racist policy in different outcomes between racial groups, and how to define equity vs equality.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Adrian Wooldridge explore how liberalism reinvented itself through past crises—and what that means for its survival today.Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He is the author or co-author of 12 books, including Centrists of the World Unite: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Adrian Wooldridge discuss how liberalism emerged as a solution to concrete historical problems, why the fundamental challenges liberalism addressed in the 17th and 18th centuries have returned in new forms today, and what lessons the origins of liberalism offer for defending it against contemporary threats.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.That liberalism is under threat is now a cliché—yet this has done nothing to stem the global resurgence of illiberalism. Part of the problem is that liberalism is often considered too “thin” to win over the allegiance of citizens, and that liberals are too afraid of speaking in moral terms. Liberalism’s opponents, by contrast, speak to people’s passions and deepest moral sentiments.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, aims to change that narrative. In podcast conversations and long-form pieces, we feature content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Klaus Schwab discuss truth, trust, and accountability—until he abruptly ended the interview.In January, I received an email from Klaus Schwab about a new book he had just published, called Restoring Truth and Trust. It was, he told me, “part of my broader series aimed at helping a global audience understand and respond to the profound changes shaping our societies, economies, and institutions.” I decided to invite Schwab onto my podcast. In his role at Davos, he had helped to shape, or at least to midwife, the global order which is now suffering an unprecedented crisis. Given the themes of his book, he seemed open to a genuinely searching conversation about which elements of this order were worth preserving, which others in need of jettisoning—and what responsibility the elites he knew so well might have for our current travails. I was greatly looking forward to the conversation, and approached it the way I do most of my podcasts: I was determined both to give Schwab an opportunity to present his ideas in the most compelling possible way, and to interrogate them critically.A few questions in, it became clear that the conversation was not going well. Whenever I mildly pushed back at some point he was making, Schwab looked visibly annoyed. After about twenty minutes, he suddenly broke off the conversation, saying that he had a migraine. After giving Schwab time to recover, a member of his team stepped in and requested that we reschedule the conversation, which we were happy to do in the circumstances.Naturally, we gave Schwab’s team many opportunities to resume the conversation. We offered numerous options for when we could record the rest of the conversation, and invited them to suggest a time that would work for him. But after a few back-and-forth exchanges, it became clear that his team had no real interest in doing so. Eventually, they openly admitted as much, writing that “Professor Schwab has decided that he does not wish to continue with the podcast.” They also asked us multiple times not to release the part of the conversation we did record.Some podcasters consider it a kind of trophy when a public figure like Schwab walks out of an interview because he does not like the line of questioning. I don’t. The point of my podcast is to facilitate genuine conversations across ideological differences. In the 437 episodes I have recorded so far, I have sometimes experienced moments of genuine tension, and perhaps occasional flashes of hostility; but not a single guest has ever walked out of a previous recording.Given the nature of my questions, I must admit to being even more bewildered by this turn of events. Schwab has for decades been in one of the most influential positions in the international firmament of power and influence. None of the questions I asked were posed in the spirit of a gotcha question. Are some of the most powerful people in the world really that allergic to basic intellectual scrutiny?But don’t take my word for it. Instead, listen for yourself.—YaschaKlaus Schwab is the founder and former Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. His latest book is Restoring Truth and Trust.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Klaus Schwab discuss whether the principles underlying global cooperation can survive today’s political upheaval, how democratic institutions can respond to rising populist movements without appearing tone-deaf to voters’ legitimate grievances, and what stakeholder capitalism means in practical terms for corporate decision-making.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Dean Ball examine how the fight over autonomous weapons and mass surveillance reveals the impossible choices facing American AI policy.Dean W. Ball served as Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he was the primary staff drafter of America’s AI Action Plan. He writes the AI-focused newsletter Hyperdimensional.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Dean Ball discuss the clash between Anthropic and the Department of War over AI usage restrictions, why mass domestic surveillance capabilities make AI governance so challenging, and how to regulate transformative technologies under conditions of radical uncertainty.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss whether the unprecedented strikes on Iran will lead to the downfall of the mullahs, whether America can avoid getting drawn into a Middle Eastern quagmire, and whether the midterms will turn Donald Trump into a lame duck.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Danielle Allen discuss democratic backsliding.Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University. She is also Director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation at the Harvard Kennedy School and Director of the Democratic Knowledge Project, a research lab focused on civic education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Danielle Allen discuss why the liberal worldview of the 1990s and 2000s has collapsed, how "power-sharing liberalism" can address the failures of technocratic governance, and whether participatory democracy risks empowering the professional managerial class at the expense of ordinary citizens.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Janice Gross Stein is the Belzberg Professor of Conflict Management and Founding Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Janice Stein discuss whether rational choice theory has led us astray in understanding political behavior, why voters have lost interest in nuclear deterrence, and why cooperation, not rationality, is important in global politics.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk, Bethany Allen, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, and Chang Che examine how Asia is preparing for a more dangerous world.In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Bethany Allen, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, and Chang Che examine the stunning electoral victory of Japan’s new prime minister Sanae Takaichi, China’s coercion tactics and how they’re backfiring across Asia, and what the rise of “authentic outsiders” tells us about the current moment in global democracy. Bethany Allen is a journalist based in Taiwan and the author of Beijing Rules: How China Weaponized Its Economy to Confront the World.Pratap Bhanu Mehta is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research and a Visiting Professor at Princeton University. Chang Che is a nonfiction writer and journalist covering China, and a contributor to The New Yorker and The Guardian.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jacob Savage is a writer and ticket scalper.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jacob Savage discuss whether the “Great Awokening” had lasting material effects beyond culture, how diversity initiatives changed hiring patterns in academia and Hollywood, and why these changes primarily affected one generation of white men rather than older cohorts already established in their careers.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Daniel Diermeier examine how elite institutions created the backlash that now threatens their future.Daniel Diermeier is Chancellor of Vanderbilt University, where he has served since 2020. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Daniel Diermeier discuss why American universities are simultaneously world-leading and losing public trust, whether elite higher education creates dangerous separation between the professional class and ordinary Americans, and how the shift from regional to national universities has reshaped American society. Polarization is at an all-time high. It can feel daunting—perhaps even misguided—to engage in meaningful dialogue with those holding starkly different views. What does it mean to champion pluralism in such a moment? Persuasion’s new series on the future of pluralism, generously supported by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, features essays and podcast interviews that make the case for civic dialogue and highlight inspiring examples of it in practice. You can find past installments here.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
C. Thi Nguyen is a philosophy professor at the University of Utah. His latest book is The Score: How to Stop Playing Someone Else’s Game.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Thi Nguyen discuss why metrics both help and harm institutional decision-making, how game design principles can improve classroom learning, and whether some aspects of human life are inherently unmeasurable.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Jung Chang explore what individual narratives can tell us about China’s past and present.Jung Chang is the author of Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China, Empress Dowager Cixi, and Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister, as well as Mao: The Unknown Story, with her husband, Jon Halliday. Her latest book is Fly, Wild Swans: My Mother, Myself and China.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jung Chang discuss how personal stories illuminate broader historical truths, the culture of mistrust that has characterized Chinese society across centuries, and why young Chinese people today are increasingly rejecting marriage and romantic relationships. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ruud Koopmans is Research Director at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center and Professor of Sociology and Migration Research at Humboldt University Berlin. He is also a member of the German Federal government’s Advisory Committee on Islamism.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ruud Koopmans discuss the role of cultural difference in integration, how selective versus non-discretionary migration systems shape integration outcomes, and whether generous welfare states help or hinder immigrant integration.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Martin Wolf also discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on the economy—and humanity.Martin Wolf is Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator at the Financial Times, London.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Martin Wolf discuss what Trump’s pick of Kevin Warsh could mean for the Fed, whether “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out) is a sustainable pattern, and how Trump’s economic ambitions compare to those of truly revolutionary leaders.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Atul Gawande discuss how a simple system can improve patient outcomes.Atul Gawande is an American surgeon, writer, and public health researcher. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Atul Gawande discuss how simple checklists can boost survival rates in the operating theater, what it means to have quality of life, and our complicated relationship with mortality.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Gašper Beguš also talk about what whale communication and the recent progress on AI tell us about the human brain.Gašper Beguš is an Associate Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley, where he focuses on interpretable AI and combines linguistics, cognitive science, machine learning, neuroscience, and marine biology.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Gašper Beguš discuss what makes human language exceptional compared to animal communication, whether whales and other animals have true language capabilities, and how properties like cultural transmission and recursion distinguish human speech.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Damon Linker writes the Substack newsletter “Notes from the Middleground.” He is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow in the Open Society Project at the Niskanen Center.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Damon Linker discuss how Trump’s second term has exceeded even pessimistic expectations, why the “adults in the room” from Trump’s first administration were more effective than critics acknowledged, and whether Trump’s economic promises can survive contact with reality. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Ian Bassin also report on what they got right—and wrong—over the past decade.Ian Bassin is co-founder and Executive Director of Protect Democracy. He previously served as Associate White House Counsel.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ian Bassin discuss what democracy defenders got right about Trump’s authoritarian tactics, why institutional actors have failed to resist democratic backsliding, and the underlying drivers behind the global rise of illiberalism.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Rebecca Goldstein debate whether our desperate need for significance is a flaw we should overcome—or an essential part of human dignity.Rebecca Goldstein is a philosopher and novelist. Her latest book is The Mattering Instinct: How Our Deepest Longing Drives Us and Divides Us.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Rebecca Goldstein discuss why humans have an instinct to matter beyond mere survival, the different approaches people use to feel significant, and whether the desire to matter is a psychological flaw we should overcome or an essential part of human dignity.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our series on Liberal Virtues and Values.That liberalism is under threat is now a cliché—yet this has done nothing to stem the global resurgence of illiberalism. Part of the problem is that liberalism is often considered too “thin” to win over the allegiance of citizens, and that liberals are too afraid of speaking in moral terms. Liberalism’s opponents, by contrast, speak to people’s passions and deepest moral sentiments.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, aims to change that narrative. In podcast conversations and long-form pieces, we feature content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Scott Anderson discuss how economic collapse has created the conditions for regime change—and what this could mean for the country.Scott Anderson is a veteran war correspondent and a contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution—A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Scott Anderson discuss whether the current protests could finally topple Iran’s theocratic regime, what role the Revolutionary Guard might play in determining the country’s future, and whether a democratic Iran could emerge from the ashes of the Islamic Republic. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Amanda Ripley, and George Packer examine the Trump administration’s capture of Nicolás Maduro and the chaotic aftermath in Venezuela, whether Trump’s foreign policy represents a coherent “shock and awe” strategy or a dangerous overreach, and the political outlook for 2026.Amanda Ripley is the co-founder of Good Conflict and author of High Conflict.George Packer is a staff writer at The Atlantic and author of The Unwinding.Note: This episode was recorded on January 7, 2026.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies and Albert Hirschman Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ivan Krastev discuss international reactions to the Trump administration, Europe’s weaknesses, and the impact of changing demographics worldwide.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama look back at this year—and make predictions for 2026.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss why Donald Trump is flagging, whether American institutions are resilient enough to survive, and the future of Ukraine.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kelly Born is the founding director of the Packard Foundation’s Democracy, Rights, and Governance initiative.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Kelly Born explore how AI could impact democracy and society—and how to respond.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Timothy Garton Ash, Sabina Ćudić, and Nathalie Tocci explore the relationship between the United States and Europe, the Ukraine peace talks, and whether Europe has any hope of reinvigorating itself.Timothy Garton Ash is the author of Homelands: A Personal History of Europe and writes the newsletter History of the Present.Sabina Ćudić is elected member of the National Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, vice president of the Foreign Relations Committee, vice president of the European liberals in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, and the president of Naša stranka, a progressive, social-liberal political party.Nathalie Tocci is Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali, Professor of Practice at the John Hopkins University SAIS, and independent non-executive director of the multi utility company Acea. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jill Lepore is the David Woods Kemper ’41 Professor of American History at Harvard University and professor of law at Harvard Law School. She is also a staff writer at The New Yorker. Her latest book is We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jill Lepore discuss why historians have neglected the story of America, how to fix the toxicity in higher education, and whether we need more constitutional amendments. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Richard Thaler is the Charles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He is the co-author, with Cass Sunstein, of Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, and is the 2017 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Richard Thaler explore to what extent humans behave rationally, how nudge theory works, and whether we should outsource questions about life to ChatGPT.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Abigail Marsh is a professor in the Department of Psychology and the Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Program at Georgetown University.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Abigail Marsh explore what to do if a child you know might be psychopathic, whether psychopathy is linked to charisma and success, and how to protect yourself.Wondering if you or a loved one might be a psychopath? Take the quiz!If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sven Beckert is Laird Bell Professor of History at Harvard University. His most recent book is Capitalism: A Global History.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sven Beckert explore the origins of capitalism, how this triggered the Industrial Revolution, and whether today we’re in late stage capitalism.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and author of Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Dan Wang explore the conflict between the United States as a society of lawyers and China as a society of engineers, what this means for their relationship, and why the two countries are more similar than they may first appear.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Nate Soares is president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and co-author, with Eliezer Yudkowsky, of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. He has been working in the field for over a decade, after previous experience at Microsoft and Google. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Nate Soares explore why AI is harder to control than traditional software, what happens when machines develop motivations, and at what point humans can no longer contain the potential catastrophe.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Edward Luce, Russell Muirhead, Lauren Harper Pope, and Yascha Mounk on this week’s news.In this week’s conversation, Ed Luce, Russ Muirhead, Lauren Harper Pope, and Yascha Mounk discuss the recent Saudi visit and what it says about Donald Trump’s broader foreign policy, the direction of the MAGA movement, and the fallout in the Democratic Party from Marie Gluesenkamp Perez challenging Chuy Garcia’s succession scheme.Edward Luce is the U.S. national editor and a columnist at the Financial Times, and the author of Zbig: The life of Zbig Brzezinski: America’s Great Power Prophet.Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the New Hampshire House of Representatives where he focuses on election law.Lauren Harper Pope is a Welcome Co-Founder working to depolarize American politics and strengthen a centrist faction of the Democratic Party that wins and governs responsibly through work with The Welcome Party (c4), WelcomePAC, and The Welcome Democracy Institute (c3). Lauren leads the coordinated (hard side) program for WelcomePAC, and she writes at WelcomeStack.org.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
James Loxton is a Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Sydney. He is the author of Authoritarianism: A Very Short Introduction.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and James Loxton explore different types of authoritarian regimes, why they fail, and whether the United States passes the fear test.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and William MacAskill also discuss artificial intelligence.William MacAskill is a moral philosopher and cofounder of the effective altruism movement. He's the author of Doing Good Better and What We Owe the Future. He is a Senior Research Fellow at Forethought Research and works on preparing society for rapid AI-driven technological change.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and William MacAskill discuss the arguments for effective altruism, the motivations of Sam Bankman-Fried, and whether AI is a risk to humanity.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Shadi Hamid is a columnist at The Washington Post and a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Hamid’s new book is The Case for American Power.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Shadi Hamid explore why the world still needs America, how to improve U.S. foreign policy, and to what extent their views on the Iraq War have changed.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and George Packer discuss autocracy in literature and real life.George Packer is an award-winning author and staff writer at The Atlantic. His latest book is The Emergency. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and George Packer discuss authoritarianism in fiction, living humanist virtues in morally complex times, and how the Democrats can defeat Donald Trump.Note: This conversation was recorded on October 21, 2025.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this conversation, Sam Kahn, Mike Pesca, Christine Rosen, and Yascha Mounk discuss what the election results mean for the direction of the Democrats, what the Heritage Foundation scandal shows about anti-Semitism on the right, and Dick Cheney’s mixed legacy.Sam Kahn is associate editor at Persuasion and writes the Substack Castalia.Mike is the host of The Gist, the longest-running daily news and analysis podcast in existence. Christine Rosen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She is also a monthly columnist for Commentary magazine, one of the cohosts of The Commentary Magazine Daily Podcast, a fellow at the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, and senior editor at The New Atlantis.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joseph Heath is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. A fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the Trudeau Foundation, Heath is the author of several books, including Enlightenment 2.0 and The Machinery of Government.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Joseph Heath discuss the death of Western Marxism, approaches to equality, and how to create an equal society.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Richard Aldous, Sabina Ćudić, and Damon Linker join Yascha Mounk to dissect this week’s news.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Richard Aldous, Sabina Ćudić, and Damon Linker explore the future of the Democratic Party, from midterm predictions to the unstoppable rise of Zohran Mamdani, the impact of the ongoing government shutdown, and the recent meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.Richard Aldous is Eugene Meyer Distinguished Professor of History at Bard. His latest books are The Dillon Era and Schlesinger. He hosts Persuasion’s books and ideas podcast, Bookstack. Sabina Ćudić is elected member of the National Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, vice president of the Foreign Relations Committee, vice president of the European liberals in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, and the president of Naša stranka, a progressive, social-liberal political party.Damon Linker is a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania and writes the subscription newsletter “Notes from the Middleground” at Substack.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Geoffrey Hinton discuss how AI works—and why it’s a risk. Geoffrey Hinton is a cognitive psychologist and computer scientist known as the “godfather of AI.” He was awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics, along with John Hopfield.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Geoffrey Hinton discuss what neuroscience teaches us about AI, how humans and machines learn, and the existential risks of AI.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Francis Fukuyama, Mona Charen, and Yascha Mounk dissect this week’s news.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama and Mona Charen discuss Trump’s latest actions, from demolishing the East Wing of the White House to demanding compensation from the Justice Department; whether the Trump administration’s bombing boats in Venezuela might lead to further military action; and the link between social media and populism.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion.Mona Charen, syndicated columnist and author, is Policy Editor of The Bulwark and host of two weekly podcasts: The Mona Charen Show and Just Between Us.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Lulu Cheng Meservey is the founder of Rostra, advocate of going direct, and writer of Flack.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Lulu Meservey explore why the traditional communications playbook is no longer effective, why so many politicians come across badly on TV, and how to be a great leader. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School where he teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and the regulation of race relations.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Randall Kennedy discuss the history of racism in the United States, the shortcomings of critical race theory, and whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about the trajectory of racism in America.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Quico Toro explore why we fall for them—and how to protect ourselves.Quico Toro is a contributing editor at Persuasion, the Director of Climate Repair at the Anthropocene Institute, and writes the Substack One Percent Brighter. He is the author, with Moisés Naím, of Charlatans: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Hucksters Bamboozle the Media, the Markets, and the Masses.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Quico Toro explore whether fraudsters are motivated by self-deception or the desire to scam, how the internet and our society enable charlatans, and how to resist them. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
To listen to the full episode and support the podcast, please subscribe today!Bret Stephens is an opinion columnist for The New York Times and the founder and editor-in- chief of SAPIR, a new quarterly devoted to issues of Jewish concern.In this week’s conversation, Yascha and Bret discuss how Donald Trump has changed political culture, why moderates around the world are struggling, and what makes the United States uniquely innovative. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Garry Kasparov, Russ Muirhead, and Quico Toro discuss the ceasefire in Gaza, the impact of the U.S. government shutdown, and the extent to which America under Trump mirrors Russia and Venezuela.Garry Kasparov is the chairman and founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), which publishes The Next Move.Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the New Hampshire House of Representatives where he focuses on election law.Quico Toro is a contributing editor at Persuasion, Director of Climate Repair at the Anthropocene Institute, and writes the Substack One Percent Brighter.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
To listen to the full episode and support the podcast, please subscribe today!Oren Harman is a Senior Fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute and teaches at the Graduate Program in Science Technology and Society at Bar Ilan University. His latest book is Metamorphosis: A Natural and Human History.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Oren Harman explore the evolutionary benefits of altruism, metamorphosis in the world around us, and how it impacts our perception of human growth.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and David French have a therapy session about politics.David French is a columnist for The New York Times. His most recent book is Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David French discuss how politics has changed since 2017, where the Democrats have gone wrong, and how Donald Trump’s second term is different to his first.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Renée DiResta, Jacob Mchangama, and Jonathan Rauch discuss threats to free speech under Joe Biden vs Donald Trump, how to protect free speech, and the administration’s new compact for universities.Renée DiResta is an Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown and author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.Jacob Mchangama is the Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech and a research professor at Vanderbilt University. He is also a Senior Fellow at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the author of Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media.Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution, and a member of the Persuasion Board of Advisors.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Quentin Skinner discuss whether the liberal conception of freedom is overly narrow.Quentin Skinner is the Emeritus Professor of the Humanities and Co-director of The Centre for the Study of the History of Political Thought at Queen Mary University of London. His latest book is Liberty as Independence: The Making and Unmaking of a Political Ideal.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Quentin Skinner discuss the “republican” conception of liberty, whether it can found a real political alternative to the status quo, and what that tells us about the liberal tradition.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Justin Marozzi is a historian and journalist who has spent most of his professional life living and working in the Muslim world. His latest book is Captives and Companions: A History of Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Islamic World.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Justin Marozzi discuss different conceptions of slavery and manumission globally, what we can learn from enslaved people’s stories, and modern slavery.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Bau is Assistant Professor at Northeastern University and Director of the National Deep Inference Fabric, researching the emergent internal mechanisms of deep generative networks in both Natural Language Processing and Computer Vision. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Bau explore the technology behind AI, why it’s concerning that so many computer scientists don’t understand how it works, and how to embed morals, values, and alignment.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Katie Herzog discuss how to treat alcoholism.Katie Herzog is the co-host of the podcast Blocked and Reported and the author of Drink Your Way Sober: The Science-Based Method to Break Free from Alcohol. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Katie Herzog discuss Katie’s experience of alcoholism, the weaknesses of Alcoholics Anonymous, and why quitting cold turkey may not be the only way to overcome alcoholism.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Sabina Ćudić, and Dan Williams discuss Donald Trump’s firing of a federal prosecutor and what this means for democracy in the United States, what the discussions around the assasination of Charlie Kirk tell us about misinformation, and the impact of RFK Jr.’s recent autism announcement.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion.Sabina Ćudić is a member of the National Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where she is the president of the Naša stranka political party club. Ćudić also serves as vice president of the Foreign Relations Committee, and is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where she is a vice president of the European Liberals.Daniel Williams is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. He writes the Conspicuous Cognition newsletter, which brings together philosophical insights and scientific research to examine the forces shaping contemporary society and politics.Note: This episode was recorded on September 23, 2025.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Randi Weingarten also discuss whether teachers unions are to blame for prolonged school closures during the pandemic.Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, has been attacked by the far right as “the most dangerous person in the world,” and is the author of Why Fascists Fear Teachers.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Randi Weingarten discuss why education is needed for a free society, the impact of social media on learning, and the school closures during covid.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A live recording of The Good Fight Club in London!In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk is joined by Fraser Nelson, Helen Joyce, and Shashank Joshi to discuss the global fallout from the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the different ways free speech is under attack in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the future of Israel’s war in Gaza.Fraser Nelson is a British political journalist who was editor of The Spectator from 2009 to 2024. Nelson is also a columnist for The Times.Helen Joyce is an Irish journalist and the Director of Advocacy at Sex Matters. She is the author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.Shashank Joshi is Defence Editor at The Economist, where he writes on a wide range of national security, defence and intelligence issues.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steven Pinker is Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, one of Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today,” and sits on Persuasion’s advisory board. His latest book is When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Steven Pinker discuss why common knowledge is the most important psychological concept you’ve never heard of, why authoritarian states are hostile to it, and where to find someone you’ve lost in New York.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Damon Linker discuss the fallout from the assassination of Charlie Kirk—and what happens next.Damon Linker is a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania and writes the subscription newsletter “Notes from the Middleground” at Substack. He is the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test. He is currently working on a book for Princeton University Press about Leo Strauss and his influence on the American right.In this conversation, Yascha Mounk and Damon Linker discuss reactions to the murder of Charlie Kirk, what it shows about polarization in America, and the likelihood of further political violence.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Brooks interviews Yascha Mounk to mark the paperback edition of The Identity Trap.Yascha Mounk is the founder and editor-in-chief of Persuasion. His latest book is The Identity Trap, which is out in paperback with a new afterword on September 23.David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times and a contributor to The Atlantic. He is a commentator on The PBS Newshour. His latest book is How To Know A Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Brooks discuss how Yascha’s personal history influences his thought, the intellectual history behind the identity synthesis, and how to create a vision for the Democrats to inspire voters.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Ivan Krastev, Amanda Ripley, and Mike Pesca discuss what the Russian drones shot down in Poland mean for NATO, the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on immigration, how the Democrats can hold Donald Trump to account, and declining reading rates in U.S. schools.Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies and Albert Hirschman Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna.Amanda Ripley is the co-founder of Good Conflict, a media and training company that helps people reimagine conflict, and the author of High Conflict, The Smartest Kids in the World, and The Unthinkable.Mike is the host of The Gist, the longest-running daily news and analysis podcast in existence. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tom Ginsburg is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law, Professor of Political Science, and Faculty Director of the Malyi Center for the Study of Institutional and Legal Integrity and the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at the University of Chicago.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Tom Ginsburg explore different approaches to constitutions in the United States, Europe, and beyond, the advantages and disadvantages of the U.S. political system, and how to protect the First Amendment.Polarization is at an all-time high. It can feel daunting—perhaps even misguided—to engage in meaningful dialogue with those holding starkly different views. What does it mean to champion pluralism in such a moment? Persuasion’s new series on the future of pluralism, generously supported by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, features longform essays and podcast interviews that make the case for civic dialogue and highlight inspiring examples of it in practice. You can find past installments here.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Daron Acemoglu is an Institute Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His books include (with James A. Robinson) Why Nations Fail, and (with Simon Johnson) Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. In 2024, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Daron Acemoglu discuss the impact of colonialism, the role of culture in civil society, and China’s strengths and weaknesses.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and John Taylor Williams.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Mona Charen, and Russell Muirhead explore why the “Trump is dead” conspiracy took hold, the recent summit between Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and what the latest developments at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tell us about the fate of public health in America.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion.Mona Charen, syndicated columnist and author, is Policy Editor of The Bulwark and host of two weekly podcasts: The Mona Charen Show and Just Between Us.Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the NH House of Representatives where he focuses on election law.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Cass R. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. His latest book is On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Cass Sunstein explore critiques from the left and the right, what different strands of liberalism can teach us, and why John Stuart Mill has the answer.We’re delighted to feature this conversation as part of our new series on Liberal Virtues and Values.That liberalism is under threat is now a cliché—yet this has done nothing to stem the global resurgence of illiberalism. Part of the problem is that liberalism is often considered too “thin” to win over the allegiance of citizens, and that liberals are too afraid of speaking in moral terms. Liberalism’s opponents, by contrast, speak to people’s passions and deepest moral sentiments.This series, made possible with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation, aims to change that narrative. In podcast conversations and long-form pieces, we’ll feature content making the case that liberalism has its own distinctive set of virtues and values that are capable not only of responding to the dissatisfaction that drives authoritarianism, but also of restoring faith in liberalism as an ideology worth believing in—and defending—on its own terms.Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Tyler Cowen also discuss AI and the state of the world economy.Tyler Cowen is an American economist, columnist, and blogger. Cowen is the Holbert L. Harris chair in economics at George Mason University, and is the co-author, with Alex Tabarrok, of the blog Marginal Revolution.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Tyler Cowen discuss the likely economic futures of Europe, Asia, and Africa; how the United States should approach competition with China; and what role young people should ascribe to personal financial advancement in their career choices. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Musa Al-Gharbi discuss why so many members of elite groups like to pretend they’re oppressed.Musa al-Gharbi is an assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University. His most recent book is We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Musa Al-Gharbi discuss the tendency of certain elite groups to lay claim to marginalized identities as a form of symbolic capital; the challenges posed by "asymmetric multiculturalism," in which we encourage certain groups to organize along identitarian lines while discouraging others from doing the same; and how we can apply greater consistency to our analysis of social dynamics.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What transforms reasonable people into an angry mob? Why are we so eager to dismiss those who disagree with us as inherently evil? These are questions which Jonathan Haidt has spent his career trying to answer. One of the world’s most influential social psychologists and a member of Persuasion's Board of Advisors, he argues that a lot of recent cultural shifts are encouraging emotional fragility rather than resilience. A professor of ethical leadership at NYU's Stern School of Business, Haidt seeks to employ moral psychology to promote dialogue rather than division.In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk sits down with Jonathan Haidt to discuss psychological differences between the left and the right, the human tendency to discriminate in favor of the in-group, and how to build a less tribal culture and country.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comTwitter: @Yascha_MounkWebsite: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Helen Lewis is a staff writer at The Atlantic who writes about politics and culture. Her latest book, The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous Idea, is out now.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Helen Lewis explore what our ideas of genius mean, whether you need to die young to be considered one—and why no one cares about geniuses with boring lives.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Lenore Skenazy discuss why kids should take risks. After letting her 9-year-old ride the New York City subway alone—and creating a media firestorm—Lenore Skenazy wrote the book, “Free-Range Kids.” Lenore is also a co-founder of Let Grow.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Lenore Skenazy explore why parents are reluctant to let their children take risks, how unsupervised activities help children learn, and how to embrace giving your kids independence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Shashank Joshi is Defence Editor at The Economist, where he writes on a wide range of national security, defence and intelligence issues.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Shashank Joshi discuss how technology is changing warfare, the latest developments in Ukraine, and the future of Gaza.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Mark Lynas on how to avoid armageddon.Mark Lynas is an author, campaigner and speaker. He is science advisor with the Climate Vulnerable Forum and policy lead with WePlanet, a pro-science environmental advocacy network active in over 20 countries. His latest book is Six Minutes to Winter: Nuclear War and How to Avoid It. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Mark Lynas discuss how likely a nuclear war is, what a nuclear winter would look like, and how to avoid it.Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Leonhardt is an editorial director for New York Times Opinion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Leonhardt discuss why the left is losing its appeal to the working classes in the United States and in Europe, the flaws in the Democratic Party’s approach to voters, and what U.S. Democrats can learn from the Social Democrats in Denmark.Note: This interview was recorded on March 18, 2025.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Quico Toro explore what’s holding environmentalists back.Quico Toro is Director of Climate Repair at the Anthropocene Institute, a contributing editor at Persuasion, and writes the Substack One Percent Brighter.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Quico Toro discuss outdated ideas within environmentalism, why we need to decarbonize—and how technology can save us.Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steve Stewart-Williams is a professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham Malaysia, and author of The Ape That Understood the Universe (2018), Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life (2010), and The Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Newsletter on Substack. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Steve Stewart-Williams explore the nature vs nurture debate within psychology, how much impact IQ has on an individual’s success in life, and whether evolutionary psychology can explain politics.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Paul Krugman also explore whether the Euro was a mistake.Paul Krugman is the Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He was a columnist for The New York Times from 2000 to 2024. In 2008, Krugman was the sole winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to new trade theory and new economic geography.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Paul Krugman discuss the value of economic models, the Euro crisis, and how to make a fruitful intellectual contribution in economics.Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Katja Hoyer is a visiting Research Fellow at King's College London and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and is the author of Blood and Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German Empire, 1871–1918 and Beyond the Wall: East Germany 1949-1990.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Katja Hoyer discuss life in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), how it is remembered today—and whether the Wall still has an impact on German politics today.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Frances E. Lee is professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. In addition to In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, she is author or coauthor most recently of The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era and Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign.Stephen Macedo is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. His books, in addition to In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage, and Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Frances Lee, and Stephen Macedo discuss school closures during COVID, why Republicans and Democrats reacted differently to the pandemic, why institutions failed, and why as a consequence institutions lost the public’s trust.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Pratap Bhanu Mehta is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi and Laurence Rockefeller Visiting Professor for Distinguished Teaching at Princeton University.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Pratap Mehta discuss nationalism, radical forms of self-identity, and the likelihood of war between India and Pakistan.Note: The first part of this conversation was recorded on April 30, 2025 with a follow up on May 12, 2025.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elaine C. Kamarck is a senior fellow in Governance Studies and the director of the Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings. William A. Galston is a senior fellow and the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Governance Studies program at Brookings.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Elaine Kamarck, and William Galston explore why the Democrats aren’t building long-term coalitions, how the Democrats lost the working class, and how centrists in the party can create a compelling offer for voters.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Rutger Bregman is an historian and author. He is the co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition, a new initiative to mobilize talented professionals to work on the world’s most pressing problems. His latest book, Moral Ambition, explores how we can build lives and careers that make a real difference.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Rutger Bregman discuss what it means to have moral ambition, how to know which causes deserve support—and how to make the world vegan.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kevin Mitchell is Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin. He studies the interplay between genes, brains, and minds. He is the author of Innate: How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are and Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Kevin Mitchell discuss the arguments against free will, if evolution supports free will, and how much control we have over our decisions.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Claire Lehmann is an Australian publisher and journalist who founded the online magazine Quillette in 2015. She serves as Editor-in-Chief of Quillette and contributes regularly to The Australian newspaper.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Sarah Longwell also discuss who—if anyone—can save the Democrats.Sarah Longwell is the publisher of The Bulwark, which she helped found in 2019. She regularly conducts focus groups with voters across the political spectrum and hosts the podcast “The Focus Group,” which is in its fifth season, and co-hosts “The Next Level” podcast and “The Secret Podcast.”In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sarah Longwell discuss which voter segments support Donald Trump, what might change their minds, and which potential candidates could help the Democratic Party stage a comeback. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies and Albert Hirschman Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna. His books include Is it Tomorrow, Yet? After Europe, and The Light that Failed: A Reckoning, which was co-authored by Stephen Holmes.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ivan Krastev explore how Donald Trump is—and isn’t—similar to Mikhail Gorbachev, the impact of the Trump revolution, and whether we’ve finally reached the end of history.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Larry Summers also discuss the administration’s tariffs.Lawrence H. Summers is the Charles W. Eliot University Professor and President Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as the 71st Secretary of the Treasury for President Clinton and the Director of the National Economic Council for President Obama.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Larry Summers discuss why tariffs are so concerning, how Harvard should react to the Trump administration cutting its funding, and whether the Democratic Party can become a credible opposition.Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Editor’s Note: This podcast was produced as part of Persuasion’s partnership with the Civil Discourse @ MIT program, at which Coleman Hughes recently spoke on a panel exploring the topic “Should American Society Commit to Colorblindness?” To learn more about Civil Discourse @ MIT, visit the program’s website here, and to see prior episodes in the series click here.Coleman Hughes is a writer and the host of Conversations with Coleman. He is the author of The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Coleman Hughes explore the legacy of slavery in the United States, the war on drugs, and if systemic racism exists.Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Emily Oster also talk about what public health authorities fell short during the pandemic.In addition to being a Professor of Economics at Brown University, Emily Oster is the founder and CEO of ParentData, a data-driven guide to pregnancy, parenting, and beyond. Emily is also a New York Times best-selling author, whose books include Expecting Better, Cribsheet, The Family Firm and The Unexpected. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Emily Oster explore how parents can make data-driven decisions, if screen time for kids should be avoided completely, and school closures during COVID.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
John H. McWhorter teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University. He is the host of the podcast Lexicon Valley and writes a weekly column for The New York Times. McWhorter is the author of twenty-three books, including Nine Nasty Words, Woke Racism, The Power of Babel, and Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and John McWhorter explore how language evolves, why English only has one form of you, and if we should embrace the singular they. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: goodfightpod@gmail.comPodcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay.Connect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleX: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasionYouTube: Yascha Mounk, PersuasionLinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Jason Furman also discuss the flaws in Build Back Better.Jason Furman is the Aetna Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy jointly at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) and the Department of Economics at Harvard University. Previously Furman served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under Barack Obama.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jason Furman discuss the economic record of the Biden administration, whether the abundance agenda is the way forward—and what the recent news about tariffs really means.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week’s conversation, Persuasion editor-in-chief Yascha Mounk was joined by listeners of The Good Fight for a “mailbag” episode, speaking about everything from domestic and global politics to AI. Larry Diamond’s piece The Crisis of Democracy can be found in Persuasion.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Audrey Tang is Taiwan’s Cyber Ambassador and served as Taiwan's first digital minister and the world’s first nonbinary cabinet minister.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Audrey Tang discuss what makes social media so divisive, how to tackle misinformation without undermining free speech, and how online tools can engage participation in a democracy.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Aaron Sibarium is a staff writer at the Washington Free Beacon, where he covers higher education and institutional capture. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Aaron Sibarium discuss racial bias in medicine, affirmative action at universities and if “woke” is dead.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hamish McKenzie is co-founder of Substack, a platform for online publications including Persuasion and writing like Yascha’s weekly column. He is a writer and former journalist based in San Francisco.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Hamish McKenzie discuss how Substack was formed, why its business model rewards different behaviors to traditional social media, and its steadfast commitment to free speech in the face of criticism.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jacob Mchangama is the Founder and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech, a research professor at Vanderbilt University, and a Senior Fellow at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). His book Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media is now available in paperback with a new epilogue.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jacob Mchangama discuss traditions of free speech throughout history, whether European laws are too restrictive, and concerning trends in the United States.Note: This episode was recorded on February 24, 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Fukuyama’s notable works include The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. You can find his blog, “Frankly Fukuyama,” at Persuasion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss talks of a ceasefire in Ukraine and what this means, what the impact of Donald Trump’s foreign policy might be on the Far East, and why we should be concerned by Trump’s domestic policy.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Jonathan Rauch also discuss patrimonialism in the United States.Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution and a member of the Persuasion Board of Advisors. His latest book is Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jonathan Rauch discuss the decline of religion and its impact on society, the long-term future of religion in America, and why patrimonialism is the best frame for understanding the Trump administration.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mónica Guzmán is author of I Never Thought of it That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times; founder and CEO of Reclaim Curiosity; Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels; and host of A Braver Way podcast.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Mónica Guzmán discuss how to build trust across political divides and the joy of heated debates.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I’m really proud of the community that has grown up around The Good Fight, Persuasion and my own Substack. That’s why I was excited to welcome paying subscribers to join me for a live session—so I could answer your questions personally.We had a great discussion: About the idea of a foreign policy for the middle class. About the state of free speech in Europe. About how to tell when the rule of law has broken down in the United States. About the prospects for a third party. And about so much more.Our next Q&A, reserved for paying subscribers, will be on Monday, March 31 at 6pm Eastern. Do join us!–YaschaPlease do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Editor’s Note: This podcast was produced as part of Persuasion’s partnership with the Civil Discourse @ MIT program, at which Spencer Case spoke late last year on the topic “Does Citizenship Require Patriotism?” To learn more about Civil Discourse @ MIT, visit the program’s website here, and to see prior episodes in the series click here.Spencer Case hosts Micro-Digressions: A Philosophy Podcast. He's the author of many academic philosophy articles and coauthor of Is Morality Real? A Debate. He is currently an assistant teaching professor in the Bowling Green State University philosophy department. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Spencer Case explore the difference between patriotism and nationalism, what extremists get wrong, and how to think about self-identification in the debate about trans rights.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jake Sullivan served as national security advisor under President Biden.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jake Sullivan discuss the record of President Biden’s administration, the future of Ukraine, and how it feels to be making decisions under pressure in the Situation Room.Note: This episode was recorded on February 12, 2025. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Wolfgang Münchau is the Director of Eurointelligence and a journalist focusing on the European Union and European economy. His most recent book is Kaput: The End of the German Miracle.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Wolfgang Münchau discuss why the German car industry–and broader economy–is in decline, and explore the potential political future of Germany as the country heads to the polls.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.To get ad-free access to all of The Good Fight, including full weekly conversations and frequent bonus episodes, please subscribe to my Substack [insert link: www.yaschamounk.substack.com]. This will also allow you to get Yascha’s weekly column about current events and big ideas directly into your inbox.If you are already a subscriber but have not yet set up this podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Marc Dunkelman on Why Nothing WorksMarc Dunkelman is a fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. His most recent book is Why Nothing Works.In this conversation, Yascha Mounk and Marc Dunkelman explore the challenges facing big projects in the U.S., the origins of progressivism, and how Donald Trump fits into this story. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.To get ad-free access to all of The Good Fight, including full weekly conversations and frequent bonus episodes, please subscribe to my Substack [insert link: www.yaschamounk.substack.com]. This will also allow you to get Yascha’s weekly column about current events and big ideas directly into your inbox.If you are already a subscriber but have not yet set up this podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Mickey Freeland, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Arlie Hochschild is an author and professor emerita of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Her books include Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame, and the Rise of the Right and Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Arlie Hochschild discuss the fear of empathy among the American left, the impact of the loss of pride among white working class communities, and how to understand the deep story of Latinos who voted for Trump in 2024. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Oren Cass discuss the reasoning behind Trump’s economic policy.Oren Cass is the founder and executive director of American Compass and author of The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Oren Cass discuss the decline of manufacturing in the U.S., whether there is any coherence to Trump's economic policy, and if the Democrats or Republicans are the more natural home for working class voters. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Eric Kaufmann also discuss "asymmetrical multiculturalism" and the global fertility crisis.Eric Kaufmann is a professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham, where he directs the Centre for Heterodox Social Science. Kaufmann is the author of The Third Awokening (entitled Taboo in the UK), Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities, and Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Eric Kaufmann discuss why much of mainstream liberalism has become unmoored from its classical principles; how we can push back against identitarianism and move towards a non-zero-sum framework for interethnic relations; and whether (and how) humanity might reverse the global decline in fertility. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora BarclayConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the first few days of the Trump administration–and what it means for domestic and foreign policy.Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Fukuyama’s notable works include The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. You can find his blog, Frankly Fukuyama, at Persuasion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss what the flurry of executive orders really means; how the civil service needs to change; Trump’s plans for Greenland; and what China will do next. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Yanis Varoufakis discuss whether the dominance of large cloud-focused tech companies signals the arrival of a new economic order.Yanis Varoufakis is an economist, politician, and the former Greek Minister of Finance. Varoufakis is the author of Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present and Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Yanis Varoufakis discuss whether the extraction of "cloud rent" by Big Tech heralds a return to an earlier, pre-capitalist form of commerce; the technological and economic future of Europe (and of the European Union); and the geopolitics of a new cold war between China and the United States. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Anastasia Berg discuss the case for having—or not having—kids.Anastasia Berg is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine and an editor of The Point magazine. Berg is the co-author, with Rachel Wiseman, of What Are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Anastasia Berg discuss why many couples delay having children and the affirmative case for valuing human life; the moral and ethical implications of the decline in global fertility; and whether a world with fewer humans will be morally worse. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Fraser Nelson discuss the Labour government’s shrinking popularity and the challenges facing a post-Brexit Britain.Fraser Nelson is a British political journalist who was editor of The Spectator from 2009 to 2024. Nelson is also a columnist for The Times.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Fraser Nelson discuss social dysfunction in the UK; how and why Britain should pursue welfare reform; and Fraser's fight to keep the United Arab Emirates from purchasing British newspapers including The Spectator and The Telegraph. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Tyler Cowen also discuss AI and the state of the world economy.Tyler Cowen is an American economist, columnist, and blogger. Cowen is the Holbert L. Harris chair in economics at George Mason University, and is the co-author, with Alex Tabarrok, of the blog Marginal Revolution.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Tyler Cowen discuss the likely economic futures of Europe, Asia, and Africa; how the United States should approach competition with China; and what role young people should ascribe to personal financial advancement in their career choices. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Noam Chomsky and Yascha Mounk discuss America and the world, past and present.Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has for many decades been one of the most prominent critics of U.S. foreign policy.In a conversation from 2021, Noam Chomsky and Yascha Mounk discuss the theory of universal grammar, whether identity politics can be left-wing, and how the world should treat an ascendant China.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a tour d'horizon, Yascha and Frank discuss the fall of Assad, the rise of China, the crisis in Europe, and what awaits the United States under Trump.Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Among Fukuyama’s notable works are The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. He is a member of Persuasion’s Board of Advisors.In this week's conversation, Yascha and Frank discuss Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's flawed plans for reforming the federal bureaucracy (and how to actually reform it); why crises in France and Germany bode ill for Europe; and what the public reaction to the assassination of Brian Thompson says about healthcare in America.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Noah Smith discuss the neoliberal era and the role of unions in America.Noah Smith is a writer and a former professor of finance at Stony Brook University. Smith is the author of the Substack Noahpinion.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Noah Smith discuss the rise of the YIMBY ("Yes, in my backyard!") movement; why childcare, housing, and health care costs are so high in the United States; and what it would look like to embrace a genuine "abundance agenda."This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Alice Evans discuss why women have won equality in some countries but remain at the margin in many others.Alice Evans is a senior lecturer in international development at King's College London and the author of the forthcoming book The Great Gender Divergence.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Alice Evans discuss the influence of cultural and religious norms in promoting or stifling gender equality; how we can advocate for improvements in gender equality while minimizing the risks of backlash; and why fertility has plummeted around the world.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Richard Reeves discuss why most young men aren’t becoming reactionary.Richard Reeves is the founder and president of the American Institute for Boys and Men. He is the author of Dream Hoarders and, most recently, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It (which was recently included by Barack Obama on his summer reading list).In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Richard Reeves discuss whether young men propelled Donald Trump to victory in the 2024 election; how we can supply boys and men with new sources of meaning; and the enduring relevance of John Stuart Mill.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Cass Sunstein discuss the meaning of free speech and how it should be applied on campus.Cass Sunstein is an American legal scholar and the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard University. Sunstein was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Barack Obama, and is considered to be the most widely cited legal scholar in the United States. Sunstein is the author, with Richard Thaler, of Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, The World According to Star Wars, and Campus Free Speech: A Pocket Guide.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Cass Sunstein discuss his "law of group polarization" and how it contributes to today's factionalism; how echo chambers work (and why social media makes them worse); and whether meeting the challenge of misinformation requires new government regulations.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our second-ever mailbag, Yascha answers questions about the role of journalism in the Trump era, RFK Jr., and a national voter ID law.Yascha also answers listener questions about whether it's good or bad that it is so hard to pass a new law in the United States and the importance of public choice economics.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Melissa Chen also discuss the rise of China and the future of US-China relations.Melissa Chen is a Singaporean journalist and activist. She is a contributing editor to The Spectator and co-founder of Ideas Beyond Borders.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Melissa Chen discuss the unique cultural and political landscape of Singapore and its "competitive authoritarian" system of government; how the US went wrong in its policy of engagement with China; and what the Trump presidency portends for relations between the two countries.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha and Freya discuss why so many young people came to prefer the online world to real life.Freya India is the author of the Substack GIRLS. She is also a staff writer for Jonathan Haidt’s Substack After Babel. In this week’s conversation, Yascha and Freya discuss the great sense of social isolation and anxiety felt by so many young people; why the life lived online is a shoddy substitute for the real thing; and how the difficulties ascribed to social media addiction among young people often can be traced to a broader desire for wisdom and meaning.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss what a Trump victory means for America, its allies, and the world.Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Among Fukuyama’s notable works are The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss how Trump’s 2024 victory repudiates the racial grievance theory of 2016; what a second Trump administration will mean for the rule of law at home and abroad; and the lessons the Democratic Party must learn from its defeat.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Shikha Dalmia discuss American conservatism, the rise of authoritarian populism, and whether identitarians of the left are right or wrong on their fundamental goals.Shikha Dalmia, a writer and journalist, is the founder of the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism and of The UnPopulist, an editorial partner of Persuasion.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Shikha Dalmia discuss her journey from socialist India to the American libertarian movement; how mainstream libertarianism failed to meet the challenge posed by Donald Trump; and the proliferation of populist attitudes among the American electorate.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Norbert Röttgen discuss the war in Ukraine and Germany’s political, economic, and security crisis.Norbert Röttgen is a senior leader of the Christian Democratic Union. A former cabinet minister, he was chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee from 2014 to 2021. Röttgen is the author ofDemocracy and War: Politics and Identity in a Time of Global Threats.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Norbert Röttgen discuss the insufficiency of Germany’s support of Ukraine (and theZeitenwende that wasn’t); the nascent pro-Russian movement gaining strength on the margins of German politics; and whether the path to an independent and secure Europe runs through Germany.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk, Ruy Teixeira, and Yuval Levin discuss why American elections are so close—and how one party could build a stable majority.Ruy Teixeira is the co-founder and politics editor of The Liberal Patriot, and the author, with John Judis, of The Emerging Democratic Majority and, most recently, Where Have All the Democrats Gone?: The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes. Yuval Levin is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Levin is the author of A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus and, most recently, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Ruy Teixeira and Yuval Levin discuss “politics without winners,” or America’s unusual streak of close-run elections; why both Democrats and Republicans have failed to build a dominant coalition; and what it would take for either party to win a durable majority.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Teresa Bejan discuss the secret history of free speech and why the word “problematic” is problematic.Teresa Bejan is a professor of political theory at the University of Oxford and a fellow of Oriel College. She is the author of Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration and the forthcoming First Among Equals, which explores ideas of equality before modern egalitarianism.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Teresa Bejan discuss how liberals should think about the role of virtue in society; why a robust culture of free speech requires more than just legal protections; and why "mere" civility is the key to unlocking a broader conception of tolerance.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
James Robinson, a political scientist and economist, is the Pearson Professor of Global Conflict Studies at The University of Chicago. Robinson is the co-author, with Daron Acemoglu, of Why Nations Fail and The Narrow Corridor. Today, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that it would award the 2024 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel to James Robinson, Daron Acemoglu, and Simon Johnson “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.”In this week’s conversation, originally released in 2019, Yascha Mounk and James Robinson discuss the importance of political institutions; the roots of freedom and prosperity; and how citizens can beat the historical odds to improve their countries.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sign up for the Persuasion panel event in London: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/trump-vs-harris-what-next-for-america-and-the-world-tickets-1026768591497Yascha Mounk and Charles Taylor discuss the modern struggle for meaning and belonging.Charles Taylor is a Canadian philosopher and Professor Emeritus at McGill University. Taylor is the recipient of both the Kyoto and Templeton prizes, and is the author of major works including A Secular Age and Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. His most recent book is Cosmic Connections: Poetry in the Age of Disenchantment.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Charles Taylor discuss how the modern notion of identity differs from that of the past; the role of religion and religious belonging in today’s societies; and the “post-liberal” critiques of liberalism, including the claim that it’s impossible to be truly religious or devout in a liberal democracy.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Ruxandra Teslo discuss luxury beliefs and the concept of "elite misinformation."Ruxandra Teslo is a PhD student in Genomics at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK. She writes about science and culture at Ruxandra’s Substack.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ruxandra Teslo discuss Rob Henderson’s concept of luxury beliefs, its key insights, and the misleading ways in which it’s often used; the academic study of “misinformation” and why we should be skeptical of (much of) it; and how cultural ideas about progress shape outcomes in the real world.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Amanda Ripley discuss what natural catastrophes reveal about human nature.Amanda Ripley is an American author and journalist. Her books include The Unthinkable: Who Survives when Disaster Strikes and High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Amanda Ripley discuss the pitfalls common to many survival scenarios and the psychological tools most helpful in avoiding them; whether the strength of one’s community ties or improvements in forecasting technology are of greater significance in the statistical decrease in deaths from disaster; and why we still haven’t imbibed the most critical lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The first installment of a new monthly feature.In this inaugural mailbag, Yascha answers listener questions on the upcoming US election; how concerned we should be about a second Trump term; whether it’s possible for a politician to change their views without giving up on their principles; his tips for how to travel well; and more.This is a preview. To access the full episode, become a paying subscriber today by visiting http://www.yaschamounk.substack.com/subscribe! And please send us questions for future installments at goodfightpod@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Musa Al-Gharbi discuss why so many members of elite groups like to pretend they’re oppressed.Musa al-Gharbi is an assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University. His most recent book is We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Musa Al-Gharbi discuss the tendency of certain elite groups to lay claim to marginalized identities as a form of symbolic capital; the challenges posed by "asymmetric multiculturalism," in which we encourage certain groups to organize along identitarian lines while discouraging others from doing the same; and how we can apply greater consistency to our analysis of social dynamics.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Alexandre Lefebvre discuss taking liberalism seriously as the main moral paradigm of our world.Alexandre Lefebvre is a professor of politics and philosophy at the University of Sydney. His books include Human Rights as a Way of Life and, most recently, Liberalism as a Way of Life.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Alexandre Lefebvre discuss the difference between political liberalism and liberalism as a comprehensive doctrine—or “way of life”; how we can uphold the core tenets of comprehensive liberalism—such as freedom, fairness, and reciprocity—in our daily lives; and the enduring relevance of the 20th century's foremost liberal philosopher, John Rawls.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Raj Vinnakota discuss how to build a healthy campus community (and keep it).Raj Vinnakota is President of the Institute for Citizens & Scholars, co-founder of the SEED Foundation, and co-chair of the Civics and Civic Engagement Taskforce for the United States Congress Semiquincentennial Commission.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Raj Vinnakota discuss the best strategies for building a campus environment conducive to genuine conversations and the free exchange of ideas and opinions; the key skills and knowledge required of administration, faculty, and students to become productive members of their campus communities; and how we can bridge the gap in civic knowledge and values that have contributed to a breakdown in constructive engagement.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In one of his final extended interviews, which was recorded three years before his recent death, the late anthropologist James C. Scott and Yascha Mounk discuss the need to be vigilant about the ways in which states do violence to individuals and societies.James C. Scott was the Sterling professor of political science and anthropology at Yale University. Scott is the author of major works including Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed and Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and James Scott discuss whether we ought to give "two cheers" for anarchism, why the state is here to stay, and the ongoing crisis in Myanmar. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Timur Kuran discuss the perceived social and political pressures that lead individuals to conceal their true beliefs—and what that means for our politics.Timur Kuran is Professor of Economics and Political Science and the Gorter Family Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University. He is the author of Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification and Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Timur Kuran discuss how the phenomenon of people falsifying their preferences explains why revolutions are so unpredictable; how preference falsification operates in journalism and whether journalists get rewarded or punished for breaking taboos; and how we can move towards a society in which more people feel empowered to truthfully express their beliefs.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Freddie deBoer discuss whether the sweeping set of progressive ideas that came into force in 2020 has really begun to recede.Freddie deBoer is a writer, academic, and critic. He writes the Freddie deBoer Substack, and is the author of books including the Cult of Smart: How Our Broken Education System Perpetuates Social Injustice and, most recently, How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Freddie deBoer discuss whether "woke" ideas have, rather than receding, become institutionalized; how the movement for black lives was co-opted for elite liberal ends; and why a genuinely anti-racist, anti-poverty movement needs material objectives.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Anne Applebaum discuss the new tools autocrats use to stay in power.Anne Applebaum is a staff writer for The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow of the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. Her books include Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine and Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe. Her latest book is Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Anne Applebaum discuss how dictators use the system of international finance to maintain power and thwart regime change; how democracies can reform themselves internally to better resist authoritarian infiltration; and why autocratic regimes tend to be hard yet brittle.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Shalom Auslander discuss the origins of the stories that make us feel bad about ourselves. Shalom Auslander is an American novelist, memoirist, and essayist. He is the author of Foreskin's Lament and, most recently, FEH: A Memoir.In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Shalom Auslander discuss how religious narratives inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition affect our sense of self-worth; how to actually help oneself while steering clear of "self-help"; and how to begin the lifelong work of charting a path towards unconditional love and self-acceptance.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Matthew Yglesias discuss Kamala Harris' strengths and vulnerabilities, and what she needs to do to win.Matthew Yglesias is a writer and journalist, co-founder of Vox, and founder of the Substack newsletter Slow Boring. His latest book is One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Matthew Yglesias discuss how Kamala Harris can broaden her appeal before November; what explains the lack of substantial coverage of Biden’s cognitive impairments in the mainstream press before the June debate; and how seriously we should take the evolution of economic policy in the Republican Party platform.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Eitan Hersh discuss the importance of strategic political action that focuses on goals and outcomes.Eitan Hersh is Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, focusing on U.S. elections and civic participation. His latest book is Politics Is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Eitan Hersh discuss how to engage with politics in ways likely to bring about meaningful change; how political hobbyism tends to coincide with misperceptions about voter habits and the purposes of political rhetoric; and how to more successfully get students to engage with challenging ideas on campus.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this emergency podcast, Yascha Mounk and Rachel Kleinfeld discuss how to prevent a spiral of violence.Rachel Kleinfeld is a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Kleinfeld’s latest book is A Savage Order: How the World's Deadliest Countries Can Forge a Path to Security.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Rachel Kleinfeld discuss why political violence has been on the rise in recent years; which important resilience factors make America resistant to a civil war; and how individuals can contribute, as voters and in their communities, to lowering the probability of political violenceThis transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elizabeth Anderson, one of the most interesting contemporary political philosophers, is the John Dewey Distinguished University Professor at the University of Michigan. Her latest book is Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Elizabeth Anderson discuss the impact of unionization and structures of co-determination in achieving greater workplace equality; the need for a nuanced understanding of how belonging to different social categories can affect one’s life prospects; and how structures of domination harm everyone—including those at the top.
The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Yascha Mounk: You have a couple of recent books that think in different ways about how our economic system constrains the ability of people in our society to lead a meaningful and self-determined life.
In the broadest terms, what lies at the center of your concern here and how does it go beyond just material inequality or people not having enough staff or access to services?
Elizabeth Anderson: A lot of my work is focused on developing a perspective that I've called relational equality. And the central concern, I think, of egalitarian social movements is to establish a free society of equals—that is, a society in which people freely relate to each other as equals. And a lot of my work has been focused on various domains in which people are not related as equals, but in relationships of domination and subordination. Quite a lot of my recent focus has been on the workplace. So in my book Private Government I argued that workplaces—if they're not represented by labor unions or have some kind of co-determination by workers—function essentially as little dictatorships. And workers experience subjection, harassment, demeaning treatment, and bosses pretty much have impunity as long as they follow certain rules. So the famous law school hypothetical, which is not really hypothetical but often realized, is the equal opportunity harasser. As long as she harassed everybody equally, it's totally okay under American law; it's just when you do it in a discriminatory way that the law will step in and make the employer liable. But in reality, notwithstanding the fact that retaliation is also against the law under American law, the threat of retaliation effectively deters the vast majority of workers from complaining about harassment. And consequently, we don't really have an effective model to control bosses’ harassing their workers. And that could be not just on the basis of sex or race. Often bosses are just emotionally abusive. And sometimes co-workers are. And workers in America don't really have recourse. On top of that, workers lack effective freedoms even outside the workplace because, under American law, they can be fired for almost any reason—if the boss doesn't like your political preferences, the party you belong to or the people you've contributed money to, or they don't like some social media posting that you made in support of a candidate, you could be fired for that in most states. And again, workers have no recourse, even though the boss is reaching out beyond the domain of what we might think could be justifiable authority for the sake of having an efficient workplace. And here they're just exercising their power just to control their workers' political activities outside of work. There are many, many cases like this.
Mounk: One of my most striking memories from grad school is having one of these very abstract discussions about exactly what the nature of equality should be with people scribbling various distributions of numbers and worlds and planets on the blackboard. And then afterwards, in particular, there were these two professors getting into a very passive-aggressive pissing match about who was more egalitarian than the other. And then afterwards we went to dinner at the local Chinese restaurant, as was the habit of the seminar, and the same two professors got into another very passive-aggressive pissing match about who had spent more money for the vet for various medical treatments for their respective dogs, which I thought was particularly striking.
But as I take it, to expand a little bit on what a relational notion of equality means, I take it that, that is saying, look, it's not about whether I have $500 in the bank account and you have $5,000 in the bank account, it's not just about the numerical distribution of various goods, though there may be some forms of distribution that are irreconcilable with your ideal, it's about how we treat each other in society, whether we are able in society to feel ourselves as equals in some substantial way.
Put a little bit more meat on the bones of what it would take for a society like the United States to fulfill the ideal of relational equality that you think is important.
Anderson: Yes, so we can analyze this on several different levels. One would be a structural or institutional level: everybody not just has on paper equal rights, but in reality has equal rights. That is, they face broadly the same effectively accessible opportunities to engage in freedom of speech and vote and so forth. So we have legal equality, we have institutional equality too, in the sense that people should have equal standing in the major decision-making functions of society. So you want your elected representatives in government to take your concerns as of equal weight as the concerns of others. When they formulate public policy, there's nobody whose concerns are systematically neglected or regarded as not counting. But also in a cultural dimension, what's very important is that people not be stigmatized on account of their group identities, not be subject to say presumptions of guilt on account of their social identities, or other people exalted simply because of their race or class or what have you. So opposition to relations of stigmatization and exaltation at the group level based on social identities is also something that you want to get rid of. Now here's the critical thing and it's another point at which I depart from a lot of the luck egalitarian literature, which tends to be focused on individual differences. And of course, everybody who articulates an inegalitarian point of view hastens to add that, of course, individuals are unequal in many, many different respects, in their talents, in what they've achieved in life, in how beautiful they are. And of course, that's true at the individual level. Egalitarianism, as manifest in world historical social movements, has never really worried about the myriad individual differences between random person A and random person B. What they're opposed to is systematic identity-based inequality—racism, sexism, or subordination of certain religious groups or stigmatization of those groups. It's all group-based. And whatever you might say about the pervasiveness of millions of individual inequalities, unadmirable characteristics, you're just engaged in the grossest of stereotyping if you think that translates into group inequality.
Mounk: Just one specific question here. How do you think social class relates to those different kinds of identity categories you mentioned a moment ago?
Anderson: You mean like economic class? Yes, well, of course. Quite a lot of my writing is about class inequality. And in fact, one of my agendas is to get us thinking more systematically about class inequality, because recent political discourse has been mostly focused on race, gender, sexual identity and sexual orientation issues. And one of the things I want to do is bring class back in. Looking at class, I think, provides us a better basis for building cross-cutting coalitions along the other identities. But also because we're in a state now where our class inequality is quite extreme and it's getting worse. And that's not just a matter of how much money people have, but about their political power. In practice, a society which has lots and lots of billionaires is never going to be able to insulate politics from the overwhelming power that money supplies—political power, political influence. And so we have a threat to democracy here.
Mounk: I think we're running together two slightly different dimensions of equality here, and they're both important, but I wonder whether the relevant dividing lines within the distribution of social positions is quite different for each. So one is political equality: one citizen, one vote. Supposedly all Americans should have the same kind of voice in our political system, and in part because of huge wealth inequality, in part because of a particular system for funding political campaigns and so on, that evidently is not the case. Some very rich individuals and some very powerful corporations and influence groups have outsized power over what kind of laws get passed and that allows them to sustain their advantaged economic position. Let's for the sake of argument grant that the dividing line lies somewhere between you and me and a bunch of other people on the one side and the sort of billionaires on the other side and the CEOs on the other side. I think when it comes to a broader question of social life, when it comes to sort of relational equality in the everyday life of citizens in society as a whole, it feels to me that you and I are on the side of those that are more used to consuming services than to rendering them, more used in a certain kind of sense to being kowtowed to than to kowtowing, and more used to being the people who collectively set the relevant norms of our society than the people who feel that those norms are enforced upon them. There's a kind of 20% of college graduates and people who've gone to graduate school and you have reasonably good professions who are really setting the tone in the life of the country and an 80% who feel that they're not being listened to and their preferences aren't being reflected and who in part as a result might grow reflective, resentful against that elite. So where do you think the most salient dividing line in our society lies and how should that make us self-reflect?
Anderson: Right, so are you alluding to the class privilege of the professional managerial class in general. That's definitely there. No question about it. And I do think, however, that that somewhat cross-cuts the cultural politics of America today in the following way, that that division has been described by economist Thomas Piketty as a rivalry between two different elites, right? You have the Brahmin class, which are the educated elites. And here it's not as if elites on the other side don't have a college education. It's that they don't depend on their college degrees as a credential that's necessary for them to get access to whatever occupation they have. For magnates in the fossil fuel industry, a college credential doesn't really make a difference for them. Whereas any kind of academic or lawyer, the professional classes all need higher education as an essential credential to get their positions. And typically also the creative, the culturally creative classes—screenwriters, actors. Typically not always, but typically they also have a college education and leverage that to get into their occupation. So there's a kind of political polarization around education, where urban educated professional elites have a certain status in society and can use that often in arrogant ways, especially towards working class people, where working class these days tends to be defined in terms of not having a college education. That's a rough cut. But then you also have business elites who often have made their great financial success without specifically needing education as a credential. They might be college educated, but they didn't need it as a credential to set up their own business or what have you and start making a lot of money. You could be an incredibly wealthy car dealer, for instance. You don't need a college education to do that, which is not at all to disparage the skills that are needed to manage a car dealership (they're quite substantial). But you don't need an educational credential for that. So I do think that there is a cultural rivalry between these two groups. And that partially defines the political polarization that we see in America. On the other hand, when we look at the treatment of service workers, I don't think you would necessarily see a class difference between the business elite and the professional managerial class in terms of how poorly they treat service workers. I think there's a lot of arrogance and contempt all around. And for the business class too, there is often more direct control and subordination insofar as they have employees, including all kinds of harassment and bullying in the workplace, that employees are expected to put up with or be fired.
Mounk: What would be required for something like relational equality to hold in American workplaces? How would we have to restructure the American economy for not just the top 0.1% and not just the top 20% of a professional managerial elite, but for the bulk of citizens to feel that they enjoy that equal standing in their daily lives, including at their jobs?
Anderson: I think there's no substitute for worker empowerment. In the United States, that typically takes the form of union representation. It's worth noting that unions have never been more popular, at least in recent memory, than today. Workers are really yearning for a voice in the workplace. We have it institutionalized in many European countries, notably Germany in the form of co-determination, where workers actually have seats on the board of directors of big corporations, as well as works councils, which deal with the day-to-day experience of work on the shop floor and work processes and things like this. These things make a difference to workers' experience and the sense that they're respected.
I'll just tell you a story about this. I happen to know an engineer who made his career in the United States but worked as an engineer in Germany for a while. And I asked him what difference co-determination made to his experience at work. And keep in mind that engineers are some of the best treated, most respected wage workers around and best paid. But he said when he experienced work as an engineer in Germany, co-determination made him realize that for the first time he knew what real respect was like, since he hadn't gotten that same kind of attentiveness to express an engineer’s concerns from American corporations. And today we could see that illustrated with the Boeing engineers in the light of all the safety crises. It's not as if they weren't complaining constantly about how more work needed to be done on the. manufacturing processes and software controls and so forth to make the Boeing Max and other Boeing planes safe. They just weren't listened to. It was a source of enormous moral injury and disaffection which continues to poison work relations at Boeing.
Mounk: I'm sympathetic to the case for unions, and I certainly see that particularly, I think, the German settlement, where you have strong union representation, but a relatively cooperative relationship between unions and management compared to many other countries, has been productive for the economy there.
I wonder whether this isn't both overstating the promise of unions in terms of this particular political moment and perhaps the hopes for relational equality that will ensue once you have those kinds of unions. So it's true that there's a boomlet of unions in particular industries—interestingly, often industries that belong to a professional managerial class, so lots of journalists unionizing, grad students unionizing. But the overall rate of unionization in the American economy, depending on who you ask, has either stagnated or continued to decline over the last few years. So it's not clear to me that we really are at a turning point, as opposed to the kinds of industries that journalists most talk about, namely grad school where they might have just been or where their friends might be and their own workplaces which were obviously interested in sort of moving in a different direction to the rest of the American economy. In substantive terms, certainly within the professional managerial class, I'm struck by the self-confidence that many American workers have—the extent to which many of them feel that they have talents to contribute and there's a demand for these talents. And if their particular company is not going to treat them fairly or meet their needs, then they have plenty of other companies they can go to that will gladly take their services. And therefore they, in my mind, often are able to relate as equals to their employers to an extent that I sometimes find quite astonishing.
In Europe, it can be true that being unionized helps you in these kinds of ways, but I also often find that it makes people feel that they're much more stuck in a particular kind of hierarchy that can be very steep, including on the side of the union. And sometimes it can also deprive workers of a sense of purpose within their work. In two very, very different kinds of environments, if you go to a USPS in the United States, you often feel that employees there don't have a sense of mission, don't have a sense of pride in their work. That's not always true of everybody who works there, and that does have something to do with the unionized nature of the workplace; but, ultimately, the thing that strikes me about this is not just that it's a miserable experience for me as a customer to go to USPS, it is that the people who are working there seem to be deeply miserable as well. My mother is a musician, she's a conductor and she's a leftist, but she was often struck by the difference between unionized orchestras and non-unionized orchestras, where often non-unionized orchestras had a sense of pride and joy in their work and still saw themselves as creative professionals who were aiming for excellence in a certain kind of way; with unionized orchestras sometimes when you have a dress rehearsal and you're two minutes away from the end of the symphony, they stand up and say, I'm sorry, it’s 12pm, we're gonna break off in the middle of the movement.
Now, all of these may just be pro tanto considerations. There may just be particular ways in which unions can lead to pathologies, and unions may, all things considered, still be the right thing. But I just want to make sure that we're sort of not ending up sort of painting this overly rosy picture of what an economy with strong unions looks like and how a workplace with very strong union rules can sometimes end up looking.
Anderson: I think you're pointing to certain defects of union structures that could be improved. So I think we'd have to look at the details of why there's demoralization within these workplaces. It's not necessarily entirely because of the unions, although it could be in part due to a kind of antagonistic relationship between the unions and the managers, and a resistance to flexibility at work out of the suspicion that workers are only going to get exploited if they show any flexibility. I think there's concrete ways around that. I think co-determination in principle offers, through the works councils, a way to negotiate win-win solutions for those kinds of issues.
In American history, relationships between workers and bosses have been vastly more antagonistic. I mean, back in the 19th century, you had corporate owners literally hiring private police to gun down strikers. I mean, it was just murder. The levels of violence in American labor history are just shockingly higher than what you'd see in most of Europe. And a lot of that's the legacy of slavery and the impunity that slaveholders had over slaves kind of leaked out into general contempt for workers, even after emancipation. And even to this day, I think there's a certain resentment on the part of business owners that they resent having to pay anything, even minimum wage to workers. And it's not surprising that under those conditions of contempt and exploitation that workers are unwilling to put themselves out because they don't see any prospect of gain by manifesting a more industrious and cooperative attitude towards work. So I think what we see is a systematic lack of reciprocity.
But it's possible to construct workplaces otherwise. So George Akerlof, the great economist, has a wonderful paper on efficiency wages, one of the great classics of economics, in which he suggested, in some workplaces, there's reciprocity that each side is giving certain gifts to the other in terms of extra efforts and little higher wages. You can actually have positive sum games by doing this; by offering more than what is strictly contractually required, you can build up positive work relationships. And I see no reason why you couldn't figure out clever ways to institutionalize that even within unionized workplaces.
Mounk: So earlier you talked about the key units of social equality not being these random differences between one individual and another, but between certain kinds of social or identity categories, whether they are based on race and gender or social class. Now, one way that's become very popular in philosophy and in public discourse is to think about those relationships between those different social categories and our belonging in one or the other or multiple of these is the concept of intersectionality—the idea that when we are trying to assess where somebody stands in some kind of social hierarchy, we need to know something about the relative prestige of the underlying group and then about the sort of multiple groups that a particular individual may belong to, and that in some kind of way gives us the right way of understanding whether somebody enjoys privilege or not. And in many forms of contemporary leftist politics, that then leads to subsequent claims about deferring to the underprivileged in various forms. You and your most recent work have been critical of both the language of intersectionality and those kinds of privilege frames. Tell us a little bit about your concerns with them.
Anderson: I'm actually not critical of the language of intersectionality. I think it's an indispensable tool for social analysis. I do worry though about the translation of intersectionality analysis into popular political discourse because it hasn't actually taken fully on board what intersectionality analysis tells us. So intersectionality is the idea that for different modes of relational inequality, whether that might be along lines of race or class or gender, for instance, that you can't just predict somebody's position on the basis of one of their identities alone because they have these other identities. And you can also assume that relations of advantage and disadvantage are additive, such that, for instance, say, black women are always at the bottom of the race-gender system. Sometimes black women are a little bit better off. It doesn't erase the ways in which they're worse off than the other three race-gender categories. But it's not additive. There's not any simple relationship here.
Mounk: I believe, and I may be recalling the details of this wrongly, that there is a paper by someone called David Pedulla, who I went to graduate school with, which showed, for example, that black men are often discriminated against in society and gay men are often discriminated against in society. And the assumption of intersectionality would be that being gay and being black is going to be this kind of interaction effect whereby gay black men are going to be discriminated against worse than either straight black men or gay white men.
Again, I may be misrecalling this paper that I read a good number of years ago, but I think the suggestion of it was that that doesn't end up being the case empirically for the reason that some of the negative stereotypes that people may hold against black men and some of the negative stereotypes that people may hold against gay men sort of cut against each other: Black men might be seen in a racist way as being overly aggressive or something like that. And gay men may be seen as being, in a homophobic way, as sort of overly effeminate. But as a result, somebody who holds those two identities may actually be seen in many contexts comparatively better than somebody who only holds one of these identities because the two negative stereotypes sort of cut against each other in an interesting way.
Anderson: Yeah, that would be one illustration. I just want to stress that, again, everything depends on the context. If you look, say, at differential police treatment by race and gender, white women come out on top. I know this from personal experience. Police are invariably polite to me. Who is treated most rudely? If we're just looking at the black-white dichotomy, and race and gender, black women are treated far more rudely by police. On the other hand, if you look at who's treated most violently, it's black men. Even in a policing context you see these subtle differences. And probably that's because police don't really fear violence from black women as they do from black men. So they're somewhat less likely to preemptively act violently towards black women than black men. That's just one example. So even within the same domain of interaction, you see these subtle intersectional differences. And that's why you really have to do a fine-grained analysis of what's going on and how people are imagining these categories, these intersecting categories, working in context.
Mounk: So where does your normative concern with some of this language set in? Is it a problem that, in theory, we could do this incredibly complicated analysis where we try and figure out, you know, how various individuals fall within various social categories, and how it is that in a specific context these social categories then lend people advantages or disadvantages, but that's often going to be very hard to sustain even in the context of a corporate training or in the context of how you encounter somebody you don't know; and so then the temptation becomes to do something very simplified. And this is something that, in my mind, at least, is this weird concomitant of intersectionality, that, at some theoretical level, it is encouraging us to be making very fine-grained analyses and distinctions. But the way it often gets used in real institutional context and in social discourse is this really simplistic way where you say, well, this person is white, so they're privileged, and this person is black, so underprivileged. And of course, often, particularly with once you're just looking at two individuals who are both members of a prestigious institution, that often will cease being the case, because in that circumstance, the member of a generally underprivileged class often has had considerable privilege in order to arrive within that institution. And so you get to absurd situations where somebody who falls into a class that in society in general may often be underprivileged actually comes from tremendous privilege. And somebody who is dismissed as just a privileged white man may actually have had genuine experiences of disadvantage in life. So is that sort of your concern about privilege frames or why is it that the language of privilege is concerning?
Anderson: Right, there certainly are empirical difficulties of this sort in assuming that you can infer how much privilege someone has just by reading off their social categories that they belong to. And indeed, the whole point of intersectionality is that you can't really do that. It's not so easy to translate group differences into differences at the individual level because everybody's unique.
But my main focus, though, is on normative uses of privileged discourse in popular politics, in popular politics of, say, anti-racist, anti-patriarchy mobilization and so forth. And there, I think there are serious normative errors that are being made when we impute advantage to people just on the basis of crude social identity markers. So for one thing, it's not that it's wrong. Of course, people in many, many contexts enjoy certain advantages or suffer systematic disadvantages on account of their social identities (that's why we need intersectional analysis to really sort that out) but, rather, that talk about privilege effaces, I think, the ways in which a systematically unequal society isn't always all that great for the exalted groups. And I think we could have a more constructive politics if we could remind people of how the purported bases of their exaltation are themselves both fraudulent and in most cases burdens on most of the members of that group. So we can see this in the ways that esteem competition works in society. Men, for instance, are constantly being tested by other men on how masculine they are: “Who are the real men here?” And the system of masculinity competition is set up in such a way that most men are going to be losers. It's a zero-sum game. You can only scramble to the top by putting down other men. And a lot of men are really profoundly oppressed by this, especially if they are seen as effeminate or gender nonconforming, not tough enough, not masculine enough, whether or not they actually have an alternative gender identity. There's a lot of bullying. A lot of men are seriously sexually harassed in the workplace by other men, not in the sense that they're subject to coerced sex or anything. They're just being bullied for being perceived as less masculine. Or sometimes the bullying is just a contest in itself where whoever emerges as the victor can claim superior masculinity even if the defeated person doesn't look any less masculine. And it's very oppressive to men in the workplace. About 25% of all sexual harassment claims are actually filed by men overwhelmingly complaining about male on male bullying. It's a terrible experience. So here we can see the system that claims to exalt all men over all women is not doing that at all. It's actually exalting bullying men, the alpha males, over everybody else, much to the psychic and status costs of lots and lots of other men. And I just want to stress that this theme that patriarchy isn't so great for men goes deep into the feminist tradition—even in the 19th century, feminists like William Thompson and John Stuart Mill stressed this point.
Mounk: I was going to mention one of my favorite works of Mill called The Subjection of Women in which he makes precisely that kind of argument, right? Saying that, of course, the principal victims of the fact that, at the time marriage, for example, gave men very extensive rights over what the wives could do and what property they could own and how they could decide to dispose of it and so on, were the women themselves; but that it also was to the detriment of men who would never be able to have the enjoyment of a relationship of equals as a result.
Anderson: Absolutely. You can have a servant wife, but you really can't have an intimate friend. She always has to reserve herself. She can't be frank because she has no recourse. He might be violent or he might just deprive her of resources or ban her from leaving the home. Back in those days, these were all legal powers that men had over their wives.
Mounk: How do you think that this insight should change contemporary politics? One issue, for example, that came to my mind, and I wonder whether you would agree or disagree with me on this, is how we've talked about police violence over the course of the last decade. To me, there's two striking facts about the police in the United States. The first is that there does appear to be disproportionate violence against the members of certain ethnic minority groups, particularly African Americans. The second is that there is just a very hierarchical relationship between police and citizens in general. The only time in my life in the United States that I find myself saying, sir, is in dealing with a policeman. If I'm involved in a traffic stop, I see myself naturally going to the script of yes-sir and no-sir in a way that is utterly alien to me. But that is the cultural script of how you engage with police in this country in a way that I don't find to be true at all in Germany or Italy, where I would interact with police much more, in a certainly respectful way, recognizing that they're professionals doing an important job, but much more as an equal citizen.
And I wonder whether the way we have talked about the problem of police violence has not just privileged the first over the second, which may be appropriate, but eclipsed the second to such an extent that it is not seen as a concern for all citizens. And the most obvious part of the case I would make here is that while African Americans are disproportionately targeted in the deadly shooting of unarmed people, for example, the majority of people who are killed in these kinds of situations are not black. In fact, I believe a plurality, perhaps even a majority, are white. And there would be a way of talking about the problem of police violence that both acknowledges that this is disproportionately a problem for African-American communities and emphasizes that it's a problem for all citizens and that all citizens should have not just reasons of solidarity but also reasons of self-interest to fight for these kinds of police reform.
Anderson: You're totally right about this. And I want to tell you a story that I got from my colleague, Kristie Dotson, who's a black feminist and lives in rural Michigan, so most of her interactions with her neighbors are white people voting for Trump. And during Black Lives Matter, during those protests in 2020, one of her neighbors was flying a Confederate flag—this is not at all common in rural Michigan, notwithstanding the fact that Michigan was actually on the side of the Union in the Civil War. Kristie though is just amazing because she can talk with anybody whatsoever and she will not harangue them or cancel them. She listens very carefully to people's perspectives and she very thoughtfully inquires about their views. It's impossible to exaggerate how important it is just to listen without judgment before you say anything. At any rate, she would explain what these Black Lives Matter protests were about. They would have very civil discussions across this political division.
And sometime later, to her great surprise, she found that he had painted over his Confederate flag the words, Black Lives Matter. And she asked what induced him to do this. And it happened to be that, in their county, there was a bad encounter between a police officer and a white teenager that led to the police shooting this white teenager. And things clicked for this guy, right? He got it. And it was such a breakthrough, but it wasn't achieved by Kristie telling him to check his privilege. No, it came about because he came to recognize that police violence is a serious problem. And if a white kid could be shot for what the community felt was no good reason, then there's enough recognition that blacks have it worse off. It just became obvious that black lives really needed to matter in a way that they weren't currently mattering. And it's just a perfect illustration of your point that police have impunity. And that's a problem in and of itself that's been established by the Supreme Court's insistence on immunity, essential immunity, even for things that are obviously wrong that any morally sound person would understand is wrongful conduct. Police get off the hook. Okay, impunity is a problem. Yes, it's also impunity that's not equally applied to blacks and whites, but it's still unjustly applied to whites. That's just a critical breakthrough.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by Brendan Ruberry and Jack Shields.
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google
X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the state of democracy around the world.Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Fukuyama’s notable works include The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the triumph of the French far-right in the country’s first round of legislative elections; President Biden’s disastrous debate performance and what it may portend for the 2024 election; and the state of democracy from India to Ukraine.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Yuval Levin discuss why neither Democrats nor Republicans have built a durable post-Cold War coalition—and how American politics could be transformed in 2028.Yuval Levin is an academic and the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Levin is the author of A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream and, most recently, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Yuval Levin discuss the different strands of post-Cold War American conservatism from the George W. Bush administration to the Tea Party and the “Reformicon” movements; why both Democrats and Republicans have failed to “make new friends while keeping the old”; and what conservative post-liberals miss about the value of American institutions.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Simon Fanshawe also discuss how gay and lesbian rights were won—and what that should teach today’s activists.Simon Fanshawe is an activist, writer, and consultant who is a co-founder of Stonewall UK and the rector of the University of Edinburgh. His book is The Power of Difference: Where the Complexities of Diversity and Inclusion Meet Practical Solutions.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Simon Fanshawe discuss whether there is a tension between hiring for merit and hiring for the value of having different kinds of life experiences present in organizations; how the gay rights movement framed the debate around legal equality and toleration rather than asking the public to affirm gay and lesbian identities; and why building alliances and finding common ground are essential for achieving social change and creating a more inclusive society.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Olivier Roy is a French political scientist and professor at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. His latest book is The Crisis of Culture: Identity Politics and the Empire of Norms.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Olivier Roy discuss how the new European far-right differs from the old; the French concept of laïcité, or secularism, and whether it goes too far in curtailing public religious practices; and whether a new appeal to universal values and compromise is possible in societies fragmented by identity politics.
The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Yascha Mounk: Interesting things are going on in France at the moment. We had elections to the European Parliament recently, which really were, in my opinion, a series of national referenda about a series of national governments; unpopular governments in places like Germany got punished by the voters, and comparatively popular governments in places from Poland to Greece to Italy got reasonably strong results. But perhaps the most shocking outcome was in France, where the party of President Emmanuel Macron cratered to about 15% of the vote. And, by far, the strongest party was the party of Marine Le Pen, which had more than double the vote of Macron's party or any other party. As a result, Macron called fresh elections for the Assemblée nationale. So his presidency is not in doubt, but his parliamentary backing is being put to the test. And first polls and projections seem to indicate that Marine Le Pen's party will be by far the strongest faction in the Assemblée nationale. Tell us, Olivier, how you see the current situation and perhaps in the more long run how it is that the far right has gone from being a persistently present but marginal force in French politics to seemingly its first force, its most dominating political faction today.
Olivier Roy: There are two issues. One is the collapse of the political party of President Macron. And the second is the nature of the Rassemblement National of the so-called extreme right. And the first thing is President Macron never really tried to set up a strong political party. He always, in fact, despised his own partisans. He never gave full support to his own party and he is now undermining the very electoral basis of this party because the elected members of the parliaments of this party have no real roots. So what we'll see is the collapse of the president's party and he knows that. So in a sense, we may consider that he's playing his own destiny and his own perspective and he doesn't care about his own party. What we see is a collapse of the center—center right and center left. The Socialist Party was center-left, and a part of the traditional right party (conservative right) was also center-left. And Macron won seven years ago by joining the center—the two centers—the center right and center left. And we see that this part of the electorate is still here. Macron's party is 14% and the Socialist Party is 14%. So we still have 30% of center people who still are present on the electoral map. The problem is that they are not really represented. Why? Because on both sides, the extremes took the lead. On the left, it's Mélenchon with his ultra-leftist La France Insoumise, and on the right is Marine Le Pen. So the big failure of Macron was to have been unable to keep together the center right and center left. And why? It's because he played on the right. He made the same mistake as Sarkozy, the same mistake as François Hollande, to think that in order to undermine the Marine Le Pen party, one should take the same slogan, the same priorities, fighting immigration, fighting Islam and so on. And of course they all lost. They in fact comfort Marine Le Pen and they didn't get any new voters by adopting a part of the electoral program of Marine Le Pen.
Mounk: There's a number of serious political scientists who believe some version of this thesis. I know that Sheri Berman, who's an occasional guest in this podcast, for example, believes that when more centrist parties take up themes of the right, they only strengthen the right. I'm slightly skeptical of that thesis for two reasons, because first of all, you should expect that's the case for voters who are not convinced by these themes to move left, for the left to be strengthened by them. But what we're actually seeing is the opposite, that political discourse is drifting to the right in good part because, particularly in Europe on questions of immigration and yes, on questions of Islam, the electorate keeps moving to the right. So rather than voters who used to vote for a center-left party moving towards the left because they feel that their values are being betrayed by the rightization of these parties, what we actually see is that by far and away the strongest political force in the traditional milieu and electorate of social democratic parties is now the far right. So something about that doesn't seem to match up. And then the second point is that I think this assumes that somehow because these established politicians are willing to echo some of the themes of the far right or in some ways change their position on questions like immigration or to acknowledge that there are some problems with political Islamism in Europe, for example, that that completely changes the nature of public discourse. And if only they held the line, then voters wouldn't have the concerns they have. And I just think that, especially in an age of social media and very free-ranging political discussion, that overstates the impact that those kinds of forces might have on the public discourse. So tell me where I go wrong in that interpretation, particularly perhaps when it comes to France.
Roy: It's a bit particular in France. We have the so-called extreme right, Marine Le Pen, and the so-called extreme left, Mélenchon. So the voters of the center are shifting to the right because the left, Mélenchon, is not credible for different reasons. But now the question is, what is exactly the extreme right? Because we have two parties on the so-called extreme right: We have Marine Le Pen and we have Zemmour. Zemmour got only 5%. But the real extreme right is with Zemmour and has slowly left the Front National because they think that Marine Le Pen shifted too much towards the center. So they split into the extreme right, which allowed Marine Le Pen to appear as more moderate. And there is a big, something which is very specific to France, it's laïcité, which means political secularism. Normally, the left is more open to multiculturalism, to immigration, than the right. But in France, what we have seen during the last 15 years is a secular radicalization among the left. Normally not against migrants, but against Muslims. But given the fact that the bulk of the immigration is made up of Muslims, we have now this confusion between migrants and Islam. And if the left is not vocal against migrants, it has been very, very vocal against Islam. So the common point between Marine Le Pen and Macron and a part of the Socialist Party is their hostility to Islam as a religion. And the three of them adopted a strong secularist position. That's the main point they have in common. While Mélenchon is more multiculturalist, more open to Islam, not as a religion, but as a kind of multiculturalist approach, and Zemmour is pro-Christianity. Zemmour, who is not Christian, claims that we should restore a Catholic France. So the bulk of the traditionalist Catholics are voting Zemmour. They are not voting for Marine Le Pen. They consider that Marine Le Pen has shifted towards secularism.
Marine Le Pen has succeeded in appearing more centrist, more moderate, and taking her distance from her father's party. The issue is, is it real, is it in depth? We don't know. But in terms of visibility, she has succeeded, and it explained largely the rise of her party in the elections.
Mounk: She certainly has succeeded in changing the perception of her party. You say you're unsure about the extent to which it's true. Right now, it's probably more likely than not that Marine Le Pen will be the next president of France. How worried are you personally about that prospect?
Roy: Less worried than my colleagues and friends who are all thinking that we are back to the ‘30s and we are threatened by some sort of Mussolinian or even Hitlerian future. I am presently living in Italy and we have Meloni. Meloni is Marine Le Pen—same story of genealogy in terms of party. Her party was a former fascist party and she is certainly conservative, reactionary, et cetera. But she is very careful not to use any kind of rightist ideology. She's playing on representation, she's speaking nicely of Mussolini. But in terms of effective policy, we have almost nothing of fascists. My view is that now all we do in Europe is see most of the extreme right parties as fascist parties. No, we are confronted now with the new extreme rights. The populists are quite different from the fascists before. The modern populists, they don't want a different society. They don't want a New Man. They don't want to create a new Europe, a new ideology. They want to protect what they call their way of life.
But they are not advocating a new society. They are very conservative. They are nostalgic, more nostalgic than conservative. And from that, they have two options. One is to see the golden years, the historical past of Europe in the Christian Europe. It's the PiS in Poland, of course. It's Zemmour. It's Vox in Spain. And it's, to some extent, Salvini in Italy. So in every European country, we have a small fringe of the extremists, which explicitly advocate a return to Christian Europe. And the church is itself very divided. But in fact, what do we see? Everywhere where the populists win, it's when they have given up the reference to a Christian Europe. The more obvious event is in Poland. The PiS was explicitly trying to recreate a Catholic Poland based on the rules of the church, anti-abortion, traditional family. They lost. Same thing in Italy. Salvini is in decline because he was referring to Christianity and he claims to be more Catholic than the Pope, which was a big political mistake in Italy. Meloni is totally different. Meloni doesn't embody the traditional Christian family. She is not married. She has a daughter outside of wedlock. And she has an autonomous life as an executive woman. Same thing for Marine Le Pen.
Mounk: And Giorgia Meloni in a very public way split up from her romantic partner after he was caught on camera making derogatory comments about women.
Roy: Exactly. The winning populists know that our societies have changed since the ‘60s and that sexual freedom is now considered a part of our way of life. It's obvious in Holland, they elected Geert Wilders, who is a pro-LGBT guy, or at least a pro-gay guy. He claims to be a feminist. Same thing in Denmark: the Social Democrat Party of Denmark has the strongest anti-immigrants and anti-Islam policy in all Europe. Everywhere, the populists are defending not the return to the Europe of the ‘30s, but the return to the Europe after the ‘60s.
They construct Islam as a conservative, anti-feminist, anti-LGBT culture. And they consider that as long as you are a Muslim, you share this culture. They may consider that assimilation is possible for some of these Muslims, but that there could be no cultural sharing. It's important to see what they want. They want to enjoy, but to enjoy between themselves, not to share, I would say that. They claim to follow European values, but they consider these values as an identity. It's no more universal values: We are feminist, they are not feminist, so we cannot share the same society.
Mounk: Explain laïcité to an American audience or to an international audience in ways that perhaps are more subtle than what you sometimes read in the main papers in the United States, for example.
Roy: The law on laïcité, 1905, was the law of separation of church and state. So it was a constitutional principle with legal consequences, but it said nothing about what is France, what are the values of the French society, et cetera. The law just organized the separation by stating what is allowed in terms of public religious practices, what is not allowed. And the law worked quite well until the ‘90s. And suddenly in the ‘90s a new term appeared in French politics, the “values of the republic.”
It's totally a new term because from a constitutional point of view, there are no values attached to the republic. The republic is a principle of a constitutional system. It's not based on values. And this stress on values has been accented during the last 20 years, especially with the confrontation of terrorism, Islamic terrorism. So all the presidents from the right and from the left, they say, now, every French citizen should accept the values of the Republic. What does it mean? And clearly, the interpretation, which is not official, is that if you have religious beliefs, you should not show these beliefs in the public sphere. You should keep religion private. And you should accept the idea that it's a liberal society. And then they stop because they don't know how to define what is this liberal society.
There is no unanimity on same-sex marriage. There is no unanimity on, for instance, euthanasia or on abortion, et cetera. So they are unable to define what are the values of the republic. And the president today spoke about enforcing secularism and forcing laïcité. Why did he do that? Because he knows that he has that in common with Marine Le Pen. And so this could be the basis of a shared power. They agreed on that. So laïcité has been turned by both the right and the center into some sort of French ideology. This is the political culture of the nation, which is a big problem because it excludes believers. Not just Muslims, but a big part of the traditional Catholics, for instance, consider that this principle of defending the values of the Republic is turned also against Catholicism. There is more pressure on Catholic parents who keep children who do home schooling. There is more pressure on the exhibition of Christian signs in the public sphere. So what we are heading towards is some sort of official atheism, if I can say that, which has both extreme right roots and extreme left roots also. The funny thing is that now the center is embracing this concept of national republican values, which means exclusion of religion. And who, of course, are the most concerned by the exclusion of religion? The Muslims, by definition, because they are more visible and far more numerous than the conservative Catholics. So now, laïcité is a code word to say we don't want Islam.
Mounk: In my understanding, the French concept of laïcité from the beginning has always been about sort of limits to the ways in which religion is going to be a public and a political matter. It's trying to insulate a sphere of public and political life from the private religiosity of citizens that they should be able to continue. Now, I, in many ways, am more American. I share some concerns about ways in which the French conception, particularly as used in the last few decades, has put excessive limits on ways in which private citizens can be open and visible about the religious faith in the public sphere, which I do think is an important element of the freedom of religion. But I do wonder whether that historical rooting should make us a little bit more sympathetic about the arguments that are being made. And we shouldn't also recognize that there are parts of France and there's parts of other European countries now where, for example, if you are a girl from an immigrant background in a neighborhood with people who are Muslim immigrants, many of whom are strongly religious, or at least they're using that as a form of social control, there's going to be a lot of pressure put on you to engage, or not engage, in certain behaviors. And that can in fact severely limit the freedom of people in our society. And so there is a role for the state in ensuring that citizens are protected against the tyranny, not only of the state, but as liberal thinkers from John Stuart Mill on would realize, the tyranny of society, whether it's the majority of society, or whether it is the society that may happen to be a majority in your social network or in your neighborhood.
So how do we sort of balance the legitimate concerns that motivated the law of laïcité in the early 20th century at the time of dominance of the Catholic Church and, I think, the legitimate concerns about how to make sure that people are coerced into a compliance with certain behaviors supposedly sanctioned by Islam in certain neighborhoods in Europe, with a more robust defense of freedom of worship that doesn't accept the limits that perhaps have now become customary among some political parties in France?
Roy: Well, in France, as everywhere, there are social pressures in specific places, a small village, a neighborhood, and so you may have social pressures to repress attitudes which are not in line with what the people see as a good thing to do. So when we have a huge Muslim presence in the small neighborhoods, you have some pressure. But it's largely exaggerated for political reasons. First, there is mobility. The youth is leaving, going elsewhere. Many second generation immigrants have a dual life. With their families, they look like good Muslims, but then they go outside the neighborhood and they are totally different.
But something which is important, we have a crisis of religions. The social pressure exercised by religion is diminishing precisely because the people are less and less involved in religious practices.We can say that the society is no more Christian, less than 5% of the French people still go to church, which is almost nothing. The number of practicing people is higher among Muslims. But we have sociological evolutions which are not taken into consideration. For instance, the rise of a Muslim middle class, the people with degrees, diplomas, professional activities, and so and so. If you look at any kind of professional books—the list of lawyers, the list of medical doctors, the list of surgeons—you see that now there is a huge proportion of Muslims in French hospitals, for instance. In my hometown in France, you have more Muslim surgeons than non-Muslim surgeons. So we have gentrification, a rising part of the Muslim population which is not acknowledged. And these people, when they have kept the faith, they practice, I would say, like modern conservative Jews or conservative Catholics. They don't put pressure on the neighborhood because they are living in a very diverse neighborhood. So this idea that we should protect the youth from the generation of the parents who impose on them Islam doesn't correspond to what is going on in the society. The problem is not too much social pressure. The problem is social disintegration, the disappearance of traditions and religious pressure. Now more and more, they are born again, the more radical Muslims are born again. It means that there are young people who were not especially Muslims and who decide to become born again Muslims, and who then are critical of their parents because they consider that their parents are not Muslim enough. That's a real problem. It's not the preservation of traditions (it was the case 20 years ago). What we have is a deculturation of migrants, which is parallel with what did happen in France concerning Christianity. Christianity was part of the landscape when I was a young boy. We had nuns. We had priests with the cassock, we had people going to the church when I was at school (I was Protestant). When I was at school, at the time of the first communion, there were only six boys who stayed in the classroom. All the others were in the church, and it was a state secular church, there was no problem at that time.
So now religion appears as something weird, and that's a big difference with the United States. In the USA, you still have visible religious practices and beliefs by maybe not the majority of the people but religion is considered not only socially acceptable but as socially positive. In France, it's exactly the contrary. There is a profoundly anti-religious feeling among the population. And this is on this basis that the right is trying to constitute electoral support. No, it's not about Christianity, it's about laïcité. And it's the same debate in Belgium, Holland, et cetera. What is left for religious freedom now? That's a real question, because religious people are in the minority everywhere.
Mounk: We've naturally arrived at the title of your latest book, which is The Crisis of Culture. What do you mean by a culture, particularly a kind of national culture, and why is it in crisis?
Roy: A culture is what I call a shared implicit in a community. This community can be a nation, an ethnic group, a religious group, village, country. And shared implicit means that you have a language, for instance. You speak the language and you don't put the rules of the language into question. Even if you disagree, you disagree by using the same language and everybody understands the other. We share some common body language. Once again, we can hate each other, but we show this hatred by using the same body language. When we look at emotions, we give names to the emotion, the same names. We know what it means to be happy, to be unhappy, etc. What I see now is the disappearance or at least the containment of anything which is a shared implicit, starting with language. It's not the first time in history that a language became an international language—Latin at the time of the Roman Empire and during all the Middle Ages, French was the European international language in the 18th century. And now it's something that we still call English. But it's not English. It's globish, what I call globish. What is the difference? When we learned Latin, when we learned French, we also learned Latin culture and French culture. Of course, it was an elite culture. But learning a language meant learning a culture.
Now the international English is no longer connected with the cultural English. You don't need to know Shakespeare to speak and, more than that, it's better not to know Shakespeare if you want to be understood by the people. So what we have is self-simplification of English by using something between 1,000 and 2,000 terms. It doesn't mean that the people do not speak good English, but even when you think to speak good English, you simplify your own English because you are not sure that the other guy speaks good English. So we have this kind of uniformization of globish in simplification not only of the number of words, but by using words in non-equivocal dimension. So you cannot joke, you cannot make jokes now, because it's equivocal now. And you transform the language into a code, which means that the word and the meaning should be univocal, that a word means a word. Yes is yes, no is no. And you cannot add nuances between yes and no, maybe, maybe not. It's like the driving court: Red light is a red light, and green light is a green light. You cannot make jokes or change allusions. So now it's what is becoming the rule. Another example, emotions. Emotions are expressed by different forms of body language, by your way of speaking, by allusions, etc. Now, you want to mention an emotion, you have to make it explicit. So you use an emoji or an emoticon. The person in front of you, your correspondent, has to understand that you are angry, or you are happy, or you are half bitter, so you can make some nuances. But the meaning has to be absolutely explicit. And in this kind of communication, culture is what has to be ignored. You may have a culture. You may share a culture with friends, with even a national culture. But as soon as you enter into the world of the internet, for instance, then you have to give up this culture.
So the two consequences are what I call codification, in the two senses of the term codification. One is systematic explicitation of what you do, what you say, what you want. And the other is a transformation of practices into normativity. The examples are very easy to find. To people over 40, I say: look at what was your institution, your school, your business, the law of your country, the penal law, the civil law 20 years ago, and look now. Not only have the laws been extended considerably, but things which were not under law, which were not adjudicable, are now under law. The law of tort, for instance, has been considerably extended during the last 20 years. And when you speak about tort, for instance, emotion and so, you have to say everything. You have to give the details of the sexual relations, for instance, but you have to express your feelings, your inner feelings, in order that everybody understands. So if we want to take some sort of an intellectual comparison, when I was young, psychoanalysis was the culture, the idea that what is very important is implicit, and that the unconscious will always remain some unconsciousness, but that you can, in a way, make some part of this unconscious explicit. But you have to live with your unconscious now. Now, when you have a problem, you don't go to the psychoanalyst, they are almost criminalized now. You go to Alcoholics Anonymous. And at Alcoholics Anonymous, you have to say everything. You cannot speak of something which is too complex, you have to use the others as benchmarks. You have to put your attitude into a series of benchmarks that have to be respected by all the others. What is looked at is your explicit words and your explicit behavior, which is quantified. That's the big change. And it's a profound civilizational change.
Mounk: So there's a lot of very interesting material in that. Two points. One is I love the United Kingdom in many ways and spent wonderful years there, but it's not clear to me that Britain has a superior culture to the United States, though many of my British friends would insist that it does. And, in fact, America has been incredibly successful in the modern world, perhaps in part because the price of entry to its culture is so much lower. More broadly, I wonder whether you aren't recreating Herder's distinction between culture and civilization, because Herder's critique, and that of many German romantics in the 19th century as Napoleon expanded his influence over Germany, was that we have this thick, grown culture that has a lot of diversity to it. One village has a different culture from the next, that has the thick understandings that are required to be a part of it. And the French, with their revolution and the Napoleonic code, are rationalist simplifiers who want to hold us all to universal standards and impinge on our culture. And so a lot of the sort of German reaction in the 19th century, political reaction, but also reaction against French influence sort of was an anxiety about the loss of that kind of implicit culture that you're talking about. Now, ironically, you're saying today the inheritor of the abstract rationalist civilization in the eyes of Germany that France has become, you're treating that as the culture and saying that it's threatened by a new kind of civilization in the form of a globish influence by the United States. I don't know that that historical resonance necessarily invalidates your theory. But I just wonder whether that should make us skeptical about that concern in the present day.
Roy: I think that this distinction between civilization and culture, which was very strong in the 19th century, for the reasons you said, is no longer working. Because there is no such thing as civilization. Now, of course, culture still exists. But culture is more and more restricted to small groups, inward-looking groups. It's why we have more and more now cults or populist movements. They want to reconstitute a community of culture, of people who can share without having to justify themselves. So culture remains as nostalgia, not as real content. And we claim to have a civilization, but it doesn't work. The big debate on the clashes of civilization, for instance, is invalidated precisely by the absence of content when we speak, when we try to define a civilization.
What is called civilization now, the use of the term is in fact very often to say that we, since, let's say, ‘45, have a new global civilization based on human rights, and that it's a universalist civilization. So we have the coming back of the universal standards defined by the French in the 19th century. The problem is that these standards are not based on a real society, on a real culture. They are abstract and they are implemented by courts, by rules, by law. That's the big problem now. Why do the courts play such a role now at every level? Not just in the USA, but in Europe too now we have many Supreme Courts which didn't exist before. The role of the American Supreme Court is far bigger than it used to be one century ago. The court was there, but it didn't have the political role that it has now. And it's not just because Trump succeeded in appointing people, the court is far more complex than that. The European Court of Human Rights is also playing a big role, which was not foreseen before. It's because all these principles exist mainly through norms and not because they are accepted values by a given society or a given culture. Norms are replacing values. And so in this case, I think we cannot speak about a civilization.
My personal view is that we should return to politics, to political settlement inside the society, negotiations between groups. The way, for instance, the capitalists and the working class have been able, at the end of the 19th century, to start to find a compromise. How states are able to compromise on their borders and so and so. But it's not what we see now. There is a rejection of compromise at every level of the society, even the family level, if I can say that.
The problem is that we have a more and more individualized society and so everybody is fighting for his own rights. And so we have a society that is more and more split, not just in groups but even inside the groups. You have the individuals take genders. The list of genders is increasing because there is always somebody who says, I don't identify with your list of identities, so I will add my new markers for myself. And at the end, there is no more society.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by Brendan Ruberry and Jack Shields.
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google
X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
Brad Wilcox is Professor of Sociology and Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Wilcox is the author of Get Married.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Brad Wilcox discuss whether more people getting married really would improve their lives; why we might need a political and cultural environment more conducive to marriage; and what explains the “happiness gap” between liberals and conservatives in the US.
The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Yascha Mounk: You point out a strange inconsistency in American attitudes towards marriage and particularly attitudes among the American elite, which is that, for example, at the University of Virginia where you teach, most students say that it's perfectly fine to have kids outside of wedlock, that there's nothing particularly important about being married. And yet they are much more likely than the average American to come from families that are stable in that way. They're extremely likely to say that if they came home and told their parents they're about to have a baby, their parents would freak out. What does that tell us about America today?
Brad Wilcox: In my piece in The Atlantic, I talk about the way in which a lot of my students would be very tolerant and affirming of a wide range of family forms and structures kind of as a public ethic. But when it comes to their own lives, they're very much still grounded in a marriage-focused ethic. And the vast majority of my students come from intact married households, about 80% depending upon the class. I'm just sort of commenting, in my Atlantic piece but also in the book more generally, about the way in which many of our elites talk left but walk right when it comes to family in terms of being much more marriage-minded in their own private lives and their own public lives. That's problematic to me because what ends up happening is that our elites in media and education and in Hollywood and other kinds of important culture-forming domains, from my vantage point, are not necessarily telling the truth to young adults across the country—the truth is that for most of us, marriage is the best way to ground your adult life and certainly to form a family around. And so I think the problem is that our elites personally and privately are benefiting typically from marriage for themselves and their kids, but they're not communicating in their public capacities as culture shapers.
We've seen kind of the greatest decline in marriage and parenthood, in terms of connecting marriage and parenthood, among working class Americans in that kind of second quintile since 1980. So my concern is that our elites, I think, could be doing more both culturally and policy-wise to kind of get behind marriage in ways that would benefit particularly working and middle class Americans.
Mounk: In a way, there's nothing self-contradictory about the facts you describe; which is to say that in a liberal society, I think it’s fine to have seven kids, but I don't plan personally to have seven kids. But I certainly would answer in a survey that I have no problem with somebody else having seven kids, right? One natural response is to say there really isn't anything particularly inconsistent about the views of these students or the views of the American elite more broadly, which is that we live in a free society in which people are encouraged to make their own decisions about how to lead their lives and what family planning they engage in. And it's perfectly coherent to say that there is nothing particularly important about getting married in general, but I, personally, want to do that before I want to have a kid.
I think for your position to get off the ground, you really have to put some meat on the bones of why, generally speaking, it is better for people and better for their kids to have those stable households and particularly in the context of marriage. So can you tell us a little bit about sort of what the evidentiary base of that is? Why should we be so moved by the fact that the sort of basically appealing, tolerant attitude of the students you describe is really leading them to fail to recognize something important about our society and how to have good outcomes within it?
Wilcox: The challenge here is that a lot of Americans think that love and relationships and marriage are entirely private issues, that this is just a concern of me and maybe my partner and maybe my kids, if one has kids. But it doesn't have any kind of broader public import.
And yet, I think there's a lack of recognition there that there's a good bit of evidence that what happens in our homes matters not just for ourselves and for our children, but for the broader communities that we live in. Obviously, we know the work of Raj Chetty, for instance, which suggests that one of the strongest predictors of mobility for poor kids, going from rags to riches across the course of their lives, and growing up poor, growing up as adults, ending up affluent at the community level, is the share of single-parent families. Chetty's work suggests to us that when there are more two parent families in the mix in our communities and our neighborhoods, kids are more likely to thrive, especially poor kids. And so that's one reason why Salt Lake City has one of the highest rates of mobility for poor kids. And Atlanta, by contrast, has one of the lowest rates of mobility for poor kids because poor kids raised in the Salt Lake City metro area are surrounded more often than not by lots of two-parent families. And so if you're concerned about some of these classic American ideals, like the American dream, you should recognize, from my perspective, that strong families are actually helpful in promoting some of these classic American ideals.
The point I'm getting at here is simply that when families are flourishing and when more people are married, we're seeing not just kids being more likely to flourish (I think some people kind of recognize and realize that case and Melissa Kearney obviously has written about that in The Two-Parent Privilege) we're also seeing that adults are more likely to be flourishing as well when, on average, marriage is a big part of their adult lives.
Mounk: So I have some amount of sympathy for this argument. And I certainly see what it does to people, especially when they grow up in deeply unstable households, right? They may not have people with whom they have a stable relationship of affection. They may have a huge amount of financial and other forms of turmoil. At the same time, I'm trying to think through the extent to which it is marriage, specifically, as an institution that is making that difference and to what extent we are going to solve that by encouraging the marginal unmarried person to get married.
One of the things that strikes me when I compare life in the United States to life in many European countries I know is that there is an overall lack of social cohesion, that fewer people are embedded in deep family networks, that they move around more, that there's fewer social institutions, not just to provide welfare services to people who may not have stable incomes, but just to provide thriving communities with all kinds of strong and weak ties that are able to buffer for whatever misfortunes particular people face or for the kind of trajectory of the life of a child whose parent may have an alcohol problem or may have a drug problem or all kinds of other challenges.
My slight skepticism comes from wondering to what extent the studies you've cited have really been able to tease apart those kinds of differences. I could imagine that a higher share of poor people in Salt Lake City are immigrants. Perhaps they're people who've converted to Mormonism and have come to Salt Lake City in the last decades, right? And it's unsurprising, but there's higher rates of social mobility among immigrants and that those immigrants might have more conservative values which make them more amenable to having a stable family household. So perhaps what we're picking up here is something that is cultural, that is very important, which is that one of the keys to success for a lot of very poor immigrant families from Latin America, from China, from all kinds of different places, is a set of cultural values that lead them to family cohesion, that lead them to an emphasis on academic performance and all of the other things that's going to set the kids up for success in life.
I don't know whether the marginal person within that community getting divorced or the marginal person within a community that doesn't share those attributes getting hitched is really going to make that difference. Aren't we talking about a deeper and broader set of cultural determinants of which marriage might be a covariant, but that isn't really causal—it is going to the altar and making that commitment that's driving the outcome here.
Wilcox: Good question. I certainly think that there are a lot of factors that are kind of confounding the kinds of patterns that we see in the data. But I think it is kind of actually revealing that when you look at the data, you find that both immigrants, for instance, and Asian immigrants especially, are especially likely to be married, especially likely to be stably married.
I think when it comes to sort of understanding the argument, some people say, what about the marginal person, the guy who is not helpful, not caring—getting him married to his girlfriend is not going to help anything. That's a legitimate critique of my argument. But I think that people are not understanding and appreciating that we've seen a massive shift in working and middle-class America away from marriage, where a lot of good folks are not finding their way to the altar, so to speak, or they're not able to keep their marriages together. And so this massive shift from marriage is linked in the research to declines in happiness, increases in deaths of despair, and I think also to the hollowing out of the American dream for those communities. So it's that larger shift that I think is one of the major motivations for my book, Get Married.
Mounk: That data point you cite seems to me to go in the other direction, which is to say it's not at all surprising to me that, for example, immigrants from China are much more likely to be married, much more likely to be in stable relationships, because they come from a much more cohesive culture where they also have a whole package of other kinds of cultural attitudes that help to explain why Chinese immigrants to the United States have been so phenomenally successful. I buy the fact that marriage and happy stable relationships are part of an overall package, but it seems to me unclear how big a part of that overall package is precisely because it goes hand in hand with all of those other attitudes and behaviors.
Wilcox: I think it's part of the package, right? I wouldn't say it's the only part of the package. It's necessarily, for some of these immigrants, the most important part of the package. It's certainly an important part. And in fact, one of the things that's sort of striking to me in terms of just interviewing ordinary Americans is that immigrants from Asia, both from Korea and China and India, and then also second generation immigrants or second generation Asian Americans from those places were much more likely to kind of talk about marriage and family in the context of their view of the American dream, their ability to flourish, and their kids' ability to flourish. And, once, I had a Korean-American mom talking to me about how she kind of rejects the soulmate view of love and marriage that she sees around her because she sees her marriage and the stability of those things as integral to her kids' ability to succeed in school and in life more generally. So I'm just saying that I think, for some Asian-Americans, there is an important way in which they kind of connect the stability of their marriage and family life to their own capacity to sort of flourish financially, to realize the American dream and then for their kids to do well both in school and in life more generally.
And I, of course, would argue as well that they're correct, right? That they understand and appreciate that having your own kids' parents in the household providing more attention, more affection, more financial support to them on average does boost their odds of flourishing in school and then flourishing in life more generally. But to kind of give you some different kinds of statistics, so too we can think about the way in which controlling for things like race and ethnicity and parental education and family income, what we see is that young men who are being raised in non-intact families are about twice as likely to end up in jail or in prison by the time they turn 30 compared to their peers who are being raised in intact families with their two parents on the home front. Teenage kids in general are about 50% more likely to be sad or depressed when they're in a non-intact family versus an intact family, controlling again for things like education, race, ethnicity, education, parental income.
So, how much of this is family structure, per se, or some unmeasured factor that my models are not controlling for, that might be genetic or there might be some kind of psychological piece or pieces at play is worth, I think, thinking about. But I think what's important for your audience to recognize and realize is that many thinkers from Alexis de Tocqueville onwards have understood and appreciated the way in which strong families are actually important dimensions of a successful liberalism in America. And when the family is relatively strong, I think our kids tend to do better and end up being better citizens, more successful in our schools, more successful in our economy. And so I think for liberals, there should be more thinking about the way in which maybe having kind of a laissez-faire or what I call a family diversity theory, where they think every family form is equally valuable, might want to rethink that just to recognize and appreciate that it is families and communities where the two-parent family is reasonably strong that are more likely to be doing a lot of the other things that liberals tend to value in our country and culture.
Mounk: I think it's hopefully a sign of how seriously I take that thesis and how persuasive I find much of your work that I'm going to sort of keep pushing on it, so let me paint the picture of two very different kinds of households. Let's say they're both households that got married before they had kids. And in one of the households, the dad is, broadly speaking, a deadbeat. He's not somebody who was ever really that interested in having kids, never that responsible in raising them, didn't really do very much even while he was married to his wife. And at some point decides to divorce, leave the family, and cut contact with the kids. Presumably that is one of the kind of data points that goes into the finding that kids from less stable households often have worse outcomes. And obviously not having that second parent as support and guidance and financial resource would on average have a bad impact on that child, right? They would be better off if they had a father who was involved and stable and loving that I think should be uncontroversial.
Now, let's look at a second family where it's two people who are very involved in child raising, who love their kids, who really care, but they're just not getting along, right? And so at one point, the dad is trying to make a decision, do I stay with my wife or not? It's less clear to me that in that kind of case, the overall observations that you find, which is that kids are going to fare better in a stable household, is going to apply because the aggregate statistic you're looking at includes both the dad that was always a deadbeat whether married or not (which has a bad impact on the kid) and the dad who really cares, who might decide to get divorced, who might decide to break this family up, but who's going to want 50% custody, who's going to be financially involved in the life of the children, who's still going to be emotionally available to them.
So are the studies you're talking about able to distinguish between these two scenarios? And if not, then are we at risk of telling that marginal person, “You really don't get along with your wife, you're having bad fights with her, nobody's happy in this home, but stay put in the marriage because it's really important to your kids”? When actually what's most important to the kids may just be that they're an involved, loving parent. And in many of those scenarios, it would in fact be better for them to get divorced, get away from each other (they're just not getting along) and find some kind of hopefully decent harmonious co-parenting arrangement where they're still able to provide and care for their kids.
Wilcox: Actually, I would sort of take those two examples and run the opposite direction as you ran, Yascha. So the point is that we have, I think, pretty good evidence from Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, two scholars at Penn State, that it's actually the high conflict situations where kids actually do benefit from parents parting ways. So in that first scenario, from their evidence, it looks like it's probably better for mom and dad to part ways, given the sort of lack of investment of the father. But it's in the second scenario where both parents are engaged, good parents might have one parent who is kind of drifting apart, feels like they're not as close as they once were, they're no longer in “love”—it's in those situations where it's better for the kids, for the parents, to stay together. So what they're distinguishing in their work is sort of low conflict situations where there's sort of maybe these more subtle senses of disappointment or frustration in the marriage and then high conflict situations where there's regular yelling or fighting. And again, from the kid's perspective in those high conflict situations, separation, divorce is the better outcome for the kids. But in these sort of lower conflict situations where maybe the parents aren’t particularly happy, but they can kind of get along and make it work, it's better for the kids if they can kind of just find a path to sticking together.
Mounk: So how actionable is this advice for people? It seems to me in a way that the data we started the conversation with shows that most people do in fact want to get married, right? So when you look at these relatively elite kids that you're teaching, they have this broad kind of view that it is really not that important to get married, and let's not be all judgy about people who have a kid out of wedlock, and so on. But when you ask them, do you intend to get married before you have kids? Do you think you would like to get married? Even at a pretty young age, when, frankly, I at that age may not have answered yes, they mostly say yes, right? And so the obstacle to many people getting married is finding a suitable life partner. And that is true among the more elite class where there's very strong ideas about wanting to have a soulmate, wanting to have somebody who's exactly right. And obviously in the age of dating apps and algorithms, you can have the illusion of infinite choice. But for a lot of people, that problem is more constrained. And here perhaps I'm more tempted by the structural explanation than other parts of this subject, which is, for example, that among African-Americans in the United States, women now just vastly outperform men in educational outcomes, in income, and in other kinds of metrics. And so many black women say, I would love to get married, I would love to have a stable partner. It's just that the nature of the marriage market is such that it's hard for me to find that partner.
So to what extent do you think that the decline in marriage is due to an individual reluctance to get married, or people having wrong kind of attitudes about who they should get married to and when, and therefore, to what extent is this actionable advice?
Wilcox: So there's certainly structural constraints. You're right, things like race are constraints, particular regions, neighborhoods, all these things can constrain people's options and choices in ways that are worth acknowledging. But I think it's also important to tell young adults the truth. And that is that if you are more intentional about trying to find a spouse, trying to find a good partner in your twenties, you're more likely to end up, I think, happily married than if you're kind of not intentional about it. And so, the example that I gave in a New York Times interview was when I was talking to a graduate student in my orbit here at the University of Virginia, and I had asked him about his professional plans. And he had kind of a very detailed plan about how he was going to handle education and work. Then I asked him, would you like to be married? He said yes. So what's your plan there? And there was complete silence. He hadn't thought about what the step would be in the next week or year that would kind of increase his odds of being married.
And so the point I would make to young adults today is don't assume that you're going to kind of hit 28 or 30 and just look around and find the perfect spouse. If you're in college, just be aware of the fact you're never going to be surrounded by so many young adults who are of your age and relatively eligible, for instance. And so maybe college is a good place to find a future spouse, for instance, or the workplace in your early twenties, or if you're religious, your synagogue or your church.
I would encourage young adults, I think, to be more intentional about socializing and dating in their early 20s with an eye towards marriage. And one of the things that I talk about in my book is that I am predicting that the largest number ever in terms of the share of young adults today will never marry because we are much less, at least right now, marriage-focused than we were in previous generations. And so what I would say to them is look, if you would like to kind of minimize your odds of ending up as a permanent bachelor, or permanent bachelorette, recognize that your 20s is a good decade to look around, meet people, and try to find someone who is a good fit for you, a good match. And then recognize too that your friends and family members might be also helpful in connecting you to people who would be good matches for you as well, to recognize that this can be a social undertaking. Be as intentional about your love life and your family future orientation as you are about your education and career. And if they did that I think they would markedly increase their odds of not just getting married, because that's only part of it, but of finding someone who's a good match for them as well.
And I think, when we have these discussions in more elite circles, I think the assumption is that things like race and class are really the controlling factors when it comes to sort of marriage and family in America. And those are huge factors, no doubt. I think where there's less recognition is that culture is also a factor here. And so what we see, for instance, among those who are 18 to 55 in the U.S., only a minority of liberals are married (that's 41%) versus a majority of conservatives (55%). The same kind of dynamic plays out for religious Americans and secular Americans. And we can talk about selection until the cows come home, but the kinds of people who are kind of either being raised in or selecting into more religious and or more conservative milieus are more likely to embrace the kinds of values and virtues that put them on a path towards marriage and tend to increase their odds of succeeding in marriage as well, both measured in terms of marital happiness and in terms of marital stability generally. So I think the lesson for liberals is to ask if we want to maybe rethink to some extent how we're approaching the life course and how much value that we endow marriage with. And that's the challenge I'm offering to your audience.
Mounk: And that leads perfectly into the other topic that I wanted to talk through with you before I let you go, which is about the research you have showing that liberals are much less happy than conservatives in the United States.
There seems to be something about either liberal political attitudes or the broader social circles that liberals are socialized in, that they inhabit, that appears to be less conducive to them being happy. What is the evidence of this and what on earth could be the explanation for what surely is a somewhat surprising fact, that the view you have about politics should determine or at least co-vary with the amount of life satisfaction that you're going to have?
Wilcox: And to be fair, and clear, I'm not saying that there's a huge gap between liberals and conservatives. I'm just saying that we do see across a wide range of different surveys that there is a gap in happiness between liberals and conservatives, where conservatives tend to be more likely to be in that very happy camp, and liberals are more likely to be in either the unhappy camp or, in one survey, the not-too-happy camp. And this is all statistically significant.
Part of the story here does seem to be that I think conservatives are more likely to kind of look at the world as it is and just sort of say it's fine, right? We're conservatives, we can kind of make our peace with the world as it is. And liberals are more likely to sort of have a more idealistic view of the world. They're more likely to see its faults and failings and flaws. That's, I think, part of the story here.
Mounk: One quick question about this. How far back does this go? Do we know whether, you know, in 1970 or 1980 it was already the case that liberal Americans were less happy than conservative Americans? Or is this really something that's emerged in the last decades?
Wilcox: Yeah, I don't know how much of this is going back that far, Yascha, but there's certainly been studies done in Pew a while back that were documenting this as well. But there's also, as you know, newer work done by Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge and their peers that suggest that, particularly today, progressive young women are especially unhappy. And that, I think, does actually kind of correspond to this idea that part of it is sort of a mindset, and if you're more likely to sort of look at the world through a more critical, maybe social justice kind of lens, you're more likely to sort of see things that are cause for concern.
Mounk: Right, because I think there's two quite different interpretations of this data. And for that, perhaps it does depend on when it started, right? One interpretation is that people who are more left-wing perhaps are more focused on the injustices in the world, are more driven by, as Jonathan Haidt would have argued in his earlier work, the fairness dimension of politics and therefore more affected by the perception of unfairness in the world, perhaps if they have a kind of more critical esprit, that part of what makes you predisposed to be left-wing is just to see flaws in things, right? And that might be a relatively stable disposition, so on that theory (which I'm coming up with here on the fly) you would expect somebody more left-leaning to be less happy in 1970 as well as in 2020, right?
Wilcox: Yes.
Mounk: A second kind of theory is that, no, what's driving this is something more specific. It is in some ways the transformation of the left from one that is more focused on certain forms of economic equality and fairness and so on, to one that really has embraced a sense of ideas about identity and the role of victimhood and the role of trauma in our self-identification that really has created an unhealthy culture and that the influence, as Haidt would now argue, of social media on young girls in particular has something to do with those more specific sets of encouragement about how to perceive yourself as a member of an identity group in the world that is deeply vulnerable and should therefore always be on high alert about insults or injustices and so on. And so if that theory is right, then you'd expect the gap to have grown in the last decade or two as this ideology has spread.
Wilcox: Yes, and that's certainly a possibility. But I did look at a data set in the early 2020s and found that the gap between conservatives and liberals and the share of those who are very happy was not accounted for by differences in income or race or age or gender between liberals and conservatives. But when I controlled for a number of family factors, including marital status, family satisfaction, and then also some civic factors like religious attendance and community satisfaction, the gap between liberals and conservatives disappeared. So it suggests to me that part of the story here is that, I think, particularly when it comes to religion and when it comes to marriage and parenthood, we're just sort of seeing that liberals and progressives are less likely to be kind of ending up a married parent or in a religious community. Emile Durkheim, that great French sociologist, talks about the importance of social integration, right? So just, you know, when you're married and have kids, I mean, life is, yes, it's stressful and all that, but it's full. There's lots of activities, dinners, sports, school activities, all that kind of stuff. And then if you're religious you have services on Saturday or Sunday and you have youth groups and you have special holidays and there's just a lot of sort of social stuff happening. So I think part of the gap again that I'm suggesting between liberals and conservatives is that for a variety of reasons liberals have found both marriage and parenthood as well as sort of religious congregations to be either kind of directly less appealing or important to them, or they're kind of doing things that end up minimizing the odds that they're spending as much time in a family way or in a religious community as well.
Mounk: What does the finding about the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives mean for how people should lead their lives, in particular perhaps more liberal-leading listeners to this podcast who want to be happy? Do they need to become conservatives or are there other things that they can emulate from more conservative peers to become happier?
Wilcox: I wrote a piece in The New York Times kind of speaking to liberals and I said that Aristotle understood that we are social animals. And so when liberals throw themselves in social institutions, from family to faith to some kind of local civic organization, they have just as great a shot at happiness as people on the right. So the point I'm getting at here simply is that I think we just have to recognize that insofar as we're social animals, that liberals should be, I think, more focused on marriage and family in their own way, their own religious traditions if they have them, or other forms of civic and communal life that allow them to kind of experience these in-person communities in ways that sort of will increase the odds of flourishing on multiple domains.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by Brendan Ruberry and Jack Shields.
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google
X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
William Galston is an author and academic who holds the Ezra K. Zilker Chair in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. Galston was also deputy assistant for domestic policy to President Bill Clinton. His latest book is Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and William Galston discuss why cultural questions have become as important as economic issues in deciding elections; why the period following the 2024 election will afford political opportunities to ideological upstarts in both parties; and the outsized influence of “dark passions" like humiliation and resentment in voting behavior.
The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Yascha Mounk: Yesterday, we saw that a jury in Manhattan found Donald Trump guilty on all counts, the first time that a US president was found to be criminally guilty. This seems like a major moment, but there have been major moments in the past that have turned out not to be quite what they seemed. How much do you think this is going to transform the presidential campaign and the fate of Donald Trump?
William Galston: Well, I will go out on a limb and suggest that in the context of everything else, this event is likely to have only limited significance and impact. And it may well be washed away by the results of the upcoming presidential debate on June 27th, which I regard as potentially a much more transformative event than the outcome of this trial.
Mounk: There's some hope, obviously, that people have that a lot of independents, perhaps a lot of low-information voters who haven't really tuned into the political debate that much, will look at this verdict and say that twelve Americans, a jury of his peers, have decided he's guilty. That somehow transforms things. On the other side, of course, there is the fact that people have known Donald Trump for a very long time and most Americans seem to have made their mind up about him one way or the other. And the fact that he had an affair with a porn star and has paid her off for her silence doesn't exactly break with the image that most people have with Donald Trump. You don't think that this is going to sway voters in the way that a lot of people on MSNBC and CNN are hoping these days.
Galston: No, I don't. But there's one thing I want to emphasize: I'm not sure. And anybody who says that he or she is or is sure about what the impact is going to be is exceeding a reasonable evidentiary brief.
15 years ago, I thought I understood the American electorate pretty well. I have lost that confidence. I remember in August of 2015, I was watching the very first Republican debate with a veteran political reporter, someone who's seen many more people up close than I have. And we turned to each other after a comment that Trump made and said, that's it. He's finished. He can't possibly go on. And of course he did. And I've had that reaction over and over and over again, and I've been wrong every single time. And what that has told me, is that I don't understand a large portion of the American electorate very well at all. And I've tried to educate myself, but I have no confidence that I've educated myself enough to be able to predict public reactions anymore. And it's easy to be glib and say, well, such and such has already been factored into the public's view of Donald Trump—or it hasn't. Who the hell knows? That's not a rhetorical question. Maybe somebody knows, but I don't.
Mounk: If somebody knows, we don't know who it is, so it's not very much help.
Galston: And we won't be able to tell how it is that they know what they actually do know.
Mounk: The obvious point here is that polling is pretty helpful. Past patterns in polling are pretty helpful when there is a clear precedent. What happens to the popularity of an incumbent president when there's a sudden rise in unemployment in the six months leading up to the elections? We have a lot of past evidentiary base to go on. But there is no past evidentiary polling base on what happens to the popularity of a former president who's just been convicted of a felony crime in a somewhat complicated set of legal circumstances.
Taking a step back a little bit from the electoral consequences, where does this leave the United States and its democratic system? Where does that leave us in terms of our democratic institutions?
Galston: It can't be helpful. We have gone through a long process of delegitimizing our institutions one by one and then collectively. We're now going to go through at least five months, if not more, of Republican vilification of the judicial system—a “kangaroo court,” “witch hunt.” We already know all of the epithets that are going to be hurled. We also know that Mr. Trump and his supporters are very good at homing in on a single punchy message and repeating it over and over and over again until it is widely believed by all of those who are disposed to believe such things. And I don't see how this can be good news for the judiciary in the United States or for our political institutions generally. And on the other hand, trust in institutions has declined so far in recent decades that in many cases it's at rock bottom. The judiciary has been somewhat exempt from this process until recently, but, led by the Supreme Court, public confidence in our judicial system has been declining as well. So will this be transformative? I don't think so, for the simple reason that attitudes towards our political institutions have already been transformed very substantially. This will add to the pressure, but I don't think it will fundamentally change the low trust morass in which we're all mired as a country.
Mounk: Walk us through what will actually happen now. The sentencing has been scheduled for July—
Galston: —July 11th, to be precise, four days before the beginning of the Republican convention, which will be interesting.
Mounk: So there's some question about whether he will be given a custodial sentence or not, but assuming that he would be, presumably the Republican convention is not going to change its mind, and there's very strong rules to stop any delegates from changing their minds in any case. But assuming that Donald Trump is actually given a custodial sentence, what on earth happens next?
Galston: I do not regard it as likely that the sentence will go into effect between now and the presidential election. There will be, and even if a sentence is imposed, there will be an immediate appeal. I don't believe that any judge, including the judge in this case, would impose a sentence that would make it impossible for Donald Trump to campaign for president between now and November. And I think it would be a huge mistake to impose such a sentence because that would simply add fuel to the charge that this is a politically motivated effort to get Mr. Trump out of the way. So I don't take that prospect very seriously. I think a sentence will be imposed. There will be an appeal. The execution of the sentence will be stayed pending the appeal and we'll only know after the election. Now, as most people now know, whatever happens in the other trials, if Mr. Trump does return to the Oval Office, he does not have the constitutional power to pardon himself for state crime, only for federal crimes. And so there is the prospect if he returns to the Oval Office that after the appeals process is exhausted that he could find himself on the receiving end of an executed sentence while he's sitting in the Oval Office, but that's some way down the road.
Mounk: It is down the road and it depends on a number of significant ifs. Already, if Donald Trump becomes president again, we can expect significant chaos. But if Donald Trump becomes president under circumstances in which there is a legally valid sentence handed down against him that requires him to start serving jail in the state of New York while he's sitting in the White House in Washington, DC, and presumably not minded to comply with that order, it would just add another level of chaos to the American democratic system. How would this play out?
Galston: The phrase “uncharted waters” hardly does justice to that hypothetical, Yascha. I don't know how it would play out. I mean, it's interesting to contemplate. One amusing hypothetical that I've heard is that he would receive probation plus an order to perform community service. Now, it would be wonderful to find out what President Trump's understanding of community service would be in those circumstances. The mind reels. He would no doubt argue that deporting 15 million illegal immigrants is the greatest service that anybody on the face of the earth could render to the American Republic. Look—the mind reels.
Mounk: Where do you think we are with the state of the US election? The polls seem to be reasonably close at the moment, perhaps giving Donald Trump a little bit of an edge. Who do you think will win come November?
Galston: The United States for quite some time now has been locked, you know, into a pattern of very close elections at the national level. Not at the state level or the local level necessarily, but at the national level. When you add it all up, it's about even. And it does not appear to me that this election is going to be a deviation from the trend of recent elections. And what that means is that there is no responsible way at this point of forecasting the outcome of the election. And I say that not to duck your question, but because I can think of a dozen events that might occur between now and the first week of November that could alter the balance. I will say that if the election were held tomorrow, I believe Donald Trump would win it. So analytically, the right question is, what can change between now and the first week of November that would improve Biden’s position. And it is, I think, an imponderable whether an actual criminal conviction for Mr. Trump would move the dial sufficiently to achieve that outcome. I've been doing a very close analysis of the seven swing states; as your listeners, I'm sure, know, most of the states have strong majorities for one party or another, leaving a maximum of seven states, three in the Midwest, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, three in the South and border, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and possibly North Carolina, although I'm a skeptic about the Democrats’ chances in North Carolina, and Donald Trump is leading in all but one of those swing states by measurable margins, margins that are sufficient to suggest that he really is in the lead. And those states have different characteristics. The Midwestern states are dense with voters who do not have a four-year college education. They have a distinctive profile that on balance Donald Trump has done very well with.
The issue in Arizona and to some extent in Nevada is immigration. Georgia, I think, is shaping up as more of a straight economics election. I could go on, but suffice it to say that right now the two issues most on the minds of voters, namely the state of the economy and immigration, are issues that cut in favor of Donald Trump. Issues like abortion and the fight for American democracy cut against Donald Trump, but they appear to be lower down on voters' lists of priorities, or at least many of them. And so the terrain of battle is not favorable for Joe Biden. But I can think of many, many things that could change the outcome. And regrettably, even though the election is poised on a knife's edge, the consequences for Europe and the world could be outsized, depending on one or two percent of the vote in the United States. If I were a European, I would be nervous.
Mounk: I'm nervous as a European and as an American, so doubly nervous. Why do you think the election is so close? When you imagine a country in which three consecutive elections are very close-run, with high degrees of polarization, where people who are strong partisans of one party really hate strong partisans of the other party, and each time it comes down to a few thousand votes here or there, what you might imagine is a country with a very clear ethnic, religious or tribal cleavage, right? Catholics on one side and Protestants on the other or Christians on one side, Muslims on the other, or people from one ethnic group on one side and one ethnic group on the other side. And from election to election, the outcome hinges mostly on mobilization, or perhaps who happens to have had a little bit more population growth over the previous four to eight years.
The United States doesn't really fit that. Though there are clear demographic patterns to who votes for Democrats and who votes for Republicans, a huge number of white people vote for the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party; a huge number of non-white people vote for the Republican Party rather than the Democratic Party. And in fact, when you look at some of those demographic cross tabs, there's been significant change from 2016 to the current polls: White people are much more likely now to vote for the Democratic Party than they were in 2016. And non-white people, especially Hispanics but not just Hispanics, are much more likely to vote for the Republican Party than they were in 2016.
In the first case, it's easy to know why elections are so close: There's two demographic blocs, they don't shift very easily, and so each time it's just a question of mobilization; if they happen to have a similar population, it’s always going to be close. In the second image, it looks like there's actually a lot of persuasion going on. A lot of people are changing their minds. People who voted for Trump in 2016 are now voting for Biden. People who voted for Hillary in 2016 are now going to vote for Trump. But if that's the case, why are those voter flows so similar in size to each other, that even though the composition of the tribes keeps changing, it so happens that we end up with similarly close-run elections?
Galston: Well, first of all, I think the focus on ethnicity, which made sense in many past elections, is getting less significant now. Or to put it very simply, the issue of class is rising in importance and the issue of ethnicity is declining in importance. And the fundamental marker of class in the United States, but not only in the United States, is education. You have this phenomenon across the industrialized West where the working classes are shifting to the right and educated people are shifting, not sharply to the left, but they feel more comfortable in parties that endorse multi-ethnic diversity and that focus on issues other than bread-and-butter issues. The professional middle classes are not worried about their daily bread, as much as the working class is, and therefore can afford to focus on issues such as abortion, such as climate change, and yes, such as the fate of democracy, as they understand that fate.
It is a fluid picture, as it's not all Hispanics that are shifting in the direction of the Republican party. It's principally working-class Hispanics with less than a college education. And similarly, in the early 1990s, Republicans commanded the vote of whites with a college education. Now, it's the Democrats who do. And during that period, Bill Clinton ran just about even among working-class voters with the two Republicans he faced. And now Donald Trump commands them by a two-to-one margin. So, yes, the elections have remained close because it happens that in this fluid picture, about as many college-educated people have shifted towards the Democrats as working-class people have shifted towards the Republicans. And until that symmetrical shift is upended by demographics of one sort or another, or unless one party or another figures out how to appeal across class lines (which has become more and more difficult in American politics) I think our elections will continue to be close.
Mounk: Let's dive a little bit into this question of what Thomas Piketty has called the Brahmanization of the left, the fact that the left used to be the organized political force mostly of working-class people, of poorer people, of less educated people, and not just in the United States, but in most European countries as well. It has now become the political force of the highly educated. That is a remarkable transformation. And I guess I wonder how that happened and whether it's your fault, Bill.
Galston: I know where you're going.
Mounk: Because you are a critic of these developments. I think you're one of the voices that rightly lambasts the Democratic Party for the ways in which they are giving up on the working class. But you were, of course, one of the intellectual progenitors of the Third Way and of Bill Clinton's ascent in the United States. You were an important advisor to Bill Clinton. And I've put a similar version of this question before to people like Tony Blair and David Miliband in this podcast, so you’re in good company. But I wonder whether Bill Clinton in the United States and New Labour in Britain sort of free-rode on the unthinking working-class commitment to the left in a certain generation of people. That was probably the right way to build majorities for doing things that I think broadly were right in the 1990s and early 2000s, but ended up in ways that nobody foresaw and perhaps could foresee at that time being part of that key transition, right?
One way of describing the electoral strategy of Bill Clinton, of Tony Blair, is to say, look, we already have a lot of working-class voters, we need to do better among the middle class. And we're going to do better among the middle class through a mixture of economic moderation, social liberalization (relative to some of the laws and customs that were on the books then) certainly sort of fighting with a particular kind of conservative vision of what society should be like, but without any kind of cultural radicalism. That succeeded in attracting the middle classes to those political parties, but perhaps it succeeded too well, because those parties, or those classes, then came to dominate, certainly in the party apparatus. And, slowly, as the kind of sociological backing for the left link with the working class gave away, as unions declined, as the kinds of economic battles of the post-war era declined, those people became alienated. They no longer saw the Democrats or Labour as the only party fighting for their economic interests and because they increasingly thought that the cultural mores of those middle and upper middle class voters that were now in the left column were very different from how they see the world and what they preferred. Is that a fair picture?
Galston: Well, first of all, I can't answer for Tony Blair or David Miliband, both of whom I respect very much as leaders, but I can answer for myself. And I'll begin where everyone who charges me with these political crimes begins. And that is with the famous New Democratic Manifesto that I published in 1989 with my co-author, Elaine Kamarck. And far from an argument for abandoning the working classes, even by implication, it was an argument for reconnecting with them. The background was the election of 1988, where the middle fell out for Michael Dukakis and the Democrats. The Democrats at that point scored well with upper income professionals and with downtrodden minority groups, but very poorly in the middle. And our argument is that we needed to reconnect with the interests and values, as we put it, of people struggling to get into the middle class and people struggling to stay in the middle class.
Far from a move towards cultural progressivism, we recommended a move towards cultural moderation. And if you look at the signature social policies of the Clinton administration, they involve first of all an anti-crime bill, which is now being denounced by the left as a source of mass incarceration, etc. (I think that charge is also false, but let's leave that aside for now.) And secondly was welfare reform, which redeemed the promise that Bill Clinton made during his campaign to end welfare as we now know it. And as a result, I think of those two measures plus an economy that was working for everyone—if you go back and take a look at the statistics, working-class incomes, the incomes of African Americans and Hispanics were expanding as rapidly as professional and upper-class incomes during that period, you will find that Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 with a substantially larger margin than he got in 1992, and that he left office with a 66% approval rating, which is astronomical by current standards. The record will also show that Bill Clinton, for a Democrat, did very well with working-class voters, especially in his re-election campaign. I should also say that the hegira of working-class voters from the Democratic Party started in the late 1960s, because working-class voters were outraged in particular by the counterculture and by the apparent lack of patriotism of the Vietnam protesters. And so Nixon did well with working-class voters in 1968, and he did extraordinarily well with working-class voters against McGovern in 1972. So the New Democratic Party, as Elaine and I understood it, represented a concerted effort to get back in touch with working-class and lower middle-class voters, and, if I may say so, a reasonably successful one. I guess my argument is that the real shifts began early in the 21st century, rather than at the end of the 20th. And part of that had to do with the rise of the environmental movement, which Al Gore represented and which many working-class voters saw as a threat to their livelihoods (with some justification, by the way) and then exacerbated by shifts in the direction of cultural progressivism that occurred in the second decade of the 21st century, generating the situation that we now find ourselves in.
Let me complexify this one more time. We all, across party lines, made a huge mistake right at the beginning of the 21st century when we allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization on concessional terms. That was a united project of the leaders of both political parties, and it was a catastrophe. In the first decade of the 21st century, the United States lost 5.3 million manufacturing jobs, about a third of its manufacturing base, 30% to be precise. And that set in motion a chain of events that led us to where we now are.
Mounk: So that's an interesting way of shifting the story a little bit about where it comes from. I'm reflecting on whether there's subtle differences in the British trajectory and the American trajectory. It probably was true in Britain as well that in the 1980s when the Labour Party had its years in the wilderness, it probably did well among certain sections of upper-class professionals as well as retaining a sort of traditional loyalty among mining communities and other kinds of working-class constituencies. I wonder whether the nature of the shift in appeal to the middle class was parallel to what you're saying or not. Certainly, one of the famous lines from New Labour's campaign, for example, is, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
So this certainly wasn't the Brahmin left of today. It wasn't faculty lounge politics, as James Carville would say. But perhaps there's something less direct here, where the problem is not the particular policies that either New Labour or the Democrats pursued, but the sort of sociological shift in milieu that resulted from it: Suddenly, it was the dominant party at universities in the way it hadn't been in the past. And then when universities subsequently shifted in the 2000s and 2010s in terms of what was expected of somebody to believe, or to profess to believe in order to be in good standing, that is what did the damage.
The question I have, though, goes a little bit beyond that, which is what would the Democrats or parties in Europe and elsewhere have to do to recapture the working class and the poor voters who are not now voting for these parties, but also the kind of aspirational middle class?
Galston: I don't have a simple answer to your question, but I do have a suggestion as to where to begin. Two points. Number one, I think people who are accustomed, and I mean this analytically, to a kind of quasi-Marxist framework for analysis, namely that the economy is the base and the rest is superstructure, I think are going to have to adjust to the fact that we now live in an era in which cultural issues may be as basic as economic issues are in determining political behavior. Now let me get specific. I cannot think of an issue that has been more harmful to the left than its inability to get its arms around the immigration issue in the United States and Europe, opening the door for huge political gains on the right. And so recommendation number one would be to converge (as Europe finally, as I understand it, is beginning to) on an answer to that question. In that respect, I think Europe is now ahead of the United States, where we are still clashing. And you have advocates on the left who see the issue principally in humanitarian terms. You have advocates on the right who see it principally in cultural terms. And then you have people in the middle who are viewing it, I think, as principally an economic issue, who have the better side of the argument but who cannot get together across party lines to forge the kind of comprehensive and balanced agreements that are necessary.
Having said that, if you'll permit me, since I'm now an old man, another dive into history, the United States in the first two decades of the 21st century had numerous opportunities to enact the kind of legislation that we desperately needed now or then in 2006, 2007, and then again most fatefully in 2013, where a famous bipartisan gang of eight in the Senate of the United States put together a comprehensive immigration reform that passed the Senate with 68 votes—68 votes. And then it got to the House of Representatives. It commanded a clear majority in the House. But because it did not command a majority among the Republican caucus, which was then the majority, the Speaker of the house, John Boehner, in an act that I'm afraid will or should be on his tombstone, refused to bring the bill to the floor of the House because he would thought he would lose the support of his own party caucus. And with that refusal went, unfortunately, the last serious effort to ward off the now virtually unlimited, all-weapons-allowed debate over immigration that has disfigured American politics and continues to. Immigration was the most important issue in Donald Trump's 2016 campaign according to the best political analysts I know. It was the issue that pushed him over the top. And it could be the issue that pushes him over the top eight years later, the forthcoming election. So that would be a start on the cultural front. And I actually think that, you know, that the Democratic Party in the United States under Joe Biden has begun to rebalance its economic strategy. It's more comfortable with government intervention into the economy than, say, Bill Clinton was (it’s also more necessary, I would say). It is more comfortable with trade restrictions, with looking at trade on a bilateral as well as a multilateral basis, more comfortable with tariffs, etc.
In other words, there has been a shift towards economic nationalism, which has narrowed the gap between the two major parties in the United States, interestingly enough, which is one reason why a lot of bipartisan economic legislation actually passed in the first two years of the Biden administration. Because he was no longer making a neoliberal argument.
Mounk: Do you think that we will get to a genuine political realignment sometime after Joe Biden and Donald Trump are off the stage? And what would that realignment look like? Or rather, what are the different kinds of scenarios for it? Perhaps Democrats move somewhat to the left on the economy, certainly become more comfortable with a bigger government role in the economy, become more active in making sure that working people actually profit from economic activity and economic growth, but in which they are clearly moderate on cultural terms. And we haven't hit the particulars in a lot of detail here beyond immigration, but I imagine that part of that would be to divorce themselves from the cultural politics of the highly-educated American elite and the form of identity politics that has now become de rigueur within it. I think that opening is absolutely there and that a Democrat who stands for that in a clear and unabashed way would do very well.
The question is whether there is a potential for realignment on the other end, whether the attempts by some Republican candidates, office holders, and intellectuals to turn themselves into a kind of multiracial working-class party can succeed. Now, obviously, those obstacles are also very large, including the fact that there is a part of a Republican base that doesn't want to be part of a working-class multiracial coalition. And there certainly are big differences in economic interest and cultural outlook between many of the traditional Republican voters and the ones that those elements within the party want to expand to. But it seems to me that these are the two kinds of obvious ways in which realignment might happen. You can sort of when you squint very hard see a path towards either one, but there also seem to be significant structural obstacles in both cases such that we could continue sort of bumbling through the slightly incoherent form of politics we currently have in which the incompetence of one party in terms of its electoral strategy is masked by the incompetence of the other political party in terms of its electoral strategy. And so nobody has to course correct because two parties that are going off course are somehow in equilibrium.
Do you think we're going to get an electoral alignment? If so, when might that happen? And in particular, which form would it most likely take?
Galston: I don't know whether we're going to get a political realignment in the classic sense. What I do know is that suppressed arguments are going to break out in both political parties after the conclusion of this election. Why do I think that? Simple. Unless one candidate or another chooses to disregard the Constitution, whichever one takes power in January of 2025 will be limited to a single term. Joe Biden could not succeed himself. Donald Trump could not succeed himself. And both, to put it bluntly, are or will be octogenarians. There will be a long suppressed debate in the Democratic Party, which Joe Biden had succeeded in muting with his unity strategy, which was pursued very intentionally from the moment he got the nomination in the late spring of 2020. That unity strategy masks a host of ongoing disagreements within the party, which I think will burst out into the open. And similarly, If Donald Trump takes power, he will do his best to suppress the debate in the Republican Party about his policies. But I can tell you this for sure: The ambitions of the young will be an effective counter to the dominance of the old. And Donald Trump may want to restrain debate, but particularly after the first two years in his administration, ambitious younger people will be making arguments of their own about the way forward—a fortiori, as we academics say. If Donald Trump loses for the second consecutive time, there will be a really fundamental debate within the Republican Party about the path that he has led them down, because many Republicans are hungry for a party that can not only win close elections, but also can build governing majorities, which right now, neither party has and they both know it. They both want it. And so it's an unstable situation. Neither political party is satisfied with the share of support in the electorate that it now has, and for good and sufficient reason. So both are strongly motivated to open up the debates that have been suppressed. I do not think, to come to particulars, that the Republicans are going to abandon the more nationalist, culturally conservative, working class-friendly approach that they are now taking because they are not convinced that the possible gains from that strategy have yet been fully realized, and with good reason.
If they are really serious, as you put it, about building a multi-ethnic working class party, they still have a long way to go. The progress with Hispanics has been measurable but limited up to this point, and with African Americans, virtually nonexistent. So there are votes to be harvested in that path if they can make it consistent, but they face the kind of obstacle that you pointed out. I do think, by the way, that the shift among Democrats that you talked about, somewhat to the pro-government left on economic policy, but the working class, middle class center on cultural issues, does represent the path of the future. Biden has executed one of those two strategies, but not, regrettably, the others. As a matter of fact, he's allowed himself to become the pawn, I think, of the cultural left more often than has been good for him. He stood up on defund the police, and I think it helped him win the 2020 election, or to put it more simply, I think if he'd gone along with that, he would have lost the 2020 election. But on other issues, particularly immigration, he has found himself unable to resolve or unwilling to resolve the debate within the party.
Mounk: I would love to speak to you about what I know you're working on, a new book which is about the role of the darker emotions in politics. Why is it that we need to take seriously emotions like nationalism, for example, in order to understand the political imagination and in order to channel them into a positive form of politics, in order to ensure that it isn't the generally dangerous and scary political forces that end up with a monopoly on them? How did you come to think about this project? Why is it that our inability to understand and grapple with these kinds of emotions is such an obstacle to a more successful democratic politics?
Galston: This is not the first time that a political crisis has stimulated new thinking. As a matter of fact, I think that most new thinking in political philosophy arises out of a sense of crisis. And I gradually arrived at the view that what I'll call liberal naïveté about human nature was contributing to our inability to understand the threat to liberal democracy that was being mounted in Europe clearly, but elsewhere around the world and certainly in the United States. That we are constantly blindsided, we liberal Democrats, when emotions and patterns such as anger, hatred, humiliation, resentment, fear of various kinds, and what St. Augustine called the libido dominante, the urge to dominate others, comes to the fore in politics. We tend to believe that certain things that were central to the past will not be part of our future, that history in that sense is linear and progressive, and it leads away from the dark passions toward the rule of reason. This has been a dream, I would say, since the Enlightenment. But I think a more defensible form of liberal democratic thinking and practice takes a very different premise as a point of departure. Namely, that these things are always going to be present as possibilities.
Our job as defenders of liberal democracy is to understand what turns these possibilities into actualities, and then do our best to make sure that the circumstances that lead to the eruption and even the reign of the dark passions do not come into being. Let me give you an example. I speak to you as a former German appealing to your own history. At the end of World War I, there were different paths that the victorious allies could have taken. And one path, call it the path of magnanimity, would have been to say that World War I was a catastrophe to which all contributed in some measure. That yes, there was a losing side, but the most important task was for the concord of Europe to be reestablished on a solid basis. There were people making that argument.
But the Treaty of Versailles was anything but that. It was a punitive peace. And leading thinkers such as John Maynard Keynes criticized it as that. And they said that no good would come of this peace, and no good did come of that peace. Why? Well, Hitler played on the sense of national humiliation that the Treaty of Versailles had generated among Germans. Humiliation and resentment are closely tied, and resentment is one of the most powerful dark passions that unscrupulous but ambitious politicians can mobilize. So it is really, really important that when looking at the consequences of political action, the implications for the sentiments of those who feel that they're on the losing side for one reason or another are taken into account, not when they erupt into a crisis of rejection, but well before that.
And so every time I hear a liberal politician say that so and so is on the wrong side of history, I reach for my pen, because that is to say that history has a side. History has a direction. You know, some things that happened in the past are unthinkable for the present or the future. So of course, I mean, the massacre of Srebrenica was unthinkable in the heart of Europe—until it happened, right? And there were many people who could not bring themselves to believe that Vladimir Putin would break the rules of Europe that had been established after World War II, but he did. Why? Because, I would argue, of accumulating resentments—and whether or not they could have been warded off by different policies is a very difficult question. Accumulated resentments and humiliation at the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia becoming less than what it was in the days of the Soviet Union. And when Barack Obama dismissed Russia as a “regional power,” Vladimir Putin heard those words and he said, no, we aren't. We have been more than that and we will be more than that again. We will get back what we lost. And if you look at human history, these cycles are noticeable. I'm not saying that human history is simply cyclical (I'm not a fan of Polybius) or circular (I'm not a fan of the Platonic doctrine of the circularity of human history, either). But I am saying that it is not linear. It is anything but that. History doesn't end. History has no side. And it doesn't end, it has no side, because something fundamental does not change, and that is us. And if we inspect ourselves honestly, we will see that some of these dark passions, this sense of resentment, we can all feel in certain situations where we think we've received less than our due, where some people have taken advantage of the situation, taken advantage of us, et cetera. In small but telling ways, we can find these seeds in ourselves, and we have to ask ourselves, if we were in less fortunate situations than we are, how would we feel, how would we act? Would we be vulnerable to these sorts of appeals to the dark passions that politicians throughout history have always been adept at?
Mounk: What are the implications for the practice of statesmanship? If you're thinking about how you build a polity and sustain a polity that doesn't fall prey to those dark passions, but that is deeply aware of the power that they hold over big parts of the population and potentially, depending on the circumstances, over all of us. What does that mean for how you steer the ship of state? And how is it that a failure of reckoning with the dark passions, the naïve belief that those passions are of the past and in the more enlightened present most people have grown beyond them and we no longer have to deal with them, has led us astray and perhaps helped to understand, helped to explain why it is that so many democracies are in trouble today.
Galston: Let us begin by taking a page from the findings of behavioral economics to the effect that the pleasure of gain is exceeded by the pain of loss. When you lose something that you had, the sentiments that the loss arouses are extremely powerful and leave you open to the claims of those who say you've lost something that was rightfully yours and, with my leadership, you will get it back.
Statesmanship in these circumstances requires sensitivity to the sense of loss that large sections of a population may feel for one reason or another. And so, wise statesmen will do their best to minimize the concentration of losses. So let me give you an example that I've already mentioned. At the end of the 1990s, we had more than 18 million manufacturing jobs. Ten years later, we had a little bit more than 12 million manufacturing jobs. How did we think the people who experienced those losses, and more to the point, the communities that experienced those losses, how did we think they were gonna feel? I have to say, looking back at the decade when that happened, it is remarkable how little discussion there was of this historic change in the American economy, which happened by historical standards in the twinkling of an eye. Did we think that the people who lost those jobs were simply going to take their losses and go work at Walmart for half the previous salaries? We should have known better.
We had committed ourselves really across party lines to a course of action that made that outcome almost inevitable. It was one of the great historic mistakes of American statecraft. And I know exactly why it happened because I was there. And that is the 1990s convinced us that globalization could be made to work for all the classes in the society because it was working for all of the classes in society. And we assumed that that was a permanent phenomenon. The wind was in our sails: We could get all the efficiency gains, all the price gains from globalization, and at the same time, proceed with an economy that all were benefiting from, as they did in the 1990s. And then something big changed. That ended, and we reaped what we sowed, a bitter crop of resentment that turned out to be eminently mobilizable.
So lesson number one for statesmanship, as you consider your policies: Try to imagine the possibility of concentrated losses creating resentments and backlash and tailor them accordingly. There is no way that any policy in a large democracy can make all of the people or all the groups happy all of the time, but a certain awareness of the balance of gains and losses among different parts of the society is required. And if people get the sense that they simply don't matter, they're not visible, they're not being heard, their interests are not being taken into account, the likelihood that the dark passions will be mobilizable by unscrupulous leaders rises astronomically.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by Brendan Ruberry and Jack Shields.
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google
X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
Yascha Mounk and Daryl Davis discuss his lifetime of convincing Ku Klux Klan members to renounce racism.Daryl Davis is an American R&B and blues musician, author and social activist. Davis estimates he has been the direct or indirect cause for over 200 conversions from the Klan. He is also a member of the Board of Advisors for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Daryl Davis discuss how a childhood experience with racism inspired him to interview and befriend members of the Ku Klux Klan; the importance of remaining “pro-human” even in the face of hatred and bigotry; and whether his faith in humanity feels out of tune with the current political moment.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Nellie Bowles discuss her career at The New York Times and reporting on the ground from urban “autonomous zones” in 2020.Nellie Bowles is a writer and reporter and the head of strategy at The Free Press, where she writes the TGIF column. Her book is Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Nellie Bowles discuss how she came to chafe against the institutional culture of The New York Times and why she left; how new power hierarchies arose within media and institutions where small groups came to wield outsized power; and how the transformative ideas about power and society that became dominant in 2020 continue to hold great influence.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Helen Joyce discuss the evidence base for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in young people.Helen Joyce is an Irish journalist and the Director of Advocacy at Sex Matters. She is the author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Helen Joyce discuss the findings of an independent review by Hilary Cass of gender identity services for children and young people in the United Kingdom; how government and public health institutions in the UK have come to take a more skeptical view of gender-affirming care for young people than in the US; and the need for a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to trans issues which considers the rights and safety of all individuals involved.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Helen Joyce is an Irish journalist and the Director of Advocacy at Sex Matters. She is the author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Helen Joyce discuss the findings of an independent review by Hilary Cass of gender identity services for children and young people in the United Kingdom; how government and public health institutions in the UK have come to take a more skeptical view of gender-affirming care for young people than in the US; and the need for a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to trans issues which considers the rights and safety of all individuals involved.
The transcript and conversation have been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Yascha Mounk: You're one of the big voices in the debate about trans issues around the world and particularly in the United Kingdom. The UK has undergone a real change in where institutional thinking is on some issues relating to trans rights, particularly when it comes to youth gender transitions.
Tell us a little bit about the Hilary Cass report, which made big headlines around the world (strangely, not as much in some mainstream American news outlets) and which really seems set to change the consensus view shared by both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom about the appropriate approach to youth gender medicine.
Helen Joyce: Hilary Cass is a very eminent pediatrician. She was a former president of the Royal Society of Pediatrics. and she was asked about four years ago by the government to look specifically at National Health Service treatment, and specifically for children in England and Wales. That's basically one clinic, the clinic called GIDS (Gender Identity Development Services) at the Tavistock Clinic in London, because that's the one specialist service for the whole of England and Wales that looks at under-18s. And there have been worries about that service for years now. I mean, it's shocking to hear this, but the first whistleblower from that service was in 2004, a psychiatric nurse who was shocked to see 16-year-olds being given hormones after just four appointments after what she thought was a terribly superficial discussion beforehand and very little explanation of what the long-term permanent outcomes would be.
There've been a series of whistleblowers, there was a court case with Keira Bell. Concern mounted that this was not a proper NHS facility held to the same standards as other sorts of healthcare, and in particular healthcare for children. And the government commissioned Hilary Cass to do a review.
Mounk: And Keira Bell for those who don't know her is somebody who transitioned from a biological female to a male gender identity when she was a teenager.
Joyce: That's right. She was at GIDS, but she actually aged out. So she was actually seen by the adult services, but she very quickly went on to testosterone and had a double mastectomy and then quite quickly regretted it. And Americans misunderstand what Keira's case was about—it wasn't an attempt to get compensation. She wasn't suing the clinic. She took a judicial review, which is a mechanism whereby you can challenge a legal authority, a public legal authority, which you say has not lived up to proper standards.
Mounk: And Persuasion was the first to publish her first-person account of her transition and why she came to regret it and how it showed some of the shortcomings in this service.
Joyce: Yes, that was great that you did that, because you did that very early. So then the interim report came out about two years ago, in fact from the Cass Review, and already it was clear that it was going to be quite critical overall. Those of us who are worried about the way that gender medicine proceeds, especially in pediatric clinics, were hoping that she would give further credence to the arguments we've been making for years that this is not really medicine; children are being subjected to an uncontrolled experiment on the basis of shoddy or no evidence.
Mounk: Tell us a little bit more about those medical concerns because I understand the prima facie case for why you might want to have gender transition early on, right? If people are severely gender dysphoric, if they feel deeply uncomfortable in their body and don't just wish to live as the other gender, but wish to pass as the other gender, then intervening early on makes a huge difference, right? So I can see the kind of initial case for why we should want people, even at a relatively young age, to have access to some of those treatments. The problem, of course, is that those treatments then come with severe medical risks, including some foreseeable consequences like infertility in many of those cases.
Why is it that if you're actually concerned for the wellbeing of these troubled young people, you have reason to be skeptical about these youth gender transitions?
Joyce: It's really interesting to hear you describe the rationale because the thing is the rationale has changed entirely at least twice in the period that they've been doing it. So the very first people who did it were in Amsterdam, a Dutch clinic, and their rationale wasn't anything like you described. What they believed was that there were such things as transsexual children and that they could identify them. They didn't have any claim that they were giving a pause or anything like that. They thought they had found children who inevitably or nearly inevitably would continue to identify as members of the opposite sex and they exclusively considered passing as their sole outcome. It's quite shocking when you read and listen to those people talking now, very clearly thinking that these children were in such dire straits that nothing could be done for them, like everything that happened to them in the way of sterility, shame about their genitals (because you can't give people functioning genitals of the opposite sex) and their inability to form relationships and so on, all of that was just accepted that these are the sort of people who can't have that. The sole consideration was whether they would pass.
And then the rationale changed to being about a pause button. They said give people time to think, give them time between when they're 11 or 12 and puberty is likely to start, and 16, when they could consent to something more extreme or permanent. But the thing is that what makes gender distress resolve is that period between 12 and 16, it is learning to understand yourself as a sexual adult being and so on. And those two things are contradictory: They don't need time to think if you've identified the right people. If you haven't identified the right people, then you really need to be sure that people will desist during that period, then, if they're not the right ones.
But the thing is, almost nobody desists; if you take puberty blockers, you're 98% likely, is the best evidence we have, to go on to cross-sex hormones. So when you choose puberty blockers, you are choosing cross-sex hormones and those have permanent impact.
To the extent that people say puberty blockers are a pause button, that's just false, almost nobody stops on them. These are a very major intervention in a child's development at a very critical point. There are two major developmental sprints in life, and one of them is toddlerhood, and the other one is puberty. And toddlerhood turns you from being someone who's entirely dependent to someone who can grow and learn, and puberty turns you into an adult. And a million, trillion things happen during puberty to your brain and your body. We all know this. Anyone who's had children has seen it happen. I have two sons and they're both adults now. It looks like a fast-forward of a tree growing. The child gets up and they're an inch taller. It's amazing. And everything changes in your brain as well.
It sounds like it's a little tweak to stop and delay puberty, but it's actually a huge shutdown, overnight, of an entire endocrinological system. It's like putting somebody into menopause overnight. You would only do that if the thing on the other side of the scales was really big. And that I'm afraid to say is why American cheerleaders for youth gender transition talk about suicide so much. They say that if you don't give children these things they will inevitably or nearly inevitably kill themselves. Hilary Cass says not only is there no evidence of that, it's not true. Puberty blockers are not a treatment for child suicidality. They do not reduce child suicide. The rate of child suicide among children who are severely gender distressed is higher than among the average child. It's still extremely low, and it's about the same as those with other children who are not gender distressed, who have the same mental health conditions, because children with gender distress do have a lot of mental health conditions.
Mounk: I want to come back to each of these points because I think they're both very important. First, as I understand you, you're saying there's two separate kinds of arguments against puberty blockers, the first being that people who take puberty blockers then nearly always go on to take cross gender hormones and some percentage of those people may regret doing that. That's obviously a very strong argument. And there's a broader objection here, which is that even if people don't come to regret changing gender in that kind of way, there's still a question about whether it is acceptable to interfere in the process of puberty to such an extent. And whether, of course, 12 to 14-year-olds are able to consent to all of the kinds of consequences that has. Here it feels like we're much more in the realm of trade-offs, where I am very concerned about the kind of medical consequences that these treatments may have. I'm also very conscious of the fact that we don't really know yet fully what kind of consequences they have, because, for example, when you have a loss of bone density, which appears to be the case, that may not be a huge problem when you're 25 or 30, but it may come to be a giant problem once you're 60 or 70. And we simply haven't been making these kinds of interventions long enough to know to what extent that is going to be a problem. But of course, I do also see what's on the other side here, which is to say that if somebody strongly feels that they want to live as the other gender, and they do want to pass, that is a compelling interest. And it's just harder to think about how to balance those things.
I understand this doesn't exist at the moment, perhaps it'll never exist, but let's imagine we figure out the protocol that just solves the detransition problem—no false positives, no false negatives. How do you think the balance of trade-offs ends up falling on the rest of those cases?
Joyce: Yeah, great question. So we're just imagining that we've identified the right kids and we accept that puberty blockers have potentially very negative consequences. I mean, if you go on puberty blockers at the beginning of puberty, straight on to cross-sex hormones, you will not just be infertile, you will be sterile. There will be no fertility to protect or to preserve. You will be inorgasmic, probably, and you will probably not understand your own sexuality therefore.
These are enormous things, the sorts of things that get called major human rights abuses when you look back at them in history. You would not do these things lightly. I think fundamentally those are unethical things to even offer to a 10 or 11-year-old because I don't think a 10 or 11-year-old can understand them, even if they say they can. And we saw this play out in fact in Keira Bell's initial hearing. It turned out the clinic had given puberty blockers to three 10-year-old girls, natal girls, and all three had not done anything that you could call counseling on the consequences, in particular the consequences for fertility. And so when asked why, speaking for the endocrinologist, the lawyer said something that is a grotesque fantasy, which is that if those girls wanted to have babies when they were older that were their own, physically, they could come off the puberty blockers around 14 for six months and go through a couple of cycles of egg harvesting once their ovaries had developed a bit, and that then they could freeze those eggs and they could use them in the future. And every part of that is sheer nonsense.
The idea that a 10-year-old could understand what is involved in that—I've actually done IVF three times, both my children are IVF, so I've gone through egg collection. This is not something you could explain to a 10-year-old. It's hard to accept as an adult. The second thing is, who the hell is to carry these babies? If you take testosterone as a female person, your reproductive system is going to go through changes that require you to have your womb removed quite quickly. Testosterone is very bad for the uterus and for the vagina—it thins the skin, it causes bleeding, it causes a lot of pain. So you are putting yourself on a path to hysterectomy at age 10. And children of 10 don't typically know whether they want children and they say silly things like, I'll just adopt. They don't know what adoption is like. We considered that when we were trying to have children. It's very hard and it's not about you, it's about the child.
So this entire thing is a fantasy, every bit of it, and they didn't tell those children any of that. But anyway, you can't. How can you explain to a 10-year-old you're never going to have an orgasm? It would be a totally inappropriate conversation. So I think fundamentally, even if you were identifying the right children, you would simply not be able to get informed consent at that age. And then the last thing I'd say is, why the rush on passing, especially for girls? It's true that a boy who goes through male puberty is going to struggle to pass as a female testosterone does very major things to the body. But women who take testosterone as adults have a much easier time passing as men because they grow facial hair, if they've got the genes for balding they go bald, they build up muscle, their voice breaks. All of these, by the way, are the reasons why it's very hard to detransition for a woman, much harder than it is for a man. So why? Why the rush?
The only thing that really happens that you're going to have to have a medical intervention to change is that your breasts grow and I just don't see that that's something that you can weigh up against—you know, you're going to lose your reproductive organs. It's a major operation to have a hysterectomy, even when it's being done to save your life. It's not easy. My mother had it in her fifties and she took a year to recover. This is not ethical. It's not an ethical thing to offer a 10-year-old and they will not understand it.
Mounk: Let's circle back for a moment to the point about suicide. So you're right, this has become an increasingly large portion of the rhetoric, certainly in the United States.
We had a piece in Persuasion about Nex Benedict, a teenager in Oklahoma who committed suicide. And this is widely ascribed, including by the president (at least implicitly), to them being transgender and perhaps being bullied for it. The actual facts of the case seem much more complicated than that. This is obviously a very understandable concern, especially if you're a parent to children who are gender dysphoric: The idea that they might be at this highly elevated risk of suicide understandably scares people deeply.
Why is it that this talking point in your view is erroneous? What is the evidence that this is simply a mistaken way of thinking both about the actual risk that these gender dysphoric young people are at of suicide and how best to counteract that risk?
Joyce: I don't know about the States, but certainly in the UK, any death of an under 18, an unexpected death, like whether that's a murder or a suicide or a car accident or whatever, is automatically added to a particular record and investigated. So we actually have pretty much perfect figures on suicides of under-18s. And Hilary Cass looked at them and it is simply not true. It is just not true that there is a very elevated risk among the children who are, you know, seen by gender clinics or whatever. Obviously there are lots of kids who identify as trans but no doctor ever finds out about that. They socially transition and they haven't even been to their family doctor, it's quite common now, especially if you include non-binary. But there just aren't a lot of child suicides, thankfully. So it's never been plausible, as the number of kids who identify as trans has increased, has rocketed, has multiplied by thousands of percent, that this is a serious driver of suicide, because the figures just don't add up.
It's very, very important not to talk about it like that as well. What the suicide charities and helplines say is never attribute suicide to a single motivation, because it never is one. It never is one thing. And it's called the Werther Effect: You say, oh, people who have these characteristics are suicidal and they kill themselves this way, and suddenly everybody's doing that thing. So you don't describe suicide methods, you don't describe characteristics, you don't suggest that the world would be better off without them or any of those things. And here we are doing all of that.
But the other thing to remember is that these children typically have comorbidities. They have other conditions. One of my colleagues at Sex Matters, where I work, Michael Biggs, who's on the board, has done an interesting study looking at the children on the waiting list for Tavistock because it's quite long. And compared with the average children for their own age, they do have a little bit of an elevated risk. But if you look at what we know about those children being Autistic Spectrum Disorder, being same-sex attracted (that's you know one of the more obvious ones increasing suicide risk, as it happens, being same-sex attracted) it all disappears. So I think they do it because you need to have a motivation for doing what people instinctively understand to be a very major intervention in a child's life.
The only reason that you would risk a child's brain development, bone development, consign them to sterility, make sure that they won't have a happy sex life, would be that they're going to die otherwise.
Mounk: And one of the things that I do find striking in general in this current moment is a tendency to catastrophize about the world in pursuit of social justice. We see that in other kinds of areas as well. And I get the instinct behind that, which is, the more we talk about it, the more people will understand the genuine forms of discrimination and injustice that exist and then it'll motivate people to go and fight against them. But I can't help notice how blithely we often risk instilling genuine fears in people and perhaps even leading to genuinely bad consequences in the process of that: If you tell people that every time they step out into the street they're at risk because people hate them so much, that will very understandably lead a lot of people to grow to be deeply anxious about their interactions with the world in a way that has very, very negative consequences for them. And if the risk of suicidality is not what these activists claim, the people advancing that point should really think about how much fear they are instilling in parents and in children in a way that presumably does genuine harm to them.
Joyce: I think I'm more cynical than you. I don't think your description of their motivation is correct. I think it's moral blackmail. I think in all these cases, it's people saying “My cause is so important that you must accept all of it as a full package, 100%. And if you speak against it, you're a bad person.” And that requires really inflated rhetoric. The outcomes have to be catastrophic.
And they really lose credibility by doing this because hardly anything is like this. But you are so right about the negative consequences for the kids. It's something that's really, really upsetting me at the moment because, rightly, the consequence of the Cass Review has been basically a halt on any new prescriptions of puberty blockers for under-18s—actually in Scotland as well, even though they have a separate regime and a separate clinic. Scottish puberty is not different from English puberty, shall we say.
This is not an ethical treatment, that's what we said, we should not be doing it. But think of the kids who've been sold it as the thing that's going to save their lives. There are kids on waiting lists, thousands of them, who have fixated (understandably enough, because of the narrative) on this thing as the thing that is literally going to save their lives, and now they're being told that this awful demon, Hilary Cass, doesn't want them to have it.
Mounk: So as I understand it in the United Kingdom now, both the government and the soon to be government (which is to say, the Labour Party, if the polls are to be believed) have accepted the main findings of the Cass report. So this means that there's been a real change in the public discourse in the United Kingdom and in what the main political forces promise to do. And we've seen similar transitions in a number of other European countries, including in some of the Scandinavian countries. Here's something that I find very interesting about the developments in the United Kingdom, which is that you now have what appears to me from the outside to be a relatively broad political and institutional consensus that has really transformed over the course of the last five or ten years. The government has accepted the main findings of the review but so has the government in waiting.
And of course when you look at the institutional position of the Democratic Party, it is now light years away from where the British Labour Party lies. Why is that?
Joyce: This issue has become part of the Democratic package on one whole set of issues and part of the Republican package in the exact reverse. So if you are a typical woman in the UK who feels strongly that there has been overreach in the trans campaign and that you think that gender medicine has really lost its way, you're actually typically left-wing, you call yourself a feminist, you're active in the Labour Party. The women who have been leading all of this are left-wing women here. And then those women are not saying to get rid of abortion, or to go back to traditional gender roles. They're saying the opposite. They're saying women can be whoever they want to be, men can be whoever they want to be. Don't let your biology hold you back.
Mounk: Indeed, and just as a side note, one very weird part of the discourse among certain transgender activists in the last years has been this strange resurrection of very restrictive gender norms, where people are told, if you're a girl, but you like playing sports, then perhaps you're really kind of male. And if you're a boy, but you like playing with dolls, then perhaps really you're a girl, which is the most simplistic version of that argument, but one that is quite widespread.
Joyce: Yes, and it's the only one that you can give to children. So I can imagine that an adult would mean something very hard, possibly impossible, to express by saying, “I've always felt I was really a woman,” or “I've always felt I was really a man.” I mean, the best evidence that I found when I was writing my book dates from a review paper around 2000 that looked at the development of gender distress and concluded that gender nonconformity came first and gender distress only developed if gender nonconformity was stigmatized—so a little boy who was shamed by his dad for being a sissy is somebody who's at risk of one day looking around him and saying “I really wish I was a girl. I was meant to be a girl, why am I this way?”
In countries where people who were enormously atypical for their sex are able to fit into a sort of a third gender role that is not stigmatized, they tend to do that and they typically don't feel any distress about it: so the Faʻafafine in Samoa (the words mean “in the manner of a woman”) are men who dress as women, but they don't take any sort of hormonal or surgical interventions and they aren't called women. They don't find this distressing. They don't find their sexed body distressing. They just regard themselves as not typical men. So gender distress is something that we create by stigmatizing extreme gender dysphoria or extreme gender nonconformity, in most occasions.
Mounk: So broadly speaking, I think it’s true in the United States that people are very sympathetic to those who struggle with gender identity. They certainly think that it's a free country and part of it being a free country means dress as you like, present yourself as you like, and by and large, though it’s perhaps a little bit more controversial, people feel that if you have a preference to be addressed in a particular kind of way, they will often choose to indulge that. But when it comes to questions like sports, when it comes to women's shelters or prisons, that is where the resistance to the more extreme reaches of trans activism comes in very strongly.
What do you think would be a more healthy movement for trans rights? Which is to say that when you speak to people like Andrew Sullivan or Jonathan Rauch—who were really among the first to argue for same-sex marriage—for example, they described that they first had to win a fight within their own movement to turn that into a universalist struggle. Those people within the gay rights movement said, “I don't want to get married. That's a bourgeois, hetero institution. We want a revolutionized society.” And people like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch had to win those debates internally, to say, no, there's something positive about the special recognition that a lifelong bond between two people gets from the state and society. The way we're gonna win this is to say our love is like yours, why are we being excluded from this?
I think one of the things that's gone wrong within this debate is that the anti-universalist, more extreme side has won within the trans rights movement, which I think is connected to a broader set of changes in our culture and the receptivity to those kinds of universalist causes. But there is surely a core of a trans movement which is legitimate. I mean, certainly when I think about the kind of mockery of trans people that was very mainstream 15 or 20 years ago, fighting against that and fighting for greater recognition of the struggles and difficulties that people with gender dysphoria face is genuinely an important cause. The problem with it is not that they haven’t identified an injustice that they're fighting against; the problem is that that cause has been captured by an extreme position that is anti-universalist in key respects and therefore both makes genuine mistakes about how society should be organized and also becomes incapable of actually capitalizing on the genuine sympathy that by now most people in these opinion polls and in these focus groups actually have for trans people. Which is the reason why people get negatively polarized: They say: “Well, hang on a second, if accepting trans people means that I'm supposed to also accept A, B, C, D and E propositions, well then I'm not so sure about the original premise.”
What would, according to you, a more philosophically liberal, universalist trans movement look like?
Joyce: I think it would look like something that the people who lead what is currently called the trans movement aren't looking for, is the problem. So you can have consequentialist theories about why gay marriage is a bad idea if you want. You can say… that's just not what marriage is, it's about children or something like that if you want. It's pretty hard to argue that a same-sex couple marrying has large and measurable and direct consequences that are unavoidable for other people. Like you have to make arguments about the whole of society or something like that if you want to make an argument that it's harming other people.
Mounk: I acknowledge that there's obviously some areas where there's just a genuine decision to be made and the choices seem relatively stark—either you allow a biological male who's transitioned to a female gender identity to compete in women's sports or you don't. But there may be a way of having some form of gender self-ID without those consequences. So I saw with mild concern that the German government recently passed a gender self-ID law. And I thought, for the reasons that you outlined in the British case, that would short-circuit an important debate and potentially set the country down the wrong path. But when I looked into it—and I haven't looked into it closely enough to be fully confident in what I'm saying—my best understanding of the law is that this refers, for example, to how you are described in your passport, to the way in which the government will address you, and other kinds of things. But the law also explicitly says that women's shelters, for example, are entitled to make their own decisions about who to admit. And so that is simply decentralized and each women's shelter in its own right can make a decision about whom they count as a woman. And so this to me seems at first blush like a reasonable compromise.
Does that seem to you like the outline of a reasonable way of running society?
Joyce: It's basically what we have here in the UK in that we have a Gender Recognition Act that dates from 2004 and it changes your legal sex for some but not all purposes. And the purposes are ones to do with the government. It's, for example, what it would say on your marriage cert. And it was explicitly said at the time in the debate in parliament that it didn't have an impact on individuals, people stood up and said, well, what about the wife of the man who transitions? Is she meant to pretend that she married a woman? Well, no, of course it doesn't override history and individuals can have their own freedom of speech and conscience and so on—sadly, it hasn't actually played out like that. The practice went a long way away from the law and a woman who says, “That's fine, the government says that you're a woman in some circumstances, but I don't,” will find that she faces consequences. People don't think these things through. The reason why we bother to say M&F on passports and on driving licenses is that the person who's most likely to steal your passport from you and use it is the other adult who lives with you.
If there are people who are really very uncomfortable with the fact that they are being identified as male or female, I'm fine with accommodating them. It's the same as thinking about a space where there are people who are Orthodox Jewish or who need consideration for halal food, or how you think about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions—there are people who need accommodation, is the right way to think about it. We just have to think it through. What are all the situations? What are all the needs? Where are the rights in all these situations? Thinking about it like a religion is the best way to think about it: This person has a set of beliefs about themselves and possibly about the world, and we will accommodate it maximally because we are a pluralistic, secular society. But we are not going to require everybody to buy into a belief system that they don't hold and we're not going to impose costs on other people that they haven't accepted and that are outsized.
Please listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by Brendan Ruberry and Jack Shields.
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google
X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
Greg Lukianoff is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the co-author, with Jonathan Haidt, of The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Lukianoff is also co-author of the forthcoming The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All—But There Is a Solution. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Greg Lukianoff discuss the state of free speech culture on America’s campuses and in society more broadly; FIRE’s progress litigating against coercive legislation in Florida and elsewhere; and the need to foster cultural habits that uphold individual expression.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sohrab Ahmari is a writer, commentator, and the founding editor of Compact. He is the author of Tyranny, Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty–and What to Do About It.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sohrab Ahmari discuss the threat corporate power poses to individual freedom in the United States; whether liberalism has gone too far in prioritizing individual autonomy over the common good; and why they disagree about whether attempting to move beyond liberalism would make things better or worse.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
John Carey is Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and is a co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a research group which monitors threats to American democracy. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and John Carey discuss whether recent publications casting doubt on the extent of democratic erosion have any merit; why many Americans believe the charges against former President Trump to be politically motivated; and why, no matter the outcome, indicting a former president may trigger a cycle of retaliatory prosecutions.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Susan Neiman is an American philosopher and writer. She is the Director of the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, Germany, and the author of Left is Not Woke. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Susan Neiman discuss how liberals can uphold their universal values while maintaining a politics of empathy and compassion; how the left’s tendency to discount the progress of the past inhibits progress for the future; and whether Germany can serve as a model for how America, and other nations, should deal with the dark aspects of their own history.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Colin Woodard is an American journalist. He is the author of American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Colin Woodard discuss the ideals of America’s settlers and why they remain influential many years later; how the tension between individual freedom and concern for the public good has shaped America’s regional divides; and whether a shared national narrative can help to unify our divided groups.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Peter Arcidiacono is an economist at Duke University and an expert on affirmative action. Arcidiacono served as an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) in SFFA v. Harvard.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Peter Arcidiacono discuss the role that racial preferences have played in the admissions processes of elite American universities in recent decades; the workarounds that universities are likely to use in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision; and why real progress for less privileged students will require fundamental changes that look beyond the admissions practices of a few elite universities.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michael Walzer is an eminent political philosopher and the author of numerous books, including Just and Unjust Wars and Spheres of Justice. He is professor emeritus at the Institute of Advanced Study, has taught at Harvard University, and is editor emeritus of the magazine Dissent. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Michael Walzer discuss why, though he is a democratic socialist, he believes that there are certain acceptable forms of inequality; what forms of injustice true egalitarians should focus on fighting; and the threats to liberalism from the post-liberal right and the illiberal left.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tim Mak is a writer, reporter, and founder of the online publication The Counteroffensive. He was formerly the Washington Investigative Correspondent for National Public Radio.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Tim Mak discuss the slow progress of Ukraine’s counteroffensive and how a big breakthrough might come about; how the collective experience of resisting Russian aggression has contributed to a shared sense of Ukrainian national identity; and what the future may hold for a post-war Ukraine.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michael Lind is a writer and professor of the practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the co-founder of the think tank New America and the author of The New Class War: Saving Democracy From the Managerial Elite and, most recently, Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages is Destroying America. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Michael Lind discuss whether one’s stances towards free trade, taxation, and workers’ rights are still a reliable predictor of voters’ broader political identity; why Lind, though he supports many economically progressive policies, is often classed as a conservative; and whether efforts to rebuild labor power and reinvigorate national industrial policy will succeed in improving the economy for ordinary people.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder are writers and professors of history at Carleton College. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk, Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder discuss the predominance of certain progressive orthodoxies on college campuses; why opponents of left wing censoriousness should also resist illiberalism in education from the right; and how we can stand up for philosophically liberal, humanistic values without becoming bitter, reactionary, or uncivil.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tomiwa Owolade is a writer and author of the forthcoming book This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Tomiwa Owolade discuss how some popular forms of anti-racist thinking can obscure which groups are struggling most; how Labour MP Diane Abbott’s response to an article of Owolade’s in The Guardian led to the Labour MP’s formal censure by her party; and what Americans can learn from Britain on issues of race (and Britons from America).
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Frans de Waal is a Dutch-American primatologist and the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University. He is the author of, among other books, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes and Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Frans de Waal discuss how primate empathy forms the basis for human morality; the precedent for diversity in human gender and gender roles that exists in non-human primates; and why, despite attempts to separate human behavior from human biology, you can’t have one without the other.
The views expressed are those of the speakers, not those of Persuasion. The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Yascha Mounk: Why should we study primates to understand human society and human behavior? What is it that we can understand about ourselves by studying these cognate species?
Frans de Waal: We are primates. We are so close to some primates like chimpanzees and bonobos that there are even people who feel they need to be in the same genus, Homo. They're very closely related. Socially and emotionally we are basically the same as the other primates. I don't think there's a huge difference in our emotional or social life, how we strive for success and how we value social relationships and so on. Cognitively, there's just maybe a bit of a difference—some people exaggerate it and make it a huge difference. I think the differences are not so great. Yes, we have language for example. I consider that an important difference. But, overall, we are primates. Looking at the other primates, we learn a little bit about primate psychology, which is also our psychology. It places our psychology more in an evolutionary context than we're used to. I think that's fairly valuable.
The most common mistaken assumption is that if you look at the other primates, you see instinct. If I say for example that there's political behavior in chimpanzees, people say, “Oh, that means it's instinctive.” They think that in the other primates you see instinct, and if you look at humans, you see culture—more culture than biology. That's a big mistake. Because if you look at the other primates, you also see culture. For example, a chimpanzee becomes an adult when they're 16. They have a very slow development and they learn a lot before they are adults. We know that there's a lot of cultural habits that they have. If you look at the other primates, you also see culture, and if you look at humans, you also see a lot of biology. I think that's the biggest mistake, that people think that in animals things must be simple and instinctive. Nothing is simple, especially not in the great apes.
Mounk: Tell us a little bit about those cultural differences. If I were skeptical of this point, and you'd want to illustrate it, what are the kinds of cultural differences you get between one group of chimpanzees and a different group of chimpanzees living elsewhere?
de Waal: The most basic one is that they cannot survive without the culture. Take for example captive chimpanzees (or captive monkeys, for that matter). If you release them in the forest, they will die. They will die because they don't know what to eat. They don't know what dangers to avoid. They don't know how to orient themselves. They're just hopeless and helpless. Culture is absolutely essential for their survival; there are a lot of things that they eat that they learned from each other. Cracking nuts is a good example; there are chimpanzees who have nuts and stones in the forest and don't do anything with them and other chimpanzee groups where they have stones and nuts and they crack the nut with stones. They have a lot of extra food that way, because nuts are a very valuable food source. That's one cultural difference. There are tons of them documented in all sorts of species—not just the primates, but also in whales—and, of course, birdsong is cultural. People assume that what you see in nature is biology but it is also often cultural.
There are fashions, for example. That's well documented. Sometimes a chimpanzee group develops a fashion. For example, there was one group where the females put grass in their ears and walked around the whole day with grass in their ears. Pretty soon all of them started doing it—females more than males (females always do more self-ornamentation than the males do). You do have groups that are more peaceful or more aggressive than other groups, social differences like that, but not in terms of the customs like who you have sex with.
Mounk: Do we have a model for what causes one group to be more peaceful?
de Waal: There's an observation by Robert Sapolsky. One of his baboon troops lost the most aggressive males due to poisoning at a garbage dump. All of a sudden, the most aggressive males were gone and the group became much more peaceful. That's understandable. There's no big mystery of how that may happen. But, then, the group kept the peace for the next 10 years even though there were males coming in and males going out (which is typical of baboon troops). His speculation was that the fact that they kept it going for 10 years is because the females were selective in what kind of males they admitted to the group. The females had decided that a more peaceful group was pleasant and was something that they wanted. It was not a genetic difference but it was maybe selectiveness of the females in this particular case.
Mounk: One thing that people like to think through when we look at non-human primates is how they reflect on our own nature—in particular, whether we're biologically hardwired to be moral or to be selfish.
What are some of the wrong assumptions that people make about what we can learn about morality and human nature from studying non-human primates and what do you think the actual lesson is?
de Waal: I got interested in the evolution of morality because I worked on empathy in primates. The first studies of empathy were mostly about what you would call reactions to the distress of others: you see a child crying, you console them and you help them if necessary. That's an act of empathy. Chimpanzees and bonobos do exactly the same thing. If one of them has lost a fight, or has fallen out of a tree, or whatever it is that distresses them, others come over and embrace and kiss them and try to calm them down. So I got interested in acts of empathy, and very soon I discovered that, for many people, empathy is very close to morality. For the Dalai Lama, of course, compassion is all you need. You don't need much else for morality than compassion. Morality is probably more than that. But empathy is a very important feature. Without empathy, you cannot be a moral being because empathy is what draws you into others. How can you be a moral being if you're not interested in others? I got interested in the evolution of morality and noticed that there's a lot of top-down theory in the evolution of morality. It's like Kant—the idea that there is a rational decision to be a moral being, that we reasoned ourselves towards moral principles. I don't believe a word of that. I'm much more Humean; David Hume assumed that the moral emotions, what he called the moral sentiments, are the basis of human morality. I think that's exactly the case and it is built on a primate morality and a primate empathy—primate psychology, basically. Human morality is not some sort of invention that is independent of biology. I do think it goes beyond what chimps or bonobos do, it's more complex than what they do, but it's clearly related to what they do.
Mounk: The existence of empathy seems like a good piece of news. But at the same time you also see the continuity of fights and other small forms of war.
How reassured are you by the existence of empathy in these non-human primates and how does empathy interplay with aggression, status-seeking, dominance and all the other kinds of moral passions that humans also seem to share with primates?
de Waal: When humans are nice to each other we are probably nicer and more altruistic than any primate. When we're nasty to each other, we are worse than any primate. We have genocides, which is not something that other primates do. We have these extremes in our psychology. You cannot say that humans are, by definition, nice or nasty. We alternate between the two depending on the circumstances and depending on what we're being told by the politicians and so on.
We have extremes, but you see the same thing in chimpanzees and bonobos. Bonobos are generally nicer than chimps, less violent. Actually, we don't know of one bonobo killing another bonobo. We know of plenty of that in chimpanzees, both in the field and in captivity. All these species, they have that same spectrum. It’s not as wide maybe, but they have that same spectrum. They can be extremely aggressive under certain circumstances and they can also be extremely nice. I would not simplify these things. I can understand why some people would want to be more like a bonobo than like a chimpanzee. There are also sexual reasons for that, of course, but it’s the same sort of spectrum you see in all species.
Mounk: What determines when we are empathetic and when we're aggressive? And is there something we can learn from that about how to set up cultures, societies, and political structures in ways that will encourage cooperation and niceness rather than conflict and aggression?
de Waal: Empathy is very biased; it is aroused more by individuals who are familiar and similar. In humans, that means individuals of your same tribe, so to speak—your culture, language, color, and so on. We do empathy studies on all sorts of animals nowadays and they always have this social bias built in, which means it's hard to generate empathy for individuals who are quite different from you, who are distant, who are a different ethnic group or speak a different language. That becomes more difficult for you. Empathy is a bit narrower, and that's also why some people have objected to it as the basis of morality. But the fact that we have it is really important. And once you have empathy, the capacity for it, you can try to mentally expand it. We humans are busy doing that in our moral systems. I always use the example of the Geneva Conventions—that you treat your enemies well. Well, I don't think any primate would come up with the Geneva Conventions, because it goes against that narrowness of empathy, that we try to expand the rules for in our human moral systems. That's a cognitive capacity that we have and that’s why we try to do things like that.
Mounk: Influenced a little bit by the work of primatologists like you and social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt (an old friend of the podcast), I have written my own work about the groupishness of human beings; how we are capable of extreme altruism and courage in helping and defending those we think of as members of our own group but also that there is this extreme cruelty with which we can treat members of the out-group. What is the evidence from your field of study about how easy it is to move those lines of empathy?
de Waal: What is different about humans is that it's the scale of our societies. So we have societies of millions of people. In the primates, the group is the individuals that you know—that you live with and that you know. There are no anonymous individuals that you consider part of your group. So it's very limited—usually 100 individuals maximum. That's your group. You're nasty to the other group, but you're nice to your own group. That's a general rule in other animals too. An interesting thing once happened with a group of chimpanzees in Africa that were studied by Jane Goodall, and she describes that process where they were one group but they split. These are individuals who have grown up together, played together, and know each other extremely well. But the group split, and they became enemies. A couple of years later, they started killing each other. All of a sudden, these individuals who knew each other started to redefine the other as a member of the other group. That's a possibility in the chimpanzee, that you kill members of another group even though you know them individually and you've lived together with them.
But it's all on a much smaller scale than in human society because we have markers for group membership: the way you dress, the way you talk. We have markers that you don't see in any other primates. The scale of our enterprise is very different in human society and so the intergroup processes are not exactly the same, but it's the same rules. You treat members of your own group very differently from members of the other group.
Mounk: Bonobos are sometimes held out to be the lovely species, the more peaceable and so on. Does the distinction between in-group and out-group work exactly the same way with just a little less severe consequences, or is the whole idea of bonobos as particularly peaceable sort of wrong to begin with?
de Waal: One interesting thing with bonobos is that the groups sometimes mingle. In chimpanzees, that's not a possibility. Chimpanzees have different degrees of hostility between the groups but never friendship or good relationships. In bonobos, the females are in charge. The females are dominant over the males, not individually but collectively. If the females decide that they want to meet other females of other groups, they're going to do that. The males may not be entirely happy with that and the males actually show some signs of territoriality. The females mingle with each other and share food sometimes and even adopt offspring of other females in other groups. It's interesting for us, as humans. If we contemplate our evolutionary history, people always focus on the chimpanzee. Anthropologists especially are very happy with the chimpanzee. They are male-dominated, they're violent, they have intergroup warfare going on—yes, anthropology is very happy with them, because anthropologists’ scenarios of human evolution are often based on humans being warriors, which is very male-oriented, and so the bonobo is often pushed to the side. The bonobo is too peaceful and too sexy for the taste of some anthropologists. I think the bonobo needs to be brought into every discussion. My last book is on the gender discussion. Bonobos need to be brought in. They are exactly equally close to us as the chimpanzee, but they have a very different sort of social organization and a very different kind of behavior. The bonobos show us that peaceful intergroup relationships are also possible. There is a tendency in anthropology to emphasize that humans stand out because we cooperate between groups. That's very special, they say. But, actually, that's something that the bonobos do too.
Mounk: What can we learn about the nature of the role of biological sex and the nature of the construct of gender in humans by looking at the behavior of non-human primates?
de Waal: One is that in the other primates, too, you can speak of gender, in the sense that they learn certain aspects of their sexualities from each other. The young males watch the adult males and the young females watch the adult females and they follow their example. There is also a cultural transmission of how you behave as a male and how you behave as a female. In that sense, I think gender is a concept that can be applied to other species as well.
Mounk: Is there variation in those kinds of gender roles between groups? Is it true that one colony of bonobos with a kind of expected gender role of what standard of behavior you should live up to is significantly different from the standard in a different colony?
de Waal: I don't think we have solid evidence for that, but you would expect it because we do know that there is biased learning going on. For example, a recent study of orangutans in the forest showed that young females eat exactly the same foods as the moms, exactly the same diet. But young males vary. They sometimes eat foods that the mother never touches. That's because their models are the adult males that they see eating on occasion. We do have evidence that there is biased learning going on.
Another thing that we learned about gender, and people don't always expect this, is that I think there is as much gender diversity in other primates as in humans. Homosexual behavior, of course, is very common in the primates. I usually call bonobos “bisexual” because I don't think they make a big distinction between whether they have sex with a male or female. In other species you see less but still quite a bit of homosexual behavior. You see individuals who don't fit the typical roles. You see males who don't play the macho game and don't want to be the dominant male, necessarily, and stay out of all the politics going on. I describe in my book a female named Donna, a chimpanzee who was born as a female but who acted more like a male the older she got. Then she grew into a figure which looked like a male and she associated a lot with the males. I cannot ask her her gender identity but I bet she was identifying as a male. That's how it looked to me. All the gender diversity that we have in human society, transgender people and homosexual orientation and so on, we can see in the other primates. The interesting part is that they have no trouble with it. I've never noticed that they exclude an individual because of this. The tolerance level is a lot higher than in most human societies. But the variation is very similar.
Mounk: An extreme reading of what you just said would imply that, therefore, human notions of biological sex are overly simplistic and that we should get rid of the idea of a biological sex binary, because everything is gender all the way down. But I take it that that's not what you're saying. What conclusions should we draw from these really interesting observations that you just made?
de Waal: I think sex is mostly binary: 99% of individuals are either male or female and there's a small slice of individuals who are in between. Gender is, of course, a very different way of thinking. Gender is a cultural construct. I usually divide it not by male and female but by masculine and feminine and everything in between. It's an extremely variable concept. And as I said, it's probably applicable to other primates as well, though maybe less well than in humans. But in humans it is very important to distinguish those two.
There are sex differences that are universal, differences that we see in all human societies and in all primate societies. It's very hard to argue with some sort of biological background. For example, all young males, all primates (including human boys) like to wrestle when they're young; they do mock fighting, they run around, try to wrestle each other down. In the young primates this is a very big bias; the males like to do that and the females don't like to do that, necessarily. That's why the females often play separately from the males. In all human societies this has been documented. Another thing that's universal in play behavior is that in all primate societies and all human societies, young females are more interested in infants and dolls. If you give a doll to a group of chimps, it's always a female who's going to pick it up and care for it. If a male picks it up, he may take it apart and look inside the doll to see what's in there. But the females will put it on their belly, on their back, walk around with it and care for it. They do the same thing with the infants of other females. The interest of young females in infancy is also a universal human bias, primate bias, and it's fairly logical, because later in life, for most of their life, they will care for offspring.
People want to choose between biology and culture. And that's why you get these discussions with some people who say gender is all cultural. There is nothing that is all cultural. That doesn't exist. Because what is culture? Culture is us influencing each other and we are biological organisms, biological organisms influencing other biological organisms—automatically, biology is in there. There is no pure culture. It doesn't exist. There is no pure biology either. That doesn't exist. And that's why, in biology, we don't speak about instincts anymore in animals, because everything an animal does is influenced by how it grew up and what it learned in its lifetime, and so on. And so there is no pure biology either. So people want to choose between the two. And it's a false sense of security that they have that they can do that, but you cannot do that. And so everything we do is influenced by two factors, the environment and our genes, and by the interaction between the two. And I think that's one of the lessons you get if you look at the behavior of other primates and humans: that nothing is simple. People think that if you look at the other primates, you see biology, I don't think that's the case, you see also a lot of cultural learning there.
Mounk: How should we think about gender in a way that is true to the science and that can help us make sense of our own societies as well as those of non-human primates?
de Waal: Gender has to do with how you express your sexuality, your sex role, and how much you follow or don't follow the dictates of your culture. Gender, of course, changes over time and from place to place. At the moment, we're going through a big change in gender in that men are getting much more involved in family care and in being involved in the family. That's a flexibility that actually I see also in the other primates. For example, chimpanzees and bonobo males, they don't do anything with the young. The females do everything. The males may protect them on occasion but that's about all they do. But we know that if a mother loses her life in the forest, and all of a sudden there is an orphan, we know that sometimes males pick up these orphans and carry them. They adopt them and not just for a couple of days. High-ranking males like an alpha male may adopt a baby chimp and take care of it for five years. It's not always expressed, but they have that tendency and that capacity.
That's very interesting in relation to what is happening in human society at the moment where men are getting more involved in childcare. The conservative pundits on TV say, “Why should we care about paternal leave? It's a female job to take care of the offspring.” Look at the other animals. It's not entirely true. I think that the capacity for caring for the young exists in many males. What we're doing in society now is bringing that out and relying on it.
See also: Richard Reeves on Why Men are Struggling
Mounk: There seems to be a kind of reluctance among many intellectuals to think in terms of evolutionary biology, in part because they don't like to think of humans as being in any way determined by our nature. They want to think, as Steven Pinker and others have shown, that there is a kind of a blank slate; it just feels more progressive and more appealing to say that we're not constrained by our nature in any way. Perhaps also because there are some really bad arguments from evolutionary biology made in the public realm, it's easy to push back against the whole thing.
What do you think the role of evolutionary biology should or shouldn't be in reflecting on the world and on human societies and thinking through who we are and how we act?
de Waal: I think that in the social sciences and in philosophy, the humanities in general, there is still an attitude that I call “neocreationism.” They accept that evolution has occurred for humans. But it has stopped at our head: from the head down, we are evolved primates, but our mind is something totally different. That's an illusion. Evolution, of course, includes everything, including the brain. But they cling to that idea and, of course, it's a traditional position in the West that humans are something special. Initially, this was supported by all sorts of research. In the previous century, the studies of animal behavior were extremely simplistic. They were dominated by B.F. Skinner and his rats who pressed levers and stuff like that. That's all we saw of what they did. It was a very simplistic view of animals and that supported the view that humans were very special. But now we have all these cognitive studies on animals that are really coming up at the moment. That started about 25-30 years ago with these massive studies, and it becomes ever more difficult to maintain that humans are special because basically everything we do we can see some examples of in other species.
We need to free ourselves of this very anthropocentric bias that we have. I call it “anthropodenial” because we who work in animal cognition are always accused of being “anthropomorphic,” of being unduly hasty in our assumptions that primate behavior is humanlike. Anthropodenial is the opposite—you deny the connection with other species and you deny the connection of them with us. It's a very dangerous attitude. The COVID crisis and the climate crisis are both crises of humans overestimating, assuming that we are separate from nature. Humans need to learn that we are part of nature. We are part of biology. We are part of evolution, including our wonderful mind (which is great as it is). That idea that we stand outside and we are different from everything else—that's an old religious idea that we need to drop.
Mounk: That comes from two different directions, right? There's this old religious idea that humans are somehow special: we're these Cartesian dualistic beings who are free to act as we wish in the world without any kind of input from biology. There's also, I think, a real resistance from a more progressive perspective towards explanations that have to do with evolution, where the moment we talk about evolutionary biology (“alpha males” and this and that) that's seen as justifying traditional societies.
You've said that what is sometimes written in newspapers about alpha males just isn't actually what you find in your research on alpha males. Perhaps a better understanding of these phenomena in the natural world would then also make it easier to take seriously those arguments from evolutionary biology, because the resistance against them is based on a caricature of what evolutionary biology actually implies.
de Waal: Alpha males are depicted as bad. I don't think they're that bad. I think three quarters of them are really good leaders. Good alpha males do much more than act as the boss of the group: they keep the peace, they keep the group together, they show a lot of empathy for others, they can become extremely popular and loved by the group because they are good leaders. In the business world they have all these books about “how to be an alpha male” and what they really mean is “how to be a bully,” “how to let everyone know that you are the boss.” That's not really what I consider the typical alpha male in primate society.
The tendency of people has been to shove the bad side of human nature into biology. The good side of human nature is something that we do, we call it our “humane” behavior. But peacemaking, empathy, paternal care, and maternal care—all of these things are also biology. Maybe your leftist friends are saying that they don't like evolutionary biology because it usually reminds them of all the negative things that we humans do. But evolutionary biology is also involved in all the positive things that we do. You cannot get around it. We have a tendency to depict nature as a place of competition where only bad things happen, but that's really not the nature that I know. We are reducing nature by saying that.
Mounk: You have spent a lot of your scientific career working very closely with non-human primates. Tell us a little bit about the personal side of what it is like working with these animals.
de Waal: I've worked all my life in large zoos and at the primate center here where we have an outdoor facility. But of course, as someone who works in captivity, I'm very close to the primates. I know them all by name and I work with them every day. Most of it is observation of their social life. But sometimes we bring them into a room and we do a certain cognitive test on them and for all of that I need their cooperation. I need a good relationship with them. Otherwise, there's no point in trying these things. Some of them are friends. Some of them I've known for 25 years or longer. I described in one of my books Mama, who was the alpha female of the Arnhem zoo colony for 40 years. A very important figure. I've known her for 40 years. Each time I would come there, which is maybe once a year or so, she would recognize me and I would recognize her and we would talk together, so to speak. Some of them are friends and, clearly, are very close to me. When they die, like Mama died a couple of years ago, that's also a very difficult moment. You lose a friend, basically.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by John T. Williams and Brendan Ruberry. Podcast cover image by Joe O’Shea.
Connect with us!
Spotify | Apple | Google
Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
Vincent Lloyd is a Professor and Director of Africana Studies at Villanova University. His latest book is Black Dignity: The Struggle against Domination.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Vincent Lloyd discuss how his summer school seminar on black history was derailed by the language of “harm”; how well-intentioned efforts at contemplating past and present injustice can devolve into dogma and bullying; and how we might more effectively work to bring about racial justice.
The views expressed are those of the speakers, not those of Persuasion. The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Mounk: Your name came to my attention because three different people sent me an article that you wrote. I've since looked into your work, which is very interesting.
Tell me about this experience you had of teaching at the Telluride summer school, which is a very prestigious program for high school students to spend a summer studying texts and living together. It has many famous alumni, including many graduates of this podcast like Frank Fukuyama. It has a kind of hallowed place in the American academic imagination.
You taught once before I believe, which went well. When you returned last summer, it went a little bit less well. Tell us the story of who you are and what happened.
Vincent Lloyd: In 2014, and last year in 2022, I co-taught a course called “Race and the Limits of Law in America” with an Indigenous Studies scholar and lawyer. We were interested in revisiting the topics that we talked about several years before in the light of Black Lives Matter and resurgent indigenous protest and transformations in the American political climate. It seemed like, in 2014, our challenge was to take students who vaguely cared about social justice and to deepen their understanding of the history of race in America and of the various theoretical frameworks that they could use for thinking about immigration, indigeneity, anti-blackness and other forms of racism.
In 2014, all of the students came from diverse ideological perspectives: some self-identified as Republicans or conservative, some liberal, and others were just figuring out what it meant to have a political identity. But all, in some way, cared about justice and were primed to dig deeper. They were excited about the intellectual challenge of reading difficult texts, carefully wrestling with ideas, and having complicated conversations that would evolve over time, which was what my experience in seminars was like as an undergraduate and which excited me about teaching in this program: to be able to have the time and space to reach extraordinarily talented young people, and dig deep with them into hugely important questions and transform their lives—or at least have the potential to transform their lives, as I think the Telluride program has has done for many of its alumni. That sounded really promising. And some of the emails I've received in recent days have been from dozens of Telluride alumni recounting how their summer seminar was a transformative experience for them.
These are 16 year olds, so their views were not particularly deeply held, even when they expressed political identifications. They were trying to figure out how to be around each other, live away from their parents, and govern themselves. Part of the Telluride ethos is a commitment to democracy—participants govern their community for the six weeks that they're together over the summer.
Mounk: I wasn't aware of that element of the Telluride program until reading your essay and I have a kind of personal connection to it, because one of the first people who ran a model like that was Janusz Korczak, a Polish educator who ran an orphanage in Poland in the 1930s and early 1940s, and actually chose to go to his death with his kids in the gas chambers, though he was given a chance to escape.
My grandfather worked for a few years at the orphanage as a sort of young progressive educator, so this idea of self-government of kids is something to which I have a sort of strange personal connection, and it's a very noble ideal, but, as we'll see, it doesn't necessarily always go as planned.
Lloyd: No, and there are always some failures, right? Every time this program runs, things go wrong in various ways, and people learn from it for the next time. There's a kind of responsiveness both institutionally and in the lives of the individuals who are a part of that experiment.
In 2022, I came in with similar expectations—that there would be extraordinarily talented students, which there were, and that they would be somewhat awkward in trying to figure out how to live together, which they were. But this time Telluride had changed the structure of the program so that the students would take the seminar I was teaching in the morning and then they would take these anti-racism workshops in the afternoon. These workshops were much more in the spirit of communicating the politics that one ought to have, statements that one ought to believe, basically, to be a good person. And all the content of those anti-racism workshops was content that I agree with. It was what I wanted to push the students toward in the seminar; that we need to take anti-black racism seriously, that the afterlives of slavery persist into the present, that we need to take intersectional lenses to how we're understanding forms of racial violence and harm. All of these sorts of things strike me as right. And in my academic life, these are things that I try to develop and write about as well. But they were being communicated to the students in this format of the afternoon anti-racism workshop in a way that was basically dogmatic: “These are things that one has to believe. These are the prerequisites to participation in this democratic community.”
Mounk: What is it that made them dogmatic and how is it these workshops ultimately helped to set up this social pressure cooker which ended up going very badly wrong?
Lloyd: I was only in the house in the morning when I was teaching the seminar. Students reported things that were happening in the afternoon workshops, as did the teaching assistants who were leading the workshops and who were in charge of the high school students for the 21 hours a day that they were not in my seminar. My sense was that there was both an issue in pedagogy and in culture.
To give an example of the culture, there was a practice of snapping when one agrees, that was fostered in these workshops, and then that entered into our seminar space. But the effect of that was to limit students saying things that were controversial or even experimental. No one would snap after something that was controversial or experimental was said, and then someone else would say something that was very much in line with what the workshop leader was trying to do to advance a piece of dogma, and everyone would snap, and so it would discourage further experimentation. Another example that's somewhere between culture and substance: we heard that it was communicated to the students that one needs to respect and to defer to those who've had personal experiences of discrimination and harm done to them and done to their families. Again, this seems like a reasonable thing. I try to think about this too—how we can give epistemic privilege to and take wisdom from those who are marginalized and face harm in various ways. And, yet, I think that should be a conversation starter rather than a conversation stopper. Right, when someone says, ‘From my experience of these harms, this is what I'm thinking now,” that should open up a dialogue about these systems of harm, their histories, the cultures around them and how we can address them, rather than shutting down conversation.
Mounk: I've been thinking a lot about what's often called standpoint epistemology or standpoint theory; that how we experience the world depends in some crucial ways on who we are, and so that requires us to have some amount of empathy for our fellow citizens and to realize that when they're telling us something that makes us uncomfortable or that might seem wrong or isn't in line with our own experiences, we should take the time to actually listen to them and to have an open mind. Perhaps they have a piece of information here that I don't have, and if I care about living in a just society, I should take that seriously.
Well, those assumptions really don't hold up in the philosophical sense, as there's a whole set of assumptions you have to make about all of the members of a certain group having a certain set of experiences, and while you may never be able to experience exactly what it feels like, you may well be able to communicate the things that are politically relevant. I think it's a really weak basis for political solidarity.
Lloyd: If I could just add a little bit here, I think you're nicely naming these issues, but I think they're even more complicated. As human beings, we're never going to fully understand each other. And there is some gap that will always remain between what we can appreciate, even when we listen really, really carefully, and the experiences of others. That gap is about our humanity and the cultural formations that we've had. Appreciating that tragic sensibility—that we're never going to fully understand, even as we're trying—requires some humility, right? We're going to try and fail, and then we have to adjust what we're trying to do. And it's not just about the pieces of information that we might not be getting, but it might even be about our own habits and our own styles of reasoning that have been shaped by the people we've been around, the cultures that we've been formed in, that block us from encountering information or experiences unlike ours.
Again, while this all seems right to me, it’s very tricky to navigate. And in the seminar, after this new culture of deferral to experiences of discrimination and other new cultures (developed in the wake of Black Lives Matter and other political protests that have been doing hugely important work to shed light on instances of injustice), the students were resistant to ask critical questions about texts if those texts were seen to be expressing the experiences of the author. If it's Angela Davis talking about her experience in prison, we couldn't ask critical questions about that. If it's Christina Sharpe, a Black Studies theorist, describing how the afterlives of slavery affect her family, we couldn't ask critical questions about that. At least, when we tried to encourage that in the seminar space, there was a bloc of students who said that they were being harmed by the open discussion.
Mounk: And so when did you start feeling this creeping into your seminar, when you were having what you thought was a constructive, fruitful discussion about a text, but then, suddenly, members of the seminar were saying “That's harmful. We can't have that”?
Lloyd: The seminar was supposed to start on a Monday, and the day before we were told that we would have to postpone the start a day because there's going to be an all-day anti-racism workshop, instead. Which gave us a sense of the priorities of the organization; that the anti-racism workshops have primacy over the college-level seminar the students are there for. The first week was on indigeneity and Native American genocide and related questions. At the end of the first week, one of these teaching assistants, a college-age student, said some of the black students are feeling harmed because we spent a whole week talking about Native American genocide and there wasn't any discussion of anti-blackness, which suggests that there was already in the first week some resistance to deep discussion and intellectual development.
I was frustrated, but, on the other hand, I can appreciate that students who came to a summer experience wanting to think about questions of justice and wanting to explore their own identity are impatient. When you're 16, you're impatient. That makes sense. And I think part of the frustration on my part was that the Telluride Association didn't seem like it had communicated to the students what a college-level seminar is—something that unfolds over time, unfolds slowly, will be frustrating and will not give you everything you want on the first day or the first week; or even the sense that there are norms to the college seminar, and they're there for a reason: to deepen your intellectual life and to allow you to pursue justice with a sharper orientation and with better tools. I think that could have been communicated to the students much better.
We read some of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed with the students to talk about different models of learning and why there is a form of empowerment that comes about, particularly for those from marginalized backgrounds, in this problem solving-based, seminar-style form of learning. We tried to give little snippets of theory to explain why the seminar mattered, and I tried to share experiences from my own college days where I was frustrated in seminars. I felt like I didn't know how to intervene. I felt like students who were coming in from these fancy private boarding schools knew how to talk in slick sorts of ways and were saying things that I, coming from a big public high school in the Midwest and being a black 18-year-old, could barely keep track of. And then, as time passed, I figured out that this format, this style of engagement, was one that could allow me to realize that I myself have knowledge. I can contribute knowledge in this space. My voice is just as important as those of my fellow students. I could flourish in this sort of space.
Mounk: How did who spoke change and how did the atmosphere of the seminar, despite your best efforts, deteriorate?
Lloyd: In the first week, there was this ordinary distribution of students across races and genders. In their contributions to the seminar, as the weeks went on, the white students were increasingly silent, to the point where they were effectively totally silent unless we prompted them directly. A couple of the Asian American students were still relatively active. And the black students became much more vocal, which was good to see. The black students had important things to contribute and had experiences that other students didn't have that were enriching the conversation. And, yet, it would have been a much richer conversation if everyone's ideas and experiences could be bumping up against everyone else's ideas and experiences—and the visions of intellectual life and justice that would emerge would be all the deeper if that free flow of ideas could have persisted.
There began to be more and more of these sorts of incidents where I or my co-instructor would say something and then students would report being harmed. One of the exercises we did was one that's very common in college and law school, that’s having a mock court where you divide students into groups, some are lawyers on one side of the case and some are lawyers on another side of the case. We were basically arguing Supreme Court cases, one around immigration and one around mass incarceration. And after doing this, the students reported that some of them were harmed by this exercise, because they had to argue for a side that they didn't agree with, a side that they thought was unjust. I have to say, I'm not wholly unsympathetic to this. I would not have asked the students to re-argue Dred Scott, a case that is deeply violent and representative of white supremacy in the US. But the students were perceiving this format of the mock court as one that's inherently harmful.
Mounk: They tell you, “You're harming us.” How do you respond?
Lloyd: The language of harm seems like it is soliciting apology. It seems as if it's saying, “Can you apologize to me for this harm?” That's our natural human instinct. I think the students were frustrated that my inclination was not to immediately apologize. It was to think through how we can structure this seminar differently so that the issues that they cared about can be in the center. There were various opportunities for students to present additional readings or additional issues or texts that they cared about. And we encouraged students to use those opportunities to bring in what they felt was missing.
We tried to be responsive in that way using the structure of the format of the seminar and pointing out to the students ways that they could strategically use that structure to get the things that they were looking for to get their needs met.
Mounk: Did that work?
Lloyd: No. Again, I don't know what was happening the other 21 hours a day when we were not in the seminar. We were told that there was tension in the community. Eventually, in the fourth week, two of the Asian American students were sent home, expelled. We were not told a reason for that. I couldn't speculate about why that was. These were the two Asian American students who continued to actively participate in the seminar and continued to raise their voice in discussions, often with opinions that were not following the orthodoxy that had developed among the students. There could have been other things going on in the seminar. I'm sure those two students felt very uncomfortable and awkward given the dynamics of the space. Who knows what might have transpired there.
To offer just one example, we had a guest speaker, a history professor from the University of Michigan come into the seminar one day in the fourth week, who was an expert on mass incarceration. He was a proponent of the claim that the primary lens with which we need to understand mass incarceration is economic. It's class-first, though race and other issues are important. This is a black, socialist professor at the University of Michigan, and this was a view that one of these Asian American students agreed with. The student was delighted to hear the visiting professor put forward this view, and it appeared as if he was gathering up all of his courage. He was physically shaking. He said, “I agree with this view that we need to be thinking carefully about class at the start of our investigations of the prison system in the US. It seems right to me.” And then the college-aged teaching assistant turned to the Asian American student immediately after and said, “I strongly disagree with you,” and there was silence. The next day, the student was not in the group anymore.
Mounk: OK, so you're asked to lecture. What did you do?
Lloyd: I spoke for 15 or 20 minutes to set the stage for the reading that we were going to discuss, Frank Wilderson’s Afropessimism, a classic text of anti-blackness theory that circulates widely these days. Then we had a relatively fruitful discussion of different aspects of the text.
At the end, I said, “I would have said all the things I told you in my opening lecture during the discussion, but prefer to just be prompted by the flow of the discussion.” That's how I usually operate in a seminar. I don't want to direct the discussion by giving my take or my framing of the text. I want to provide information that's essential but responsive to student questions and student concerns in the flow of the seminar. I can intervene to push that in a more productive direction, moving dialectically through the three hours of seminar.
But my reflection on why I don't lecture was not taken well. The teaching assistant took my statement as an attack on her and made a speech about how I was not respecting her and her experiences as a black woman. She claimed that the students were being harmed by witnessing this and that they would have to leave without eating a meal together with us at our home.
Mounk: And she declared this on behalf of the students?
Lloyd: Exactly, yeah.
Mounk: That must have been a very awkward moment. Sorry to make you dwell on it, but she makes a speech and what happens then?
Lloyd: We tried to say, “Well, do you want some time to catch your breath, or maybe you can think about it for a while, and then we can have our meal?” She said, on their behalf, that they needed some time to discuss. They met outside, caucused, and my family was inside the house. They had maybe 15 or 20 minutes of discussion about whether they would eat with us or not eat with us. Eventually, their compromise was that they would eat our food, but they would eat it in our backyard, while we had to stay inside the house, and then they would leave. That was how it was resolved.
Mounk: And what was the aftermath?
Lloyd: We were supposed to have class on the following Monday, but one of the teaching assistants said that the students were exhausted or not in the right mindset to have class on Monday, so why don't we just postpone the start of the week until Tuesday? We said sure. We came in Tuesday morning, and no one was in the seminar room at the appointed time. A little bit later, the teaching assistants came in. A little after that, all of the students came in a holding piece of paper that they all had. Then they each read a paragraph from this piece of paper, which they had apparently drafted collectively, each paragraph naming one of the forms of harm that the seminar had caused to them.
I said, “It will take me some time to process what you've said and think about it. I can't respond right away.” It seemed like the sort of thing that was asking for an apology and a transformation of the seminar, explicitly asking for lecturing—that is, to make it no longer a seminar.
We told the Telluride leadership, “Either you tell the students what a college seminar is, and then we can have a conversation with them, and you, about how to move forward, or we won't continue.” The leadership decided that they did not want to intervene. We offered to the students that, if they wanted to continue doing any of the written assignments, if they wanted us to offer feedback on anything, if they wanted to meet individually with us, if they wanted toZoom or whatever, we were happy to do that. But we would not continue the seminar format unless the Telluride leadership intervened. We didn't hear from any of the students after that.
Mounk: To draw out the lens a little bit, how do you think we got to this point? Why is it that a storied institution like Telluride that has these democratic values that we both admire, and a set of students who care about causes that are noble, of fighting and overcoming racism in the United States and so on—how does that go so wrong? How would you describe the broader social cultural forces that have shaped this particular experience of yours?
Lloyd: We are at a moment of paradigm shift in how we think about race in America. We were in a multicultural paradigm for a long time where blackness was one among many different racial identities, all of which were celebrated, all of which had different forms of oppression that we could stand in solidarity with but ultimately in the direction of all living happily together in a rainbow nation. Now, the demands of black justice movements and other movements are saying, “Actually, they are deep, deep problems in US culture, US institutions, and US laws. We don't need inclusion and integration. We need to imagine something new. We need to imagine black justice outside of the existing institutions' paradigms.” I think that's entirely right. I think there's something that's deeply problematic with a multicultural paradigm that had been obscuring anti-blackness, which was causing all sorts of harm, as it's being revealed every day now as we're investigating anti-blackness in real estate and healthcare and the environment. There are real problems there and we need a new paradigm to address that. But we're in a moment of transition. So it's unsettled what that will look like and because it's unsettled this sort of toxic and abusive environment can grow, because there's no dominant, settled paradigm.
The other general cultural factor I would name is just this growth of diversity bureaucracies and managers; the thought that when when our institutions have been causing harm, the proper way to address that is to hire professionals or, in this case, college-age students, basically to mediate conflict, to communicate the proper way to think about diversity in an institution. While that's well intentioned, it is distracting from the force of the justice claims being made by social movements and it's creating unintended effects of inhibiting the pursuit of justice in our institutions rather than advancing it.
Mounk: I see three different elements here and I'm trying to understand which of them you're challenging. The first is the idea that there are people from many different groups who live in the United States, and we should celebrate some of that cultural diversity. Our goal should be to build a nation where these groups can happily live together next to each other. That's something to which I'm broadly sympathetic, though it seems to me that the basic fundamental unit is the citizen rather than a group.
The second element is the optimistic narrative: these groups are getting along better and better and things are going to be great.
The third element, which seems implicit in what you said, is the running together of different forms of injustice. I think Michael Lind was one of the first people who said in the 1990s, in a very different register, that we tend to think of American history as white versus non-white, but in some important ways, it's black and non-black that has always been the most defined dividing line of American politics because of slavery and so on.
When you criticize multiculturalism, are you criticizing each of these three elements? Help us think through that.
Lloyd: To address the third element first, there is a claim circulating now that anti-black racism is qualitatively different from other sorts of racism. That strikes me as correct. But it's usually put in quite mystifying sorts of ways. Sometimes there's talk about “blackness is ontological” or exclusion from ontology or metaphysics. It's hard to understand exactly what's being said there. Now, the way I interpret that is as a political claim about domination; that one of the ways that we think about justice is in terms of the injustice of domination and trying to end domination. The closest thing we get to domination in laboratory conditions is slavery, and particularly Atlantic slavery, blacks brought from Africa to the US. If we're interested in understanding domination, the clearest kind of case that we can attend to is that form of slavery, which aligns with a sort of long tradition of domination being connected with slavery in the European political tradition. And if we are still living with the afterlives of slavery in the US, if the habits and frameworks that were developed to make slavery plausible persist into the present, then, even today, anti-black racism is a paradigm case of domination. That makes it qualitatively different because it hews most closely to this paradigm of domination. That would be how I would understand that claim, the qualitative difference in political, not metaphysical or ontological terms.
In terms of multiculturalism, I think this really depends on one's perspective. If one is looking from above, as it were, down at America and all these different sorts of people and imagining that they all have their problems, or they could all get along, that sort of makes sense. When one is looking from the margins, so to speak, when one is worried about being pulled over by the police, friends and family who are incarcerated, microaggressions, bodily violence, or whatever it is, it doesn't feel as if we're either on an optimistic path, or that this framework of multiculturalism is one that has the capacity to manage this difference. If, at the margins, we're feeling bodily threats, multiculturalism doesn't seem like it's working to make us safe.
I don't think of the position that I'm describing as pessimistic; I actually think of it as optimistic. I believe in a world without domination. I think we should be imagining a world without domination. I also don't think there's a clear path for how to get from here to there. I think we need to experiment, we need to try out different things. We need to foster our imagination so that we can be motivated to combat domination in our present world and move toward that world without domination. In terms of the dynamics in the seminar, it seems like there are two different things that we need to hold at the same time, which are really tough to hold at the same time. One is urgency—that there are harms happening and people being hurt. There's a precariousness to the violence that's experienced by black folks and others in the US and beyond and that requires an urgent response.
But we also need to acquire the skills and the ways of discerning that can allow us to rightly respond. And that requires time. That requires wrestling with each other, wrestling with ideas, turning to history and turning to other cultures. And I think that the social media age has made it so we only get the urgency side. We don't get the information and discernment side. The seminar promises to bring the two together. We can read about topics that call for urgency, but we can do it in a way that allows for development over time and grows our capacities to discern where domination is happening and what the right responses would look like.
Mounk: Let me ask you a last question. If we want to make some progress towards that society without domination, but we don't quite know what that looks like, what can we do? If people are moved by that vision, what should they do tomorrow?
Lloyd: I think there are all sorts of organizations in our neighborhoods that are doing this. There are local bookstores that are having reading groups reading speculative fiction novels that are imagining new worlds. There are organizing projects that are asking “How can we, in this neighborhood, live without policing and without calling the state when there are forms of harm?” There are all sorts of experiments happening. Many of them get things wrong and many of them try things which are uncomfortable and frustrating. Having the willingness to engage in experiments that could fail may not feel comfortable, but that seems like a capacity we really need to encourage these days.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.
Email: podcast@persuasion.community
Podcast production by John T. Williams and Brendan Ruberry. Podcast cover image by Joe O’Shea.
Connect with us!
Spotify | Apple | Google
Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion
YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
LinkedIn: Persuasion Community
Get full access to Persuasion at www.persuasion.community/subscribe
James Kirchick is a writer and a columnist at Tablet. His most recent book is Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington.In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and James Kirchick discuss how the Cold War shaped attitudes toward homosexuality; the (dis)similarities between homophobia and anti-Semitism; and what we can learn from the hard-won progress on gay rights about how to make progress in other areas.This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone.Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.communityPodcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan RuberryConnect with us!Spotify | Apple | GoogleTwitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasionYoutube: Yascha MounkLinkedIn: Persuasion CommunityLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University, where she also directs the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics. Her forthcoming book is Justice By Means of Democracy. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Danielle Allen discuss why the great American political texts of the 18th century can still inspire; how we can build a political system that invites more and more kinds of people to participate; and how such a form of "power-sharing liberalism" can reinvigorate our societies and promote human flourishing.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University, where she also directs the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics. Her forthcoming book is Justice By Means of Democracy. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Danielle Allen discuss why the great American political texts of the 18th century can still inspire; how we can build a political system that invites more and more kinds of people to participate; and how such a form of "power-sharing liberalism" can reinvigorate our societies and promote human flourishing.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Renée DiResta is a writer and the technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Renée DiResta discuss how we can turn down the temperature on debates around social media and find real solutions; why terms like “censorship” and “misinformation” fail to capture the complex difficulties in reforming social media; and why, as a resident of San Francisco, she supported the school board and District Attorney recalls.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ed Luce is the US national editor and columnist at the Financial Times.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ed Luce discuss the electoral toll of Trumpism; why Democrats who focus on identity politics fare poorly at the polls; and whether Ron DeSantis poses as great a threat to democratic norms and institutions as Donald Trump.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Russ Muirhead is the Robert Clements Professor of Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth College and a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. His latest book, co-authored with Nancy Rosenblum, is A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Russ Muirhead discuss how legislators can find sensible compromise even amidst vehement disagreement, why we misunderstand the popularity of conspiracy theories, and what Democrats can do to broaden their coalition and defeat right-wing populists.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, author, and the host of the Making Sense podcast. He rose to prominence as a member of the “Four Horsemen” of New Atheism, which also included Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sam Harris discuss the intellectual case for atheism; why both left and right have become more extreme in recent years; and the prospects of a more rational politics in the near future.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Lis Smith is a veteran political strategist affiliated with the Democratic Party. Most recently, she was senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg in his 2020 presidential campaign. Her memoir is Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Lis Smith discuss what she looks for in a successful candidate; the lessons she takes from years of courting independents and voters from across the aisle; and why she believes that Biden should run for reelection.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Shashank Joshi is Defence Editor for The Economist and serves on the Advisory Board at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Shashank Joshi discuss the state of the war in Ukraine, whether European solidarity will survive a cold winter, and why countries like India and China remain tied to Russia.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joshua Coleman is a psychologist and senior fellow at the Council on Contemporary Families. He is the author of Rules of Estrangement: Why Adult Children Cut Ties and How to Heal the Conflict.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Joshua Coleman discuss why there is a growing number of estrangements between parents and their adult children, how political identification has increasingly become a source of family conflict, and the best strategies for how estranged parents and adult children can heal their relationships.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Heather McGhee is an author and policy advocate with a focus on reducing inequality. She is Board Chair for the organization Color Of Change and a former CEO of the think tank Demos. McGhee is the author of The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together . In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Heather McGhee discuss why progress for one ethnic group need not come at the expense of another; how racial animus has been used in the past to divide Americans who share fundamental interests; and whether the recent focus on "race-sensitive" public threatens to reignite zero-sum competition between different racial groups.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Heather McGhee is an author and policy advocate with a focus on reducing inequality. She is Board Chair for the organization Color Of Change and a former CEO of the think tank Demos. McGhee is the author of The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together . In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Heather McGhee discuss why progress for one ethnic group need not come at the expense of another; how racial animus has been used in the past to divide Americans who share fundamental interests; and whether the recent focus on "race-sensitive" public threatens to reignite zero-sum competition between different racial groups.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Richard Reeves is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of Dream Hoarders and, most recently, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Richard Reeves discuss how the upper middle-class has cornered the market on economic opportunity; why helping men does not mean undoing progress for women; and whether the problems facing men and boys are more structural than we often think.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. The author of Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, his most recent book is The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World. In this week’s discussion, Yascha Mounk and Robert Kagan discuss the danger that Donald Trump continues to pose to American democracy, what the “realist” theory of international relations gets wrong (and right), and how liberal democracies can defend their values around the world.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Chloé Valdary is a writer and entrepreneur whose company, Theory of Enchantment, aims to offer a “human approach” to diversity and inclusion training. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Chloé Valdary discuss the flaws of the dominant paradigm in diversity, equity, and inclusion; why many of today’s interpersonal conflicts stem from a larger crisis of meaning; and how to engage in big debates about social issues without becoming a combatant in the culture war.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Damon Linker is a Senior Fellow with the Open Society Project at the Niskanen Center and a former senior correspondent at The Week. He writes the "Eyes on the Right" newsletter. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Damon Linker discuss the odds that a prospective prosecution would be successful; whether it would harm or help Trump’s chances in 2024; and what those of us who want to rescue American democracy can do.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Coleman Hughes is the host of Conversations with Coleman. Racialized, his first book, is forthcoming from Penguin Random House. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Coleman Hughes discuss how we can remain vigilant about racial injustice without treating others differently on account of their race; whether reparations for slavery are justified in theory and workable in practice; and how we should measure progress on race.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Coleman Hughes is the host of Conversations with Coleman. Racialized, his first book, is forthcoming from Penguin Random House. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Coleman Hughes discuss how we can remain vigilant about racial injustice without treating others differently on account of their race; whether reparations for slavery are justified in theory and workable in practice; and how we should measure progress on race.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sarah Longwell is a Republican political strategist and publisher of The Bulwark. She is also host of the Bulwark podcast The Focus Group, which presents the broad takeaways from hundreds of hours of voter opinion focus groups across both the country and the political spectrum. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sarah Longwell discuss which candidates from either party have a chance to break out in 2024; why neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris is the Democrats’ best choice; and how Democratic messaging can balance the existential stakes of the 2024 election with a positive vision of our economic future.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Eboo Patel is the founder of Interfaith America and the author of We Need to Build: Field Notes For Diverse Democracy. Patel also served as an advisor on faith to President Barack Obama. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Eboo Patel discuss why it’s so common for faith-based organizations to serve communities beyond their own; why Patel once embraced critical race theory but eventually moved beyond it; and the vital role of civil society organizations in the fabric of American democracy.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Corey Brettschneider is a professor of political science at Brown University, where he teaches constitutional law and political theory. He is the author of The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents. He is also editor of the Penguin Liberty series, the most recent installment of which is devoted to great thinkers in the tradition of free speech In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Corey Brettschneider discuss why many Americans feel unable to speak their minds on key issues; the differences between a legal protection of free speech and a culture of free expression; and how we can build a culture that facilitates, rather than stifles, conversation on the issues which matter most.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sergei Guriev is a Russian economist. He serves as provost and professor of economics at the Instituts d'études politiques (Sciences Po) in Paris. From 2016 to 2019, he was the chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He is the co-author, with Daniel Treisman, of Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sergei Guriev discuss why Russia’s economy failed to modernize over the last two decades; why sanctions on the Russian economy have not been as effective as hoped; and how to fight back against spin dictators (and other authoritarian leaders).
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David French is a columnist for The Atlantic and senior editor at The Dispatch. His books include Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation and The Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore. French received a Bronze Star for service during Operation Iraqi Freedom and, as an attorney, litigated cases surrounding issues of religious and personal liberties. He is a member of Persuasion's board of advisors. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David French discuss whether Donald Trump should be prosecuted for his actions on and before January 6th, 2021; the moral status of abortion; and why French, despite being a longstanding member of the pro-life movement, is not celebrating the demise of Roe v. Wade.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Graeme Wood is a staff writer for The Atlantic and a lecturer in political science at Yale University. He is the author of The Way of the Strangers: Encounters with the Islamic State. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Graeme Wood discuss why the January 6th insurrection does not resemble other coups; his experience interviewing Mohammed bin Salman and being Richard Spencer's middle school lab partner; and the need for general interest journalists whose curiosity is not constrained by their identity.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Olúfẹmi Táíwò is a philosopher and an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University. He is the author of Reconsidering Reparations, and his latest book is Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else). In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Olúfẹmi Táíwò discuss the difference between identifying the wrongs of the past and charting a road for progress, why we shouldn’t shy away from pursuing difficult political goals, and how we can better build movements around shared interests.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ian Bremmer, a renowned political scientist, is President and Founder of the Eurasia Group and GZERO Media. His latest book is The Power of Crisis: How Three Threats—and Our Response—Will Change the World. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ian Bremmer discuss why Russia’s war on Ukraine has become more difficult to follow, the opportunities that crises offer for global cooperation, and how today's problems are shaping the institutions of tomorrow.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yalda Hakim is a BBC World News correspondent and broadcaster. Born in Afghanistan and raised in Australia, Hakim has reported from Afghanistan for many years, often dealing directly with the Taliban. In recent months, she has also reported from western Ukraine. Her foundation offers academic and professional opportunities to Afghan girls. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Yalda Hakim discuss the dramatic changes the Afghan people have felt since the Taliban’s return to power, the parallels between Kyiv and Kabul, and the role of women in both conflicts.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sam Koppelman is a Democratic strategist who served as director of surrogate speechwriting on the Biden campaign. He is the author, with former Attorney General Eric Holder, of Our Unfinished March: The Violent Past and Imperiled Future of the Vote—a History, a Crisis, a Plan. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sam Koppelman discuss the history of voting rights, how and whether to reform institutions from the electoral college to primary elections, and why Democrats are in such a weak position as they head into the midterms and 2024.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Robert P. George is an American legal scholar and political philosopher. The McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, George is considered one of the foremost conservative intellectuals in America, and advocates a theory of natural law consistent with Catholic belief. With Cornel West, he authored a statement on “Truth Seeking, Democracy, and Freedom of Thought and Expression.”
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Robert P. George discuss the political philosophy of John Rawls, why democratic republics can’t function without free speech, and what relevance the first principles of conservatism do or don't retain today.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Adolph Reed, Jr. is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. He has written widely about race and class and is the author, most recently, of The South: Jim Crow and Its Afterlives, which presents a granular look at the reality of life as he and others experienced it under Jim Crow. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Adolph Reed, Jr. discuss how the mainstream American conception of race has developed since the early 20th century, why and how much of the modern left has become “race-reductionist,” and what actions we can pursue to address both racial and economic injustice in the future.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Thomas Piketty is one of the foremost economists in the world, renowned for his work on wealth concentration and inequality. The author of the bestselling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, his latest book, A Brief History of Equality, focuses on the ways in which the world has become more equal over the course of the last centuries. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Thomas Piketty discuss why inequality has increased within rich countries over the course of the last few decades, how this fits into the broader history of equality, and what politicians need to do to afford greater affluence for all.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Wallace-Wells is one of the foremost journalists covering climate change. A writer at The New York Times and a columnist at The New York Times Magazine, Wallace-Wells is the author of the best-selling book The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. His New York Magazine article of the same name was the most read in the magazine’s history. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and David Wallace-Wells discuss why the worst scenarios for the future of climate outcomes have become less likely over the course of the last years; how much damage climate change is nevertheless likely to wreak; and what political, economic, and technological solutions might help humanity deal with this urgent challenge.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
One of the world’s most influential social psychologists, a professor of ethical leadership at NYU's Stern School of Business, and a member of Persuasion's Board of Advisors, Jonathan Haidt is the author of The Righteous Mind and, with Greg Lukianoff, co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind. Haidt recently wrote a much-read feature in The Atlantic entitled “After Babel.” In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jonathan Haidt discuss how we can make social media less toxic, what political and technological reforms might help fix the problem, and how we can empower the moderate majority to fight for its values.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk is a professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, and the founder of Persuasion. His new book, The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure, was published this week.
In this week’s conversation, Ravi Gupta and Yascha Mounk discuss why it is so hard to build diverse democracies, how we can overcome the deeply human instinct to discriminate against those unlike ourselves, and why he remains optimistic about the prospects of the “great experiment.”
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Roosevelt Montás is Senior Lecturer in American Studies and English at Columbia University, where he was Director of the Center for the Core Curriculum from 2008 to 2018. He is the author of Rescuing Socrates: How the Great Books Changed My Life and Why They Matter for a New Generation.
In this week’s conversation, Roosevelt Montás and Yascha Mounk discuss how a copy of Plato he found atop a pile of trash as a child unlocked his future, the drawbacks of exclusively teaching material that is "culturally responsive," and how to put the ideals of liberal education into practice.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He has written widely about race and its effect on American society and the law.
In this week’s conversation, Randall Kennedy and Yascha Mounk discuss how racism in American life has changed and the ways in which it hasn’t, why we should move towards a more fluid sense of individual identity, and why he remains optimistic about America.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
T. M. Scanlon, one of the world's preeminent moral philosophers, was Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity at Harvard University until his retirement. In his seminal work, What We Owe to Each Other, Scanlon gives a liberal account of how to reason through what it takes to act justly in matters of morality as well as politics.
In this week’s conversation, T. M. Scanlon and Yascha Mounk discuss the true meaning of tolerance, how to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong, and why the question of free will isn’t as important as you might think.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Anne Applebaum is a staff writer for The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow of the Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. In her books - most notably Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine and Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe she has chronicled the terrible human costs of past attempts by Russia to dominate countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
In this week’s conversation, Anne Applebaum and Yascha Mounk discuss the developing ideology of "Putinism," what it would look like for Ukraine to win the war, and how democracies can defend their values in a world of resurgent authoritarianism.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Radosław Sikorski is a Polish politician and journalist who is currently a Member of the European Parliament. He served as Defense Minister of Poland from 2005 to 2007, and as Foreign Minister from 2007 to 2014. In this week’s conversation, Radosław Sikorski and Yascha Mounk discuss whether a unified Europe could play a real geopolitical role on the world stage in the future, reasons to be skeptical of the realist view that NATO or the West is to blame for the war, and the role of sanctioning Russia (and Russians) now and in the future.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yevgenia Albats is a Russian journalist, and editor-in-chief and CEO of the popular Russian independent magazine The New Times. The magazine has now been blocked by government censors for reporting on the war in Ukraine. Until last week, when the station was taken off the air, Albats was also host of a long-running radio show on Ekho Moskvy. The author of The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia–Past, Present, and Future, she is a member of the Persuasion board of advisors.
In this week’s conversation, Yevgenia Albats and Yascha Mounk discuss the quickly-evolving nature of the Putin dictatorship, how ordinary Russians view the invasion, and the fate of the free Russian press in the face of a new wave of repression.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Lea Ypi is a professor of political theory at the London School of Economics. She is the author of Free: Coming of Age at the End of History, about growing up in Albania, Europe’s last Stalinist outpost, and the political convulsions that followed its transition to liberal capitalism.
In this week’s conversation, Lea Ypi and Yascha Mounk discuss childhood in the shadow of totalitarianism, the perils and pitfalls of post-communist states’ rapid transition towards capitalism, and how states can maximize freedom for their citizens.
(This conversation was recorded on February 9th, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.)
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
George Packer is a journalist, author, playwright, and a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he recently published a piece on Ukraine's meaning for the liberal world and American interests. In his books, from The Unwinding to Our Man, he has chronicled the disintegration of America’s social fabric and the polarization of its politics. His latest book is Last Best Hope: America in Crisis and Renewal. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and George Packer discuss the dire choices facing the Ukrainian people, how the liberal democratic societies of the world can respond, and which historical analogues can help us navigate today’s uncertainty.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Moisés Naím is a Distinguished Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a member of the Persuasion board of advisors. He has served as Minister of Trade and Industry for Venezuela, Executive Director of the World Bank, and editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine. His latest book is The Revenge of Power. In this week’s conversation, Moisés Naím and Yascha Mounk discuss how authoritarian powers have banded together to respond to the challenges of technology and decentralization, the proliferation of the “Three P’s” (polarization, populism, and post-truth), and the challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption is a British judge, author and historian. He is a former Justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and a frequent public commentator. In this week’s conversation, Jonathan Sumption and Yascha Mounk discuss the prospects for democracy in the English-speaking world, the value of judicial oversight, and the power of strong political conventions.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Gerald Knaus is a social scientist and chairman of the European Stability Initiative. An expert on asylum and migration policy, he has been one of the most influential voices in reshaping Europe's refugee system since the 2015 crisis.
In this week’s conversation, Gerald Knaus and Yascha Mounk discuss the history of asylum; how to develop a more humane system of migration; and how the European Union can fight democratic backsliding in its member states.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Javier Cercas is one of Spain’s most distinguished novelists and a columnist at El País. His books, like Soldiers of Salamis and The Anatomy of a Moment, explore the history of modern Spain and the role of historical memory in contemporary life.
In this week’s conversation, Javier Cercas and Yascha Mounk discuss Spain’s transition from dictatorship to democracy, the movement for Catalonian secession, and how countries should approach their often complicated pasts.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ramachandra Guha is an Indian historian, writer, and one of the foremost authorities on modern India. The author of India After Gandhi and Gandhi Before India, he is also a leading critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Guha is a member of the Persuasion Board of Advisors.
In this week’s conversation, Ramachandra Guha and Yascha Mounk discuss the history of Indian pluralism, the rise of Hindu nationalism, and the prospects for preserving liberal democracy in India.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Harvey Mansfield is the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Government at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. One of the old guard of American conservative thought, he has taught at Harvard since 1962, and counts among his former students Andrew Sullivan, Francis Fukuyama, and Bill Kristol.
In this week’s conversation, Harvey Mansfield and Yascha Mounk discuss the nature of American liberalism, Donald Trump’s effect on conservatism, and Alexis de Tocqueville’s enduring relevance.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Fiona Hill is the former Senior Director for Europe and Russia of the National Security Council under President Trump and a key witness in his first impeachment trial. She is Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. In her latest book, There Is Nothing For You Here: Finding Opportunity in the Twenty-First Century, she describes her journey from the post-industrial north of England to the world of academia at Harvard and the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
In this week’s conversation, Fiona Hill and Yascha Mounk discuss the resonance of populism for working class voters, remaining true to principle in the Trump administration, and the future of Great Power conflict.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michael Ignatieff, a renowned author and academic, is the former Leader of Canada’s Liberal Party. While Ignatieff was serving as Rector of Central European University, the university was pushed out of Budapest by the Hungarian government.
In this week’s conversation, Michael Ignatieff and Yascha Mounk discuss the rise of illiberal conservatism, the pitfalls of liberalism, and how to find consolation in trying times.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jeannie Suk Gersen is the John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a contributing writer at The New Yorker. She writes widely about the law and its impact on society. In this week’s conversation, Jeannie Suk Gersen and Yascha Mounk discuss the value of robust debate in law school classrooms, the perils of eroding due process in the name of progress, and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
John McWhorter is an author, a member of the Persuasion Board of Advisors, a Columbia University linguist, and a columnist for The New York Times. His latest book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America, argues that we must understand wokeness, quite literally, as a religion.
In this week’s conversation, John McWhorter and Yascha Mounk discuss the nature of today’s social progressivism, whether it constitutes a religion, and how we can actually help to reduce racial disparities in the United States.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Garry Kasparov, the former World Chess Champion, is the founder of the Renew Democracy Institute and chairperson of the Human Rights Foundation. He is a member of the Persuasion's Board of Advisors.
In this week’s conversation, Garry Kasparov and Yascha Mounk discuss how he came to oppose the Soviet regime, why he quickly recognized the dangers posed by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, and what to make of illiberal tendencies on the left.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michael Powell is a reporter for The New York Times, covering issues including free speech, education and identity politics. His reporting takes him from the campuses of elite universities and private schools to the halls of the ACLU. In this week’s conversation, Michael Powell and Yascha Mounk discuss whether the left has cooled on free speech, what’s lost in the national discussion about critical race theory, and how establishment institutions across the United States are being transformed.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Andrew Yang is a popular commentator and former presidential candidate. In his latest book, Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, he advocates for economic reforms like Universal Basic Income and political reforms like ranked choice voting.
In this week’s conversation, Andrew Yang and Yascha Mounk discuss how today’s political campaigns are run, why Democrats struggle to connect with voters, and whether or not third parties can be part of the solution.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has for many decades been one of the most prominent critics of U.S. foreign policy. In this week’s conversation, Noam Chomsky and Yascha Mounk discuss the theory of universal grammar, whether identity politics can be left-wing, and how the world should treat an ascendant China.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, is one of the most influential philosophers of the past fifty years. A leading exponent of utilitarianism, he has often explored how individuals can improve the lot of those in need with their own choices. In this week’s conversation, Peter Singer and Yascha Mounk discuss what utilitarianism gets right, whether the effective altruism movement is effective, and why freedom of inquiry is crucial to improving the world.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ross Douthat, a columnist for The New York Times, has long advocated for a brand of reform conservatism that stands in stark contrast to Trumpism. His latest book, The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery, chronicles his long struggle with Lyme disease.
In this week’s conversation, Ross Douthat and Yascha Mounk discuss why the expert consensus sometimes fails, when to listen to outsiders, and whether the failures of the establishment help to explain the rise of populism.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Francis Fukuyama, one of the most important living political scientists, is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute. His writing spans from the origins of society in earliest prehistory to the rise of modern democracy and the identity wars of the 21st century. His new book, Liberalism and Its Discontents, a defense of the values of free societies, is scheduled for release in April 2022. In this week’s conversation, Francis Fukuyama and Yascha Mounk discuss how neoliberalism has gone awry, the excesses of individualism on both the right and the left, and how to rejuvenate liberalism.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Caitlin Flanagan, a staff writer at The Atlantic, is one of America's most incisive essayists. In her articles about a wide range of topics including modern motherhood, the politics of higher education, and the state of the abortion debate, she skewers consensus views with her trademark wit. In this week’s conversation, Caitlin Flanagan and Yascha Mounk discuss her coming-of-age in 1960s Berkeley, the evolution of freedom of speech, and whether America has a future.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kwame Anthony Appiah is a British-Ghanaian philosopher, the Ethicist columnist for the New York Times Magazine, and one of today's deepest thinkers about the nature of identity. His scholarly writing, journalism, and novels help us to envision a world in which our professed categories enrich rather than impoverish—or, in his terms, a world which reveres “universality plus difference.”
In this week’s conversation, Kwame Anthony Appiah and Yascha Mounk discuss neutrality as a liberal ideal, the limits of identity politics, and the merits of race-abolitionism.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elizabeth Bruenig is a staff writer at The Atlantic and a Catholic socialist who writes on topics as varied as capital punishment and mothering two children while in her twenties. Her work is uniquely marked by her ruby-red Texas upbringing, the elite professional world she now inhabits, and her deep sense of morality, which draws from both Christian theology and left-wing politics.
In a wide-ranging conversation, Elizabeth Bruenig and Yascha Mounk debate the importance of dialogue across moral perspectives, whether wokeness bears any resemblance to theology, and how religious conviction can give rise to an authentically liberal defense of free speech.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Matthew Karp is a contributing editor for Jacobin magazine and associate professor of history at Princeton University. An expert on the Civil War era and slavery, his writing poses a challenge to a right too sanguine about the darkest corners of America’s past, and a left too eager to embrace despair about the arc of history.
In this week’s conversation, Matthew Karp and Yascha Mounk discuss the "1619 Project,” the politics of history from Juneteenth to the Confederacy, and why an accurate conception of the past is key to shaping a better future.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Rachel Fraser is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford and an expert in feminism and the philosophy of knowledge. In her work, she thinks through how our social identities might help to shape how we see the world—and how that diverges from popular notions according to which the oppressed have special political knowledge unavailable to everyone else.
In this week’s conversation, Rachel Fraser and Yascha Mounk discuss how our identities shape our perception of the world, whether the oppressed have greater insight into the political world, and to what extent it is possible to communicate our experiences to members of other groups.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Samuel Goldman, associate professor of political science at the George Washington University, is an intellectual historian and political commentator. In his new book, After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division, he criticizes traditional notions of patriotism while trying to lay out how members of modern nations can preserve some form of pride of country. In this week’s conversation, Samuel Goldman and Yascha Mounk talk about different notions of patriotism and debate whether strong participation in local institutions is the key to restoring a healthier political climate.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ambassador Eric Edelman was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the George W. Bush administration and served as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Finland. A strident critic of former President Donald Trump, he is among the foremost voices of the “Never Trump” movement. In a wide-ranging conversation, Ambassador Edelman and Yascha Mounk discuss the trajectory of the Republican party and Donald Trump’s political future, Turkey’s illiberal slide under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and the fragility of democratic norms worldwide.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kmele Foster is a heterodox writer who hosts The Fifth Column podcast. He recently joined with David French and Thomas Chatterton Williams, members of Persuasion's Board of Advisors, to oppose laws which seek to ban discussion of critical race theory from American schools in the New York Times. In this week’s conversation, which was recorded with a live Zoom audience as part of the Persuasion festival, Kmele Foster and Yascha Mounk discuss the fixation on race in current political discourse, why it obscures important truths, and how to form relations with one another that recognize both human individuality and our shared experiences.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics and co-author, with Tyler Cowen, of the blog Marginal Revolution. A strident critic of institutional failure during the pandemic, Tabarrok has applied his libertarian perspective to a wide range of topics, including public health, regulation and the law, criminal justice, and entrepreneurship. In this week’s conversation, Alex Tabarrok and Yascha Mounk discuss the failure of American institutions to respond to COVID-19, the cost of insufficient economic innovation, and the possibility of building a more agile and resilient American society.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Roya Hakakian is an Iranian dissident, poet, and writer. She has long been a fierce critic of the regime. But in her latest book, A Beginner's Guide to America, she sets her sights on the United States, setting out to explain why the citizens of liberal democracies should value their political systems despite their flaws. In this week’s conversation, Roya Hakakian and Yascha Mounk discuss Iran’s democratic prospects, the state of democracy around the world, and why the benefits of freedom are often lost on those who have always enjoyed them.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Adrian Wooldridge, the political editor of The Economist, has written on topics as diverse as Alan Greenspan, the history of radicalism in British psychology, and the evolution of the modern Republican Party. In his latest book, The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World, he seeks to counter recent attacks on the ideal of meritocracy.
In this week’s conversation, Adrian Woolridge and Yascha Mounk discuss the hidden radicalism of the meritocratic ideal, China's embrace of meritocracy, and the West's misguided rejection of it.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Patrick Sharkey spent years studying the causes for the national decline in crime that took place from the 1990s to the 2010s. A Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton, and the author of Uneasy Peace: The Great Crime Decline, the Renewal of City Life, and the Next War on Violence, he warned that it would prove unsustainable to rely on aggressive policing and mass incarceration to keep the peace in America's cities. Now, he is ideally placed to answer why violent crime has surged in the past year and what to do about that. In this week’s conversation, Patrick Sharkey and Yascha Mounk discuss the recent rise in violent crime, how this trend hits disadvantaged communities the hardest, and why neither defunding the police nor returning to the old model of keeping the peace offers a real solution.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sabrina Tavernise is a national correspondent for The New York Times. She covered the Iraq War for the Times, where in 2005 she was one of the first people to document ethnic cleansing, and has reported on life in post-Soviet Russia for a variety of publications. She was a first-hand witness to the storming of the US Capitol. In this week’s conversation, Sabrina Tavernise and Yascha Mounk discuss Tavernise's experience in the Capitol on January 6, the roots of violence and civil war around the world, and why peace is elusive once violence becomes the norm.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Niall Ferguson is a Scottish-American historian whose interests span from WW1 to Henry Kissinger to the history of money. His most recent book, Doom—completed at the height of the COVID crisis—attempts to rethink the distinction between “man-made” and “natural” disasters. Ferguson examines the historical record from Vesuvius to viruses and concludes that societies are guilty of repeated misjudgments and delusions; but he avoids ascribing any immutable pattern to the unpredictable trajectory of disasters. He is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Niall Ferguson discuss the dangers of bureaucratization in disaster-management, debate populism and the threat from China, and examine the common threads linking catastrophes throughout history.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, Brendan Ruberry and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Arthur Brooks is a leading authority on the science and philosophy of happiness. In his books—most recently “Love Your Enemies”—and his regular contributions to The Atlantic, he urges us to act smarter in our pursuit of the good life. Combining insights from social science with wisdom from ancient sages, his unique blend of practical advice and philosophical depth serves as the perfect antidote to what he calls our “culture of contempt”. He holds professorships in the Practice of Public Leadership and Management Practice at Harvard, and was formerly the president of the American Enterprise Institute.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Arthur Brooks discuss the biological and circumstantial origins of happiness, debate the necessity of transcendence, and explore stoic philosophy’s relevance for today’s polarized politics.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, Brendan Ruberry and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
George Packer is one of the nation’s most eloquent writers and most perceptive observers. In his books, from The Unwinding to Our Man, he has chronicled the disintegration of America’s social fabric and the polarization of its politics. In his latest book, Last Best Hope: America in Crisis and Renewal, Packer argues that the country is now being torn apart by four competing narratives: Real America, Smart America, Just America, and Free America. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and George Packer discuss the nature of historical progress, ponder the long-term impact of the Trump presidency, and debate whether a rebirth of civic patriotism can help unite the country.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The very idea of truth and science, Jonathan Rauch argues, is now under threat from many quarters. In his latest book, The Constitution of Knowledge, he gives a novel account of the principles of science, and explains why democracies must strive to preserve the truths that bind us together.
In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jonathan Rauch discuss the dangers of disinformation, the limits on robust debate, and why truth is fundamental to preserving democracies around the world.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his new book, When The Stars Begin to Fall: Overcoming Racism and Renewing the Promise of America, Ted Johnson offers an optimistic vision for America's future. The only way to overcome racism and build a more just society, Johnson argues, is to build a shared American identity and aim for real mutual solidarity.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ted Johnson discuss what is going wrong in current debates about race, how to foster civic friendship, and why Americans should remain optimistic about building an inclusive democracy.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As one of America’s most famous political strategists, James Carville worries that Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by focusing on the politics and language of the “faculty lounge.” Because they worry more about sounding virtuous than about persuading voters, he argues, they leave a wide opening for authoritarian populists like Donald Trump. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and James Carville discuss what makes for good political messaging, why so many people on the left won’t speak their minds, and how politicians can talk bluntly without pandering to the lowest instincts of the electorate.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Even as many affluent countries are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel of the COVID-19 pandemic, India is facing a terrifying rise of cases and deaths. According to Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund, a large part of the blame for the pandemic rests with Narendra Modi; but the government’s poor performance also has its roots in a deeper failure of the country’s institutions.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Raghuram Rajan discuss the role of government in preventing catastrophes, the suppression of free speech in India, and how decentralizing the economy can empower local communities and strengthen democracy.
This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Investigative journalist Amanda Ripley believes good conflict can help solve deep political divides. But when it escalates beyond the point of no return, it becomes “high conflict”: a fight less about the issue at hand and more about owning the other side. In her new book, she chronicles how dangerous high conflict is to individuals and societies — and offers suggestions for how to dig yourself out of it. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Amanda Ripley discuss the ways in which high conflict deepens political polarization, how to create a better education system, and how to overcome seemingly intractable conflicts.
A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
At his talks, the award-winning journalist Mark Lynas often asks his audience to imagine what would happen if we had a magic wand that could solve climate change. Should we wave it? Most people say no. This, he believes, is a real problem for making progress. To deal with climate change, we need to get serious about prioritizing effective solutions over ones that fit the environmentalist narrative of human sin and the need for atonement. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Mark Lynas discuss tribalism in the environmentalist movement, the need for an optimistic account of how societies can deal with the climate crisis, and how to effectively argue for real solutions. A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Is it possible to be both a faithful Muslim and a philosophical liberal? Mustafa Akyol argues that the answer is a resounding yes. In his latest book, Reopening Muslim Minds - A Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance, Akyol uncovers a long liberal tradition within Islam—one that, he says, Muslims around the world need to recover.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Mustafa Akyol discuss the history of liberalism in Islam, how authoritarian populists use religion for political influence, and why we should be hopeful about Islam’s future.
A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If the state fails to improve the lives of its citizens, then what is it for? James Scott, the Sterling professor of political science and anthropology at Yale University, believes that modern states tend to impose social structures that are antithetical to human flourishing. In his seminal works, like Seeing Like a State, he argues that we should give two cheers for anarchism: while states are here to stay, we should forever remain vigilant about the ways in which they do violence to individuals and societies.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and James Scott discuss the case for anarchism, the need for a state, and the ongoing crisis in Myanmar.
A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community To learn more about ways to support the democracy movement in Myanmar, please visit: https://www.mutualaidmyanmar.org/ Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The pandemic was supposed to prove the value of public health institutions like the CDC; instead, it exposed their inability to deal with a serious pandemic without serious errors. Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, worries that these failures have a deeper cause: as the citizens of countries like the United States come to trust each other less and less, they are increasingly incapable of meeting the big challenges that await them.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Tyler Cowen talk about populism, the failure of state institutions during the pandemic, and the value of economic growth.
A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past decades, many social science studies have promised simple answers to complex problems. In his latest book, The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills, Singal describes how many of these solutions fail because the findings they are based on turn out to be wrong or misleading. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Jesse Singal sit down to discuss the reproducibility crisis in social science, whether to be skeptical about implicit bias training, and how to differentiate real solutions from illusory quick fixes. A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Foreign aid is meant to alleviate suffering and help poor countries develop. But according to Bill Easterly, a professor of Economics at NYU, it often does the opposite. Instead of helping countries develop, it wastes resources or makes it harder for them to make economic progress. And far from advancing democracy and human rights, it often helps autocrats to stay in power. In this week's episode of The Good Fight podcast, Yascha Mounk and Bill Easterly discuss how political considerations misdirect foreign aid, whether the “development industrial complex” ignores the human rights of the poor, and why foreign aid so often gives a lifeline to authoritarian leaders around the globe.
A written transcript of this conversation is available on persuasion.community
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dr. Leana Wen is fighting on the frontlines of the pandemic. She's not only taking on Covid-19, but also the rampant disinformation and political flip-flopping that turned a manageable threat into one of the worst crises in American history. An emergency physician and Washington Post columnist, Wen has emerged as one the nation's most poignant voices on America's dire need to prioritize public health. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Dr. Leana Wen sit down to discuss the failures of expert opinions, the deadly consequences of inaction, and what the West needs to do to improve public health for the decades to come.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Most Westerners have a one-dimensional view of China, identifying it with either its economic success or its authoritarian government. Rana Mitter, a professor of modern China at Oxford University, suggests that the best way to understand contemporary China is to look at the interplay of four key characteristics: authoritarianism, consumerism, globalization, and technology.
In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Rana Mitter discuss how to understand contemporary China; attempts by the Chinese government to change popular views of the country's history; and how younger Chinese citizens are likely to shape the country. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Clay Shirky has always been an optimist, believing in the potential of the internet to bring humanity together. But recent trends – from the spread of fake news to the rise in online vitriol – seem to have thrown his vision of cooperation and trust into serious doubt. Does the promise of the internet which Shirky has spent so many years touting still hold true? In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Clay Shirky sit down to discuss if social media might be more of a curse than a blessing, whether or not to regulate the virtual public square, and how the internet has turned the world into a “global village.” Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Between 2003 and 2007, 96% of participants in social psychology studies were Westerners, most of them undergraduates at American universities. As a result, much of what psychologists have come to believe about human nature is actually a description of a geographically and historically specific group: people who are western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic ("WEIRD"). Joseph Henrich, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard, has spent his career trying to change the parochial bias of social psychology. If we understand that WEIRD people are closer to the aberration than the norm, he argues, we can better understand the rise of the West, the rapid transformations now taking place from Asia to Africa, and the likely future of societies around the world. In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Joseph Henrich sit down to discuss the peculiarities of WEIRD people; whether non-western societies are taking on some of the same characteristics as they develop economically; and how new technologies might disrupt traditional bonds between human beings. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There is a lot of bad advice going around these days. If something bad happened to you, define yourself by your trauma. And if somebody inadvertently did something offensive, react as though they had intended to harm you. Emily Yoffe, a member of Persuasion's Board of Advisors and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, has spent years giving thoughtful advice and chronicling the strange turn in our culture. One of the country's best writers and most fearless reporters, she knows better than just about anyone else how to skewer the growing self-righteousness in our intellectual discourse. In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Emily Yoffe sit down to discuss the hallmarks of cancelation, why intent matters, and how we can recover our capacity to converse freely. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Trump's presidency, Brexit, and the mishandling of a global pandemic have made Douglas Alexander deeply concerned about the "powerful weaponization of nostalgia." As a former leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Alexander fears that a dissolution of old class identities will open the way to an even bigger attachment to tribal identities. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Douglas Alexander discuss the power of identity politics around the world, whether voters still believe in political competence, and how to bridge the "empathy gap" threatening democratic societies around the world. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We like to think the right argument could persuade our friend or uncle of our point of view. But what if our personality helps to determine how we see the world? Dr. John Hibbing, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, believes that psychology, rather than culture or economic circumstances, explains much of our politics.
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and John Hibbing sit down to discuss the drivers of our political beliefs, why a longing for cultural security helps to explain the rise of Trumpism, and how to get on with those who are wired differently from us.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight.
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify Apple Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What transforms reasonable people into an angry mob? Why are we so eager to dismiss those who disagree with us as inherently evil? These are questions which Jonathan Haidt has spent his career trying to answer. One of the world’s most influential social psychologists and a member of Persuasion's Board of Advisors, he argues that a lot of recent cultural shifts are encouraging emotional fragility rather than resilience. A professor of ethical leadership at NYU's Stern School of Business, Haidt seeks to employ moral psychology to promote dialogue rather than division.
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk sits down with Jonathan Haidt to discuss psychological differences between the left and the right, the human tendency to discriminate in favor of the in-group, and how to build a less tribal culture and country. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Commentators often think that the threat to democracy comes from those who feel left behind - the ones who feel voiceless and vote accordingly. But what if the rise of populism was provoked, in part, by the growth of "a new managerial class" that rules the key institutions of society in its own favor? That is what Michael Lind, a co-founder of New America and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, argues in his latest book, The New Class War.
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Michael Lind debate the dangers posed by the new managerial class, what kind of structural changes would be needed to contain populism, and the prospects for real change.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We often hear the phrase “Twitter isn’t real life” as a reminder to take online spats with a pinch of salt. But with the U.S. Capitol riot, we’ve been painfully reminded of social media's power. There’s few better people to understand how we got here than tech journalist Kara Swisher. A New York Times columnist and podcaster, Swisher has charted the rise of the internet since 1994, challenging the claims of Silicon Valley's biggest names while warning the public of big tech's ever-growing power. As both the ultimate insider and one of big tech's most perceptive critics, she's been named among the "most feared and well-liked journalists" in Silicon Valley.
In this week’s episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Kara Swisher discuss what regulations for big tech look like in practice, the role of social media in populist politics, and whether online vitriol is an accurate reflection of public opinion.
Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steven Pinker dares to believe that human beings are better off than ever before in human history. A world-renowned linguist, Pinker has dedicated his career to unveiling the ways by which we express our human nature through our language, behaviors, and beliefs. In an era often plagued by fatalism, Pinker maintains a radical and unwavering dedication to his belief in humanity's steady improvement. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Steven Pinker sit down to discuss why we need to look to "nature" as well as "nurture" to understand the human condition, how to build institutions untainted by human biases, and whether human beings are inherently irrational. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A proud Never Trumper and a founding editor at The Dispatch, Jonah Goldberg believes that capitalism and liberal democracy have long been the foundations of America's success. But as the country fractures, Goldberg fears we’re throwing all that away - and threatening to crash American democracy itself. In this week’s episode, Yascha Mounk and Jonah Goldberg sit down to discuss the meaning of the assault on the U.S. Capitol, the future of the GOP, and whether to impeach Donald Trump. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Born and raised on the South Side of Chicago, Glenn Loury became Harvard's first black tenured professor of economics at 33. Now, he’s one of the country’s most irreverent thinkers on racial inequality--often challenging an emerging consensus on the nature and causes of structural racism. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Glenn Loury discuss the nature of racism, how much progress America has (or hasn't) made over the past fifty years, and what a just society would look like. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Why is it OK to discriminate on grounds of intelligence? That might seem like an odd question. But for writer and academic Fredrik deBoer, it’s one we can't ignore. His new book, The Cult of the Smart, argues that we’ve created an educational system that incessantly rewards the good luck of innate intelligence—while condemning the less clever to failure. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Fredrik deBoer discuss America’s broken schools, debate the damage of overvaluing academic ability, and ask what sort of education system we need for a truly just society. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As it recovers from Covid more quickly than other nations, China appears to be stronger than ever. But the world’s next superpower faces enormous challenges of its own. Minxin Pei, a professor at Claremont McKenna College and one of the world’s leading China experts, has spent years writing about them. Behind the country's façade of invincibility, he argues, lies “a Leninist state in an advanced stage of decay”. In this week's conversation,Yascha Mounk and Minxin Pei trace the country's political evolution since the 1980s and debate whether Xi Jinping is cementing the party's power--or may unwittingly be seeding the roots of its own demise. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In times of crisis, it’s easy to wish for the good old days. Rutger Bregman wants us to look to the future instead. One of Europe’s leading young thinkers, Bregman's unapologetic calls for higher taxes at the Davos World Economic Forum in 2019 made him an overnight internet sensation. As a self-confessed utopian, he now wants us to think big – and that means planning for 15 hour workweeks, open borders and a universal basic income. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Rutger Bregman discuss human nature; its implications for contemporary politics; and the policies which we need to create a more human-centric world. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
With Trump gone it’s tempting to think that America’s foreign policy can return to normality – no more praise of Putin, no more maligning of allies. But as Thomas Wright makes clear, restoring America’s place in the world will be far from plain sailing. As Director of The Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, Wright’s access to the incoming administration has afforded him a unique understanding of the challenges it will face. His view that Biden’s presidency may be “the last best chance to demonstrate that liberal internationalism is a superior strategy to populist nationalism” serves as a vivid reminder that post-Trump, the stakes remain higher than ever. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Thomas Wright brainstorm practical ways to prevent further democratic backsliding, why the public must understand the connection between domestic and foreign relations, and how much the Biden administration can actually achieve in the fight against dictatorships around the world. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Most people believe that the candidates they like best are also most likely to win. If you are far left, you are likely to think that far left candidates are also most likely to beat their opponents. If you are moderate, you are likely to think that moderate candidates are most likely to beat their opponents. David Shor is the rare exception: a self-described democratic socialist, he believes that the Democratic Party needs to moderate its rhetoric and abandon some of its policies to win the majorities it needs to pass ambitious legislation. Long known to insiders as one of America’s most acute public opinion analysts, Shor first rose to public prominence when he was fired from his job at Civis Analytics after tweeting a study by Princeton professor Omar Wasow (a member of Persuasion’s Board of Advisors) according to which violent protests in the 1960s helped to propel Richard Nixon to victory in the 1968 presidential elections. In this week's episode, Yascha Mounk and David Shor discuss why the polls keep getting it wrong, why the left's dream of winning by mobilizing progressive voters is unrealistic, and how Democrats need to change to have a chance of building congressional majorities. . Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Caroline Fourest is one of France’s leading thinkers on issues of secularism and religious extremism. A writer for Charlie Hebdo from 2004 to 2009, Fourest was at the forefront of defending the magazine after many of its journalists were murdered in a brutal terrorist attack in 2015. An acclaimed feminist author and director, her works have often made an impassioned case for free expression in the face of intimidation and censorship. In this week's episode, Yascha Mounk and Caroline Fourest discuss the principles and the practice of laïcité, misconceptions of it in the United States, and her concerns over a culture of outrage that, she claims, "invades our privacy, assigns our identities, and censors our democratic exchanges." Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Wesley Yang is one of the America’s leading essayists. From “Paper Tigers,” his examination of why Asian-Americans remain underrepresented in leaderships positions, to “The Face of Seung-Hui Cho,” his meditation on the shooter who killed 33 people at Virginia Tech, he has traced America’s shifting understanding of race. But over the past years, the focus of Yang’s work has subtly shifted. He is now trying to chronicle and explain what he calls the “successor ideology,” the constellation of ideas that seek to usurp liberalism, and which others have called by such names as “wokeness” or “social justice.” In the latest episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Wesley Yang discuss the precise definition of the successor ideology; the need for genuine empathy when exchanging ideas; and what forms of cultural sensitivity are truly inclusive as opposed to alienating Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We’d like to think of our societies as places with a lot of social mobility, in which individuals can climb the ladder by working hard. But by tracking families with rare surnames across the centuries, Gregory Clark, an economist, has shown that social mobility is much rarer than we’d like to think. The descendants of 14th century Florentine aristocrats, 18th century Korean civil servants and 19th century Swedish notables, research Clark conducted or inspired has shown, are much more likely to work in prestigious professions or own a lot of money in the 21st century. Why could that be? In the latest episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Gregory Clark about the limits of social mobility; why some families succeed while others fail; and what implications that should have for social and economic policy. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For the past years, we have paid a lot of attention to the fight for democratic values in countries where they are newly under threat. But what can activists do to stand up for democracy in countries where they already have to fear imprisonment, or worse? In the latest episode of The Good Fight, we feature the voices of activists from Asia and Europe. First, Yascha Mounk talks to Andrei Sannikov about the ongoing protests against Alexander Lukashenko. Then, he talks to Nathan Law about the new security law imposed by mainland China, and the impact it is having on young democracy activists. What strategies can help activists advance their goals even when they face very steep odds? Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Zion Lights has long been an environmentalist activist. When Extinction Rebellion was founded two years ago, she became one of its informal leaders, organizing highly disruptive events and representing the organization in the media. But over time, she came to doubt both its strategy and its policy commitments. Did disrupting public transport really help to persuade the public of the urgency of fighting climate change? And shouldn’t environmentalists who deeply care about climate change embrace nuclear energy? In the latest episode of The Good Fight, Zion Lights and Yascha Mounk debate the best way to reduce carbon emissions; how activists can (and can’t) persuade the public; and what it is like to change your mind about an issue when your peers are outraged by the conclusion you have come to. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to Ian Bremmer, the President of the Eurasia Group, the global pandemic is revealing the extent to which democracies have been failing over the past years. To strengthen them, he proposes that they should re-establish faith in the system by regulating social media, shifting away from American exceptionalism, and embracing an innovative approach to capitalism. In this conversation, Ian Bremmer and Yascha Mounk debate how different political systems have dealt with COVID-19, how capitalism has fared amidst the pandemic, and what western democracies need to do to live up to their promises. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Lawrence Wright has been friends with Jamal Khashoggi for nearly two decades. In a new documentary, The Kingdom of Silence, he tells the complicated story of America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia through the lens of Khashoggi’s life—from his youthful enthusiasm for jihadis to his years serving the Saudi royal family and his eventual embrace of the Arab Spring. On the latest episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Lawrence Wright, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize and staff writer at the New Yorker, talk about why the United States and Saudi Arabia have maintained an uneasy partnership for so many years, and how a new U.S. administration should deal with the Saudi royal family. The podcast also discusses Wright’s prescient thriller about a global pandemic and his groundbreaking reporting on scientology. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For much of the past four years, Matt Yglesias dismissed worries about growing illiberalism on the left as a campus fad that is sure to fade. This year, he changed his mind, becoming increasingly vocal about his concerns, and co-signing the Harper’s letter. On the latest episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Matthew Yglesias talk about how and why he changed his mind. The podcast also discusses Matt’s latest book, One Billion Americans. The best way to ensure that liberal values continue to exercise real influence in the world, he argues, is to make sure that the United States remain the world’s most powerful nation. That’s why politicians need to put the policies in place that allow Americans to have more kids, and open the country’s borders to many more immigrants. Listen to Yascha and Matt discuss whether that really is the right goal—and, if so, how it can be achieved. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Irshad Manji has a lot of experience in trying to persuade those who really don’t want to be persuaded. Early in her career, Irshad wrote two influential books that advocated for a reformed Islam. In conversations with religious conservatives around the world, she found that a combative style did not help her win adherents for her cause; instead, she started to acknowledge their views—before proudly arguing for her own. Now, Irshad runs the Moral Courage project, a pedagogical approach that hopes to make progress on contested issues like racism without shaming its participants. On the latest episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Irshad about why we should not judge those who disagree with us; how we can hope to persuade them of our own positions; and why we should be more optimistic about America’s future than is now fashionable. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams and Rebecca Rashid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. A few weeks ago, I got an email from somebody I admire tremendously: Elizabeth Anderson, one of the most interesting contemporary political philosophers. Anderson, she wrote, has long been an avid listener to The Good Fight. But she strongly disagrees with the episode I did with Edward Irizarry, in part because she thought that my characterization of Robin diAngelo’s work was overly dismissive. So we decided to have an on-air conversation about the question. In this conversation, we discuss the merits of contemporary anti-racism. But we also talk about whether we should aim for the ideal of colorblindness, how to build a more integrated society, and what philosophical liberals can do to stand up to the threat of right-wing populism. Please do listen, and spread the word about The Good Fight. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michael Sandel, one of the most influential political philosophers of our time, makes a provocative argument: Meritocracy allows successful people to feel good about themselves, and doesn’t do anything to address the plight of those who are less fortunate. It is time to abandon the ideal. In this conversation about Sandel’s new book, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?, I debate these themes with him. Should we really throw the pursuit of meritocracy on the trash heap of history? Or would it be better to ensure that our society actually lives up to the meritocratic ideal (while ensuring that everyone can have a decent life)? Please do take the time to listen to our conversation. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. For the past years, Frank Dobbin, a Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, has been researching diversity initiatives at big corporations and academic institutions. He has consistently come to the same, sobering conclusion: They don’t tend to work. And in many cases, they actually backfire. In this nuts-and-bolts conversation with Yascha Mounk, Dobbin explains why diversity programs so often fail: Especially if they are mandatory, they tend to portray decision-makers as part of the problem, and to threaten them with adverse consequences if they do something wrong. Instead, he suggests, diversity programs should invite decision-makers to become active advocates for change by making initiatives voluntary and empowering managers to make their own decisions about how to recruit more members of underrepresented groups. Please do take the time to listen to our conversation. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Please sign up to become a member of Persuasion, the new community Yascha has founded for those who believe that a free society is worth fighting for. Just go to www.persuasion.community A few days ago, a rather strange exchange caught my attention on Twitter. At a public meeting of a local New York City school board, one member accused another of perpetrating racism by holding his girlfriend’s nephew. “It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap,” she said. Asked for an explanation as to how this might be racist, she suggested that the man “read a book. Read White Fragility.” When I delved deeper into this strange story, I discovered that another member of the board had spoken up against this twisted view of the world with lucid rage; to be honest, it was one of the most compelling speeches I have heard in months. Edward Irizzary is, himself, a product of the New York City public school system. He grew up under difficult circumstances, and joined the local board of education to fight for students just like him. In conversation with me, he explains why the ideas of people like Robin diAngelo, or reforms that are focused on what he calls “cosmetic diversity,” make it harder to improve a deeply flawed educational system. Please do take the time to listen to our conversation. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha is starting a new platform for citizens who are committed to the defense of a free society. Please go to http://www.persuasion.community to sign up. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk speaks with Thomas Rid, Professor of Strategic Studies at John Hopkins University SAIS about the operations of secret services around the world and the misinformation campaigns that shape international competition. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Omar Wasow, a professor of political science at Princeton University, about the case for non-violent protest, and how best to bring about greater racial equality in the United States. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Francis Fukuyama about the changes that COVID-19 will (and will not) bring about. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Ron Daniels, President of Johns Hopkins University, about the impact the coronavirus will have on higher eduction and the role universities can play in defending liberal democracy against the rise of populism. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Sarah Longwell, the Publisher of The Bulwark, about how to persuade those who have voted for populists in the past to change their minds. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to David Miliband, the CEO of the International Rescue Committee, about the world after corona and what we need to do right now to help the poorest countries in the world manage the pandemic. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk speaks to Daniel Ziblatt, the Eaton Professor at Harvard University, about the impact of the coronavirus on populism and democracy. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Constanze Stelzenmüller, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, about the rise of populism in Germany and how it will transform the country in the next years. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Ruy Teixeira, a Senior Fellow at CAP, about his much misunderstood theory according to which demographic change will favor the Democratic Party. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to E. J. Dionne, author of Code Red, about what it would take to unify the Democratic Party (and beat Donald Trump). Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Ezra Klein about the nature and causes of polarization in the United States - and whether we can fix it. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: https://www.yaschamounk.com/ Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Pratap Bhanu Mehta, one of India's foremost writers and intellectuals, about the rise of Narendra Modi, and the reasons for the crisis of liberal democracy in the country. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk speaks to Peter Hall, Krupp Foundation Professor of European Studies at Harvard University, about the close connection between declining social status and the rise of populism. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Sam Koppelman, co-author of Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump, about the nature of impeachment, the arguments for and against removing Donald Trump from office, and what Democrats need to do to win in 2020. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Rachel Brown, Executive Director of Over Zero, about the roots of political violence; whether the United States stand at the brink of civil war; and what interventions can stop violence from breaking out in deeply polarized societies. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Martin Gurri, author of The Revolt of the Public, about the way digital technology empowers the insurgent public, and how it will transform the politics of both democracies and autocracies. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to political scientist Dan Kelemen about the trilemma facing Boris Johnson on Brexit, the drift towards autocracy in Poland and Hungary, and why membership in the European Union may make it easier for aspiring dictators to undermine democracy. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Peter Pomerantsev the author of This is Not Propaganda, about the way in which the rise of digital technology is transforming our politics; how trolls and state agents are trying to spread propaganda; and how to build a more democratic internet. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to James Robinson, co-author of Why Nations Fail and The Narrow Corridor, about the importance of political institutions; the roots of freedom and prosperity; and how citizens can beat the historical odds to improve their countries. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Helen Lewis, a staff writer at The Atlantic, about Boris Johnson, the future of Brexit, and why feminists should defend liberal democracy. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to David Frum about the evolution of conservatism, health care. immigration, and how to beat Donald Trump. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Dan Baer, former U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE, about America's role in the world, his vision for a better America, and what it is like to run for Senate in 2020. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
How do revolutions start? Can a few opposition activists overthrow an authoritarian government? And is it possible for a loud minority to impose its view on a quiet majority -- even in a democracy? Yascha Mounk discusses these questions with the eminent political scientist Timur Kuran. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to George Packer about Richard Holbrooke, American foreign policy, and how superpowers can (and can't) use their might to advance liberal democracy. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Elif Shafak, the prolific novelist and political thinker, about the rise of populism; the future of Turkey and the United Kingdom; the case against strictures on what writers should be allowed to write about; what makes for good political fictions; and how to fight for liberal values. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Alex Hertel-Fernandez, an Assistant Professor at Columbia University, about the ways in which special interests dominate American politics, and whether this gives an inherent advantage to the right. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Nicholas Christakis, the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Sciences at Yale University, and the author of Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, about whether human nature predisposes humans to conflict or cooperation--and what all of that has to do with populism. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Heidi Tworek, an historian of news and media, about the historic transformation brought about by social media, the long history of disinformation, and how to protect democracy from both. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Tony Blair, the former Prime British Prime Minister, about the roots of populism, how to deal with automation, and a progressive economic program for the 21st century. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Karen Stenner about voters with an authoritarian personality, and whether they can explain the rise of populists like Donald Trump. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk
Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Chayenne Polimédio, the Deputy Director of New America's Political Reform program, about the rise of Jair Bolsonaro. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams. The Great Courses is giving Good Fight listeners a special, limited time offer: Order “History of the Supreme Court” digital video course and get 85% off the regular price! That’s almost $300 in savings and you can start learning today! Don’t wait: go to thegreatcourses.com/goodfight Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Cory Doctorow, science fiction author who serves as co-editor of the blog Boing Boing, about measures we can take to preserve the freedom of the Net - while preserving our own. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams. This episode brought to you by The Great Courses. The Great Courses is giving Good Fight listeners a special, limited time offer: Order “History of the Supreme Court” digital video course and get 85% off the regular price! That’s almost $300 in savings and you can start learning today! Don’t wait: go to thegreatcourses.com/goodfight Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to James Bloodworth, author of Hired, about how the impact that Amazon warehouses have had on small British towns, a viable political program for the far left, and the shortcomings of Jeremy Corbyn. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Podcast production by John T. Williams This episode brought to you by The Great Courses. The Great Courses is giving Good Fight listeners a special, limited time offer: Order Investigating American Presidents video course taught by Professor Paul Rosenzweig, JD and get 85% off the regular price!That’s a $150 savings! And you can start watching it instantly! Just go to www.thegreatcourses.com/GoodFight for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Coleman Hughes, a young black writer quickly making a big name for himself, about how to fight discrimination against minorities without making group membership more salient than it already is. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. This episode is brought to you by The Great Courses. To get 85% off the regular price of the course Investigating American Presidents, go to thegreatcourses.com/goodfight. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Sagarika Ghose, author of Why I Am A Liberal, about the populist threat to liberal democracy in India, the prospects of defeating Narendra Modi, and why liberalism has relevance beyond the West. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to John Judis about the case for nationalism, how to deal with immigration, and the right model of integration. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Helen Pluckrose, editor of Areo Magazine and one of the perpetrators of the “Sokal Squared” hoax, about her opposition to the postmodern turn of parts of the left, whether a form of liberal universalism is feasible, and how to call out the shortcomings of the left without becoming a tool of the right.. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. This episode is brought to you by the following advertisers: Express VPN, take back your Internet privacy today. Find out how you can get 3 months free at expressvpn.com/goodfight. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Corrosion of Conservatism, about his personal journey from leading conservative to principled critic of the Republican Party, the deep roots of Trumpism, and how to forge a new political coalition. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Tim Snyder, the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale, about the roots of populism, the role of social media, the nature of propaganda, and whether fascism is the right analogy for understanding contemporary America. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Tim Dixon, a co-founder of More in Common, about why the usual story on America’s deepening polarization is wrong; the views of America’s “exhausted majority”; how progressive activists differ from the rest of the country; and how Democrats can build a winning coalition by mobilizing “passive liberals” and persuading moderates. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Thomas Chatterton-Williams, one of the leading black writers of his generation, about why essentializing race plays into the hands of the racists and how to talk about identity in a more productive way. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Justin E. H. Smith, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at the Sorbonne, and one of our time’s most thoughtful and wide-ranging essayists, about the assault on rationality in our politics and how (not to) respond. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America.
Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk and Sheri Berman, Professor of Politics at Barnard College, review the developments of the past two years. What have we learned about populism? Is it continuing to rise? And what can we do to stop it? Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Peter Wolodarski, the editor of Dagens Nyheder, about the rapid rise of the Sweden Democrats, the reasons why far-right populists have found so much success in Scandinavia, and what Americans can learn from these changes. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to James Crabtree, the author of The Billionaire Raj: A Journey Through India’s New Gilded Age, about Narendra Modi, the political rise of Hinduism, and the new class of Indian plutocrats. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.orgTwitter:@Yascha_MounkThis podcast was made in collaboration withNew America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Kori Schake, Deputy Director-General of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, about the damage Donald Trump is doing to the transatlantic relationship; what the world would look like without NATO; and why it’s worth defending the liberal international order. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Jake Sullivan, who was responsible for domestic policy on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, about the reasons why Democrats should embrace a more radical and imaginative economic policy in 2020. For more on Sullivan’s argument, see his recent article in Democracy Journal. Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Jeff Jarvis about the reasons social media might deepen democracy, whether regulation of tech will do more good or ill, and what the internet of the future might look like.
Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org
Twitter:@Yascha_Mounk
This podcast was made in collaboration with New America. Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Michael McFaul, the former US Ambassador to Russia, about the roots of America’s conflict with the Kremlin, whether a better relationship between the countries would have been possible, and how democracies can protect themselves against autocrats who are intent on promoting dictatorship around the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to economist Glen Weyl about the roots of inequality, the problems of monopoly and monopsony, and whether more, not less, radical markets are the antidote to the economic problems of our age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this live episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading Russian opposition activist, about the prospects for democracy in Russia and around the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this inaugural live episode of The Good Fight, Yascha Mounk talks to Cecilia Muñoz, Vice President at New America and former Director of the Domestic Policy Council, about how to leverage technology in the public interest, and what kind of compromise the left should accept on immigration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this special episode of The Good Fight, Ezra Klein interviews Yascha Mounk about his recent book, The People vs Democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Writer Anand Giridharadas talks to Yascha Mounk about identity politics, the best way to respond to offensive questions, and how to win a lasting social peace for "the only country I have." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses the limits of philanthropy, how the changey-hopey narrative of the affluent cloaks the power they exercise, and how they can do better with author, former New York Times correspondent and NBC contributor Anand Giridharadas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses the moral corruption of the Evangelical movement, the right line between politics and religion, and the ins and outs of wedding cakes with National Review staff writer David French. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses the principles that should govern the national security state; whether liberals used to be too critical of the NSA; and what we do—and don’t—know about l’Affaire Russe with Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institutions and founder of Lawfare, Benjamin Wittes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses how to cover the Trump presidency; the complicity of the Republican party; and the future of the right with proud conservative and staunch Never Trumper Jennifer Rubin. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses how to give refugees a real shot at a good life; the future of migration policy around the world; the importance of inclusive nationalism; and the meaning of the West with the President of the International Rescue Committee, and former foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, David Miliband. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses the problem with monopoly power; the role of anti-corporate rhetoric in leftist politics; and how to build a winning coalition for ambitious change with Sabeel Rahman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Martin Sandbu discuss the best way to fight inequality; why we need predistribution rather than (just) redistributive taxation to fight populism; and how to ensure that individuals and corporations alike pay their fair share Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this rerun of one of the first Good Fight episodes, Yascha Mounk discusses the degree to which democracy in the United States is under threat, the slow erosion of liberal norms, and the future of American identity with Francis Fukuyama. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Branko Milanovic discuss what his famous elephant curve says about the ills—and the gains—of globalization; how the left’s concern with inequality is being turned against its concern with internationalism; why economic causes of populism are often expressed in cultural ways; and how a determination to increase the financial and educational endowments of ordinary citizens can combat inequality and boost their living standards. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ian Bassin explains why we should see all of Trump’s violations of democratic norms as related—and how we can fight back. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Perry Bacon, Jr. discuss how best to stand up to Trump’s attacks on minorities; the work of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Thomas Chatterton-Williams; and what the role of race would be in the kind of society we should work toward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Rachel Kleinfeld discuss the difference between an effective and a counter-productive protest against populists like Donald Trump; how to mobilize a broad coalition against the administration; and how the left can get its act together again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and E.J. Dionne discuss the causes of the populist rise; why patriotism is the right antidote to white nationalism; and how to beat Donald Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Nicholas Casey discuss whether left-populism is as dangerous as right-populism; why things are so much worse in Venezuela than they are in Ecuador; and why Latin American politics may hold the key to America’s future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Matthew d’Ancona discuss why lies have taken over our politics; what kinds of policies might be able to move us past the post-truth age; and how Democrats can win in 2020. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Jamie Kirchick about the rise of dictators and demagogues in Europe, North America, and beyond. How much do far-left populists and far-right populists have in common? And what can we do to stop them? Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_MounkNew America Website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Ivan Krastev about what lessons the populist success in Central Europe holds for fighting Donald Trump. Why don’t voters care that populists fail to deliver on their promises? And can Americans resist a growing desire to “nationalize” the elites? Email: thegoodfight@newamerica.org Twitter: @Yascha_MounkNew America Website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Anne Applebaum about how authoritarians take power, the threat of social media, and the first six months of Trump's presidency Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to George Packer about social isolation, the sources of political anger, and why none of the dominant narratives of American identity can bind us together. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Mark Blyth about the economic drivers of populism, how to create a more equal society, and the failures of the Eurozone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Brian Klaas about how to save democratic norms at home and promote democratic rule abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk talks to Catherine Rampell about the economic drivers of populist support, the future of economic growth, and why fears about automation may be exaggerated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk discusses the degree to which democracy in the United States is under threat, the slow erosion of liberal norms, and the future of American identity with Francis Fukuyama. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk interviews Evan McMullin, 2016 Presidential Candidate and one of Donald Trump's most vocal conservative critics, about how to oppose the President across party lines; the future of the Republican Party; and the personal costs of political courage. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk explains the global costs of the Trump Presidency and talks to Hans Kundnani about the differences between Trump and Brexit, how to preserve the liberal world order, and the dangers of national neoliberalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk explains why social media favors political outsiders over insiders and talks to Lee Drutman about the dangerous racial and cultural divide in American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk explains why the belief that Democrats are inevitably headed towards a demographic majority is the most dangerous ideas in American politics, and talks to Sheri Berman about the purpose of protests, the future of the Democratic Party, and the enduring promise of social democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the fourth episode of "The Good Fight," Yascha Mounk explains why Democrats can't win in 2020 just by pointing out the failings of Donald Trump and speaks to Sam Goldman, Director of the Loeb Institute for Religious Freedom, about the ways in which liberals are (or are not) blind to conservative insights--and why Trump's opponents should (or should not) embrace nationalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode, Yascha Mounk argues that the American Republic won't go down without a massive fight, and talks to the Financial Times columnist Ed Luce about how the country can manage its relative decline without losing its democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the second episode of "The Good Fight," Yascha Mounk lays out the best-case scenario for the Trump years and speaks to Larry Diamond, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, about the global recession of democracy--and how to build the kind of coalition that can beat back authoritarian populists. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this inaugural edition of "The Good Fight," Harvard Lecturer Yascha Mounk explains why we shouldn't underestimate Donald Trump, and talks to Brookings Fellow Vanessa Williamson about the power of everyday democracy. Along the way, you'll learn about the roots of American populism, the nature of the right's nostalgia, and the kinds of policies that might restore the people's trust in their political system. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices