Keen On America

Numbers often tell the story best. Yesterday, we discussed today’s 95/5 reality in which 5% of Americans control 95% of the wealth. Today, in our conversation with Patrick Markee, author of Placeless, the key number is 2%. That’s the number of Americans who, on any given day, are homeless. But it’s a number, Markee insists, that doesn’t have to be. Mass homelessness, America’s most shameful open secret, is a modern phenomenon, he explains, triggered by Reagan’s neo-liberal policies. There’s nothing inevitable or necessary about it. And just as economic and political policy caused the crisis, it can also solve it. What’s most chilling is how normalized it’s become. Two-thirds of Americans are too young to remember a time when large numbers of people weren’t sleeping on sidewalks. In New York City alone, 35,000 children sleep in shelters every night—numbers not seen since the Great Depression. Future generations, Markee suggests, will look back at us the way we look back at those who tolerated slavery. How could we all have just walked on by? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Forget Pareto’s 80/20 rule. What AI is doing is producing a new rule in which 5% of society captures 95% of the value of this revolution. That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare calls this the “Great Compression”, describing it as the new math of our AI age. It’s creating a winner-take-most society of increasing inequality and outrage - the kind of situation which, historically, governments have stepped in to redistribute the rewards of a great technological leap forward. That isn’t happening today, however, thereby creating what Keith and I describe as a Code Red emergency for humanity. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Is the idea of “progress” the propaganda of the ruling class? Yes, according to Samuel Miller McDonald, author of Progress: How One Idea Built Civilization and Now Threatens to Destroy it. McDonald traces this “narrative formula” back 5,000 years to the first market empires in Mesopotamia—societies that were parasitic from the start, extracting from nature for profit and expansion. The Mesopotamian epic Epic of Gilgamesh, McDonald argues, is essentially a celebration of deforestation. Fast forward a few thousand years and modern industrialization didn’t corrupt this system; it supercharged it. His solution? Sortition, agroecology, and dissolving elite power. “I have more faith in the general public,” he tells me about a contemporary world dominated by what he sees as extractive billionaires like Bill Gates and Peter Thiel, “than in people who seek positions of power and control.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

They certainly are an odd couple. Silicon Valley veterans Dave McClure and Aman Verjee have been friends and business partners for 25 years — first at PayPal, then at 500 Startups, and now at Practical Venture Capital. Yet they have quite different styles, personalities and, above all, politics. What they share, however, is an unvarnished take on the world — especially on the much mythologized Silicon Valley. In this refreshingly unfiltered conversation, they assess tech’s two most dominant titans: Sam Altman and Elon Musk. McClure describes Altman as someone he’d never want to face across a poker table — “there’s probably three layers of chess going on in his head.” Verjee breaks down the competitive psychology driving Musk as OpenAI’s valuation leapfrogs SpaceX. Plus Verjee makes sense of Google’s Gemini challenge to ChatGPT domination and McClure leaves us with one of his trademark blunt takes on Trump’s crypto conflicts. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

If you think the American Dream is dead, then you probably don’t know the story of Lu Zhang. Born in Mongolia and educated in China, Zhang came to Stanford as a graduate student, struck it rich as a young tech entrepreneur and is now managing partner of her own early-stage venture fund. In our conversation, Zhang makes a compelling case for why Silicon Valley remains the world’s most important innovation ecosystem—even as she warns that restrictive immigration policies threaten to strangle the very talent pipeline that made her remarkable success possible. She’s bullish on AI, bearish on energy infrastructure, and refreshingly candid about the capital market bubble that everyone in tech pretends doesn’t exist. So does Zhang really exist or is she a bot designed to promote the American Dream? She says she’s real. I believe her. Do you? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

We all know about the broken American Dream. But according to the American-based China scholar Minxin Pei, China’s dream is equally broken. In his new book, The Broken China Dream, Pie argues that the party-centric reforms of both Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping have, by definition, revived totalitarianism. So while he does acknowledge some material achievements of the communist revolution, Pei is ultimately skeptical of its long-term benefit to the Chinese people. The party is the problem, Pei suggests. It has broken the Chinese dream. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

For Peter Wehner, American politics is a tale of two Kellys. On the one hand, there’s the moral resistance of Arizona Senator Mark Kelly to what appears to be the gratuitous violence of American forces overseas. On the other hand, there’s the conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly who has openly fantasized about this bloodthirsty behavior. For Wehner, Megyn Kelly’s immorality is an excellent example of both the moral and intellectual decline of the right. Once a serious journalist who challenged (and upset) Trump in the 2015 debates, Kelly has devolved into what Wehner calls “darkly deranged” territory - a trajectory that mirrors the broader conservative movement’s abandonment of Burkean and Madisonian principles for Kelly-style shock jocks and neo-Nazi clowns like Nick Fuentes. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Dick Cheney died four weeks ago, but his dark legacy lives on—quite literally—at Guantanamo Bay. The human rights lawyer Joshua Colangelo-Bryan was among the first attorneys to enter the notorious prison in 2004, and what he found there shattered every official justification for its existence. The “worst of the worst”? Most detainees were never even accused of acting against America. Many were simply sold to the Americans for bounties. The sophisticated interrogation program? Techniques copied from Chinese and Soviet methods designed to extract false confessions, not intelligence. In his new book Through the Gates of Hell, Colangelo-Bryan tells the story of his unlikely friendship with Jaber Mohammed, a Bahraini detainee who spent years in captivity for the crime of being an Arab man in the wrong place (Afghanistan) at the wrong time (post 9/11). Released without apology or compensation—just a form asking him not to “rejoin” organizations he’d never belonged to—Jaber now lives in Saudi Arabia with four children, focusing less on bitterness and more on those rare moments when American guards showed him unexpected kindness. As the Trump administration revives the “worst of the worst” rhetoric against immigrants and once again sends people to Guantanamo, Colangelo-Bryan’s account is a warning from recent history: demonize a racial or religious group, and you will inevitably destroy innocent lives. The gates of hell have once again been opened. Will they ever be closed? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Who’s winning and losing in AI plays like a wacky race in that every week there seems to be a new leader. But that’s actually the wrong way of thinking about today’s AI revolution. The right questions are about the three Cs: Capability, Capital and Civics. That’s the lesson of Keith Teare’s latest That Was The Week tech newsletter which focuses on what he calls “the Year in Intelligence”. Nobody is winning the AI race, Teare argues, because it isn’t a race. Instead, it’s an endless innovation cycle without either a start or finish line. The three key questions are whether AI capabilities are solving real social and economic problems, whether we can fund a $200 trillion industrial rebuild, and whether the rewards can be equitably shared. Those are the questions we should be asking. Not who is winning or losing.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

“May you live in interesting times,” is supposed to be a Chinese mantra. But according to Cambridge University China expert, Christopher Marquis, our current interesting times are actually a curse for businesses seeking stability rather than disorder. Is this, then, a moment for “strategic hibernation” Marquis asks in a provocative Harvard Business Review piece. Yes, he mostly answers. Businesses are indeed frozen by a perfect storm of uncertainty—overhyped AI, tariffs, and climate disasters. And speaking out in these turbulent times, he warns, can carry severe consequences -such as Jack Ma’s “cancellation” and the NBA’s exile from Chinese TV demonstrated after political missteps. Marquis, author of Mao and Markets, draws on his decade observing Chinese corporate survival tactics to counsel American companies navigating the stormy Trump waters: continue vital work like DEI internally, but avoid publicly poking the political bear. The Prohibition playbook offers a historical model—1920s brewers pivoted to soft drinks using their core bottling capabilities, hibernating their alcohol-making assets until the environment changed. The exception? Brands built on moral values, like Patagonia and Dr. Bronner’s, shouldn’t go silent—but even they should seek strength in collective action rather than standing alone. Rather than poking the bear, Marquis concludes about our interesting times, become the bear and hibernate. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Few journalists, certainly non-Italians, know Italian football as intimately as The Athletic’ James Horncastle, co-author of The Soccer 100. For Horncastle, Italian football presents a fascinating paradox: a nation celebrated for beauty, fashion, and La Grande Bellezza built its footballing identity around winning ugly. Forged in post-war austerity, the Italians embraced a minimalist, counter-attacking style—yet their greatest defenders, Paolo Maldini and Franco Baresi, were anything but ugly players, mastering their craft with elegance and brilliance. Italy, Horncastle reminds us, has also produced a remarkable lineage of world-class goalkeepers, from Dino Zoff to Gianluigi Buffon. And despite its defensive reputation, the position Italians venerate most is the creative number 10—the fantasista embodied by Roberto Baggio, the subject of an upcoming biography by Horncastle. Then there’s Maradona, the “spiritual Italian” who found his perfect home in Naples, a city with a magical realism quality that matched his unique genius. Unlike England, where football loyalties follow class lines, allegiances at Italian clubs like Roma and Lazio are drawn along political divisions—a legacy of Cold War tensions when Italy hosted Western Europe’s largest communist party. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Keen On America! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Should we be giving thanks today for our capitalist system? Maybe. But we should certainly be thankful for a 1100-page book about the history of capitalism published this week by the Harvard historian Sven Beckert. Entitled Capitalism: A Global History, this magisterial history, which took Beckert 8 years to write, covers the last thousand years of our increasingly dominant capitalist world. In fact, Beckert suggests, capitalism has become so ubiquitous that most of us can’t imagine an alternative economic system. If we are fish, then it’s our water. So what, exactly, were the origins of capitalism? And is there really an alternative economic system? What, if anything, will come after capitalism? A happy (capitalist) Thanksgiving everyone. 1. Capitalism Isn’t Natural—It’s Historical Capitalism is a radical departure from previous forms of economic life, not the default state of human exchange. Because it’s historical, it had a beginning—and anything with a beginning can have an end.2. The Death of Capitalism Has Been Wrongly Predicted for 200 Years From Marx onward, critics have forecast capitalism’s imminent collapse. Beckert is skeptical of these predictions—most of capitalism’s history came after someone declared it finished.3. There’s No Going Back to the Pre-Capitalist Village The nostalgic alternative—returning to some pre-modern arrangement—is both impossible and undesirable. Feudal lords extracting surplus from peasants, subsistence farming at the margins of survival: there’s nothing romantic about scarcity and exploitation.4. We Have the Means to Solve Our Problems—We Lack the Political Will The capitalist revolution has given us unprecedented productive capacity. We could feed everyone, educate everyone, provide universal healthcare. The obstacles aren’t material—they’re political choices.5. AI Could Liberate Us or Concentrate Wealth Further—It’s a Political Decision If artificial intelligence delivers massive productivity gains, those gains could go to a tiny elite or be distributed broadly through shorter work weeks, better wages, expanded education. The technology doesn’t determine the outcome. We do.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In The Soccer 100, the Athletic’s list of the greatest footballers in history, Lionel Messi is ranked number one. Perhaps. But he might also be its most boring—at least as a man. For Michael Cox, a contributor to The Soccer 100, Messi is undeniably great, but compared to his fellow Argentine Diego Maradona, he’s a nonentity. Football is theater. That’s why it’s the world’s game. So it’s the tragic narratives of a Maradona or a Jimmy Greaves we most remember and cherish. The game is beautiful because of the poetry, not the prose, of its stars. * Messi has ticked every box except one: being interesting. Cox voted for Messi as the greatest, but concedes Maradona and Cruyff “go above and beyond everyone else” in terms of personality. Messi left Argentina at thirteen, never had Maradona’s volcanic connection with his country, and may never be held in quite the same esteem at home.* Di Stefano was stolen from Barcelona by Franco—and the theft created football’s greatest rivalry. Before the heist, Real Madrid’s main rivals were Atletico. The loss of the era’s best player helped transform Barcelona vs. Real into what it is today.* England doesn’t produce geniuses because English football is suspicious of them. Cox: “There’s often been a desire to amalgamate mavericks into a system rather than bringing out the best in them.” The culture values hard work, scrappiness, physicality. Jimmy Greaves—perhaps the greatest English player ever—was left out of the 1966 final and later sold without his knowledge.* The 2026 World Cup may be a logistical and competitive disaster. Forty-eight teams, three countries, more group-stage matches than any previous tournament just to get down to thirty-two. Cox: “There’ll be a few teams there who with respect just won’t be able to compete.”* The greatest goal in history wasn’t Maradona’s solo run—it was Pele’s pass. Cox prefers the Carlos Alberto goal: team football as poetry, five number tens on the same wavelength, and the simplest possible finish after exhausting Italy with collective brilliance.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Maradona, Pele or Messi? It’s the eternal debate. Who is the greatest footballer of all time? According to The Soccer 100, The Athletic’s new book ranking football’s hundred greatest players, the answer is Messi. But the North London based contributor Amy Lawrence cast a dissenting vote: she chose Pelé, deferring to those who witnessed the Brazilian king’s dominance firsthand. The book’s official ranking places Maradona second, Pelé third, then Cruyff, Ronaldo, and Di Stefano. But the list reveals something more interesting than rankings: the impossibility of comparing eras. How do we judge players like Alfredo Di Stefano or Ferenc Puskas we’ve only seen in grainy footage against those, like Messi or Ronaldo, whose every touch has been televised? And why do great footballers like Diego Maradona —masters of intelligence on the pitch—sometimes become such flawed and tragic figures off it?1. The Pelé Problem: Why Nostalgia Matters Amy Lawrence voted for Pelé as number one, even though The Athletic’s collective ranking placed Messi first. Her reasoning? “When I grew up, when you spoke to people who were older than you, there wasn’t a debate. Pelé was the best.” She deferred to those who witnessed him live—a rare admission that nostalgia might actually be wisdom, not sentimentality.2. Maradona’s Genius Was Inseparable from His Madness Lawrence describes Maradona as playing “with a madness...there was something of the kind of intense creative artist about him.” He was a street footballer thrust into Italian mafia management, hacked and kicked because defenders “couldn’t stop him by playing football.” His 1986 World Cup remains the most dominant individual performance in history—but his life became the cautionary tale of what happens when raw genius meets extreme celebrity.3. Cruyff Was the Anti-Ronaldo Johan Cruyff “encouraged everybody to think instead of just watch”—a philosopher-footballer who “was a bit of a rebel” and famously skipped the 1978 World Cup (possibly because his wife didn’t trust him with the ladies). Contrast that with Cristiano Ronaldo, whom Lawrence describes as “built by design”—the AI-generated footballer, all machine, no poetry. If Ronaldo represents modern football’s corporate efficiency, Cruyff embodied its lost intellectual soul.4. Women Journalists Don’t Play the Gender Card—But Maybe They Should Lawrence, possibly the only woman among the ten journalists who compiled The Soccer 100, says she “never played the women’s card” when arguing for players. But she admits that being a woman in a male-dominated field made her “just a bit more memorable” and perhaps allowed for “a slightly more sensitive line of questioning” that helped players relax. It’s a fascinating tension: rejecting gender as relevant while acknowledging its subtle advantages.5. The Impossibility of Comparing Eras Makes These Lists Meaningless—and Essential How do you compare Di Stefano (whom most people have only seen in grainy footage) with Messi (whose entire career has been televised)? Or account for the fact that modern players rack up goals against Lithuania and Andorra, while older players “never got able to pick up goals playing against” minnows? Lawrence acknowledges “there was never any pretense that this was some kind of definitive list”—yet we need these lists anyway, because they force us to articulate what we value in greatness itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Whither America? It’s the question that the Swedish writer Johan Norberg examines in both a recent Washington Post op-ed as well as his new book, Peak Human. What we can learn from history’s great civilizations, Norberg argues, is that they decline when they turn inward, away from both the outside world and innovation. “All Sparta, no Athens”, as he puts it. So what does that tell us not only about Trump’s America but also Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China? And what should we make of Europe, which is neither Sparta nor Athens? And when compared with China, Russia and Europe, Norberg’s vision of the American future seems relatively sunny. So maybe, with or without MAGA, the 21st century really will be the American century. * MAGA doesn’t fit any traditional conservative or liberal framework. It’s a radical ideology built around a strongman who has no patience for democratic process, rule of law, or compromise—precisely the institutions that classical liberalism and genuine conservatism have always sought to protect.* Declining empires are the most dangerous. Russia is “all Sparta, no Athens”—a society that builds barracks rather than innovation, extracts resources rather than creates wealth, and fears any neighboring democracy that might give its own people ideas. Putin may sense this is his last chance to rearrange the world order.* China’s split personality may doom its long-term prospects. Deng Xiaoping borrowed from Athens—openness, experimentation, “crossing the river by feeling the stones.” Xi Jinping has reverted to Sparta—centralized control that can build electric vehicle factories fast but stifles the strange surprises that drive real innovation.* America’s saving grace may be its constitutional limits. The courts are the only branch doing their job right now, striking down unconstitutional overreach one case at a time. Republicans know there’s life after Trump—and after two centuries of championing the Constitution, they can’t simply throw it aside.* Europe is Rome without the military power. The EU’s great idea—an open continent that experiments with different solutions—is undermined by a Mandarin class in Brussels that insists on standardizing everything. That’s why great European startups keep moving to California.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

I’ve spent this week in Washington DC where most people seem suspicious and sometimes even downright hostile about the future. Especially the supposedly “abundant” AI future being built in Silicon Valley. So where is this abundance going to come from? Some optimists, like The Great Progression’s Peter Leyden, believe there’s an emerging coalition of smart technocratic elites who will construct a more efficient state to engineer a new progressive era. That Was The Week’s Keith Teare, however, is suspicious of this kind of new New Deal, arguing that reform from above is, by definition, flawed. That’s all very well. But then, if the future isn’t going to be built by a new kind of smart government, then where’s it going to come from? The defiantly anti-top-down Teare believes, without much evidence, that it will somehow percolate up from what he calls “the masses”. I’m not so sure. Do we really want to trust our AI future to a vengeful digital mob?1. The Policy Gap is Real – But No One Knows How to Fill It Keith Teare identifies a critical void: while AI and automation may create unprecedented wealth, there’s no coherent framework for ensuring that abundance benefits everyone rather than concentrating in the hands of tech monopolists. Both left and right lack a practical manifesto for this transformation.2. Innovation Will Happen – Distribution Won’t Keith Teare argues that technological progress and wealth creation are inevitable, driven by curious entrepreneurs and scientists working through the night. What doesn’t happen automatically is the flowering of society or the reallocation of resources. That requires something more than market forces alone.3. Government as Currently Constituted Can’t Lead This Transformation Despite Peter Leyden’s call for “state capacity,” Teare remains deeply skeptical that bureaucratic governments can play a progressive role. He sees them as enemies of innovation, prone to regulation and rule-making rather than enablement. He prefers Trump’s hands-off approach to Democratic regulatory instincts.4. The Bottoms-Up Revolution May Be Inevitable When pressed on alternatives to government action, Keith Teare suggests people power rather than state power will drive change. As AI displaces workers, those made unemployed will demand society provide them a living standard – creating pressure for transformation that could be peaceful (as Marx predicted for wealthy America) or disruptive.5. Some Tech Leaders See Beyond Their Own Pockets Contrary to cynicism about Silicon Valley greed, Keith Teare points to Elon Musk’s vision of money becoming irrelevant under true abundance and Sam Altman’s WorldCoin project as evidence that at least some technologists can imagine distributing wealth beyond their own fortunes. Whether these visions are “childish fancy” or prophetic remains the debate.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Call it the Zakaria paradox. We live in revolutionary times, the CNN host and Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria explains, and yet it’s the reactionary MAGA politics of resentment that is currently ascendant. It’s this paradox that laces Zakaria’s 2024 book, Age of Revolutions (just out in paperback), a narrative that traces the history of liberalism from the 17th century revolutionary Dutch Republic to today’s reactionary age of populist strongmen. The Trump playbook is clear, Zakaria notes: “the Chinese Are Taking Your Factories, the Mexicans Are Taking Your Jobs, the Muslims Are Trying to Kill You.” So how should progressive liberals, in our age of TikTok and OpenAI, respond with a more optimistic, forward thinking message about our revolutionary times? What is Fareed Zakaria’s escape from the Zakaria Paradox?1. Trump’s Genius Was Sensing the New Republican Base Trump was the only candidate in 2016 who abandoned the Reagan formula (free trade, balanced budgets, interventionist foreign policy) and recognized that the Republican base had become white working class voters deeply resentful of globalization, immigration, and cultural change.2. We’re Living Through a Long Backlash, Not a Moment Zakaria argues that massive technological and economic transformations—from industrialization to today’s AI revolution—always trigger prolonged cultural and political backlashes. Trump’s re-election confirms we’re in this for decades, not years.3. The Dutch Revolution Invented Modern Individualism Painters like Vermeer and Rembrandt revolutionized Western art by depicting ordinary people and daily life rather than religious subjects—marking the birth of individualism that defines modern liberalism. To understand revolution, look at art, not just politics.4. TikTok Is Enlightenment Liberalism on Steroids Our fragmented, personalized media landscape represents the logical conclusion of individual autonomy and choice. But this creates a “hole in the heart”—people miss the certainty of faith, tradition, and community that pre-modern life provided.5. Liberalism’s Biggest Threat Comes From Both Sides Zakaria warns that illiberalism threatens from the reactionary right (Deneen-style restrictions on women’s rights, immigration) AND from the progressive left (DEI ideology, extreme socialism). True liberals must hold the center and resist sacrificing liberal values to achieve political goals.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Did American eugenics really fuel the murderous euthanasia programs of the Nazis? Yes, according to Susanne Paola Antonetta, author of The Devil’s Castle, a history of Nazi eugenics and euthanasia. According to Antonetta, pioneering American eugenicists not only influenced Nazi thinking—Hitler himself corresponded with them and praised U.S. sterilization laws in Mein Kampf—but the New York City-based Carnegie Institute proposed gas chambers in 1918 as one solution for dealing with what eugenicists called the ‘hereditarily tainted’ population. While Germany’s response was uniquely brutal, Antonetta argues that American psychiatric thinking provided the conceptual framework for deciding whose lives had value and whose didn’t. Moreover, the notorious Nazi Aktion T4 euthanasia program killed 300,000 people with neuropsychiatric disorders, yet it was never properly prosecuted by the Americans at Nuremberg and remains largely unknown today.1. American Eugenics Provided the Blueprint The U.S. passed sterilization laws in 1907—decades before Germany’s 1933 laws. Hitler praised American eugenics in Mein Kampf, American eugenicists taught in Germany, and the Carnegie Institute proposed gas chambers in 1918 for the “hereditarily tainted.” The conceptual architecture was Made in America.2. Action T4 Killed 300,000 and Was Never Prosecuted The Nazi euthanasia program murdered roughly 300,000 people with neuropsychiatric disorders in gas chambers built into asylums. Because Nuremberg only tried international crimes—not crimes against a nation’s own citizens—this program escaped proper legal reckoning and remains largely unknown.3. Doctors Could Say No—But Didn’t Some asylum doctors, like Carl Kleist, simply refused to participate in T4 and faced no punishment. This makes the complicity of other doctors—many of them idealistic, not monsters—more damning. The system allowed for refusal; most chose collaboration.4. Psychiatry Still Assigns Value to Lives Antonetta argues that psychiatry’s troubled legacy persists: rigid diagnostic categories inherited from German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, neurotransmitter theories that haven’t improved outcomes, and a system that still decides whose consciousness has value. The DSM itself was created by self-described “neo-Kraepelinians.”5. Neurodiversity Is the New Civil Rights Frontier From autism to schizophrenia, our public discourse about neurodiversity remains “relentlessly negative.” As CRISPR and gene editing become reality, Antonetta warns we’re facing the same eugenic questions—but now with the tools to act on them. We need more honest and nuanced conversations about different forms of consciousness before we start editing them out.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

On November 20, 1925, Robert Francis Kennedy was born in Brookline, Massachusetts. A hundred years later, Bobby might matter more than ever. Chris Matthews, longtime host of MSNBC’s “Hardball”, is already the author of one bestselling RFK biography, Bobby Kennedy: A Raging Spirit. And today, to celebrate the centennial of his birth, the pugnacious polemicist has a new book about RFK’s abiding relevance. In Lessons From Bobby, Chris Matthews gives us ten reasons why Robert Francis Kennedy still matters. Matthews’ favorite lesson? Bobby’s willingness to concede defeat. After losing the 1968 Oregon Democratic primary to Gene McCarthy, Kennedy graciously acknowledged his loss and paid tribute to his opponent. Matthews argues this is essential to democracy. “The loser is the only one who can give credential to the winner,” he notes. “Without that, the American people always have doubts.” Yes, in November 2025, Bobby matters more than ever. 1. Bobby’s Vulnerability Was His Strength Unlike JFK’s aloof, almost royal demeanor, Bobby identified with victims rather than observing them from a distance. He “seemed to have identified with people’s troubles and thought of himself as one of the victims,” making him relatable in ways his more polished brother never was.2. Personal Experience Transformed His Politics Bobby’s commitment to civil rights deepened dramatically after his assistant John Seigenthaler was beaten nearly to death during the Freedom Rides in 1961. “Something turned in him,” Matthews notes—he realized someone close to him had been left to die in the streets, radicalizing his approach to racial justice.3. The Kennedys Became Liberals Strategically Neither Jack nor Bobby started as liberals. After narrowly losing the 1956 VP nomination, JFK realized “I got a lot of Southern support, but I don’t have any liberal support.” The Kennedys understood that power in the Democratic Party was liberal, so they “married” figures like Arthur Schlesinger and John Kenneth Galbraith to reposition themselves.4. Bobby Could Separate Good from Bad Matthews emphasizes Bobby’s ability to “granulate the good from the bad”—whether distinguishing corrupt labor bosses like Jimmy Hoffa from reform leaders like Cesar Chavez, or understanding how riots after King’s assassination could be both morally motivated and criminally wrong. This nuanced thinking set him apart.5. Conceding Defeat Defines Democracy Matthews’ most important lesson: Bobby’s gracious concession after losing Oregon to Gene McCarthy exemplifies democratic virtue. “The loser is the only one who can give credential to the winner,” Matthews argues, contrasting this sharply with Trump’s 2020 election denial and warning that without honest concessions, “the American people always have doubts.”Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

25 movies and 0 hits: it’s been a particularly rough quarter for Hollywood. But as I discuss with the cultural commentator David Masciotra, it’s actually been a pretty strong quarter in terms of movie quality. From Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” and Jennifer Lawrence’s astonishing performance in “Die My Love” to a glitteringly bald Emma Stone in “Bugonia” and Ethan Coen’s “Honey Don’t!”, Hollywood is producing high quality, relevant material. One problem, however, is that Gen Z has abandoned cinema. Another is that Hollywood’s penchant for movies dominated by memorably uncompromising female leads like Stone and Lawrence might be out of step with a broader culture still imprisoned by a nostalgia for a dominant masculinity. Perhaps that’s why “One Battle After Another”, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio as a pathetically redundant Sixties radical, is the one hit of the season. And it may also be why the excellent Springsteen biopic, “Deliver Me From Nowhere”, featuring a clueless Bruce trying to find himself by recording “Nebraska”, was such a flop. No, men don’t matter, either in Hollywood or in life. Even when they do. One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson) The season’s sole commercial success ($70 million) works because it satirizes everyone. DiCaprio’s incompetent ‘60s radical provides comic relief, but it’s Chase Infinity’s cynical Gen Z daughter who steals the film (even if Gen Z’ers have given up going to the movies). Anderson’s Pynchon adaptation makes absurdity central to American identity, both then and now—the villainous Christmas Adventures Club in golf attire perfectly capturing MAGA’s ridiculousness.Die My Love (Josephine Decker) Jennifer Lawrence delivers an astonishing performance confirming she’s among Hollywood’s greatest actors. The film died at the box office despite critical praise—perhaps because audiences resistant to female-dominated narratives won’t show up even for exceptional work like this. Her assertiveness and complexity highlights exactly what’s missing from contemporary male performances.Bugonia (Yorgos Lanthimos) Emma Stone continues her fearless run in this cultish, visually striking film. Her performance demonstrates creative risk-taking unavailable to today’s male leads. Jesse Plemons plays the archetypal basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist—masculine id of our internet age. Its commercial failure suggests audiences aren’t ready for cinema that interrogates rather than celebrates American mythology.Honey Don’t! (Ethan Coen) Coen’s lesbian B-movie homage to film noir, which David Masciotra loved, deserved better than its catastrophic box office. Margaret Qualley’s detective becomes a feminist hero fighting idiotic patriarchy without losing entertainment value. Set in Bakersfield and focused on religious hypocrisy, it feels both familiar and innovative. Its death proves even clever, relevant films can’t entice Gen Z’ers back to the movies.Deliver Me From Nowhere (James Mangold) The season’s most revealing failure. The film captures Springsteen’s Faustian bargain—trading artistic integrity for superstardom, making “Nebraska” his final serious work before “Born in the USA”’s commercial conquest. It depicts fierce masculine anxiety through Bruce’s mentally ill, violent father and his own depression. Yet it bored audiences with its introspective approach—ultimate proof that even films about masculine crisis can’t reach audiences imprisoned by nostalgia for an imaginary American masculinity that never existed. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe