Dastardly Cleverness in the Service of Good

As you know if you’ve been following my posts and podcast episodes lately, I’m writing and releasing the chapters of my new book The Liberal Backbone in real time. When Joan Esposito of WCPT Chicago heard about it, she had an idea: a "radio book club," with me coming on her show to talk about the book as it comes together, chapter by chapter, with her and her listeners. On December 13, we had the first episode, and I thought it went great — Joan is one of my favorite interviewers. We explored the book's big themes: what liberals actually stand for and how they can stand up for it a lot more effectively, at a time when that’s needed more than ever. I’m sharing the interview here, lightly edited. As always, you can find the text version at DastardlyCleverness.com and at Substack. And I hope you’ll follow me on Substack — just search there for Spencer Critchley. — Spencer

The first draft of Chapter 5 of my next book, The Liberal Backbone. It's a brief summary of the roots of woke thinking, which should make the woke left more understandable, especially for liberals trying to sort out what they do and don't stand for. More at Dastardly Cleverness.com/liberal-backbone-chapter-5 and at Substack.com/@spencercritchley. — Spencer

Are the woke just a bunch of Marxists? No, but that claim isn’t based on nothing. The Theory behind wokeness is complicated, but some of its key concepts are inherited from Marx, in modified form. And it becomes much easier to understand Theory if you understand something about Marx — which few people do, because Marx doesn't make it easy. In this fourth chapter of The Liberal Backbone, I explain two key Marxist concepts I plain language: structural oppression, and how a structure of ideas can make oppression seem normal. Marx was sure he'd discovered an infallible "science" of history. But in practice, it went terribly wrong. The effort to explain why would lead, via many branching paths, to Theory. Find more at Substack.

The word "woke" has at least two meanings — and they’re so different, they contradict each other. By one of them, any liberal can be proud to be called woke, because to be woke in this sense is to recognize bigotry and oppose it. But by the other meaning, liberals can’t be woke, even if they want to. That’s because if you’re this kind of woke, you reject liberalism. Spencer explains in this chapter of The Liberal Backbone. Find the full text and links at DastardlyCleverness.com.

It’s hard to stand for something if you’re not even sure what that something is. And many liberals have become unsure what liberalism is. For a long time, few of us had to think much about it. Liberalism was just default political reality. It was like water is for the young fish in David Foster Wallace’s famous parable: They can’t see the water, because it’s everywhere. Let’s remember that the word “liberalism” doesn’t only refer to beliefs on the left. It’s also the name of the philosophy of freedom on which the United States and every other liberal democracy were founded. When Thomas Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” he was referring to the principles of this kind of liberalism. But now we liberals are being forced to think about our default reality, because it’s being disrupted by two radical challenges from outside: one from the MAGA right and another from what’s commonly called the woke left — although the word “woke” needs some clarifying, which I’ll get to a little later. The trouble is, it can be hard for liberals even to see these challenges for what they are. They don’t fit within our default reality. More at substack.com/@spencercritchley.

With American democracy facing its greatest crisis since the Civil War as a corrupt autocrat returns to the presidency, I want to do my part, however small, to help right now. So I’m going to try an experiment: writing a shorter, more tightly focused book, and releasing chapters as I write them. They’ll appear as posts and podcast episodes, like this one. There are many reasons why we are where we are, and in this little book I’m not going to try to address all of them. Instead, I’m going to try to answer what I think are two of the most important but most poorly understood questions we’re facing: How did Democrats, and liberals in general, get so bad at politics? And what can they do about it? More: dastardlycleverness.com/liberal-backbone-chapter-01 — Spencer

Ernest Hemingway is famous for the terse economy of his writing. And in one of the most resonant examples of that quality, he captured the essence of catastrophic failure in just a few words, in his novel The Sun Also Rises. The alcoholic veteran Mike Campbell is asked how he went bankrupt. “Two ways,” he says. “Gradually and then quickly.” As it is with one person going broke, so it is with an entire economy crashing, or countless other catastrophes. There isn’t only a single failure, but a first, and then more — and then a cascade. And so it is when a democracy fails: it happens slowly and then all at once. Facing the possibility of a vindictive autocrat becoming president, the LA Times decides not to endorse his opponent, or anyone. Then the Washington Post does the same. Then USA Today and all the other Gannett newspapers follow. Some of their journalist employees protest, but almost no one walks off the job; a few editorial board members are rare exceptions. We can feel for those who keep their heads down. Given the precarious state of journalism, they know that if they lose the job they have now, there's almost nowhere else for them to go. Businesses, too, begin signaling their loyalty and obedience to the potential dictator. Their executives are driven by what they see as their duty to protect against risk — even as far larger risks gather. Nearly all their employees act essentially the same way. And as the cascade accelerates across society, a democracy that has survived many shocks fails. The last shock is sudden, even though the preparation was long. Until recently, it seemed unthinkable to most Americans that our democracy could fail. But it would be far from the first, as historians of democracy know well. One of the most insightful is Robert Kagan, who until recently was a member of the Washington Post editorial board. Kagan immediately recognized the meaning of the Post’s endorsement surrender. He resigned. It wasn't the first time he had made such a choice. In 2016, he left the Republican Party after it nominated Donald Trump. He sounded an alarm in an essay for the Post called “This Is How Fascism Comes to America.” But as Kagan’s principled choices demonstrate, fascism doesn’t have to come. Our democracy doesn’t have to fail. Some failure cascades are like avalanches: impersonal and irresistible. But when a human system fails, each step is a choice by an individual human being — by each of us. And sometimes, we make the right choice. Nothing is stopping us from doing that now, or at any time — nothing but our own character. “The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves,” as Shakespeare’s Cassius tells Brutus, with the Roman Republic falling around them. More: https://dastardlycleverness.com/slowly-and-then-all-at-once/

If we believe in democracy, I believe we have a responsibility not only to vote for it but to speak up for it, including to family and friends, despite how hard that might be. That doesn’t mean berating or insulting them. It can be done quietly and respectfully. In my own view it’s a mark of respect and even love to give people the whole truth about what we believe. So I’ve written an appeal to a friend who's planning to vote for Donald Trumo, imploring them, before it’s too late, not to make a mistake I believe they’ll regret for the rest of their life. I hope it might be useful for you, however you plan to vote. — Spencer

According to my guest this time, the United States is entering a Latino century, and that might be what saves our democracy. Mike Madrid is a top expert on Latino voting, and in recent years he’s become a national leader in the bipartisan fight to save democracy. He’s been the political director for the California Republican Party, a senior adviser to both Republicans and Democrats, and a co-founder of the never-Trump Lincoln Project. Now Mike has a new book, called The Latino Century: How America’s Largest Minority Is Transforming Democracy.  One of his goals for it is to help the Democratic Party win against MAGA authoritarianism.  He’s worried, though, that Democrats have been slow to get the message about Latinos and their crucial role in the nation’s future. And he thinks that helps explain why so many Latinos have been moving towards the Republican Party, a development many Democrats find baffling.  According to Mike, they’re baffled because they don’t understand Latinos or other minorities nearly as well as they think they do. He says too many Democratic candidates, strategists, and pundits think of minorities as theoretical stereotypes instead of as real people with complex lives. That’s why Democrats tend to assume immigration is the top issue for all Latino voters, for example, or that most want to be talked to in Spanish. Both of those assumptions may seem reasonable theoretically, but are often wrong in reality. Mike argues that now more than ever, Democrats need to get reality right. That’s because first of all, the Latino vote can make the difference in crucial battleground states this year, including ones that may surprise you, like Wisconsin and North Carolina. And he believes that over the long haul, Latino voters can help revive all Americans’ faith in democratic institutions — and democracy itself. — Spencer

Many liberals are deeply confused about how to respond to the campus protests over Gaza. And I think it’s an example of the confusion liberals are feeling generally over a lot of issues. I believe much of the confusion can be traced to the assumption that all political opinions can fit on a single line, from left to right.  For this one-dimensional, one-line model to work, there can only be one left and one right — but there are at least two lefts and two rights. And they’re not different as in further left or further right on the same line. They’re different as in not on the same line at all. And the difference goes back to the rise of liberalism, accompanied by the rise of an anti-liberal left.

As we risk obliviously repeating catastrophic mistakes others have already made, Spencer Critchley has some thoughts about memory and freedom, from people who know the precious value of both. Excerpt: "Most of us in the U.S. have been spared the necessity of knowing history, and instead have been able to live as if the world was created at our birth. But people in Central and Eastern Europe have already been trammeled by the history that has just now caught up with us. They’ve been trying to warn us for decades."

If you wanted to, you could consume nothing but presidential campaign coverage all day every day. But how much of it would leave you feeling better informed about casting what may be the most important vote of your life? Not better informed about the campaign as a sporting event, with all the expert play-by-play, color commentary, and stats. But better informed about questions that may not have easy, satisfying, or entertaining answers? Better prepared to think, and not just react? On this episode of Dastardly Cleverness, we go hunting for that kind of election coverage, find a little, and try to supply some ourselves. I'm joined by two people I can always count on to leave me better informed. Mike Madrid is a co-founder of the Lincoln Project and one of the country’s top political consultants, with special expertise on Latino voting trends. Mike previously served as the press secretary for the California Assembly Republican leader, as the political director for the California Republican Party, and as a senior adviser to both Republicans and Democrats. He’s the author of the upcoming book The Latino Century. And Zach Friend has worked for multiple presidential campaigns, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives, and has served for multiple terms as an elected official in Santa Cruz County, California. Zach is the author of the book On Message. -- Spencer Critchley

By some measures, well over half of charities do little or no good. When similar charities are compared, the most effective ones can be up to 100 times more effective than the least. And there’s often a big mismatch between where donors direct their support and where the need and potential benefits are greatest. A movement called effective altruism aims to make giving work better by identifying the most effective charities in the world and encouraging donors to support them generously and strategically. There's been a lot of excitement about it, but lately it's also drawn critics of its ethical premises and the behavior of some who call themselves effective altruists. In this episode Spencer explores both the promise challenges of effective altruism, in a fascinating conversation with one of the movement’s leaders, Luke Freeman, Executive Director of Giving What We Can.

There are lots of reasons to be cynical about the crisis in our politics. The trouble is, one of the biggest causes of that crisis is cynicism itself. We should always be skeptical about politics. People aren’t angels, as James Madison reminded us. But skepticism involves checking to find out what’s really going on, good or bad. Cynicism is just assuming that it’s all bad. This is often mistaken for savviness, which lends cool-kids credibility to claims like “all politicians are crooks,” or “there’s no difference between the parties,” or “government never works.” Except none of those claims actually stands up to skeptical scrutiny. Political journalists reinforce cynicism when they cover politics, day by day, as a dirty game in which all the players are more or less the same: self-interested schemers. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen blames it on what he calls “the cult of savvy,” which rewards reporters for the cynicism of their coverage, when what we need from them is skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, and necessary for democracy. You can’t say either about cynicism. If we automatically accept cynical beliefs as true, we make them ever more likely to become true. People who work on behalf of hope gradually withdraw from the arena, leaving it to people all too happy to encourage despair. And those are people who do in fact have very bad motivations. In this way cynicism reinforces itself and becomes a political death spiral. Democracy can’t run on despair. But authoritarianism depends on it. This is why authoritarians like Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump don’t care that you know they’re lying — they want you to know they’re lying. It serves their interests if you conclude that everyone is a liar, and lose hope.  Then your only safe choice is to back the most powerful liar. All this is why I wanted to talk this time about what has become a deeply unfashionable topic: morality in politics. Yes, it does exist, and in a democracy it must exist. And once again I talk with Kevin Lewis and Zach Friend.  Kevin has been a communications advisor and spokesman for former President Barack Obama, the White House, the Department of Justice, both Obama campaigns, and Meta. Zach has worked for the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and several presidential campaigns, including both of Obama’s. He’s currently an elected Supervisor in Santa Cruz County, California. Both have seen lots of the good and bad in politics, but neither is a cynic. — Spencer

A three-way conversation featuring host Spencer Critchley, Kevin Lewis, and Zach Friend on leadership lessons from the ouster of Kevin McCarthy, as compared with far better examples set by Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, and others. It turns out, to the shock of cynics everywhere, that character matters! Kevin was the post-presidency spokesman for former President Barack Obama. During the Obama administration he served at the White House and at the Department of Justice, where he advised Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. He’s also worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and both Obama campaigns. Zach has worked for the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and both Obama campaigns as well. He’s currently serving in local government as an elected Supervisor in Santa Cruz County, California. A video version of this episode is on YouTube.

If you want to know more about the risks and rewards of artificial intelligence, you could hardly do better than to consult with someone who’s been a senior communications advisor for Facebook, lately known as Meta, the US Department of Justice, and a President of the United States. And that’s what Spencer did for this episode. Kevin Lewis was the post-presidency spokesman for former President Barack Obama. During the Obama administration he served at the White House and at the DOJ, where he advised Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. He’s also worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and both Obama campaigns. We talk about how AI is transforming communication, politics, business, and even our understanding of reality and identity. We get into Senator Charles Schumer’s current efforts to help Congress catch up with a rapidly-growing technology few people understand. And you’ll hear some of Kevin’s anecdotes about working with some very interesting people under very interesting circumstances.

If you have children in your family, you’re probably worried about what technology might be doing to them. And maybe there’s some hope about what tech might do for them. In this episode, you can get guidance from one of the world's top experts on the subject. Dr. Katie Davis is a researcher and associate professor at the University of Washington, and the director of the university’s Digital Youth lab. She’s been studying technology and children for nearly two decades, starting with her time at Harvard University, where she studied under, and worked closely with, the renowned psychologist Howard Gardner. Katie’s first book, The App Generation, was co-written with Gardner. Her third and latest book, Technology's Child, was released recently by MIT Press.

The episode before last, Spencer was the guest for a change, interviewed by Joan Esposito, who hosts a liberal talk radio show originating at WCPT-AM in Chicago. This time, Spencer interviews Joan about how she manages to conduct smart, in-depth, live political conversations three hours a day, five days a week — sometimes devoting a full hour to a topic when the standard is a few minutes. We hear what Joan has learned as a radio host, as a TV news anchor, and in other roles, helping people understand what’s going on in their lives and in the world.  

Sam Farr devoted 44 years of his life to elected office at the local, state, and federal level. That included 24 years as the Congressman for the Central Coast of California, where he grew up in the seaside village of Carmel.  Among his inspirations were his father, longtime state legislator Fred Farr; President John F. Kennedy; and the Peace Corps, which he joined as a young man. If that makes him sound like an idealist, that’s accurate, but it’s only half the picture. The other half is very pragmatic, with an obsessive focus on the nuts and bolts of policy and politics. As you’ll hear in this interview, when both of those halves come together, democracy can work. Sam has lots of great stories about how that happens, some of them funny, some very moving, and all of them hopeful.

Spencer often talks with Joan Esposito, who interviews him about politics for her show on Chicago's WCPT-AM. This episode of Dastardly Cleverness replays one of those conversations that's especially relevant now. Joan and Spencer focus on why democracy, after all its successes, is now in so much danger from authoritarianism. They talk about: Why so many people are choosing authoritarianism over democracy, mostly on the right but on the left too How the sources of America's division go back to the Founding The breakdown of the moral consensus that used to hold us more or less together and how that allows demagogues to appeal to the worst in us What Plato, Freud, Marx, religion, and Silicon Valley tech bro’s have to do with all this And more. You can hear more smart, thoughtful interviews by Joan Esposito over the air on WCPT-AM Chicago, online at heartlandsignal.com, on SoundCloud, or with any podcast app — just search for “Joan Esposito.”