Keen On America

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

It’s the ultimate financial nightmare. Kristin Collier, a young student in Minnesota, woke up one morning to discover that her mother had taken out $200,000 in Kristin’s name. Collier tells this story in What Debt Demands, a book about America’s student debt crisis that is both personal and political. Collier, who proudly defines herself as a “democratic socialist”, believes that student debt is a form of modern American serfdom. So what to do? She argues for massive debt cancellation, free public higher education funded by taxes on stock trades, and restoring bankruptcy protections that existed before 2005. But with the average American now carrying $105,000 in debt and one in four households living paycheck to paycheck, can any political initiative—a Mamdani democratic socialist style or otherwise—actually address this crisis before it triggers a nightmarish financial crisis in the broader economy?1. Student Debt Has Become Inescapable Serfdom Since 2005, student loans—both federal and private—are nearly impossible to discharge through bankruptcy. Borrowers must meet an “undue hardship” standard so stringent that people are literally having their Social Security payments garnished in retirement to pay off loans taken out at age 20. Unlike mortgages or credit card debt, education debt follows you for life.2. Private Student Lenders Operate Like Subprime Mortgage Predators During the mid-2000s, banks offered “direct consumer private loans” up to $30,000 with no school certification required, transferred straight to bank accounts, with interest rates of 10-12%. A $30,000 loan could balloon to $100,000. Collier’s mother was able to take out eight separate loans totaling $200,000 using only a Social Security number and forged signature—the system had no safeguards because lenders prioritized profit over verification.3. Biden’s Big Moves Failed, But Smaller Wins Succeeded Biden’s signature executive action to cancel $10,000-$20,000 in federal student debt (which would have freed 20 million borrowers) was blocked by courts, as was his generous SAVE income-driven repayment plan. However, his reforms to Public Service Loan Forgiveness, existing income-driven repayment programs, and borrower defense protections have canceled billions in debt—demonstrating that incremental administrative changes work better than bold executive action in our current legal landscape.4. The Debt Crisis Extends Far Beyond Students With average American consumer debt at $105,000 and one in four households living paycheck to paycheck, we’re potentially heading toward systemic economic collapse. The issue isn’t just student loans—it’s medical debt, rental debt, and a broader affordability crisis. Collier’s organization, the Debt Collective (born from Occupy Wall Street), treats this as a collective action problem requiring a union of debtors across all categories.5. Debt Creates Psychological Haunting, Not Just Financial Burden Collier describes debt as both “presence and absence”—a constant bodily heaviness and dread. She feared her credit card would be rejected at grocery stores, dreaded checking her bank account, assumed every unknown phone number was a debt collector. This shame is culturally reinforced: Americans are taught that unpayable debt reflects personal moral failure, even when the system itself is predatory. One borrower told her he avoided dating entirely because he was too ashamed to reveal his debt burden.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

There are those who ask why so many Americans speak Spanish. But according to the Latino media entrepreneur and historian Javier Marin, you might as well ask why so many Americans speak English. Over the last half century, the Hispanic community in America has risen from 3.5 to 62 million. In his new history of Latino media, Live From America, Marin charts how networks like Univision and Telemundo drove the meteoric rise of Hispanic America. This IS America, Marin insists - there are now 62 million Latinos shaping the country’s politics, economy and culture. Rather than a demographic trend about some curious minority, it’s the core reality of 21st century America.1. The US is now the world’s second-largest Spanish-speaking country Only Mexico has more Spanish speakers than America. The US has surpassed Spain and Argentina. This isn’t an immigrant enclave - it’s a linguistic and cultural reality that’s permanent and growing. As Marin puts it: “Even if you deport three million, we still have 57 million.”2. Univision and Telemundo are America’s most powerful political engines - and they’re not owned by Latinos These networks reach 60+ million people and absorb massive political advertising dollars from both parties. But Univision is controlled by private equity, Telemundo by NBC Universal. This creates a fundamental tension: are they serving their community or their shareholders? The Jorge Ramos ejection-to-Mar-a-Lago-interview arc tells you everything.3. “When you lose dignity, you lose your vote” Marin’s thesis on why Democrats gained with Latino voters in recent elections despite Trump’s 2024 inroads. The harsh treatment and “physical aggressiveness” of deportation policies cost Republicans votes. Dignity and political loyalty are directly linked. This matters more than economic messaging.4. Richard Nixon invented the word “Hispanic” - as a political strategy In 1969, Nixon commissioned a committee to encapsulate all Spanish speakers with one word to create a political constituency. Reagan embraced it further with Hispanic Heritage Month. The term “Hispanic” isn’t organic - it’s a government-corporate construct designed to make 60+ million diverse people politically legible and commercially targetable.5. Spanish-language media has always faced censorship and “English-only” movements From Theodore Roosevelt promoting English-only in the early 1900s to Desi Arnaz being censored on I Love Lucy, there’s been consistent pressure to suppress Spanish. The FCC nearly cancelled Univision’s predecessor over foreign ownership. The current anti-immigrant rhetoric isn’t new - it’s the same 100-year battle. The difference now: the numbers make it unwinnable.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

The big news in Silicon Valley this week of a supposedly orchestrated “Panic Campaign” against AI. According to the researcher Nirit Weiss-Blatt, the campaign about the apocalyptical inevitability of AI is being driven by doomers like former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. Weiss-Blatt’s analysis are now being taken seriously in a Silicon Valley not adverse to conspiracy theories - particularly against itself. But how credibly should outsiders take her warnings? Keith Teare takes it seriously enough to dedicate his That Was The Week newsletter to it. I’m not so sure. And in the midst of our jousting, we were joined by Weiss-Blatt herself whose analysis of this moral panic, I have to admit, isn’t entirely absurd. 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

“Predictions are hard,” Yogi Berra once quipped, “especially about the future”. Yes they are. But in today’s AI boom/bubble, how exactly can we predict the future? According to Silicon Valley venture capitalist Aman Verjee, access to the future lies in the past. In his new book, A Brief History of Financial Bubbles, Verjee looks at history - particularly the 17th century Dutch tulip mania and the railway mania of 19th century England - to make sense of today’s tech economics. So what does history teach us about the current AI exuberance: boom or bubble? The Stanford and Harvard-educated Verjee, a member of the PayPal Mafia who wrote the company’s first business plan with Peter Thiel, and who now runs his own venture fund, brings both historical perspective and insider experience to this multi-trillion-dollar question. Today’s market is overheated, the VC warns, but it’s more nuanced than 1999. The MAG-7 companies are genuinely profitable, unlike the dotcom darlings. Nvidia isn’t Cisco. Yet “lazy circularity” in AI deal-making and pre-seed valuations hitting $50 million suggests traditional symptoms of irrational exuberance are returning. Even Yogi Berra might predict that. * Every bubble has believers who insist “this time is different” - and sometimes they’re right. Verjee argues that the 1999 dotcom bubble actually created lasting value through companies like Amazon, PayPal, and the infrastructure that powered the next two decades of growth. But the concurrent telecom bubble destroyed far more wealth through outright fraud at companies like Enron and WorldCom.* Bubbles always occur in the world’s richest country during periods of unchallenged hegemony. Britain dominated globally during its 1840s railway mania. America was the sole superpower during the dotcom boom. Today’s AI frenzy coincides with American technological dominance - but also with a genuine rival in China, making this bubble fundamentally different from its predecessors.* The current market shows dangerous signs but isn’t 1999. Unlike the dotcom era when 99% of fiber optic cable laid was “dark” (unused), Nvidia could double GPU production and still sell every chip. The MAG-7 trade at 27-29 times earnings versus the S&P 500’s 70x multiple in 2000. Real profitability matters - but $50 million pre-seed valuations and circular revenue deals between AI companies echo familiar patterns of excess.* Government intervention in markets rarely ends well. Verjee warns against America adopting an industrial policy of “picking winners” - pointing to Japan’s 1980s bubble as a cautionary tale. Thirty-five years after its collapse, Japan’s GDP per capita remains unchanged. OpenAI is not too big to fail, and shouldn’t be treated as such.* Immigration fuels American innovation - full stop. When anti-H1B voices argue for restricting skilled immigration, Verjee points to the counter-evidence: Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Max Levchin, and himself - all H1B visa holders who created millions of American jobs and trillions in shareholder value. Closing that pipeline would be economically suicidal.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

America is not only a good country, but it can also make the world a better place. That’s the somewhat surprising conclusion of the progressive Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamid, whose new book, The Case for American Power, argues that America remains the one great power that can improve the world. Hamid, once a militant anti-Iraq War campus activist, has undergone a striking ideological journey in the quarter-century since 9/11. The moral arc of his life now bends towards a practical, imperfect morality. This son of Egyptian immigrants champions American dominance over Chinese and Russian dictatorships—while insisting that hypocrisy, far from being a fatal flaw, is actually the homage that vice pays to virtue. The gap between American ideals and reality, he argues, is where moral progress happens. He even has a word for this: asymptote. Meaning that American idealism, while it can never fully be reached, is still of great value. 1. The Left Has Lost Faith in America—And the Numbers Prove ItIn the early 2000s, 85% of Democrats were extremely or very proud to be American. By 2025, that number has plummeted to just 36%—one of the most precipitous drops in modern polling history. Hamid argues this self-loathing among progressives is dangerous, leaving a vacuum that allows illiberal powers like China and Russia to fill. The alternative to American power isn’t no power—it’s worse power.2. Hypocrisy Isn’t a Bug, It’s a FeatureDrawing on French philosopher François de La Rochefoucauld, Hamid insists that “hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” America is accused of hypocrisy precisely because it aspires to ideals it often fails to meet. China and Russia are rarely called hypocrites—not because they’re more honest, but because they make no pretense of moral purpose. The gap between American ideals and reality is uncomfortable, but it’s also where progress happens. Close the gap by abandoning ideals, and you get pure cynicism.3. George W. Bush Got Some Things Right (If You Take Out Iraq)This is Hamid’s most counterintuitive argument. While the Iraq War was an unjustified disaster, Bush’s Freedom Agenda—pressuring allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to open their political systems—represented a fusion of power and moral purpose that Hamid admires. Bush spoke eloquently about universal human dignity and Arab aspirations for democracy. The problem wasn’t the idealism; it was the catastrophic application of military force where it wasn’t warranted.4. Conditional Aid Is the Answer—Even for IsraelHamid advocates suspending military aid to Egypt ($1.4 billion annually) and Saudi Arabia until they demonstrate meaningful reform: stopping journalist executions, allowing local elections, releasing dissidents. The same principle applies to Israel. Biden’s failure to condition aid during Gaza’s mass civilian casualties—what Hamid calls a genocide—represents an abdication of moral responsibility. These countries depend on American weapons. Washington should use that leverage to demand they share our values, not give them carte blanche.5. Asymptote: The Mathematical Concept That Explains American IdealismAn asymptote is a curve that approaches a line but never quite intersects with it. This, Hamid argues, is America—perpetually striving toward ideals we’ll never fully achieve, but getting closer through incremental progress. We’ll never be perfect, but we can curve toward perfection. The right under Trump has abandoned even the pretense of aspiring to higher ideals. The left’s job is to reclaim that progressive tradition: reminding Americans that moral progress is possible, even if completion isn’t.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

We’ve done shows before on how contemporary America resembles late-stage Soviet society. But none quite as intriguing as with the Russian-born, US-based journalist Mikhail Zygar. In The Dark Side of the Earth, his new history of the Soviet Union’s demise, Zygar underlines the moral exhaustion of its citizens. People no longer believed in anything, he reports on the collapse of this vast Euro-Asian empire. And that’s the analogy Zygar makes with contemporary America which, he suggests, is equally exhausted. From the Soviet Union to the United States, a descent into a morally bankrupt nihilism defines the end of empire. Zygar even identifies the idealistic Obama with Gorbachev and the pugnacious Trump with Yeltsin, implying that a self-styled Putin-like “savior” lurks in the dark shadow of the American future. 1. Putin’s Russia is worse than the Soviet Union The Soviet Union had dozens of political prisoners in the 1970s; Putin’s Russia has thousands. Putin threatens the West with nuclear weapons far more aggressively than Soviet leaders ever did. What we thought was a victory over totalitarianism proved short-lived—Putin has built something more oppressive than what collapsed.2. The 1991 coup failed because of one woman History turns on ordinary people, not just great men. Emma Yazov, wife of the Soviet Defense Minister, spent three days crying in her husband’s office, demanding he withdraw tanks from Moscow and resign from the junta. On the third day, he did. Her belief in democracy defeated the KGB and the Soviet military.3. Soviet citizens stopped believing after 1968 The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia killed whatever faith remained in communism. Afterward, Soviet people became perhaps the most cynical on earth, practicing “internal immigration”—pretending to participate in official life while living secret, clandestine private lives. When no one believes in an empire’s ideology, collapse becomes inevitable.4. Solzhenitsyn’s ideas shaped both Putin and the American New Right The author of The Gulag Archipelago evolved from Soviet dissident to fierce critic of liberal democracy. He wanted to preserve the Soviet empire by replacing communist ideology with Orthodox Christianity—precisely what Putin is attempting now. His attacks on Western liberalism’s “weakness” and “woke culture” have found new audiences among American conservatives.5. Dick Cheney’s approach to Soviet collapse enabled Putin George H.W. Bush and James Baker believed preserving a democratic Soviet Union would create a reliable partner. Dick Cheney disagreed, preferring “15 little dictatorships instead of one mighty Soviet Union.” Cheney’s view prevailed. Without a Marshall Plan for post-Soviet states, Russian nationalism flourished, and Putin portrayed the collapse as Western conspiracy—the foundation of his power today.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

The world is a remake. Yesterday’s show featured the MAGA remake of The Handmaid’s Tale. Today it’s Dr Strangelove 2.0 and the remaking of the trillion-dollar military-industrial complex in Silicon Valley. As William Hartung, co-author of The Trillion Dollar War Machine, notes, Dwight Eisenhower’s old military-industrial complex has migrated west to Silicon Valley. It even has a Strangelovian anti-hero: mad Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir and the Curtis Le May character behind other Silicon Valley military start-ups. No wonder current American foreign policy—with its Monroe Doctrine meddling in Latin America—also appear to be a giant remake.1. Silicon Valley Has Become the New Military-Industrial Complex Dwight Eisenhower’s old guard defense contractors—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman—are being displaced by tech companies like Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX. The “military-industrial-digital complex” represents a fundamental shift in how America builds and profits from its defense apparatus.2. The Defense Budget Is Out of Control—and Growing America spends roughly $1.5 trillion annually on military defense when you include the Pentagon budget, nuclear weapons, veterans’ care, and interest on past war debt. This dwarfs spending on social programs like nutrition assistance and represents a stark trade-off: F-35s or feeding children.3. Peter Thiel Is the Curtis LeMay of Silicon Valley Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel embodies the dangerous fusion of tech innovation and military hawkishness. His companies profit from government surveillance and defense contracts while he promotes an ideology that treats Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as a superior form of human being who should colonize space and reshape foreign policy.4. The “Rebels” Narrative Is Corporate Propaganda Silicon Valley defense contractors style themselves as disruptive rebels challenging Pentagon bureaucracy, but they’re simply a new generation of war profiteers. They’re not democratizing foreign policy—they’re making weapons more efficiently and lobbying for more aggressive military postures to justify their business models.5. America’s Foreign Policy Has Become a Dangerous Remake From Monroe Doctrine-style meddling in Latin America to increasingly bellicose rhetoric about China, American foreign policy is recycling Cold War playbooks with 21st-century technology. The merger of Silicon Valley’s move-fast-and-break-things ethos with Pentagon power creates genuinely Strangelovian risks.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

Back in 2021, Margaret Atwood came on the show to give her dark take on the American future. Four years later, Atwood’s prescience, particularly in her 1985 classic The Handmaid’s Tale, is increasingly self-evident. As the journalist Irin Carmon notes, MAGA America has become an Atwoodian dystopia of trad wives and state fecundity. But it is also, Carmon warns in her new book Unbearable, a place that actively discriminates against pregnant women, especially those of color. American women are dying in childbirth at three times the rate of their peers in other wealthy nations. Even in liberal New York City, Black women are nine to twelve times likelier to die than white women. So MAGA America is simultaneously fetishizing and punishing fecundity—celebrating “Trump babies” while jailing pregnant women who test positive for drugs. Forget the trad wives. The problem lies with the trad men making pregnancy so unbearable in America today.1. America’s Maternal Mortality Crisis Is a National Disgrace American women die in childbirth at three times the rate of their peers in other wealthy nations. In New York City—one of the world’s wealthiest cities—Black women are nine to twelve times likelier to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women. For every death, there are 60-70 cases of severe maternal morbidity, including hemorrhage, sepsis, and hysterectomy.2. MAGA’s Pronatalism Is Rooted in White Supremacy The natalist ideology espoused by RFK Jr., JD Vance, Elon Musk, and Trump himself is explicitly linked to eugenics and deportation. As Carmon notes, “We want our people to have babies” is something you hear openly from MAGA leaders. They celebrate “Trump babies” while considering children born to immigrants as not truly American—making fertility central to their white supremacist project.3. Pregnancy Has Been Criminalized in America Since Dobbs, there have been 412 pregnancy-related arrests in the United States, about half of them in Alabama alone. Women are being jailed for testing positive for drugs while pregnant—not offered addiction treatment, but arrested and held on impossible $10,000 cash bail. Some women don’t even know they’re pregnant until they’re tested upon admission to jail. Their pregnancies become evidence against them.4. The Handmaid’s Tale Was Always About American Slavery As Carmon points out, the dystopia Atwood portrayed was already the reality for enslaved Black women in America. The “father of obstetrics and gynecology,” J. Marion Sims, experimented on enslaved women—Anarcha, Betsy, and Lucy—for years without anesthesia or consent. American pregnancy care was founded on the torture of Black women’s bodies, and that legacy continues today.5. The Trump Administration Is Erasing the Evidence Trump has effectively canceled PRMS (the pregnancy research monitoring service) that tracks maternal morbidity and mortality nationally. Research grants studying how to improve maternal health are being cut as “DEI violations.” CDC pregnancy data is being deleted from websites. As Carmon warns: you can’t solve a problem you’re not allowed to document or even count.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

How to fix today’s epidemic of loneliness? For the New Yorker cartoonist and author Sophie Lucido Johnson, the answer involves both pigeons and polyamory. As she argues in her brand new book, Kin: The Future of Family, Johnson provides the tools to forge kinship in everything from asking for help on a grocery run, to choosing to have roommates later in life to combat loneliness, to living in modern day “mommunes” of single mothers sharing bills and responsibilities. And the pigeons and polyamory? Johnson draws on pigeon behavior—how pair-bonded birds navigate home more successfully than solitary ones—as a metaphor for human interdependence. Her own polyamorous life, detailed in her popular 2018 memoir Many Love, exemplifies her broader argument: that intentional, non-traditional relationship structures can provide a much richer web of connectivity than the isolated nuclear family. So the future of family goes way beyond traditional family. It’s pigeons, polyamory and mommunes. * The nuclear family is historically recent and economically failing. Johnson argues the isolated two-parent household is a post-industrial phenomenon—barely 150 years old—that leaves people emotionally and financially overburdened.* Loneliness is deadlier than obesity or alcoholism. Research shows chronic loneliness increases mortality more than smoking 15 cigarettes daily, primarily because isolated people lack support networks to catch health crises early.* Small acts of connection matter as much as close relationships. “Loose ties”—knowing your neighbors’ names, chatting at the grocery store—provide significant mental health benefits. Johnson advocates borrowing a bundt pan from a neighbor instead of ordering from Amazon.* Polyamory isn’t just about sex—it’s about intentional kinship. Johnson’s polyamorous practice means cultivating multiple committed relationships with extensive communication, creating a web of support that nuclear families can’t provide alone.* We need new language for chosen family. Johnson proposes “kin” for people who are more than friends but outside traditional family structures—roommates, co-parents in “mommunes,” neighbors who share resources—arguing blood ties shouldn’t define our primary support networks.* 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

Lawyers usually like the law. The more the better. But in addition to his life as a top corporate lawyer, Philip K. Howard has made a second career out of criticizing the invasion of law into American society. In books like The Death of Common Sense, Life Without Lawyers and his latest, Saving Can-Do, Howard argues that a uncontrolled thicket of legal red tape is undermining innovation in America. The lawyer’s central thesis is against the law: America has morphed from a can-do nation into a can’t-do society where individual judgment has been replaced by legal central planning, and where citizens must ask lawyers for permission before acting. Too many lawyers and too many laws, Howard says, are transforming America into a dystopia caught between Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. But isn’t that a bit rich, perhaps even Orwellian, from the Senior Counsel at one of America’s most illustrious law firms?Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.1. America’s transformation from can-do to can’t-do spirit Howard argues America has abandoned individual judgment and self-reliance for a system where citizens must seek legal permission before acting. The “spirit of America” — the ability to make choices and associate freely — has been replaced by legal central planning.2. Law has become a secular religion Rather than a practical tool for ordering society, law has become something Americans worship and defer to reflexively. People can no longer make basic judgments about character, competence, or risk without consulting legal frameworks — transforming citizens into dependents.3. The legal profession needs radical reduction Howard believes America has far too many lawyers acting as gatekeepers in daily life. His solution isn’t reform but elimination: get lawyers out of routine human interactions, contracts, and decisions. Let people negotiate directly and make their own judgments about trust and risk.4. This isn’t partisan — it’s about human agency Howard rejects the “conservative” label, arguing both left and right have created their own legal straitjackets. Progressives impose legal controls through regulation; conservatives through litigation and status quo protection. His concern transcends ideology: can individuals still exercise judgment and take responsibility?5. The contradiction is the point Howard embraces the irony of a successful corporate lawyer attacking his profession. He’s spent his career in BigLaw precisely because he understands how the system works — and that insider knowledge fuels his conviction that legal overreach is suffocating American innovation and freedom. The question isn’t whether he’s hypocritical, but whether he’s right.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

My neologism-du-jour is “enstatification”. It’s what is happening in MAGA America with Trump’s Gaucho-style swaggering into the economy and his reversal to autarky and a back-to-the-future Monroe Doctrine. With the growth of a 19th-century style state power, America is trying to become the new China. Meanwhile, as Keith Teare notes in his latest That Was The Week newsletter, China is the new America in its embrace of technological innovation, particularly its trebling down on clean energy. That’s why the “Too Big To Fail” debate about OpenAI is so heavily laced in irony. It’s not just Sam Altman’s chutzpah in trying to simultaneously become the punter and the house in his multi-trillion-dollar bet on ChatGPT. But it might actually reflect the new realities of second-quarter 21st-century America. We’ve been wondering for a while now what comes after neo-liberalism. In a neologism: enstatification. * China Has Already Won the Clean Energy Race—And That Changes Everything Keith Teare confirms what The Economist reported: China’s clean energy capacity dwarfs America’s by a decade or more. This isn’t just about being green—it’s about controlling the energy infrastructure that AI requires. China is becoming the 21st century’s combination of America and Saudi Arabia.* Jensen Huang’s Verdict: China Will Win the AI Race Because It Deregulates While America Bureaucratizes The NVIDIA CEO’s provocative claim isn’t just marketing—it reflects a real competitive advantage. While four Democratic states pursue AI regulation at the state level, Beijing is loosening regulations and slashing energy costs for data centers. Democracy’s decentralization may be its Achilles heel in rapid technological competition.* OpenAI’s “Too Big to Fail” Status Reveals the New Age of Enstatification Despite David Sacks’ denials, OpenAI’s strategic importance means it effectively cannot be allowed to fail—not because of systemic financial risk like 2008, but because of national competitiveness concerns. This isn’t neoliberalism anymore; it’s America’s version of state capitalism.* The Real Convergence Isn’t US vs China—It’s Both Nations Embracing State-Directed Economies Trump’s Intel investment, Sacks and Andreessen’s push for centralized AI policy, and China’s directed innovation represent a global trend toward what Keith calls state involvement in “procuring and distributing wealth.” Alibaba and Google, Huawei and NVIDIA—they’re becoming more alike than different.* Keith Teare’s Optimism: “Everyone Will Win” in the AI Economy—But Some Pigs Are More Equal: Keith argues this isn’t a zero-sum race with winners and losers, but a rising tide lifting all boats through reciprocity. America and China will both capture massive value from AI’s potential $26 trillion GDP boost by 2035. I remain skeptical: history suggests great power competitions don’t end in shared prosperity.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

One big story captures all six books selected by the Financial Times for their short list of best business books of 2025. As the FT’s Senior Business Writer, Andrew Hill, notes, it’s the story of the shift in global economic power from the United States to China. It’s game over. From Dan Wang’s Breakneck, which contrasts China’s “engineering state” with America’s “lawyering nation,” to Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance, chronicling America’s inability to build infrastructure, the shortlist reads like an autopsy of American decline. Edward Fishman’s Choke Points examines the new age of economic warfare, while Eva Dou’s House of Huawei reveals how Chinese companies vaulted past Western competitors. Even Stephen Witt’s The Thinking Machine, ostensibly about NVIDIA’s triumph, ultimately focuses on the US-China technology race. The judges, Hill admits, “very clearly narrowed in on this highly consequential US-China theme.” Whether chronicling rare earth minerals, clean energy dominance, or regulatory sclerosis, these books ask the same uncomfortable question: Is the American century over?* China’s “Engineering State” vs. America’s “Lawyering Nation” - Dan Wang’s framework in Breakneck captures the fundamental difference: China builds (pouring concrete, clearing regulatory obstacles), while America litigates, creating layers of bureaucracy that prevent infrastructure development.* The Abundance Paradox - Klein and Thompson’s bestseller reveals America’s core dysfunction: a nation that once defined progress now can’t build a high-speed rail link between its two most important California cities, spending billions for thirty yards of track.* Economic Warfare Replaces Free Trade - Edward Fishman’s Choke Points documents how sanctions, tariffs, and supply chain control have become the primary weapons of statecraft, with “choke points” entering the policy lexicon as the new language of power.* China Already Controls the Future’s Raw Materials - From rare earth minerals to clean energy technology, China has made strategic bets on tomorrow’s economy while America remained wedded to oil and coal, creating dependencies that may be impossible to reverse.* Even American Success Stories Are Really About China - NVIDIA’s $5 trillion valuation, chronicled in Stephen Witt’s The Thinking Machine, isn’t purely an American triumph—it’s fundamentally about Taiwan, China, and the geopolitical competition for semiconductor dominance.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

We all have our roles. I’m the smug San Francisco intellectual and the Orlando-based Dr Chloe Carmichael is the fearlessly authentic psychologist. She’s also the author of Can I Say That?, a feisty defense of free speech in our time of cancellation and unfriending. Most of us are too scared to say what we think, Carmichael argues about this anxiety-ridden, intolerant age. Such self-censorship is damaging our mental health, she worries. Liberals are more likely to defriend people over political differences. And yes, women sometimes lie. Imagine that. I’m a touch skeptical about some of this psychologizing—particularly whether any Americans are truly being silenced. But the good Dr Chloe has the “data” (who doesn’t?), the slot on Fox, and the cheek to nail me as a smug San Francisco intellectual. Even if such straight talk nearly got her unfriended by an anonymous woke reviewer at Publishers Weekly. Probably another smug coastal elite. Can I say that?1. The Mental Health Case for Free Speech Dr. Carmichael argues that self-censorship creates psychological harm—elevated cortisol, repression, and denial. She claims that when people can’t express themselves authentically, they either resort to violence, passive aggression, or damage their social relationships. Her clinical case: a client denied a promotion in favor of a woman who couldn’t process his anger directly and began unconsciously “acting out” distrust toward women in his life.2. The “Five D’s” of Liberal Intolerance Carmichael presents data showing people who identify as liberal are statistically more likely to: defriend, disinvite speakers, decline to date, distance in real life, or drop contact altogether over political differences. She insists this isn’t “in the DNA” of liberalism—conservatives led censorship campaigns in the 1980s against rap music—but claims it’s the current snapshot. She argues liberals genuinely believe limiting speech reduces hate and misinformation, but it actually has the opposite effect.3. The Violence Red Line Despite defending provocative speech (including Tucker Carlson interviewing neo-Nazi sympathizer Nick Fuentes), Carmichael draws a clear boundary: incitement to violence, fraud, defamation, and libel are not protected. She distinguishes between “viewpoint discrimination” (canceling someone for saying “a man can’t become a woman”) and legitimate social distancing from those celebrating political violence. She’s also fine keeping trans women out of her locker room.4. The Skeptic Pushes Back Andrew remains unconvinced there’s actually a free speech crisis. He doesn’t see evidence of widespread self-censorship among his (mostly liberal) San Francisco friends, questions her survey data, and challenges her claim of political balance—pointing out she appears frequently on Fox but never on MSNBC or CNN. He suggests the Publishers Weekly reviewer might be right that her book is a “slanted polemic” with a conservative bias, despite her protests.5. Dialogue, Not Deplatforming Carmichael’s most compelling example: Daryl Davis, the Black R&B musician who collected dozens of KKK hoods from members who quit after having conversations with him. Her argument: pushing prejudice underground makes it fester; exposing it to dialogue and rational examination allows people to distance themselves from toxic thoughts. Even former jihadi recruiters, she notes, have been deradicalized through conversation, not censorship.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

A week is a long time in American politics. I did this interview with Alex Zakaras last week, before the midterms and Trump’s slide in the polls. But in spite of Mamdani’s victory earlier this week, the left still needs to figure out how to successfully reinvent itself in the MAGA age. That, at least, is the argument that Zakaras, a progressive political philosopher, makes in his new book Freedom For All. What could a liberal society be in 21st-century America, he asks. Zakaras’ answer is an unambiguous left populism that defiantly reclaims freedom from libertarian conservatives, challenges economic elites head-on, and stops defending the pre-Trump status quo. But can progressives really build the broad coalition necessary to win power while staying true to their principles? Yes, Alex Zakaras trumpets. By pursuing freedom for all in a post-neo-liberal America. 1. The Left Can’t Just Play Defense Zakaras argues that liberals have adopted a defensive posture—protecting institutions, defending the pre-Trump status quo—which positions them as guardians of a system many Americans are deeply dissatisfied with. This allows the populist right to claim the mantle of change while liberals appear as defenders of an unequal economic order.2. Reclaim Freedom From Libertarian Conservatives The right has dominated the rhetorical battle over “freedom” for decades, defining it as absence of government interference. Zakaras insists left liberals must contest this term and articulate their own vision: freedom requires not just negative liberty but positive conditions—economic security, opportunity, dignity—that enable people to live freely.3. Left Populism Means Offending the Donor Class A genuine left populism requires the Democratic Party to adopt positions that alienate wealthy donors: stronger labor rights, wealth taxes, expanded public investment, even proposals like universal basic income. Zakaras argues this is essential to speak authentically to working-class economic suffering and build a winning coalition.4. The Coalition Will Have “Warts and All” Building a broad enough coalition to win power means welcoming people with views that make progressives uncomfortable—Catholic Latino voters with conservative social positions, working-class voters alienated by elite cultural politics. The left must abandon “politics of purity” for strategic coalition-building.5. Younger, Non-Ivy League Leaders Are Essential The Democratic Party is run by aging, Ivy League-educated lawyers who lack the media savvy to reach young voters. Zakaras points to figures like Zoran Mamdani who master TikTok and performative politics. The Chuck Schumers need to step aside for a new generation that can compete in today’s media landscape.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

If money is supposed to make you happy, then why do tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen seem so miserably angry? That’s the question at the heart of Jacob Silverman’s new book, Gilded Rage, an expose of Silicon Valley’s angry plutocracy. The weird thing is that a lot of these billionaires behave little differently from the apoplectic lumpen commentariat on X or Reddit. Sure, they might own X, but they share all the right-wing conspiracy theories infecting the online mob - from trollish racism and anti-semitism to a bro style paranoia about female power. According to Silverman, their rage is a form of exhaustion with the world itself. These men don’t just want to own everything—they want to exit society entirely, by inventing new cities, buying private islands, and founding Martian colonies. Unlike the Gilded Age robber barons who happily built universities and libraries, today’s miserable tech elites sit in their palatial basements and rage against society. Maybe we should take away their money. It might cheer them up. 1. The Radicalization is Real and Different This isn’t just typical Silicon Valley disruption rhetoric. Silverman argues we’re witnessing an unprecedented fusion of corporate power and government under Trump, with tech CEOs like Musk acting as virtual co-candidates rather than mere donors. Unlike previous eras of money in politics, this represents CEOs directly occupying the political stage.2. Childhood Trauma Shapes Billionaire Rage Musk’s abusive upbringing in apartheid South Africa, Thiel’s grievances dating back to Stanford, and personal family conflicts (like Musk’s estrangement from his trans daughter) have profoundly shaped these men’s worldviews. Their “woke mind virus” obsession often traces directly to feeling their children have been turned against them by progressive institutions.3. The Apartheid Connection Matters The South African origins of key PayPal mafia members—Musk, Thiel, and David Sacks—isn’t coincidental. Growing up in a “highly engineered chauvinist racist society” has influenced their authoritarian instincts, comfort with hierarchy, and reactionary politics. Musk’s companies have faced multiple racial discrimination lawsuits, suggesting these patterns persist.4. They’re Literary Fundamentalists, Not Intellectuals These billionaires obsessively reference science fiction and fantasy (Musk’s Asimov fixation, Thiel’s endless Tolkien companies), but they read these works as blueprints rather than allegories. They lack humor, self-reflection, and genuine intellectual growth—Thiel still complains about the same grievances from his 1995 book “The Diversity Myth.”5. There’s No Liberal Tech Counterweight Don’t expect Tim Cook, Reid Hoffman, or other supposedly progressive tech leaders to mount serious opposition. Most are opportunists going along to get along, while others have their own scandals (Hoffman’s Epstein connections). The choice isn’t between left and right tech elites, but between an active right-wing faction and a passive center-right majority.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