Keen On America

How should America choke enemies like Iran, Russia and China? Not on the battlefield—according to Edward Fishman, that’s yesterday’s game. Today, Fishman argues in Chokepoint, America has turned the world economy into its weapon of global domination. In his bestseller, already shortlisted for the FT’s best business books of the year, Fishman reveals that 21st century American power relies on economic warfare. From Treasury Department lawyers weaponizing the dollar-based financial system to Silicon Valley’s semiconductor stranglehold, sanctions, export controls and financial coercion have replaced military force as America’s primary tools of statecraft. Every U.S. president this century has doubled their predecessor’s use of sanctions—a staggering escalation that has fundamentally reshaped the global economic order and may ultimately lead to less interdependence and, paradoxically, more military conflict. But what about Trump’s tariffs? According to Fishman, Trump has made two critical errors: weaponizing America’s economic power against allies like Europe, Canada and India rather than just adversaries, and relying on import tariffs—where the U.S. controls only 13% of global imports—instead of the true chokepoints where America dominates 90% of foreign exchange transactions and 80% of advanced AI chips. So it is Trump himself who has choked rather than successfully choking America’s enemies. 1. Every US President This Century Has Doubled Sanctions Usage The escalation is relentless and bipartisan: from George W. Bush to Obama to Trump’s first term to Biden, each administration imposed sanctions at twice the rate of their predecessor—revealing economic warfare as a defining trend of 21st century American power, not a partisan aberration.2. The Dollar System is America’s True Superweapon The US doesn’t need naval blockades anymore. Because the dollar is involved in 90% of global foreign exchange transactions, America can choke off countries like Iran simply by threatening banks, oil traders, and refineries worldwide with exclusion from the dollar-based financial system—making economic warfare both more powerful and more invisible than traditional military force.3. Trump Weaponized the Wrong Tools Against the Wrong Targets Trump broke with predecessors in two critical ways: he’s using economic warfare against allies (Europe, Canada, India) not just adversaries, and he’s relying on tariffs where the US controls only 13% of global imports instead of leveraging the true chokepoints—the dollar (90% of forex) and semiconductors (80% of advanced AI chips)—where American dominance is overwhelming.4. Economic Warfare Isn’t Bloodless—It Creates Real Human Suffering Sanctions designed for coercion must inflict broad macroeconomic harm: inflation, currency debasement, unemployment. Fishman warns against treating these tools as cost-free alternatives to military action—they should only be deployed when vital national security interests are at stake, like stopping Russian imperialism in Ukraine, not for routine diplomatic leverage.5. The “Geoeconomic Impossible Trinity” Means Decoupling is Inevitable Only two of three factors can coexist: economic interdependence, economic security, and geopolitical competition. Since US-China and Europe-Russia rivalry isn’t disappearing, interdependence must unravel over the next decade. The danger: when countries can’t secure resources through trade, history shows they turn to conquest and imperialism—meaning economic warfare could paradoxically lead back to military conflict.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

Twenty years ago, the religious scholar Reza Aslan wrote his first book, There is No god but God, about the origins, evolution and future of Islam. It was a huge hit which lead to many other bestselling books on Islam and Christianity. Now Aslan has released a twentieth anniversary version of There is No god But God suggesting that the internet is reinventing Islam in ways that even he couldn’t have imagined back in 2005. The creation of what he calls the “cyber ummah” is destroying traditional religious authorities, enabling experimental communities like LGBTQ Catholics and Quranist Muslims, and redefining the very concept of community for the first time in 250,000 years of human history. And yet, for these profound changes, there are some things about not just Islam, but about all monotheistic faiths, that are unchanging. Religion is our human creation, he reminds us. So every religion will always be absurd because we are absurd. * Islam Follows the Same Patterns as All Religions - Aslan’s core argument in “No god but God” is that Islam isn’t uniquely violent, inflexible, or problematic. Like Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism, it has evolved through the same historical conflicts, splits, and adaptations that characterize all major faiths.* The Internet Is Creating the First New Form of Community in 250,000 Years - For the entirety of human history, community was geographically bound. Social media has fundamentally redefined this, allowing a Muslim kid in Jakarta who loves heavy metal to have more in common with a Muslim in Detroit than with anyone physically around them.* Traditional Religious Authority Is Collapsing Online - Muslims no longer need to rely solely on their local imam for religious guidance. Websites like fatwaonline.net offer 500,000 ready-made fatwas, and “cyber muftis” answer custom questions, democratizing religious knowledge and undermining centralized clerical power.* Religion Is Hardwired Into Human Cognition - The “cognitive study of religion” reveals that religious impulse is part of our evolutionary process and the proper functioning of our brains. Whether this is an accident, an illusion, or something fundamental to being human remains debated.* All Religions Are “Absurd” Because They’re Human Creations - Aslan argues that religions are petty, violent, and prone to schisms not despite being sacred, but because they’re human institutions. We create religions in our own image, complete with all our contradictions and flaws.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

Last time the anti-monopoly crusader Tim Wu appeared on the show, he was warning broadly about the road to serfdom. But in his new book, The Age of Extraction, Wu gets much more specific. The real road to serfdom, he warns, runs through Silicon Valley. Forget for a moment about surveillance capitalism, Wu suggests, and imagine that the most existential threat to 21st century freedom and prosperity is the “platform capitalism” of tech behemoths like Google and Amazon. These multi-trillion-dollar companies, he argues, have transformed the very places where we do business—digital marketplaces that once promised democratization—into sophisticated extraction machines. Like the robber barons of the late 19th century, today’s tech platforms have concentrated unprecedented wealth and power, creating an economic system that lends itself to the most Hayekian of medieval metaphors. The Silicon Valley business model is turning us into digital serfs, he warns starkly. That’s the extractive goal—the ‘Zero to One,’ as its most prominent ideologue Peter Thiel would say—of platform capitalism.1. On the core thesis of extraction: Wu defines the economic reality that now dominates our digital economy and explains why “extraction” is the word that best captures our era.“We have entered a world where we tolerate extreme levels of concentrated private power who try in every way they can to extract from weaker entities as much as possible. Much of the economy has become a resource for extraction by economically powerful actors.”2. On tech billionaires as modern sovereigns: Wu describes the mindset that has emerged among Silicon Valley’s elite and why their detachment from reality has become dangerous.“They desire to be treated like kings of small countries. They want immunity from ordinary laws. If no one ever says no to you, whether you’re an autocrat or a tech billionaire, that starts to become very bad for your character.”3. On Silicon Valley’s ideological transformation: Wu traces how the tech industry abandoned its founding principles and embraced the very monopoly power it once claimed to despise.“Silicon Valley once glamorized small inventive firms and brilliant scientists who gave their work to the public. Peter Thiel said every company should aim for monopoly. That’s basically where we live today. Everyone wants to be the platform.”4. On the fragility of centralized systems: Wu warns that the concentration of power in a few platforms has made our entire economic system dangerously unstable.“Centralized systems tend to be very fragile. They offer great advantages, but when they crash, they tend to crash hard. Whether it’s the economy or web services, I think we’re in for a hard crash coming at some point.”5. On history’s verdict: Wu issues his starkest warning about what happens if America fails to address concentrated economic power voluntarily.“If we can’t find some way to redistribute economic power, I think that history will redistribute it for us. The main and most effective tool of fundamental redistribution across the scope of history has been world wars and major revolutions. In a sense, we’re being tested.”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 couple of years ago, I asked the great military historian Richard Overy if World War Two had ended yet. Overy answered inconclusively, suggesting that wars were never really over. And such depressing wisdom is shared by Michael Livingston, a historian of another great war that shattered Europe - the Hundred Years War (1337–1453) between England and France. In his new book, Bloody Crowns, Livingston argues that Joan of Arc, Agincourt and the other now immortal iconography of the Hundred Years War shaped not just the histories of Britain and France but also the fate of the modern world. In fact, Livingston argues, the war was so consequential that it actually lasted two hundred years—and in some ways, still hasn’t ended.* Wars Never Really End—They Just Change Shape The rivalry between England and France didn’t stop in 1453—it went global, fueling centuries of colonial conflict across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Today’s geopolitical tensions (think Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine) are similarly rooted in unresolved historical conflicts that keep resurfacing in new forms.* National Identity Is Forged in Conflict, Not Peace France and England as we know them were literally created by this war. The labels “French” and “English” became meaningful identities only through centuries of fighting. This mirrors how modern nations—from Ukraine to Taiwan—often solidify their national consciousness when facing external threats.* Myths Matter More Than Facts Joan of Arc and Agincourt became more powerful as symbols than as historical events. Britain invoked Agincourt before D-Day because national myths inspire action. Today’s political movements similarly rely on mythologized pasts—whether America’s “founding fathers” or any nation’s “golden age”—to mobilize people in the present.* Rules of War Are Convenient Until They’re Not Medieval knights praised chivalry and honor—then massacred prisoners when it suited them (like Henry V at Agincourt). This pattern repeats throughout history: international law, Geneva Conventions, and “rules-based order” are respected when convenient and ignored when survival or victory is at stake.* The “Dark Ages” Weren’t Dark—We Just Can’t Agree on What They Were Historians can’t even agree when the Middle Ages began or ended, yet we use these labels to organize history. This matters today because how we periodize and label history shapes how we understand the present. Are we in a “new Cold War”? A “post-truth era”? These labels aren’t neutral—they’re arguments about what’s happening now.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

Two years ago, free speech champion Greg Lukianoff came on the show to express his concerns about conservative students getting cancelled on college campuses. Today, he’s terrified of the President of the United States. The CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has spent decades defending free speech against overzealous university administrators. But in Trump’s second term, Lukianoff finds himself fighting a much scarier adversary: a government hostile to free speech. Law firms have capitulated under threats of losing security clearances. Students have been deported for saying the wrong thing. And Trump keeps admitting he’s targeting people for their viewpoints—virtually guaranteeing he’ll lose in court while expanding executive overreach anyway.1. The Complete Reversal: Trump Adopted the Left’s Censorship Playbook The administration that campaigned against campus “cancel culture” now deploys the exact tactics it once condemned—misinformation claims, hate speech codes, viewpoint-based punishments. “They rediscovered hate speech” after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Lukianoff notes, using it as justification to silence critics despite previously arguing hate speech should be protected.2. Law Firms Chose Cowardice Over Principle Major law firms immediately capitulated to Trump administration threats of losing security clearances and federal building access—effectively ending their ability to practice. Only Covington & Burling fought from the start, and those who resisted have largely won in court. “It’s cowardice and self-interest, to be honest,” Lukianoff says. “They try to make it sound like this is an existential battle... And it’s like, yeah, that’s why you fight then.”3. Trump’s Own Admissions Guarantee He’ll Lose in Court Trump can’t help himself: he publicly admits he’s targeting people for their viewpoints, which is “the sine qua non of what you’re not allowed to do under the First Amendment.” His ego and need for credit constantly undermine his administration’s legal strategy. “Trump wants credit for all of this stuff,” creating a paper trail of constitutional violations.4. Students Are Being Deported for Protected Speech FIRE is challenging Marco Rubio’s use of obscure 1950s-era powers that allow the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens based solely on his opinion that they’re “adverse to foreign policy.” The only previous court challenge ruled these provisions unconstitutionally broad—by Trump’s own sister, a federal judge who died in 2023.5. The Real Red Line: When Trump Ignores the Courts “Our big red line is if he just stops following the courts entirely,” Lukianoff warns. The nightmare scenario isn’t losing cases—it’s Trump pulling an Andrew Jackson moment, saying “the court made the ruling, let it enforce it,” and simply continuing anyway. Nine months into the term, Lukianoff won’t say it’s likely, but he won’t rule it out either: “Would I be totally shocked? Unfortunately, no.”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

What the former Finance Minister of Chile Andres Velasco has called the Deliveroo effect is most evident in Poland. Despite unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, Velasco explains, Poles remain miserable. The problem, he suggests, is that we’ve become so used to the magical efficiencies of the digital revolution, that we expect instant miracles in both our political and economic lives. That’s one of the core issues Velasco, now Dean of Public Policy at the London School of Economics, and a group of leading public policy experts address in an intriguing collection of essays entitled The London Consensus. What the authors - who include Philippe Aghion, the 2025 Nobel Prize winner in economics - explore is how to come up with economic principles for the 21st Century that make us both happier and more prosperous, while confronting an existential challenge like climate change that didn’t even register in last century’s Washington Consensus. But democracy, Velasco warns, can’t work like a delivery app. We’ve layered regulations and participatory processes that slow everything down—making it nearly impossible to build housing in California or infrastructure anywhere in the West—while personalized technology trains us to expect results immediately. This fundamental mismatch between our expectations and reality is fueling authoritarian populism, eroding trust in experts like Velasco, and Aghion, and leaving entire regions behind in a Deliveroo stew of economic failure and cultural resentment. 1. The “Deliveroo Effect” Is Breaking Democracy We’ve become so accustomed to instant digital gratification that we expect the same speed from politics and economics. But democracy requires deliberation, participation, and time—creating a dangerous mismatch between expectations and reality that fuels populism and dissatisfaction. Even prosperous countries like Poland, the second-fastest growing economy since 1990, remain bitterly divided.2. The Washington Consensus Got Politics Catastrophically Wrong The 1989 economic framework naively assumed you could “sort out the economics” and democracy would naturally follow. It ignored local ownership of policies and believed growth alone would create liberal democracies. China’s experience—getting rich without democratizing—proved this assumption completely wrong. The London Consensus puts politics at the center.3. Markets Need States, Not “Free Markets” Versus Government The old ideological battle between markets and socialism was never productive. Markets can’t function without capable states to enforce rules, regulate finance, and provide infrastructure. The real debate isn’t whether to have government intervention, but what kind—finding the delicate balance between competition and regulation that fosters innovation without allowing excessive monopoly power.4. “Left-Behind Regions” Are Driving Political Upheaval Trade and technology create geographically concentrated losses—the Rust Belt, northern England—that go beyond economics. These regions experience social breakdown, population flight, and feelings of abandonment that translate directly into votes for demagogues and populists. Compensating losers from globalization wasn’t just economically smart; it was politically essential.5. We Need a “Good Jobs Agenda,” Not Just Growth Following economists like Dani Rodrik and Daron Acemoglu, the London Consensus argues that policy should be evaluated through the lens of job quality, not just GDP growth. Technology isn’t destiny—it can be directed toward complementing human skills rather than destroying jobs. Every policy, from trade to AI regulation, should ask: will this create quality jobs with decent pay, benefits, and worker agency?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 midst of today’s AI hysteria, have we forgotten about blockchain technology and the seductive Web3 promise of decentralization? Robbie Bach, longtime Xbox chief and lieutenant of former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, certainly hasn’t. In his new novel, The Blockchain Syndicate, the prescient Bach imagines not only a giant political crypto grift, but also warns about the siren song of Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). No, blockchain might not be as sexy or lucrative as LLMs these days - but Web3 still matters even if, as Bach suggests, its promise of a decentralized network remains more seductive than substantive.1. Crypto as “Giant Grift” Bach views cryptocurrency as a highly risky, speculative investment vehicle comparable to commodities like gold or silver, but warns there’s “definitely a giant grift” happening, with vulnerable people—particularly older investors putting their savings at risk—being exploited by those taking advantage of the crypto craze.2. AI Bubble Will Burst (But Not Catastrophically) Bach believes we’re in an AI investment bubble where valuations are unsustainable. He predicts a “sorting” of winners and losers over the next 12-18 months, with many AI investments failing to pay out, though he avoids the term “explosive pop” in favor of a more gradual reckoning.3. Blockchain: Powerful Tool, Double-Edged Sword Despite AI hype, Bach argues blockchain remains highly relevant and current. He sees it as neither inherently good nor bad—just a tool that can be used for legitimate purposes or criminal ones. He’s particularly intrigued by its dual nature: ultimate transparency yet also ultimate obfuscation through anonymity.4. Microsoft’s Secret Weapon: Adaptability Bach credits Microsoft’s longevity to its ability to make “tectonic shifts” across generations—from DOS to Windows, to cloud computing, to AI. He argues this skill at navigating massive transitions under Gates, Ballmer, and Nadella is more impressive than any single product innovation.5. FBI and CIA Are Irreplaceable Bach emphasizes that regardless of political views about current leadership, institutions like the FBI and CIA are essential for national security with no viable replacement. If they’re not working well, the solution is to fix them, not abandon them—a theme central to his thriller’s premise.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

Bubble or not? But the debate that’s been raging over the current AI exuberance might be missing the bigger point. Yes, of course, it’s a trillion-dollar speculative bubble built around AI start-ups that mostly remain unprofitable. But as I note in my weekly tech conversation with That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare (who is significantly more optimistic than me), it’s more than just another Silicon Valley bubble. From the Trump family’s multi-trillion dollar cryptocurrency speculation to an increasingly pervasive online sports gambling culture (especially amongst young Americans), the new epidemic in America is one of speculation. A hundred years after the Roaring Twenties we are back where we started. I don’t know how it will end. Maybe there will be a 21st century version of Warren Harding’s Teapot Dome Scandal, maybe another Wall Street Crash. But I guarantee you two things: It will end, and that ending won’t be pretty - neither for America nor for the world. I’m even betting on it. 1. The Speculation Epidemic Goes Beyond AI This isn’t just about artificial intelligence. From Trump family cryptocurrency ventures to the explosion of online sports gambling among young Americans, speculation has become the defining characteristic of American economic culture. AI is merely the most visible manifestation of a broader shift toward betting on the future.2. The State and Silicon Valley Have Merged Under the Trump administration, particularly with David Sacks as AI and crypto czar, government and tech investors have formed an unprecedented partnership—or as I suggest, a “marriage.” Regulatory barriers are being removed to facilitate rapid AI infrastructure development, marking a shift toward economic nationalism where the state’s fate is tied directly to tech industry success.3. This Bubble is Different (But Still a Bubble) Unlike the dot-com boom or tulip mania, today’s AI investments are backed by massive actual revenues—NVIDIA generated $130.5 billion with 114% year-over-year growth. The money isn’t entirely self-generating; real revenue exists alongside speculative investment. Yet trillion-dollar valuations for unprofitable startups like OpenAI and Anthropic still raise legitimate bubble concerns.4. Venture Capital Doesn’t Scale—And That’s Normal As venture capitalist Rulof Botha notes, VC isn’t really an asset class because only the top 10% of funds make money. Too much capital is chasing too few potential winners. This has always been true of venture capital, and most AI investments will fail. The question is whether AI will be like the internet (transformative) or interactive TV (a dud).5. The Ending is Inevitable and Uncertain Keith and I agree corrections will happen, but disagree on the scale and meaning. Keith sees “systemic uplift” with temporary setbacks. I see potential catastrophe—perhaps a 21st-century Teapot Dome scandal or another Wall Street Crash. What’s certain: this speculative fever will end, and given historical precedent, that ending is unlikely to be gentle.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

What’s the point of going to college? There used to be an obvious answer to this: to acquire the knowledge to get a better job. But in our AI age, when smart machines are already challenging many white collar professions, the point of college is increasingly coming into question—especially given its time and financial commitment. According to Caroline Levander, author of the upcoming InventEd, the American ‘tradition of innovation’ can transform college today. Levander, who serves as Vice President for Global Strategy at Rice University, argues that colleges must transform themselves from museums into startups. Indeed, the ideal of failure, so celebrated in Silicon Valley, must become a pillar of reinvented universities. And students too, who Levander has suggested have become increasingly conservative in their attitude to personal risk, must also learn to embrace not just innovative technological tools but also the messiness of personal disruption. That should be the point of college, Levander says. To learn how to productively fail. 1. Universities Must Choose: Museum or Startup? Levander argues universities exist on a continuum between museums (curating and preserving accumulated wisdom) and startups (messy, high-risk spaces for creating new knowledge). Most institutions haven’t intentionally decided where they belong on this spectrum, but they need to embrace a more dynamic, startup-oriented position to remain relevant.2. Student Risk Aversion is the Real Crisis Today’s students are increasingly conservative, focused on maximizing GPAs and taking “safe” courses rather than exploring creatively. Universities must build a “growth mindset” that encourages failure and experimentation—treating creativity as a muscle to develop rather than a fixed trait like eye color.3. Disciplinary Diversity is America’s Innovation Secret Just as biodiversity sustains ecosystems, disciplinary diversity fuels innovation. Breakthrough moments are unpredictable—Steve Jobs in calligraphy, investor Bill Miller in a philosophy seminar on John Searle. Closing departments and narrowing curricula amounts to “eating our seed corn” and threatens America’s competitive advantage.4. The Dropout Myth Misses the Point While figures like Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman dropped out successfully, Levander asks: “How do we create more Steve Jobses who find the university not a place to leave, but a place to continue building creative capability?” The goal is to institutionalize and scale what now happens by happenstance.5. Attacking Universities Threatens National Innovation The current political assault on university funding—particularly research dollars—isn’t just bad for Harvard or Rice. It threatens America’s entire innovation economy, since universities remain the primary incubators for industry-creating discoveries that drive national prosperity and competitiveness. 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

What unites Rudy Giuliani and Hunter Biden? According to the New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel, they are both on the payroll of corrupt foreign interests. In his new book, Devils’ Advocates, Vogel reveals the hidden story of Giuliani, Biden and the other Washington insiders who sold access to American foreign policy. From the Balkans to Brazil, shadowy foreign players have discovered that the path to influencing Washington runs through well-connected Americans willing to take their money. Vogel exposes how shadowy figures like lobbyist Robert Stryk—who has openly admitted that he’d work for Kim Jong-un or the Taliban if they paid—have turned foreign influence into a lucrative industry. The Trump family’s multi-billion-dollar cryptocurrency ventures and Hunter Biden’s Romanian land deals represent the same often questionably legal phenomenon: foreign interests paying for perceived access to power. As enforcement weakens and the regulatory regime loosens, this shadow diplomacy system is shaping U.S. foreign policy in ways that rarely receive scrutiny, despite laws designed to ensure transparency. From Ukraine and the Republic of Srpska to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Washington insiders are shaping US foreign policy in ways that benefit corrupt foreign interests rather than the American people. 1. Foreign Influence Is Bipartisan The corruption isn’t limited to one party. Hunter Biden and Rudy Giuliani both profited from foreign interests seeking access to American power, proving this is a systemic problem that transcends partisan politics.2. Trump’s Transactional Approach Created More Access Points Trump’s openly transactional style and willingness to upend traditional diplomatic channels opened unprecedented opportunities for foreign interests to buy influence through his family’s cryptocurrency ventures and close associates—potentially on a scale never seen before.3. The Scandal Is What’s Legal Most of this activity doesn’t violate laws—that’s the problem. As long as lobbyists register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, they can work for almost anyone. The system’s weaknesses allow personally enriching behavior that contradicts American ideals about democracy and human rights.4. Small Countries, Big Money, Global Implications Even minor players like the Republic of Srpska and Albania spend millions on Washington lobbyists. Their goals aren’t just local—they’re reshaping the world order, challenging NATO, international treaties, and aligning U.S. policy with interests favorable to Russia and China.5. Enforcement Is Weakening When It Should Strengthen At the very moment foreign interests are pouring more money into influence campaigns, enforcement is going in the opposite direction. Attorney General Pam Bondi—herself a former foreign lobbyist for Qatar—has moved to decriminalize enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the primary tool for regulating foreign lobbying.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 Save the American experiment? That’s the question the Yale historian John Fabian Witt asks this week in both a New York Times feature and his just published new book, The Radical Fund. Sometimes, Witt suggests, we need what he describes as a “calamity” to recognize and protect the American experiment in democracy. In the 1920s, the historian reminds us, this happened with the emergence of the Garland Fund, a charitable organization set up in 1922 which spawned many of the most profound economic and civil rights reforms of the mid century. Founded by Charles Garland, a disillusioned yet idealistic Harvard heir who refused his million-dollar inheritance, the Fund brought together unlikely bedfellows—from the ACLU and NAACP to labor unions—creating what Witt calls an “incubator” for progressive change. Drawing striking parallels between then and now, Witt argues that strategic philanthropy and what he calls “cross-movement dialogue” can reinvigorate American democracy in a similarly turbulent age of cultural anxiety, political distrust and violent division. History may not repeat itself, Witt acknowledges, but it rhymes. And the real calamity, he warns, would be the end not of history, but of the almost 250 year-old American experiment in political and economic freedom. * The 1920s-2020s Parallel Is Uncanny: Both eras feature post-pandemic societies, surging economic inequality, restrictive immigration policies, rising Christian nationalism, and disruptive new information technologies. Understanding how America navigated the 1920s crisis without civil war offers crucial lessons for today.* Small Money, Strategic Impact: The Garland Fund operated with just $2 million (roughly $40-800 million in today’s terms)—a fraction of Rockefeller or Carnegie fortunes—yet proved transformative. Success came not from sheer dollars but from bringing together feuding progressive movements (labor unions, civil rights organizations, civil liberties groups) and forcing them into productive dialogue.* Incubators Matter More Than Calamities: While crises like the Great Depression provided energy for change, the Fund created the institutional forms and intellectual frameworks that shaped how that energy was channeled. They pioneered industrial unions, funded the legal strategy behind Brown v. Board of Education, and staffed FDR’s New Deal agencies with their “brain trust.”* Cross-Movement Dialogue Is Transformative: The Fund’s greatest achievement was convening conversations among groups that disagreed fundamentally—labor versus racial justice organizations, communists versus liberals. These uncomfortable alliances produced the cross-racial labor movement and civil rights strategies that defined mid-century progressivism. Today’s left needs similar bridge-building across fractured movements.* We Need New Categories for New Economics: The institutions that saved 1920s democracy—industrial unions, civil rights organizations, civil liberties groups—are each in crisis today. The gig economy, AI, and virtual work demand fresh thinking, not just recycling 1920s solutions. Witt suggests progressives must incubate new organizational forms for 21st-century capitalism, just as the Garland Fund did for industrial capitalism.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

For financial journalist Elizabeth MacBride, the New American economy is like the old one - only worse. Describing it as the “Frankenstein version of neo-liberalism”, MacBride explains that business has overtaken government to create ever-more-powerful bankers like Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon. But all is not lost. In her upcoming new book, Capital Evolution, co-authored with the VC Seth Levine, MacBride argues that there’s a new consensus taking shape - what she calls “Dynamic Capitalism” - which balances profits with purpose. So if we can get beyond today’s neo-liberal Frankenstein moment, she promises, America will be able to address the great 21st-century challenges of inequality and climate change. I have to admit I’m not convinced. Rather than capital evolution, I see the growing political power of Wall Street players like Dimon and Fink. We shall see. But when a Wall Street CEO like Jamie Dimon announces $10 billion bets on national security (as he did early this week), it’s no surprise that the loudest calls these days are for revolution rather than evolution. Nor is it surprising that a 21st century version of Frankenstein - Mary Shelley’s apocalyptic 1818 warning about the destructive consequences of industrialization - will be appearing on Netflix next month. 1. Business Has Overtaken Government in Power and InfluenceMacBride argues that CEOs like Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink now wield more power than most elected officials, yet remain fundamentally unaccountable. When Dimon announces $10 billion investments in national security, the lines between Wall Street and Washington have clearly blurred—perhaps irreversibly.2. We’re Living in a “Frankenstein Version of Neo-Liberalism”The current system isn’t classic neoliberalism but a corrupted mutation where government has been “co-opted and turned into a tool for punishing people.” The small-government ideology has created not freedom but a punitive state that serves corporate interests while abandoning its regulatory role.3. “Dynamic Capitalism” Requires Long-Term Sacrifice—But Who’s Really Sacrificing?MacBride believes trauma from climate change, inequality, and COVID is creating willingness for short-term sacrifice for long-term stability—similar to the post-WWII generation. But as the interviewer notes, when titans like Dimon and Fink talk about sacrifice, they only get richer. The question remains: whose sacrifice?4. Trust Is the Currency of the New Economy—And It’s in Short SupplyIn an age when institutions have weakened, MacBride advocates “trust but verify” as the operating principle. She argues figures like Dimon and Fink are “generally trustworthy” even if not “morally authoritative.” The interviewer’s skepticism about figures like PayPal’s Dan Schulman highlights how fragile this trust actually is.5. New Coalitions Are Forming, But Revolution May Trump EvolutionMacBride sees evidence of consensus-building around stakeholder capitalism and long-term thinking, particularly among Democrats after their electoral losses. But her optimism about “capital evolution” may be wishful thinking when the loudest calls are for revolution, not gradual reform.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

Churchill described Communist Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. For Pulitzer Prize winning Princeton historian, Paul Starr, America might be the new Soviet Union. It’s a such contradiction, in fact, that he entitles his new book American Contradiction, in an attempt to describe the dominant narrative of “revolution and revenge” from the 1950s to today’s America. But unlike Churchill, who unwrapped the Russian enigma through national interest, Starr finds only more contradictory contradictions about America. The civil rights revolution triggered the Goldwater/Reagan/MAGA revenge. Obama’s hope intensified the reactionary backlash. Economic progress created deeper cultural despair. Each new development triggers an old question, each fresh solution an even staler problem. After 250 years tracing America’s conflicts from slavery through Trump, the distinguished historian admits he has no idea how it ends (or even begins). Perhaps that’s the biggest contradiction of all: a brilliant, yet paralysing diagnosis that offers no cure, an explanation of everything, everywhere all at once that leads us back to the original contradiction. Futile snakes and ladders. A never ending game of one step forward and one step back. 1. The Diagnosis Without a Cure Starr traces America’s current divisions back to the founding contradiction between freedom and slavery, through civil rights, to today’s Trump era. But after 500 pages and decades of study, he admits he has no solutions - not even a “solutions chapter.” His analysis is comprehensive yet paralyzingly circular.2. Nixon: The Forgotten Liberal? The most surprising historical insight: Richard Nixon implemented affirmative action, desegregated Southern schools, and pushed for guaranteed income and universal healthcare. Starr argues Nixon was temperamentally like Trump but substantively “the last liberal president” - a paradox that complicates standard political narratives.3. “Wokeism is to Trumpism as a Flea is to an Elephant” When pressed on whether progressive cultural politics contributed to the backlash, Starr dismisses “cancel culture” concerns as trivial compared to Trump using state power against media outlets. He signed the Harper’s Letter but won’t seriously examine the left’s role in alienating working-class voters.4. The “Sleepwalking” Theory Starr’s one semi-original contribution: 1990s Democrats didn’t understand they were creating conditions for their own defeat. The 1965 immigration reformers had “no idea” of long-term implications. Free trade’s concentrated devastation of Midwest communities was unforeseen. But he stops short of saying these were mistakes.5. Obama Made Everything Worse Perhaps the most deflating revelation: Starr thought Obama’s election would end America’s racial contradiction. Instead, it “intensified racial feeling” and triggered the revenge cycle. He’s now “sobered” by this mistake and doesn’t expect to see resolution in his lifetime - essentially admitting his life’s work has led nowhere.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

At 85, the venerable Jeffrey Archer has lived through enough crises to stay calm and carry on whatever the stormy political weather. The best-selling author—who has sold 275 million books and, as a Conservative MP and party chairman, served Margaret Thatcher for 11 years—speaks with the authority of someone who witnessed the Iron Lady’s firm politics up close and personal. But Mrs Thatcher isn’t the only British grande dame who Archer now mourns. His latest William Warwick thriller End Game, set against the backdrop of the 2012 London Olympics, is the story of a plot against Queen Elizabeth II, the beloved monarch who, in contrast with Mrs T, unified Britain. And then there’s what Archer definitely calls his “final novel”—a World War II story to be published next year that he believes will be “bigger than Cain and Abel.” But he also weighs in on today’s political chaos in Britain and America: Trump’s absurd contradictions, the chilling specter of Farage and Robinson, Starmer’s political problems, and why Maggie would have known exactly how to handle them all.1. Archer’s Final Chapter At 85, Archer announces his next book will be his last. After 50 years and 275 million books sold, he’s on the 17th draft of a WWII novel about September 15, 1941—a day when the war “could have ended” if Hitler hadn’t changed his mind three times. He believes it’s “bigger than Kane and Abel.”2. Thatcher Would Have Dominated Trump Archer, who served Thatcher for 11 years, believes she would have “handled Trump very well” and that “Trump would be in awe of her.” He compares it to her successful management of Reagan, Gorbachev, and Chirac—knowing exactly “what to do with each one.”3. Farage Could Be 30 Seats From Power Archer reveals he warned David Cameron a decade ago to neutralize Farage by making him a Lord. Cameron ignored the advice when Farage polled at 0%. Now Farage leads in polls and could be “only 30 seats short of forming a government”—despite having no one in his party with governing experience.4. Britain Has Peaked Archer sees 2012’s Olympics as Britain’s high-water mark. Since then: five Conservative leaders in six years, Starmer’s rapid collapse, potential bankruptcy from an aging population, and a declining interest in the monarchy among young people. “Top people are not going into politics anymore.”5. AI Threatens the Next Generation of Writers While grateful his 50-year career predated artificial intelligence, Archer worries about the future. He’s discussed with his children ensuring no AI-generated “Jeffrey Archer” books appear after his death, calling it “a cop-out.” The odds for aspiring writers have never been tougher: 1,000 manuscripts submitted weekly, only one published.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

History rarely repeats itself, especially speculative bubbles. As it becomes increasingly obvious that today’s AI bubble will dramatically burst, the real question is not when but how.What makes this boom profoundly different from the DotCom crash of the nineties is OpenAI’s attempt to create an AI private monopoly by positioning itself at the center of trillions of dollars worth of self-serving “deals”. Sam Altman wants to simultaneously be the gambler, the slot machine owner, and the house. It’s a gamble that is, of course, brazenly rigged: he’s trying to simultaneously make OpenAI too important to fail and too well-financed to go public.That Was The Week’s Keith Teare cutely describes this imperial play as “Come To Daddy.” But it’s more complicated—and more dangerous. By weaving OpenAI into the heart of America’s AI economy, Altman isn’t just building a company; he’s constructing a systemic chokepoint not just for Silicon Valley and Wall Street, but possibly for an entire global economy dependent on AI exuberance for growth. If there’s a historical analogy, it’s the banking crisis of 2008. The US government bailed out the banks because they were supposedly too big to fail. The same will likely happen with the coming AI crash, especially given bipartisan American hysteria over the China threat —only this time, the crisis will center on OpenAI as both the dominant cause and the primary casualty of the crash. Here history might, indeed repeat itself: privatized gains during the boom, socialized losses during the bust.Sam is dealing. Heads he wins, tails we all lose. Yes, the house always wins, especially when it is powered by OpenAI chips and wearing a ChatGPT hoodie.1. OpenAI’s Platform Play Is Eliminating StartupsOpenAI’s developer day introduced an agent development platform, embedded ChatGPT applications, and Sora video generation—directly competing with dozens of startups. Keith Teare observed that over half of the 58 AI companies showcased at Andreessen Horowitz the next day had lost their competitive positioning overnight. OpenAI is no longer just a product company; it’s becoming a comprehensive platform that absorbs innovation opportunities across the AI landscape.2. Potential Market Dominance Raises Competition QuestionsStatistics from SQ Magazine claim OpenAI controls 88% of global AI interactions, with Anthropic at 8% and Google under 3%. While these figures require verification, such concentration would represent one of technology’s most rapid consolidations and raise fundamental questions about competition and innovation in the AI sector.3. “Industrial Policy by Private Contract” Signals New State-Corporate PartnershipOpenAI’s relationship with the Trump administration suggests an emerging model of state capitalism without direct government funding. The state facilitates deals between major players and benefits through future taxation and ownership stakes in certain projects. OpenAI has become strategically essential for U.S. economic competitiveness against China—suggesting that no future administration, Republican or Democrat, could allow the company to fail. This creates an implicit government backstop without traditional public investment.4. Infrastructure Funding Remains the Critical ChallengeAI requires approximately 10 gigawatts of power annually for the next decade—translating to trillions in data centers, chips, and energy costs. Recent deals involving Nvidia, AMD, and Oracle’s $500 billion Stargate project are down payments, not solutions. Energy costs remain a key constraint, with nuclear and solar options still expensive relative to demand.5. The Speculative Age Concentrates WealthAndreessen Horowitz’s Alec Danco describes our current “speculative age” as defined by timing and short-term positioning. Unlike previous tech booms where retail investors could buy stock, OpenAI equity remains inaccessible to most, concentrating wealth among institutional investors and insiders while speculative energy redirects into prediction markets and gambling.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