The Rise of ‘Hyperpolitics’ | The Ezra Klein Show

One of the hardest things to do is One of the hardest things to do is describe the overall shape, texture, describe the overall shape, texture, describe the overall shape, texture, rhythm rhythm rhythm of a political era. We'll talk about of a political era. We'll talk about of a political era. We'll talk about wokeness. wokeness. wokeness. >> ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS. >> ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS. >> ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS. >> WOKE one was crazy. >> WOKE one was crazy. >> WOKE one was crazy. >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> Woke one was crazy. >> Woke one was crazy. >> Woke one was crazy. >> We'll talk about Trumpism. >> We'll talk about Trumpism. >> We'll talk about Trumpism. >> I was saved by God to make America great >> I was saved by God to make America great >> I was saved by God to make America great again. again. again. >> [applause] >> [applause] >> [applause] [cheering] [cheering] [cheering] >> But getting at the the overall form in >> But getting at the the overall form in >> But getting at the the overall form in which they all take place is is really, which they all take place is is really, which they all take place is is really, really difficult. really difficult. really difficult. One idea for this that has taken off a One idea for this that has taken off a One idea for this that has taken off a bit recently that I've been hearing a bit recently that I've been hearing a bit recently that I've been hearing a lot around me is hyper-politicization. lot around me is hyper-politicization. lot around me is hyper-politicization. Hyper-politics is a concept from Anton Hyper-politics is a concept from Anton Hyper-politics is a concept from Anton Jaeger. He's a historian and Jaeger. He's a historian and Jaeger. He's a historian and contributing writer at New York Times contributing writer at New York Times contributing writer at New York Times [music] Opinion. [music] Opinion. [music] Opinion. And he's also the author of this book, And he's also the author of this book, And he's also the author of this book, Hyper-politics: Extreme Politicization Hyper-politics: Extreme Politicization Hyper-politics: Extreme Politicization Without Political Consequences. And what Without Political Consequences. And what Without Political Consequences. And what he's [music] describing is an era in he's [music] describing is an era in he's [music] describing is an era in which politics feels like it is which politics feels like it is which politics feels like it is everywhere, the intensity of political everywhere, the intensity of political everywhere, the intensity of political opinion and commitment is really, opinion and commitment is really, opinion and commitment is really, really, really high, really, really high, really, really high, that things are swinging wildly from one that things are swinging wildly from one that things are swinging wildly from one side to the other, [music] side to the other, [music] side to the other, [music] but things are not securely attached to but things are not securely attached to but things are not securely attached to political institutions and structures.

political institutions and structures. political institutions and structures. And so these powerful periods [music] of And so these powerful periods [music] of And so these powerful periods [music] of intense mobilization don't seem to have intense mobilization don't seem to have intense mobilization don't seem to have lasting consequence. lasting consequence. lasting consequence. I think it's a really interesting way of I think it's a really interesting way of I think it's a really interesting way of trying to get at [music] trying to get at [music] trying to get at [music] what is happening behind what we're all what is happening behind what we're all what is happening behind what we're all feeling. He joins me now. >> Anton Jaeger, welcome to the show. >> Anton Jaeger, welcome to the show. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me. >> So let's just begin at the beginning. >> So let's just begin at the beginning. >> So let's just begin at the beginning. What is hyper-politics? What is hyper-politics? What is hyper-politics? >> Hyper-politics is a concept >> Hyper-politics is a concept >> Hyper-politics is a concept that describes a change in political that describes a change in political that describes a change in political culture in the West in which we see an culture in the West in which we see an culture in the West in which we see an increase in political activity on a increase in political activity on a increase in political activity on a variety of metrics, whether it's voting, variety of metrics, whether it's voting, variety of metrics, whether it's voting, protest, but also political violence. protest, but also political violence. protest, but also political violence. But that increase in political activity But that increase in political activity But that increase in political activity is not matched by an increasing is not matched by an increasing is not matched by an increasing institutional strength. So, if you look institutional strength. So, if you look institutional strength. So, if you look at the indices of union membership, at the indices of union membership, at the indices of union membership, party membership, or other civil society party membership, or other civil society party membership, or other civil society organizations, those have stagnated or organizations, those have stagnated or organizations, those have stagnated or have continued to decline. And that is a have continued to decline. And that is a have continued to decline. And that is a situation, I think, which doesn't really situation, I think, which doesn't really situation, I think, which doesn't really have a proper precedent across the 20th have a proper precedent across the 20th have a proper precedent across the 20th century, maybe also not the 19th. And century, maybe also not the 19th. And century, maybe also not the 19th. And for that reason, I introduced the for that reason, I introduced the for that reason, I introduced the concept to make sense of a new, concept to make sense of a new, concept to make sense of a new, confusing political present.

confusing political present. confusing political present. >> So, you're describing a situation in >> So, you're describing a situation in >> So, you're describing a situation in which which which people and moments people and moments people and moments feel more political, in some cases feel more political, in some cases feel more political, in some cases they're doing more political things. You they're doing more political things. You they're doing more political things. You have huge mass protests, like in Black have huge mass protests, like in Black have huge mass protests, like in Black Lives Matter, Lives Matter, Lives Matter, but there is a deinstitutionalized but there is a deinstitutionalized but there is a deinstitutionalized reality to politics. They're not parts reality to politics. They're not parts reality to politics. They're not parts of parties in the way they once were, of parties in the way they once were, of parties in the way they once were, unions, civic organizations are are in unions, civic organizations are are in unions, civic organizations are are in decline. And so, they're not civically decline. And so, they're not civically decline. And so, they're not civically or institutionally attached. It's this or institutionally attached. It's this or institutionally attached. It's this kind of mixture of political activity kind of mixture of political activity kind of mixture of political activity absent institutional membership? absent institutional membership? absent institutional membership? >> That's right. Yes. And of course, the >> That's right. Yes. And of course, the >> That's right. Yes. And of course, the story I'm telling is a historical one, story I'm telling is a historical one, story I'm telling is a historical one, and it comes with contrasts. So, if and it comes with contrasts. So, if and it comes with contrasts. So, if you're using these two axes, you're using these two axes, you're using these two axes, politicization, as I call it, and politicization, as I call it, and politicization, as I call it, and institutionalization, institutionalization, institutionalization, you can get a certain chronology of you can get a certain chronology of you can get a certain chronology of political forms, as well. So, I talk political forms, as well. So, I talk political forms, as well. So, I talk about the mass politics of the 20th about the mass politics of the 20th about the mass politics of the 20th century, which could be highly century, which could be highly century, which could be highly politicized, particularly, let's say, politicized, particularly, let's say, politicized, particularly, let's say, the 1920s and 1930s, but was also very the 1920s and 1930s, but was also very the 1920s and 1930s, but was also very heavily institutionalized. So, to be be heavily institutionalized. So, to be be heavily institutionalized. So, to be be politically active often meant to be in politically active often meant to be in politically active often meant to be in an institution. And I contrast it also an institution. And I contrast it also an institution. And I contrast it also to the post-politics of the 1990s of the to the post-politics of the 1990s of the to the post-politics of the 1990s of the 2000s, as it's called, in which you had 2000s, as it's called, in which you had 2000s, as it's called, in which you had a decline on both of those indices. So, a decline on both of those indices. So, a decline on both of those indices. So, low institutionalization and low low institutionalization and low low institutionalization and low politicization. And what we're looking politicization. And what we're looking politicization. And what we're looking at now, indeed, is this strange scissor at now, indeed, is this strange scissor at now, indeed, is this strange scissor shape, namely, a lot of the collectivity shape, namely, a lot of the collectivity shape, namely, a lot of the collectivity has also become easier, and it's become has also become easier, and it's become has also become easier, and it's become more necessary to pursue it, but it more necessary to pursue it, but it more necessary to pursue it, but it doesn't really have an institutional doesn't really have an institutional doesn't really have an institutional form. So, it feels very incoherent, and form. So, it feels very incoherent, and form. So, it feels very incoherent, and as I claim, that also means it doesn't

as I claim, that also means it doesn't as I claim, that also means it doesn't have as many policy consequences as it have as many policy consequences as it have as many policy consequences as it used to have. used to have. used to have. >> So, I don't want to question your >> So, I don't want to question your >> So, I don't want to question your definition of your own concept, but but definition of your own concept, but but definition of your own concept, but but one thing I feel like that doesn't quite one thing I feel like that doesn't quite one thing I feel like that doesn't quite pick up on, but which is part of why pick up on, but which is part of why pick up on, but which is part of why this idea has resonated, is the this idea has resonated, is the this idea has resonated, is the hyperness of hyperpolitics. This feeling hyperness of hyperpolitics. This feeling hyperness of hyperpolitics. This feeling of things rising and falling with of things rising and falling with of things rising and falling with incredible rapidity. It's like one year incredible rapidity. It's like one year incredible rapidity. It's like one year you're deep inside Black Lives Matter you're deep inside Black Lives Matter you're deep inside Black Lives Matter and and wokeness, and then it's like the and and wokeness, and then it's like the and and wokeness, and then it's like the vibes have shifted to Trump, and then, vibes have shifted to Trump, and then, vibes have shifted to Trump, and then, you know, they come all the way back. you know, they come all the way back. you know, they come all the way back. Nothing seems to last, but everything Nothing seems to last, but everything Nothing seems to last, but everything seems incredibly important. You have a seems incredibly important. You have a seems incredibly important. You have a very, um, very, um, very, um, thoughtful iconic style here, but but I thoughtful iconic style here, but but I thoughtful iconic style here, but but I want to get at this kind of frenzied want to get at this kind of frenzied want to get at this kind of frenzied nature of it, which you do describe in nature of it, which you do describe in nature of it, which you do describe in the book. the book. the book. >> Yes, so I think the volatility or the >> Yes, so I think the volatility or the >> Yes, so I think the volatility or the frenzy you're pointing at is a frenzy you're pointing at is a frenzy you're pointing at is a quintessential feature of the phenomenon quintessential feature of the phenomenon quintessential feature of the phenomenon I'm describing, because what do I'm describing, because what do I'm describing, because what do institutions do with political activity? institutions do with political activity? institutions do with political activity? They stabilize it, and they give it They stabilize it, and they give it They stabilize it, and they give it longevity over a longer time period.

longevity over a longer time period. longevity over a longer time period. And if you don't have these institutions And if you don't have these institutions And if you don't have these institutions to tie your political action to, to tie your political action to, to tie your political action to, and also not, let's say, the mechanisms and also not, let's say, the mechanisms and also not, let's say, the mechanisms of delegation or representation that of delegation or representation that of delegation or representation that come with these institutions, I'd say come with these institutions, I'd say come with these institutions, I'd say also maybe discipline, also maybe discipline, also maybe discipline, that means that short-termism is a de that means that short-termism is a de that means that short-termism is a de facto mode of a lot of political action, facto mode of a lot of political action, facto mode of a lot of political action, because you can be enormously interested because you can be enormously interested because you can be enormously interested and invested in one question for a and invested in one question for a and invested in one question for a couple of weeks, you follow the media couple of weeks, you follow the media couple of weeks, you follow the media cycle, cycle, cycle, but then, once, let's say, the but then, once, let's say, the but then, once, let's say, the popularity fades or it doesn't seem as popularity fades or it doesn't seem as popularity fades or it doesn't seem as urgent, you move on to the next thing. urgent, you move on to the next thing. urgent, you move on to the next thing. And there's no institution that's And there's no institution that's And there's no institution that's actually there to set the agenda, to actually there to set the agenda, to actually there to set the agenda, to help you articulate a long-term vision help you articulate a long-term vision help you articulate a long-term vision that might unite your politics across that might unite your politics across that might unite your politics across all these short-term issues. So, the all these short-term issues. So, the all these short-term issues. So, the hyper has both a spatial and a temporal hyper has both a spatial and a temporal hyper has both a spatial and a temporal side to it. Spatial insofar as it can go side to it. Spatial insofar as it can go side to it. Spatial insofar as it can go everywhere, and it can gather loads and everywhere, and it can gather loads and everywhere, and it can gather loads and loads of people. I mean, there are are loads of people. I mean, there are are loads of people. I mean, there are are record numbers in in of turnout, not record numbers in in of turnout, not record numbers in in of turnout, not just in the US, but across the West for just in the US, but across the West for just in the US, but across the West for protests in the last 10 to 15 years, but protests in the last 10 to 15 years, but protests in the last 10 to 15 years, but it's also hyper in that it it's also hyper in that it it's also hyper in that it doesn't cover very long time span, and doesn't cover very long time span, and doesn't cover very long time span, and almost like a political market, you can almost like a political market, you can almost like a political market, you can invest in a product, and then when you invest in a product, and then when you invest in a product, and then when you see that its value is plunging, you can see that its value is plunging, you can see that its value is plunging, you can dump your shares, and you can move on to dump your shares, and you can move on to dump your shares, and you can move on to the next the next the next issue.

issue. issue. >> One of my critiques of the book is that >> One of my critiques of the book is that >> One of my critiques of the book is that you often will gesture at what seems you often will gesture at what seems you often will gesture at what seems very obvious about this to me, very obvious about this to me, very obvious about this to me, which is that this is digital politics. which is that this is digital politics. which is that this is digital politics. This is online politics. This is This is online politics. This is This is online politics. This is algorithmically mediated politics. You algorithmically mediated politics. You algorithmically mediated politics. You write about hyperpolitics, it is write about hyperpolitics, it is write about hyperpolitics, it is dynamic, intense, and polarizing, yet dynamic, intense, and polarizing, yet dynamic, intense, and polarizing, yet also ideologically diffuse, visibly also ideologically diffuse, visibly also ideologically diffuse, visibly modeled on the fluidity of the online modeled on the fluidity of the online modeled on the fluidity of the online world. world. world. You don't spend much time in the book You don't spend much time in the book You don't spend much time in the book describing or theorizing the fluidity of describing or theorizing the fluidity of describing or theorizing the fluidity of the online world, but I I want to spend the online world, but I I want to spend the online world, but I I want to spend some time on it here because the some time on it here because the some time on it here because the politics you're describing are politics politics you're describing are politics politics you're describing are politics I recognize and live through. I recognize and live through. I recognize and live through. This just feels like not even what This just feels like not even what This just feels like not even what institutions are or are not able to do institutions are or are not able to do institutions are or are not able to do now, now, now, as much as as much as as much as politics, which is fundamentally politics, which is fundamentally politics, which is fundamentally downstream of what we pay attention to, downstream of what we pay attention to, downstream of what we pay attention to, and our attention is fundamentally and our attention is fundamentally and our attention is fundamentally shaped now shaped now shaped now by algorithms that care about by algorithms that care about by algorithms that care about controversy, that care about newness, controversy, that care about newness, controversy, that care about newness, that are hunting [snorts] that are hunting [snorts] that are hunting [snorts] amorally and constantly for whatever amorally and constantly for whatever amorally and constantly for whatever will get a rise out of people, and if will get a rise out of people, and if will get a rise out of people, and if you build politics on that completely you build politics on that completely you build politics on that completely bizarre superstructure of attention, bizarre superstructure of attention, bizarre superstructure of attention, this is what you get.

this is what you get. this is what you get. >> I'm broadly in agreement, and I don't >> I'm broadly in agreement, and I don't >> I'm broadly in agreement, and I don't think it necessarily contradicts or think it necessarily contradicts or think it necessarily contradicts or is in friction with the thesis I'm is in friction with the thesis I'm is in friction with the thesis I'm defending. I'm a bit hesitant about a defending. I'm a bit hesitant about a defending. I'm a bit hesitant about a lot of theories, particularly in the lot of theories, particularly in the lot of theories, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years, that assign not last 10 to 15 years, that assign not last 10 to 15 years, that assign not just a primary, but as we say a just a primary, but as we say a just a primary, but as we say a monocausal role to digital technology, monocausal role to digital technology, monocausal role to digital technology, where somehow the internet explains where somehow the internet explains where somehow the internet explains everything, and then the book shouldn't everything, and then the book shouldn't everything, and then the book shouldn't have been called hyperpolitics, but just have been called hyperpolitics, but just have been called hyperpolitics, but just extremely online politics. And then it's extremely online politics. And then it's extremely online politics. And then it's just a a book about the digitalization just a a book about the digitalization just a a book about the digitalization or the increasingly digital nature of or the increasingly digital nature of or the increasingly digital nature of our political lives. our political lives. our political lives. I want to resist that collapse, or I I want to resist that collapse, or I I want to resist that collapse, or I want to resist equating hyperpolitics want to resist equating hyperpolitics want to resist equating hyperpolitics just with extremely online politics. just with extremely online politics. just with extremely online politics. For the reason that many of the theories For the reason that many of the theories For the reason that many of the theories we've had, let's say that tried to we've had, let's say that tried to we've had, let's say that tried to describe the Brexit vote or the Trump describe the Brexit vote or the Trump describe the Brexit vote or the Trump vote through something like Russian bots vote through something like Russian bots vote through something like Russian bots or bought Facebook ads. There was of or bought Facebook ads. There was of or bought Facebook ads. There was of course during the Arab Spring already a course during the Arab Spring already a course during the Arab Spring already a theory that these were so-called theory that these were so-called theory that these were so-called Facebook revolutions, that it was Facebook revolutions, that it was Facebook revolutions, that it was digital platforms that were really digital platforms that were really digital platforms that were really driving the upsurge. But also recently driving the upsurge. But also recently driving the upsurge. But also recently the idea that the reason the idea that the reason the idea that the reason social media is playing this role is social media is playing this role is social media is playing this role is primarily because it's the only thing we primarily because it's the only thing we primarily because it's the only thing we pay attention to. And I I don't think pay attention to. And I I don't think pay attention to. And I I don't think that's very compelling. For the very that's very compelling. For the very that's very compelling. For the very reason that you also have to pay reason that you also have to pay reason that you also have to pay attention to the environment in which attention to the environment in which attention to the environment in which digital media was launched. And there digital media was launched. And there digital media was launched. And there it's not as if social media did all the it's not as if social media did all the it's not as if social media did all the work on itself. It's more that the civic work on itself. It's more that the civic work on itself. It's more that the civic or social landscape in which it entered or social landscape in which it entered or social landscape in which it entered it found a population that was ready to it found a population that was ready to it found a population that was ready to experience so much of politics online.

experience so much of politics online. experience so much of politics online. Of course these algorithms are Of course these algorithms are Of course these algorithms are addictive, but the question is always addictive, but the question is always addictive, but the question is always why does it stick? Why are people so why does it stick? Why are people so why does it stick? Why are people so taken to it? And at the same time a lot taken to it? And at the same time a lot taken to it? And at the same time a lot of the reason there are protests doesn't of the reason there are protests doesn't of the reason there are protests doesn't just have to do with hallucinations just have to do with hallucinations just have to do with hallucinations online. These are very, very real and online. These are very, very real and online. These are very, very real and very important topics, whether it's mass very important topics, whether it's mass very important topics, whether it's mass incarceration or police violence in the incarceration or police violence in the incarceration or police violence in the US. US. US. Let's say inequality, but surely on the Let's say inequality, but surely on the Let's say inequality, but surely on the right let's say migration. And these are right let's say migration. And these are right let's say migration. And these are not simply things that digital platforms not simply things that digital platforms not simply things that digital platforms have somehow conjured up out of nothing. have somehow conjured up out of nothing. have somehow conjured up out of nothing. It's more that I think social media has It's more that I think social media has It's more that I think social media has acted as a magnifying glass and an acted as a magnifying glass and an acted as a magnifying glass and an accelerator of certain trends that came accelerator of certain trends that came accelerator of certain trends that came before, before, before, but which I think surpass the digital. but which I think surpass the digital. but which I think surpass the digital. And if we reduce everything to the And if we reduce everything to the And if we reduce everything to the digital, we digital, we digital, we are only having a conversation about are only having a conversation about are only having a conversation about platforms when I think it should be a platforms when I think it should be a platforms when I think it should be a much broader much broader much broader >> I always think of the conversation about >> I always think of the conversation about >> I always think of the conversation about what you're calling digital as a what you're calling digital as a what you're calling digital as a conversation about attention. And you conversation about attention. And you conversation about attention. And you can have that conversation well or can have that conversation well or can have that conversation well or poorly. And I agree with you, dissolving poorly. And I agree with you, dissolving poorly. And I agree with you, dissolving things down to Russian bots or Facebook things down to Russian bots or Facebook things down to Russian bots or Facebook ads is ridiculous. I didn't believe that ads is ridiculous. I didn't believe that ads is ridiculous. I didn't believe that in the 2016 election, I don't believe it in the 2016 election, I don't believe it in the 2016 election, I don't believe it now.

now. now. But but let me push this a little bit. But but let me push this a little bit. But but let me push this a little bit. Because when I say it's my critique of Because when I say it's my critique of Because when I say it's my critique of the book, I don't mean I think you have the book, I don't mean I think you have the book, I don't mean I think you have it wrong in the book. I actually just it wrong in the book. I actually just it wrong in the book. I actually just wish there was a chapter on it in the wish there was a chapter on it in the wish there was a chapter on it in the book. book. book. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> And >> And >> And one thing I was thinking about as I read one thing I was thinking about as I read one thing I was thinking about as I read the argument you're making about the argument you're making about the argument you're making about institutions institutions institutions is well, what do I see happening is well, what do I see happening is well, what do I see happening with the institutions we have today? with the institutions we have today? with the institutions we have today? Because it's not as if all institutions Because it's not as if all institutions Because it's not as if all institutions are gone or nobody is part of a party. are gone or nobody is part of a party. are gone or nobody is part of a party. You can look at the DSA, which is rising You can look at the DSA, which is rising You can look at the DSA, which is rising in America and is has a real in America and is has a real in America and is has a real institutional formation. There are institutional formation. There are institutional formation. There are people who, you know, devote their lives people who, you know, devote their lives people who, you know, devote their lives to the Democratic Party, to the to the Democratic Party, to the to the Democratic Party, to the Republican Party. Republican Party. Republican Party. And one thing I would say about all of And one thing I would say about all of And one thing I would say about all of these people, these people, these people, not literally every individual, but many not literally every individual, but many not literally every individual, but many of them, of them, of them, is they exhibit is they exhibit is they exhibit the tendencies of hyper-politics the tendencies of hyper-politics the tendencies of hyper-politics even more than normal people do. even more than normal people do. even more than normal people do. Right? The the tendency to get overly Right? The the tendency to get overly Right? The the tendency to get overly invested in what gets called online, the invested in what gets called online, the invested in what gets called online, the current thing, to have like incredible current thing, to have like incredible current thing, to have like incredible waves of sentiment, but then not be able waves of sentiment, but then not be able waves of sentiment, but then not be able to kind of translate it over a long to kind of translate it over a long to kind of translate it over a long period of time, period of time, period of time, the sort of tendency to look back on the sort of tendency to look back on the sort of tendency to look back on something like two or three or four or something like two or three or four or something like two or three or four or five years ago, something recent, think, five years ago, something recent, think, five years ago, something recent, think, "Oh my god, what were we just doing?"

"Oh my god, what were we just doing?" "Oh my god, what were we just doing?" Right? Famously, AOC just gave an Right? Famously, AOC just gave an Right? Famously, AOC just gave an interview where she said woke one was interview where she said woke one was interview where she said woke one was crazy. crazy. crazy. >> I have a local city councilman that has >> I have a local city councilman that has >> I have a local city councilman that has this uh this uh this uh uh uh uh saying woke one was crazy. saying woke one was crazy. saying woke one was crazy. >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> Woke one was crazy. Okay, that's >> Woke one was crazy. Okay, that's >> Woke one was crazy. Okay, that's interesting. interesting. interesting. >> And uh >> And uh >> And uh and I think that what's important is and I think that what's important is and I think that what's important is that we have to assess what that we have to assess what that we have to assess what >> Was it? I mean, did did the movement go >> Was it? I mean, did did the movement go >> Was it? I mean, did did the movement go too far with some of those positions? I too far with some of those positions? I too far with some of those positions? I mean, you you briefly supported the idea mean, you you briefly supported the idea mean, you you briefly supported the idea of defunding the police. of defunding the police. of defunding the police. >> Well, >> Well, >> Well, >> Um >> Um >> Um >> you know, I think I think that >> you know, I think I think that >> you know, I think I think that during this time and during especially during this time and during especially during this time and during especially during COVID, there was a huge opening during COVID, there was a huge opening during COVID, there was a huge opening of the Overton window. We were shut of the Overton window. We were shut of the Overton window. We were shut down. There was some of the highest down. There was some of the highest down. There was some of the highest unemployment rates that we have seen unemployment rates that we have seen unemployment rates that we have seen because of those shutdowns. And I think because of those shutdowns. And I think because of those shutdowns. And I think that the the doors were really open in that the the doors were really open in that the the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy trying to entertain any and every policy trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better that was going to get us to a better that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the place. And I actually think that the place. And I actually think that the discussions that had that were had in discussions that had that were had in discussions that had that were had in that time were quite fruitful. that time were quite fruitful. that time were quite fruitful. >> I think what she's describing there is >> I think what she's describing there is >> I think what she's describing there is the way online politics led ideas that the way online politics led ideas that the way online politics led ideas that are real and rooted in the real world are real and rooted in the real world are real and rooted in the real world to sort of take some forms and be to sort of take some forms and be to sort of take some forms and be expressed in ways that people no longer expressed in ways that people no longer expressed in ways that people no longer wish to defend.

wish to defend. wish to defend. And so the the way I think there's a And so the the way I think there's a And so the the way I think there's a connection here connection here connection here is it that people even who are is it that people even who are is it that people even who are institutions and the way institutions institutions and the way institutions institutions and the way institutions work and collectivities work, those work and collectivities work, those work and collectivities work, those people are also communicating with each people are also communicating with each people are also communicating with each other online and tweeting at each other other online and tweeting at each other other online and tweeting at each other and we tweet retweeting each other. and we tweet retweeting each other. and we tweet retweeting each other. Donald Trump communicates with the Donald Trump communicates with the Donald Trump communicates with the Republican Party through Truth Social. Republican Party through Truth Social. Republican Party through Truth Social. So sort of saying there are these two So sort of saying there are these two So sort of saying there are these two spheres, institutions spheres, institutions spheres, institutions and the digital world, it doesn't feel and the digital world, it doesn't feel and the digital world, it doesn't feel real to me. I watch people who lead real to me. I watch people who lead real to me. I watch people who lead these institutions communicating with these institutions communicating with these institutions communicating with each other each other each other through this digital world and thus the through this digital world and thus the through this digital world and thus the institutions institutions institutions end up end up end up in a kind of a like a like a the same in a kind of a like a like a the same in a kind of a like a like a the same sort of back and forth slightly wild sort of back and forth slightly wild sort of back and forth slightly wild oscillation oscillation oscillation quality. quality. quality. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. It's very clear that the types of It's very clear that the types of It's very clear that the types of politicization that are typical of the politicization that are typical of the politicization that are typical of the contemporary world also have an effect contemporary world also have an effect contemporary world also have an effect on how people affiliate with on how people affiliate with on how people affiliate with institutions. Then I would say institutions. Then I would say institutions. Then I would say hyperpolitics obviously moves at hyperpolitics obviously moves at hyperpolitics obviously moves at different speeds in different groups. So different speeds in different groups. So different speeds in different groups. So with the political professional and with the political professional and with the political professional and the let's say voter who maybe He voted the let's say voter who maybe He voted the let's say voter who maybe He voted in a couple of elections and isn't in a couple of elections and isn't in a couple of elections and isn't professionally involved in politics.

professionally involved in politics. professionally involved in politics. Obviously, hyper politics going to have Obviously, hyper politics going to have Obviously, hyper politics going to have very different effects. So, the very different effects. So, the very different effects. So, the volatility or the short-termism which we volatility or the short-termism which we volatility or the short-termism which we detect in the general population and detect in the general population and detect in the general population and their relationship to politics will also their relationship to politics will also their relationship to politics will also find its counterpart even with uh find its counterpart even with uh find its counterpart even with uh subjects that find themselves in these subjects that find themselves in these subjects that find themselves in these institutions, which I think is a institutions, which I think is a institutions, which I think is a striking illustration for AOC, but you striking illustration for AOC, but you striking illustration for AOC, but you could make the argument for a couple of could make the argument for a couple of could make the argument for a couple of other figures as well, is that the other figures as well, is that the other figures as well, is that the reason one can easily rescind certain reason one can easily rescind certain reason one can easily rescind certain positions or then step back on positions or then step back on positions or then step back on commitments that were made quite commitments that were made quite commitments that were made quite vociferously a couple of years ago, is vociferously a couple of years ago, is vociferously a couple of years ago, is that there doesn't really seem to be a that there doesn't really seem to be a that there doesn't really seem to be a solid ideology behind many of these solid ideology behind many of these solid ideology behind many of these political choices and preferences. And political choices and preferences. And political choices and preferences. And and this is important for an and this is important for an and this is important for an institutional side of story, there isn't institutional side of story, there isn't institutional side of story, there isn't a sort of program to which you can tie a sort of program to which you can tie a sort of program to which you can tie herself. And across the 20th century, I herself. And across the 20th century, I herself. And across the 20th century, I mean, political parties always had mean, political parties always had mean, political parties always had leaders or certain charismatic figures leaders or certain charismatic figures leaders or certain charismatic figures that led them forward. They always had that led them forward. They always had that led them forward. They always had people that were more individualized as people that were more individualized as people that were more individualized as a member of that party than others, but a member of that party than others, but a member of that party than others, but at the same time, there was a program at the same time, there was a program at the same time, there was a program around which everyone could orient around which everyone could orient around which everyone could orient themselves. And this means that changing themselves. And this means that changing themselves. And this means that changing or reneging on some of those aspects of or reneging on some of those aspects of or reneging on some of those aspects of that program came with with costs. And that program came with with costs. And that program came with with costs. And the question with AOC is the question with AOC is the question with AOC is well, she has a relationship to the DSA.

well, she has a relationship to the DSA. well, she has a relationship to the DSA. The DSA is obviously not an official The DSA is obviously not an official The DSA is obviously not an official political party, it's a socialist political party, it's a socialist political party, it's a socialist organization, but the question is what organization, but the question is what organization, but the question is what is the DSA's program she's listening to is the DSA's program she's listening to is the DSA's program she's listening to or she feels she has to be accountable or she feels she has to be accountable or she feels she has to be accountable to and how can they discipline her when to and how can they discipline her when to and how can they discipline her when she then decides that she now wants to she then decides that she now wants to she then decides that she now wants to pursue a different political path. And I pursue a different political path. And I pursue a different political path. And I think that's the hyper politics at think that's the hyper politics at think that's the hyper politics at different speeds I'm talking about. In different speeds I'm talking about. In different speeds I'm talking about. In the general population, it's, let's say, the general population, it's, let's say, the general population, it's, let's say, hopping from one theme to another, but hopping from one theme to another, but hopping from one theme to another, but even for political professionals, it even for political professionals, it even for political professionals, it means a decline in ideological means a decline in ideological means a decline in ideological consistency or even the question of what consistency or even the question of what consistency or even the question of what is my party line or what is my long-term is my party line or what is my long-term is my party line or what is my long-term vision for the transformation of vision for the transformation of vision for the transformation of society. society. society. >> You tell a historical story in the book >> You tell a historical story in the book >> You tell a historical story in the book about these other periods in politics, about these other periods in politics, about these other periods in politics, and maybe it's worth sitting in one of and maybe it's worth sitting in one of and maybe it's worth sitting in one of them for a few minutes, which is them for a few minutes, which is them for a few minutes, which is practically mass membership politics. practically mass membership politics. practically mass membership politics. And I think you're more describing And I think you're more describing And I think you're more describing European political parties in this than European political parties in this than European political parties in this than American political parties, which have American political parties, which have American political parties, which have always been somewhat different. always been somewhat different. always been somewhat different. But it's such a different world to try But it's such a different world to try But it's such a different world to try to mentally inhabit if you're an to mentally inhabit if you're an to mentally inhabit if you're an American in, you know, the year 2026 American in, you know, the year 2026 American in, you know, the year 2026 that that that I'd like you to sort of draw that I'd like you to sort of draw that I'd like you to sort of draw that picture, that that what it was like picture, that that what it was like picture, that that what it was like to be at least in some of these parties, to be at least in some of these parties, to be at least in some of these parties, you know, in in this other period that you know, in in this other period that you know, in in this other period that you're describing.

you're describing. you're describing. >> So, the portrait I'm painting is very >> So, the portrait I'm painting is very >> So, the portrait I'm painting is very much reliant on cases on the left, but I much reliant on cases on the left, but I much reliant on cases on the left, but I also want to highlight that it's not also want to highlight that it's not also want to highlight that it's not exclusive to the left. There are exclusive to the left. There are exclusive to the left. There are right-wing variants of this, right-wing variants of this, right-wing variants of this, but but but the case was that to be a member of a the case was that to be a member of a the case was that to be a member of a political party was not something political party was not something political party was not something optional and was often something that optional and was often something that optional and was often something that was handed down in families. So, it was was handed down in families. So, it was was handed down in families. So, it was hereditary in many cases. Describing it hereditary in many cases. Describing it hereditary in many cases. Describing it as voluntary is almost tricky in so far as voluntary is almost tricky in so far as voluntary is almost tricky in so far as the social stigma for leaving a party as the social stigma for leaving a party as the social stigma for leaving a party or for not voting for it would be quite or for not voting for it would be quite or for not voting for it would be quite severe. You might have to move out of severe. You might have to move out of severe. You might have to move out of your neighborhood. And at the same time, your neighborhood. And at the same time, your neighborhood. And at the same time, it also meant that your electoral choice it also meant that your electoral choice it also meant that your electoral choice was very much a function of your was very much a function of your was very much a function of your institutional membership. There was no institutional membership. There was no institutional membership. There was no question who you were going to vote for question who you were going to vote for question who you were going to vote for because you were already a member and because you were already a member and because you were already a member and and this means that your political and this means that your political and this means that your political preferences were completely determined preferences were completely determined preferences were completely determined by that affiliation. by that affiliation. by that affiliation. And that obviously also meant that the And that obviously also meant that the And that obviously also meant that the party had a lot of control over your party had a lot of control over your party had a lot of control over your private lives as well. So, there are private lives as well. So, there are private lives as well. So, there are cases in the 1970s, for example, that cases in the 1970s, for example, that cases in the 1970s, for example, that members of the French Communist Party members of the French Communist Party members of the French Communist Party were not allowed to buy certain cars or were not allowed to buy certain cars or were not allowed to buy certain cars or drive them.

drive them. drive them. Of course, the Christian Democratic Of course, the Christian Democratic Of course, the Christian Democratic parties had very strong views on, what parties had very strong views on, what parties had very strong views on, what happened in the bedroom. And happened in the bedroom. And happened in the bedroom. And it was a very authoritarian world in it was a very authoritarian world in it was a very authoritarian world in many cases as well. I don't want to many cases as well. I don't want to many cases as well. I don't want to pretend as if it was egalitarian, as if pretend as if it was egalitarian, as if pretend as if it was egalitarian, as if people had complete control over these people had complete control over these people had complete control over these parties, but membership was immersive. parties, but membership was immersive. parties, but membership was immersive. It was sometimes something that could It was sometimes something that could It was sometimes something that could last a lifetime and for which the exit last a lifetime and for which the exit last a lifetime and for which the exit costs were quite high. costs were quite high. costs were quite high. Um now, of course, the US is very Um now, of course, the US is very Um now, of course, the US is very different because the US never developed different because the US never developed different because the US never developed mass parties in the way that Europe did. mass parties in the way that Europe did. mass parties in the way that Europe did. That probably had to do with the fact That probably had to do with the fact That probably had to do with the fact that the US democratized very early. But that the US democratized very early. But that the US democratized very early. But at the same time, I want to resist the at the same time, I want to resist the at the same time, I want to resist the idea that American parties haven't been idea that American parties haven't been idea that American parties haven't been profoundly transformed in the last 50 to profoundly transformed in the last 50 to profoundly transformed in the last 50 to 60 years, the period I'm covering. 60 years, the period I'm covering. 60 years, the period I'm covering. Because even as parties that are more Because even as parties that are more Because even as parties that are more part of the state than of society, they part of the state than of society, they part of the state than of society, they still had this hinterland of civil still had this hinterland of civil still had this hinterland of civil society organizations, particularly in society organizations, particularly in society organizations, particularly in the case of the Democratic Party, for the case of the Democratic Party, for the case of the Democratic Party, for example, unions or example, unions or example, unions or different minority group interests. different minority group interests. different minority group interests. >> church would be a good example of this, >> church would be a good example of this, >> church would be a good example of this, I think.

I think. I think. >> Yes. And of course, religious >> Yes. And of course, religious >> Yes. And of course, religious institutions are massive, massively institutions are massive, massively institutions are massive, massively important and have been for both parties important and have been for both parties important and have been for both parties for a while now. for a while now. for a while now. But even as that hinterland has started But even as that hinterland has started But even as that hinterland has started to to to shrink or desiccate, that also meant shrink or desiccate, that also meant shrink or desiccate, that also meant that even American parties that are not that even American parties that are not that even American parties that are not not mass parties have reconfigured their not mass parties have reconfigured their not mass parties have reconfigured their relationship to society as a whole. And relationship to society as a whole. And relationship to society as a whole. And they now fulfill a very, very different they now fulfill a very, very different they now fulfill a very, very different function than they did across the 20th function than they did across the 20th function than they did across the 20th century. Of course, as I say, it is a century. Of course, as I say, it is a century. Of course, as I say, it is a different story because there never was different story because there never was different story because there never was the membership model as as we knew it in the membership model as as we knew it in the membership model as as we knew it in Europe, and this means that the story of Europe, and this means that the story of Europe, and this means that the story of hyperpolitics, American style, has to be hyperpolitics, American style, has to be hyperpolitics, American style, has to be told differently than the European told differently than the European told differently than the European variant. variant. variant. >> One of the things that I thought about >> One of the things that I thought about >> One of the things that I thought about reading reading reading that that part of the book, and and that that part of the book, and and that that part of the book, and and you're signaling it here, you're signaling it here, you're signaling it here, is that is that is that I think at a high gloss, I think at a high gloss, I think at a high gloss, that sounds good to people, right? This that sounds good to people, right? This that sounds good to people, right? This idea that we have hollow political idea that we have hollow political idea that we have hollow political parties now, and everything just moves parties now, and everything just moves parties now, and everything just moves too fast. You can't stretch ideology too fast. You can't stretch ideology too fast. You can't stretch ideology over an actual structure of civic over an actual structure of civic over an actual structure of civic belonging and civic membership and civic belonging and civic membership and civic belonging and civic membership and civic action.

action. action. But these much more totalizing parties But these much more totalizing parties But these much more totalizing parties that you describe, that you describe, that you describe, it led to a lot of it led to a lot of it led to a lot of horror, among other things. And you sort horror, among other things. And you sort horror, among other things. And you sort of gesture at the the parties of the of gesture at the the parties of the of gesture at the the parties of the right, fascist parties, the Nazis, right, fascist parties, the Nazis, right, fascist parties, the Nazis, that it is the case that ideology could that it is the case that ideology could that it is the case that ideology could bring you into a much more immersive bring you into a much more immersive bring you into a much more immersive world where the cost of exit was much world where the cost of exit was much world where the cost of exit was much higher higher higher and the and the and the pressure for total ideological pressure for total ideological pressure for total ideological indoctrination indoctrination indoctrination was more constant. was more constant. was more constant. >> So, is this a thing to look back on with >> So, is this a thing to look back on with >> So, is this a thing to look back on with nostalgia? I mean, indoctrination is not nostalgia? I mean, indoctrination is not nostalgia? I mean, indoctrination is not a concept I think we look back on a concept I think we look back on a concept I think we look back on with a lot of fondness and having a with a lot of fondness and having a with a lot of fondness and having a party sit there and tell me how I should party sit there and tell me how I should party sit there and tell me how I should look at everything in the world and be look at everything in the world and be look at everything in the world and be able to socially or possibly able to socially or possibly able to socially or possibly professionally in patronage models professionally in patronage models professionally in patronage models punish me if I don't look at it that punish me if I don't look at it that punish me if I don't look at it that way. way. way. That's not a a world I'm so eager to That's not a a world I'm so eager to That's not a a world I'm so eager to live in either. live in either. live in either. >> No, so I talked about the inegalitarian >> No, so I talked about the inegalitarian >> No, so I talked about the inegalitarian aspects of that system. Um the book also aspects of that system. Um the book also aspects of that system. Um the book also wants to maintain a focused ambiguity wants to maintain a focused ambiguity wants to maintain a focused ambiguity without too much nostalgia about what without too much nostalgia about what without too much nostalgia about what this world was, how unpleasant it could this world was, how unpleasant it could this world was, how unpleasant it could be for certain people. It starts of be for certain people. It starts of be for certain people. It starts of course with um portraits of figures in course with um portraits of figures in course with um portraits of figures in the '90s and 2000s who are happy to be the '90s and 2000s who are happy to be the '90s and 2000s who are happy to be liberated from that world, who also liberated from that world, who also liberated from that world, who also experience a degree of individual experience a degree of individual experience a degree of individual freedom precisely because those freedom precisely because those freedom precisely because those institutions don't dominate their lives institutions don't dominate their lives institutions don't dominate their lives anymore. And also with the idea that one anymore. And also with the idea that one anymore. And also with the idea that one cannot clone a dinosaur. So, we cannot cannot clone a dinosaur. So, we cannot cannot clone a dinosaur. So, we cannot take the DNA of those parties and take the DNA of those parties and take the DNA of those parties and implement them in the present and hope implement them in the present and hope implement them in the present and hope that they will revive and survive the

that they will revive and survive the that they will revive and survive the current environment. Um at the same time current environment. Um at the same time current environment. Um at the same time it is also very clear that there is a it is also very clear that there is a it is also very clear that there is a question of power there. People don't question of power there. People don't question of power there. People don't simply join institutions because they simply join institutions because they simply join institutions because they don't want to be lonely. That's also a don't want to be lonely. That's also a don't want to be lonely. That's also a reason and I think it's part of the reason and I think it's part of the reason and I think it's part of the story that the book also tells in the story that the book also tells in the story that the book also tells in the crisis of sociability. The loneliness crisis of sociability. The loneliness crisis of sociability. The loneliness epidemic as it's called is obviously epidemic as it's called is obviously epidemic as it's called is obviously also a part of the also a part of the also a part of the deinstitutionalization the book is deinstitutionalization the book is deinstitutionalization the book is trying to analyze. Um but except for the trying to analyze. Um but except for the trying to analyze. Um but except for the sociability element, parties are also sociability element, parties are also sociability element, parties are also guarantees of collective power. I mean, guarantees of collective power. I mean, guarantees of collective power. I mean, they're instruments for collective they're instruments for collective they're instruments for collective action. action. action. And as they have declined and as And as they have declined and as And as they have declined and as sometimes their immersive or sometimes their immersive or sometimes their immersive or totalitarian aspects have disappeared, totalitarian aspects have disappeared, totalitarian aspects have disappeared, there has also been an increasing there has also been an increasing there has also been an increasing difficulty of translating individual difficulty of translating individual difficulty of translating individual preferences into collective action. preferences into collective action. preferences into collective action. Particularly in the West, I think there Particularly in the West, I think there Particularly in the West, I think there are few exceptions to this, maybe China are few exceptions to this, maybe China are few exceptions to this, maybe China and India that do have these weird mass and India that do have these weird mass and India that do have these weird mass parties left, but for the rest, the parties left, but for the rest, the parties left, but for the rest, the decline of parties has gone hand in hand decline of parties has gone hand in hand decline of parties has gone hand in hand with an inability or declining gradient with an inability or declining gradient with an inability or declining gradient of popular power, particularly from of popular power, particularly from of popular power, particularly from below. below. below. >> Can you expand on that? That's a thing >> Can you expand on that? That's a thing >> Can you expand on that? That's a thing people sometimes say and then move very people sometimes say and then move very people sometimes say and then move very fast.

fast. fast. Defend that position for me that Defend that position for me that Defend that position for me that somebody sitting around in American somebody sitting around in American somebody sitting around in American politics in 1973 or 1954 was more politics in 1973 or 1954 was more politics in 1973 or 1954 was more capable of translating individual capable of translating individual capable of translating individual politics into collective power into politics into collective power into politics into collective power into governmental reform. governmental reform. governmental reform. >> Well, >> Well, >> Well, there is political science research there is political science research there is political science research about this. So, obviously about the about this. So, obviously about the about this. So, obviously about the negative correlation, for example, negative correlation, for example, negative correlation, for example, between public preferences and policy between public preferences and policy between public preferences and policy results. So, I mean, the typical case, results. So, I mean, the typical case, results. So, I mean, the typical case, for example, is Medicare for all, where for example, is Medicare for all, where for example, is Medicare for all, where there has been a majority for now for a there has been a majority for now for a there has been a majority for now for a while, but the chance of it getting while, but the chance of it getting while, but the chance of it getting implemented and it is implemented and it is implemented and it is >> This is a very weak example. Different >> This is a very weak example. Different >> This is a very weak example. Different states, I've covered these fights. states, I've covered these fights. states, I've covered these fights. Medicare for all, you pull it, it pulls Medicare for all, you pull it, it pulls Medicare for all, you pull it, it pulls high. You then tell people, "Here's what high. You then tell people, "Here's what high. You then tell people, "Here's what the taxes will be, your insurance is the taxes will be, your insurance is the taxes will be, your insurance is going away." It pulls low. And it's a going away." It pulls low. And it's a going away." It pulls low. And it's a very common thing when you have a very common thing when you have a very common thing when you have a complex policy, you can frame it at the complex policy, you can frame it at the complex policy, you can frame it at the outset and people are like, "Great." And outset and people are like, "Great." And outset and people are like, "Great." And it's a gigantic change and they are it's a gigantic change and they are it's a gigantic change and they are very, very afraid when you begin very, very afraid when you begin very, very afraid when you begin actually putting a change on them. So, actually putting a change on them. So, actually putting a change on them. So, in this comparative take you're making, in this comparative take you're making, in this comparative take you're making, like, I I I want to hear this defended like, I I I want to hear this defended like, I I I want to hear this defended that we were so much better at at that we were so much better at at that we were so much better at at getting what we wanted politically in getting what we wanted politically in getting what we wanted politically in another era. I I found a lot of the another era. I I found a lot of the another era. I I found a lot of the political science on this when I do read political science on this when I do read political science on this when I do read it a little bit confused. So, that's why it a little bit confused. So, that's why it a little bit confused. So, that's why I'm I'm pushing this point before we I'm I'm pushing this point before we I'm I'm pushing this point before we just escape by it.

just escape by it. just escape by it. >> Yeah, it's also important to keep in >> Yeah, it's also important to keep in >> Yeah, it's also important to keep in mind that this is not the only factor mind that this is not the only factor mind that this is not the only factor feeding into this capacity. There is a feeding into this capacity. There is a feeding into this capacity. There is a question of state capacity, there are question of state capacity, there are question of state capacity, there are other kind of channels that need to be other kind of channels that need to be other kind of channels that need to be examined. There is just one element, examined. There is just one element, examined. There is just one element, namely, how is the decline of these namely, how is the decline of these namely, how is the decline of these institutions negatively affected the institutions negatively affected the institutions negatively affected the capacity for policy change? And I do capacity for policy change? And I do capacity for policy change? And I do think if you look at the heyday, let's think if you look at the heyday, let's think if you look at the heyday, let's say what is called the New Deal order in say what is called the New Deal order in say what is called the New Deal order in the 1930s and the 1940s when the 1930s and the 1940s when the 1930s and the 1940s when the American welfare state, which was the American welfare state, which was the American welfare state, which was never as spectacular as the European never as spectacular as the European never as spectacular as the European variant, was built, there is a very variant, was built, there is a very variant, was built, there is a very clear correlation with mass power that clear correlation with mass power that clear correlation with mass power that at the time. Um and it is also very, at the time. Um and it is also very, at the time. Um and it is also very, very clear that after McCarthyism and very clear that after McCarthyism and very clear that after McCarthyism and particularly after the subduing of the particularly after the subduing of the particularly after the subduing of the civil rights movement, um the fall of civil rights movement, um the fall of civil rights movement, um the fall of this mass power goes hand in hand with this mass power goes hand in hand with this mass power goes hand in hand with the difficulty of actually getting the difficulty of actually getting the difficulty of actually getting concessions, particularly from America's concessions, particularly from America's concessions, particularly from America's business class. Now, in Europe, it's business class. Now, in Europe, it's business class. Now, in Europe, it's different, but it's also very clear that different, but it's also very clear that different, but it's also very clear that for example, Europe's welfare states for example, Europe's welfare states for example, Europe's welfare states were not just built by technocrats, but were not just built by technocrats, but were not just built by technocrats, but were built through the exercise of mass were built through the exercise of mass were built through the exercise of mass pressure. Now, once again, mass pressure pressure. Now, once again, mass pressure pressure. Now, once again, mass pressure is not an intrinsic uh good. It can have is not an intrinsic uh good. It can have is not an intrinsic uh good. It can have very negative consequences. Um but at very negative consequences. Um but at very negative consequences. Um but at the same time, um there to me very, very the same time, um there to me very, very the same time, um there to me very, very clearly is the case that the set of clearly is the case that the set of clearly is the case that the set of social rights that were built up in social rights that were built up in social rights that were built up in Europe and the US in the middle of the Europe and the US in the middle of the Europe and the US in the middle of the century were also a function of mass century were also a function of mass century were also a function of mass power, not only a function of mass power, not only a function of mass power, not only a function of mass power. I mean, it seems indisputable to power. I mean, it seems indisputable to power. I mean, it seems indisputable to me that the decline of union power in me that the decline of union power in me that the decline of union power in the US probably has something to do with the US probably has something to do with the US probably has something to do with the staggering levels of inequality that the staggering levels of inequality that the staggering levels of inequality that the US currently has. Now, it's a the US currently has. Now, it's a the US currently has. Now, it's a correlation and then the causal correlation and then the causal correlation and then the causal mechanism is complicated, but I think mechanism is complicated, but I think mechanism is complicated, but I think that's one illustration of how, let's

that's one illustration of how, let's that's one illustration of how, let's say, institutional power can translate say, institutional power can translate say, institutional power can translate into uh policy results more concretely. into uh policy results more concretely. into uh policy results more concretely. >> One of the reasons I'm pushing on this >> One of the reasons I'm pushing on this >> One of the reasons I'm pushing on this is that I think there is a widespread is that I think there is a widespread is that I think there is a widespread view and I think this view is correct, view and I think this view is correct, view and I think this view is correct, that people feel particularly powerless that people feel particularly powerless that people feel particularly powerless over right now. over right now. over right now. And so then like the next step in And so then like the next step in And so then like the next step in thinking about that view is whether it thinking about that view is whether it thinking about that view is whether it is a perception or whether it is true. is a perception or whether it is true. is a perception or whether it is true. And you you know, I would tell the story And you you know, I would tell the story And you you know, I would tell the story you just told a little bit differently, you just told a little bit differently, you just told a little bit differently, right? You have an American political right? You have an American political right? You have an American political system that is very resistant to kinds system that is very resistant to kinds system that is very resistant to kinds of reform for very, very long periods of of reform for very, very long periods of of reform for very, very long periods of time. time. time. The Great Depression fractures the The Great Depression fractures the The Great Depression fractures the system. system. system. It functionally annihilates the It functionally annihilates the It functionally annihilates the Republican Party for a period of time. Republican Party for a period of time. Republican Party for a period of time. FDR does not pass all that policy FDR does not pass all that policy FDR does not pass all that policy because all of a sudden union density because all of a sudden union density because all of a sudden union density jumps. FDR passes all that policy jumps. FDR passes all that policy jumps. FDR passes all that policy because there is a level of democratic because there is a level of democratic because there is a level of democratic dominance over Congress that is dominance over Congress that is dominance over Congress that is unimaginable to us today. unimaginable to us today. unimaginable to us today. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, where Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, where Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, where you have another big period of expansion you have another big period of expansion you have another big period of expansion of the uh of the uh of the uh welfare state, comes after Kennedy is welfare state, comes after Kennedy is welfare state, comes after Kennedy is assassinated. Kennedy is not getting assassinated. Kennedy is not getting assassinated. Kennedy is not getting things done. The civil rights movement things done. The civil rights movement things done. The civil rights movement is stymied for a very long time by uh is stymied for a very long time by uh is stymied for a very long time by uh southern power over Congress. The southern power over Congress. The southern power over Congress. The filibuster is used basically exclusively filibuster is used basically exclusively filibuster is used basically exclusively to stop civil rights bills for, you to stop civil rights bills for, you to stop civil rights bills for, you know, decades in American politics.

know, decades in American politics. know, decades in American politics. And so you have these sort of punctuated And so you have these sort of punctuated And so you have these sort of punctuated moments when a lot can get done. But moments when a lot can get done. But moments when a lot can get done. But they tend to come for unusual reasons. they tend to come for unusual reasons. they tend to come for unusual reasons. Now, I'm not saying mass power is Now, I'm not saying mass power is Now, I'm not saying mass power is important in that, and I do agree with important in that, and I do agree with important in that, and I do agree with you, by the way, that union density is a you, by the way, that union density is a you, by the way, that union density is a reason we've had um inequality rise. reason we've had um inequality rise. reason we've had um inequality rise. Because a lot of that, as you say, Because a lot of that, as you say, Because a lot of that, as you say, people can argue over. people can argue over. people can argue over. The reason I bring all this up is it uh The reason I bring all this up is it uh The reason I bring all this up is it uh one of the things that does not always one of the things that does not always one of the things that does not always seem obviously true to me is that the seem obviously true to me is that the seem obviously true to me is that the average person had so much more power in average person had so much more power in average person had so much more power in these times. Like you needed this sort these times. Like you needed this sort these times. Like you needed this sort of moment, and then like the, you know, of moment, and then like the, you know, of moment, and then like the, you know, the Overton window cracks open, and all the Overton window cracks open, and all the Overton window cracks open, and all of a sudden a bunch of things happen, of a sudden a bunch of things happen, of a sudden a bunch of things happen, but it's very, very contingent. It's not but it's very, very contingent. It's not but it's very, very contingent. It's not a linear process in which the work you a linear process in which the work you a linear process in which the work you are doing as a citizen day in and day are doing as a citizen day in and day are doing as a citizen day in and day out is feeling like it is getting out is feeling like it is getting out is feeling like it is getting anywhere most of the time. anywhere most of the time. anywhere most of the time. One of the things, going back to One of the things, going back to One of the things, going back to attention, which I just think is attention, which I just think is attention, which I just think is under-theorized in in politics so much under-theorized in in politics so much under-theorized in in politics so much as we do talk about it, is it people as we do talk about it, is it people as we do talk about it, is it people today today today they know so much more about the world. they know so much more about the world. they know so much more about the world. They know so much more about it so They know so much more about it so They know so much more about it so constantly than they could before.

constantly than they could before. constantly than they could before. So, you have all of this information, So, you have all of this information, So, you have all of this information, and the information is now tuned to be and the information is now tuned to be and the information is now tuned to be much more arousing emotionally than it much more arousing emotionally than it much more arousing emotionally than it was at another time. was at another time. was at another time. One of the things that I suspect is it One of the things that I suspect is it One of the things that I suspect is it is is is the mixture of how much you know and how the mixture of how much you know and how the mixture of how much you know and how much you are being made to feel at all much you are being made to feel at all much you are being made to feel at all moments. Mixing with like the moments. Mixing with like the moments. Mixing with like the powerlessness that actually is real, powerlessness that actually is real, powerlessness that actually is real, right? The amount of power an individual right? The amount of power an individual right? The amount of power an individual has, and then the amount of institutions has, and then the amount of institutions has, and then the amount of institutions you're tied to is low. you're tied to is low. you're tied to is low. That creates this feeling that That creates this feeling that That creates this feeling that everything is being done everything is being done everything is being done without your consent, without your without your consent, without your without your consent, without your control. There's no way for you to control. There's no way for you to control. There's no way for you to affect it. In America now, with the sort affect it. In America now, with the sort affect it. In America now, with the sort of red-blue system where you live in a of red-blue system where you live in a of red-blue system where you live in a blue state and, you know, your vote blue state and, you know, your vote blue state and, you know, your vote barely matters in national elections, barely matters in national elections, barely matters in national elections, you know, the same thing in very red you know, the same thing in very red you know, the same thing in very red states, right? Everybody knows how your states, right? Everybody knows how your states, right? Everybody knows how your state is going to go, so what does it state is going to go, so what does it state is going to go, so what does it matter how you vote? That matter how you vote? That matter how you vote? That that I think we always want to put this that I think we always want to put this that I think we always want to put this as a a question of individual capacity, as a a question of individual capacity, as a a question of individual capacity, but is it a question of individual but is it a question of individual but is it a question of individual capacity, or is it a question of capacity, or is it a question of capacity, or is it a question of the amount you're being pulled into the amount you're being pulled into the amount you're being pulled into politics, and then your absence of politics, and then your absence of politics, and then your absence of capacity conflict with each other for capacity conflict with each other for capacity conflict with each other for you?

you? you? >> Yes to both, with some modifications, >> Yes to both, with some modifications, >> Yes to both, with some modifications, maybe I'd say. So, for the first, I maybe I'd say. So, for the first, I maybe I'd say. So, for the first, I think that individual powerlessness, think that individual powerlessness, think that individual powerlessness, this is also not completely without this is also not completely without this is also not completely without precedent. So, the heyday of mass precedent. So, the heyday of mass precedent. So, the heyday of mass politics in, for example, the '30s and politics in, for example, the '30s and politics in, for example, the '30s and '40s, maybe a bit in the '50s, was also '40s, maybe a bit in the '50s, was also '40s, maybe a bit in the '50s, was also the start of the nuclear race, which to the start of the nuclear race, which to the start of the nuclear race, which to many people seemed as the supreme many people seemed as the supreme many people seemed as the supreme expression of powerlessness of the 20th expression of powerlessness of the 20th expression of powerlessness of the 20th century, as the most anti-democratic century, as the most anti-democratic century, as the most anti-democratic weapon, as George Orwell said. So, it's weapon, as George Orwell said. So, it's weapon, as George Orwell said. So, it's not as if that wasn't with us before. not as if that wasn't with us before. not as if that wasn't with us before. Um and I also don't want to pretend as Um and I also don't want to pretend as Um and I also don't want to pretend as if re-institutionalization or rebuilding if re-institutionalization or rebuilding if re-institutionalization or rebuilding those institutions today will those institutions today will those institutions today will automatically mean that they it will automatically mean that they it will automatically mean that they it will become easier to implement certain become easier to implement certain become easier to implement certain policies, because there's also a policies, because there's also a policies, because there's also a question of where power has moved, even question of where power has moved, even question of where power has moved, even on the level of the state. So, I don't on the level of the state. So, I don't on the level of the state. So, I don't think that in the '50s and '60s, let's think that in the '50s and '60s, let's think that in the '50s and '60s, let's say, unelected bodies, both in Europe say, unelected bodies, both in Europe say, unelected bodies, both in Europe and the US, like central banks, had as and the US, like central banks, had as and the US, like central banks, had as much power as they do today, and they're much power as they do today, and they're much power as they do today, and they're not, let's say, subject to popular not, let's say, subject to popular not, let's say, subject to popular pressure or even electoral pressure in pressure or even electoral pressure in pressure or even electoral pressure in the same way. So, there's no immediate the same way. So, there's no immediate the same way. So, there's no immediate guarantee. guarantee. guarantee. And And And it's one factor among many. So, you do, it's one factor among many. So, you do, it's one factor among many. So, you do, I think, have to have certain coalitions I think, have to have certain coalitions I think, have to have certain coalitions within the elite, together with mass within the elite, together with mass within the elite, together with mass power, to get some of these policy power, to get some of these policy power, to get some of these policy results done. And it could also be that results done. And it could also be that results done. And it could also be that the constellation is favorable, and then the constellation is favorable, and then the constellation is favorable, and then it turns out that it works.

it turns out that it works. it turns out that it works. I do think that one of the most I do think that one of the most I do think that one of the most important factors in the policy blockage important factors in the policy blockage important factors in the policy blockage we're witnessing across both sides of we're witnessing across both sides of we're witnessing across both sides of the Atlantic in the last 20 years is the Atlantic in the last 20 years is the Atlantic in the last 20 years is that the factor of mass power has been that the factor of mass power has been that the factor of mass power has been severely reduced even as politicization severely reduced even as politicization severely reduced even as politicization has risen and that probably explains why has risen and that probably explains why has risen and that probably explains why it's become more difficult. When it it's become more difficult. When it it's become more difficult. When it comes to the paradox of increasing comes to the paradox of increasing comes to the paradox of increasing visibility visibility visibility or the dynamics of contemporary or the dynamics of contemporary or the dynamics of contemporary political mobilization, I fully agree. I political mobilization, I fully agree. I political mobilization, I fully agree. I mean, the kinds of footage you can now mean, the kinds of footage you can now mean, the kinds of footage you can now get beamed onto your smartphone screens, get beamed onto your smartphone screens, get beamed onto your smartphone screens, whether it's a genocide in the Middle whether it's a genocide in the Middle whether it's a genocide in the Middle East or let's say mass murder on the East or let's say mass murder on the East or let's say mass murder on the other side of the planet, increases other side of the planet, increases other side of the planet, increases political awareness greatly. So, there's political awareness greatly. So, there's political awareness greatly. So, there's an immediacy to the experience, but an immediacy to the experience, but an immediacy to the experience, but there's also a feeling of complete there's also a feeling of complete there's also a feeling of complete helplessness. And I do think that's helplessness. And I do think that's helplessness. And I do think that's different in that if you heard about the different in that if you heard about the different in that if you heard about the nuclear race in the 40s and 50s, you nuclear race in the 40s and 50s, you nuclear race in the 40s and 50s, you read about it, but it's not something read about it, but it's not something read about it, but it's not something you could sort of live stream into your you could sort of live stream into your you could sort of live stream into your living room all the time. That is living room all the time. That is living room all the time. That is something you can do now, particularly something you can do now, particularly something you can do now, particularly if you spend a lot of time on social if you spend a lot of time on social if you spend a lot of time on social media and that probably increases the media and that probably increases the media and that probably increases the feeling of helplessness.

feeling of helplessness. feeling of helplessness. >> [music] >> One of the other things I think is >> One of the other things I think is interesting about social media interesting about social media interesting about social media is that it does create an answer to the is that it does create an answer to the is that it does create an answer to the question it poses. question it poses. question it poses. You have seen something terrible in You have seen something terrible in You have seen something terrible in front of you. front of you. front of you. And what you can do is post And what you can do is post And what you can do is post or comment or comment or comment or like. or like. or like. And I I do think it creates And I I do think it creates And I I do think it creates this somewhat confusion between action this somewhat confusion between action this somewhat confusion between action and and effect. It's an action that may and and effect. It's an action that may and and effect. It's an action that may not have an effect. not have an effect. not have an effect. But it it does sort of complete an But it it does sort of complete an But it it does sort of complete an instant stress cycle. You've just seen instant stress cycle. You've just seen instant stress cycle. You've just seen something terrible. something terrible. something terrible. We have to do something. Well, in the We have to do something. Well, in the We have to do something. Well, in the place you're in, place you're in, place you're in, what you do is post. what you do is post. what you do is post. And again, one reason that I I focus And again, one reason that I I focus And again, one reason that I I focus here is that I think this is truer for here is that I think this is truer for here is that I think this is truer for political elites than for anything else. political elites than for anything else. political elites than for anything else. And I think one of the unusual things And I think one of the unusual things And I think one of the unusual things about this whole story we're in about this whole story we're in about this whole story we're in is that the elites are more addled than is that the elites are more addled than is that the elites are more addled than anyone else is.

anyone else is. anyone else is. So, you go back to Walter Lippmann's So, you go back to Walter Lippmann's So, you go back to Walter Lippmann's book Public Opinion, which I think comes book Public Opinion, which I think comes book Public Opinion, which I think comes out in 1922, if I'm not wrong, right out in 1922, if I'm not wrong, right out in 1922, if I'm not wrong, right around there. around there. around there. And Walter Lippmann's answer to the And Walter Lippmann's answer to the And Walter Lippmann's answer to the reality that the world outside our heads reality that the world outside our heads reality that the world outside our heads differs from the world inside our heads, differs from the world inside our heads, differs from the world inside our heads, that our pictures of reality are always that our pictures of reality are always that our pictures of reality are always flawed. So, how do we engage with this flawed. So, how do we engage with this flawed. So, how do we engage with this world that we don't really understand? world that we don't really understand? world that we don't really understand? Is this famously quite unsatisfying. Is this famously quite unsatisfying. Is this famously quite unsatisfying. Well, there should be these technocratic Well, there should be these technocratic Well, there should be these technocratic elite panels, and they know everything. elite panels, and they know everything. elite panels, and they know everything. And one of the ways that that ends up And one of the ways that that ends up And one of the ways that that ends up being an obviously wrong answer being an obviously wrong answer being an obviously wrong answer is it assumed the elites would not be is it assumed the elites would not be is it assumed the elites would not be addled. But in fact, nobody is more addled. But in fact, nobody is more addled. But in fact, nobody is more brain addled right now by social media brain addled right now by social media brain addled right now by social media than Donald Trump or Elon Musk, you than Donald Trump or Elon Musk, you than Donald Trump or Elon Musk, you know, than the top people in the White know, than the top people in the White know, than the top people in the White House. That there is such a House. That there is such a House. That there is such a that nobody is more attentionally hooked that nobody is more attentionally hooked that nobody is more attentionally hooked on this kind of information on this kind of information on this kind of information than the people who've made politics than the people who've made politics than the people who've made politics their life's work. their life's work. their life's work. And that just creates, I think, a And that just creates, I think, a And that just creates, I think, a strange thing because, you know, normal strange thing because, you know, normal strange thing because, you know, normal people will then sort of turn to people people will then sort of turn to people people will then sort of turn to people who are engaged in politics all the time who are engaged in politics all the time who are engaged in politics all the time for cues on what to do and how to feel for cues on what to do and how to feel for cues on what to do and how to feel and where to join.

and where to join. and where to join. And not always, but often, And not always, but often, And not always, but often, they're the worst people they're the worst people they're the worst people to ask or to follow because they're the to ask or to follow because they're the to ask or to follow because they're the most most most crazed crazed crazed by these, you know, by this form of by these, you know, by this form of by these, you know, by this form of political attention. political attention. political attention. >> Yeah, so this is a book that's mainly >> Yeah, so this is a book that's mainly >> Yeah, so this is a book that's mainly written from below in some sense. I written from below in some sense. I written from below in some sense. I mean, it's not just for the left, but mean, it's not just for the left, but mean, it's not just for the left, but it's written from the left. And that it's written from the left. And that it's written from the left. And that means it describes the effects of like means it describes the effects of like means it describes the effects of like the declining cost of political the declining cost of political the declining cost of political expression through the online. So, as expression through the online. So, as expression through the online. So, as you say, you're faced with an obvious you say, you're faced with an obvious you say, you're faced with an obvious wrong or a a moral scandal, and wrong or a a moral scandal, and wrong or a a moral scandal, and before you maybe had to write a before you maybe had to write a before you maybe had to write a newspaper editor, you had to let's say newspaper editor, you had to let's say newspaper editor, you had to let's say contact your local party chief, or you contact your local party chief, or you contact your local party chief, or you had to go and stand in the middle of the had to go and stand in the middle of the had to go and stand in the middle of the of a square and start shouting, now you of a square and start shouting, now you of a square and start shouting, now you can do something else. You can express can do something else. You can express can do something else. You can express yourself politically much more cheaply yourself politically much more cheaply yourself politically much more cheaply and easily than before, but then there's and easily than before, but then there's and easily than before, but then there's a question of diminishing returns as a question of diminishing returns as a question of diminishing returns as well. Like it's easy, but what are the well. Like it's easy, but what are the well. Like it's easy, but what are the actual effects? actual effects? actual effects? Now, that is a question of how the Now, that is a question of how the Now, that is a question of how the decline of cost of political expression decline of cost of political expression decline of cost of political expression affects popular capacity for social affects popular capacity for social affects popular capacity for social change. When you look at it from the top change. When you look at it from the top change. When you look at it from the top of society, we can see as you say that of society, we can see as you say that of society, we can see as you say that there's also a variant of hyperpolitics there's also a variant of hyperpolitics there's also a variant of hyperpolitics there. I think the modus of government there. I think the modus of government there. I think the modus of government of the second Trump administration, its of the second Trump administration, its of the second Trump administration, its short-termism, its incapacity to plan, short-termism, its incapacity to plan, short-termism, its incapacity to plan, its unwillingness to plan, also its unwillingness to plan, also its unwillingness to plan, also indicates that deinstitutionalization indicates that deinstitutionalization indicates that deinstitutionalization or incoherence between different or incoherence between different or incoherence between different factions of the elite has also had factions of the elite has also had factions of the elite has also had severe consequences, let's say for the

severe consequences, let's say for the severe consequences, let's say for the people who are actually in charge. I people who are actually in charge. I people who are actually in charge. I mean, there's a really spectacular mean, there's a really spectacular mean, there's a really spectacular example of this of Elon Musk being example of this of Elon Musk being example of this of Elon Musk being interviewed by the editor of The interviewed by the editor of The interviewed by the editor of The Economist recently. Economist recently. Economist recently. And I mean, it gets very brutal. And I mean, it gets very brutal. And I mean, it gets very brutal. >> But do you see why this makes people >> But do you see why this makes people >> But do you see why this makes people think think think that this man, who has all this power, that this man, who has all this power, that this man, who has all this power, he's the world's richest man, he thinks he's the world's richest man, he thinks he's the world's richest man, he thinks he has a right to influence our he has a right to influence our he has a right to influence our politics? It makes people It's why, you politics? It makes people It's why, you politics? It makes people It's why, you know, we started this conversation know, we started this conversation know, we started this conversation saying superlatives, it's why people saying superlatives, it's why people saying superlatives, it's why people loathe you. loathe you. loathe you. I mean, some people do loathe you. I mean, some people do loathe you. I mean, some people do loathe you. >> Yes, some people do. >> Yes, some people do. >> Yes, some people do. >> But do you understand why? >> But do you understand why? >> But do you understand why? Do you think what you're doing is Do you think what you're doing is Do you think what you're doing is helpful for Western democracy? helpful for Western democracy? helpful for Western democracy? >> Maybe maybe some people do loathe me. I >> Maybe maybe some people do loathe me. I >> Maybe maybe some people do loathe me. I And that's And that's probably true. I And that's And that's probably true. I And that's And that's probably true. I don't care. Um the uh don't care. Um the uh don't care. Um the uh But But the fact that uh But But the fact that uh But But the fact that uh as you pointed out, a quarter billion as you pointed out, a quarter billion as you pointed out, a quarter billion people follow me is that I think a lot people follow me is that I think a lot people follow me is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don't. more people actually like me than don't. more people actually like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you And I think a lot more people hate you And I think a lot more people hate you and the media and the media and the media uh more than you realize. uh more than you realize. uh more than you realize. >> When he openly insults her also >> When he openly insults her also >> When he openly insults her also afterwards on his own private platform. afterwards on his own private platform. afterwards on his own private platform. But the striking thing about the But the striking thing about the But the striking thing about the interview is that these are two members interview is that these are two members interview is that these are two members of the same class. They're shouting at of the same class. They're shouting at of the same class. They're shouting at each other in the middle of the public each other in the middle of the public each other in the middle of the public sphere. Normally in a different sphere. Normally in a different sphere. Normally in a different situation, you'd expect some class situation, you'd expect some class situation, you'd expect some class solidarity from both sides. I mean, solidarity from both sides. I mean, solidarity from both sides. I mean, we're in this together. We have to think we're in this together. We have to think we're in this together. We have to think about a common project. And the elite is about a common project. And the elite is about a common project. And the elite is severely divided, particularly in the severely divided, particularly in the severely divided, particularly in the US, but also in Europe. And they don't US, but also in Europe. And they don't US, but also in Europe. And they don't actually have institutions to reconcile actually have institutions to reconcile actually have institutions to reconcile their social, sectoral, geographic their social, sectoral, geographic their social, sectoral, geographic interests. And what the online world interests. And what the online world interests. And what the online world does is that I think aggravates the does is that I think aggravates the does is that I think aggravates the dispolarization to such an extent that

dispolarization to such an extent that dispolarization to such an extent that they cannot think long-term about what they cannot think long-term about what they cannot think long-term about what their interests are. So, hyperpolitics I their interests are. So, hyperpolitics I their interests are. So, hyperpolitics I think has think has think has compounding and very severe consequences compounding and very severe consequences compounding and very severe consequences for the elite as well. It's just that for the elite as well. It's just that for the elite as well. It's just that the book doesn't provide a full the book doesn't provide a full the book doesn't provide a full theoretical model of how you should theoretical model of how you should theoretical model of how you should probe these effects. probe these effects. probe these effects. >> I I want to come back to that in a >> I I want to come back to that in a >> I I want to come back to that in a second as you did write a very second as you did write a very second as you did write a very interesting piece in the New Left Review interesting piece in the New Left Review interesting piece in the New Left Review that is more in this direction and and that is more in this direction and and that is more in this direction and and think about Donald Trump. But but think about Donald Trump. But but think about Donald Trump. But but quickly because as you say the book is quickly because as you say the book is quickly because as you say the book is written from within the left, something written from within the left, something written from within the left, something you said there pinged for me, which is you said there pinged for me, which is you said there pinged for me, which is that you would expect a kind of class that you would expect a kind of class that you would expect a kind of class solidarity solidarity solidarity between Elon Musk and the editor of The between Elon Musk and the editor of The between Elon Musk and the editor of The Economist. Economist. Economist. Can I ask why you would expect that? Can I ask why you would expect that? Can I ask why you would expect that? Because when I look back on past Because when I look back on past Because when I look back on past interviews, you have huge divisions interviews, you have huge divisions interviews, you have huge divisions between, you know, the elites of between, you know, the elites of between, you know, the elites of different countries at all times. different countries at all times. different countries at all times. I mean, Musk is a highly right-wing I mean, Musk is a highly right-wing I mean, Musk is a highly right-wing American elite who is highly politicized American elite who is highly politicized American elite who is highly politicized himself. He's not just a you know, himself. He's not just a you know, himself. He's not just a you know, random random random CEO at this point. The press is often CEO at this point. The press is often CEO at this point. The press is often very antagonistic. very antagonistic. very antagonistic. You know, I think about say like the You know, I think about say like the You know, I think about say like the Buckley Buckley Buckley the Dahl debates where they're the Dahl debates where they're the Dahl debates where they're threatening to punch each other in the threatening to punch each other in the threatening to punch each other in the face, you know, on on live television.

face, you know, on on live television. face, you know, on on live television. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Stop calling me a crypto Nazi. >> Stop calling me a crypto Nazi. >> Stop calling me a crypto Nazi. >> Let's stop calling names and let's stop >> Let's stop calling names and let's stop >> Let's stop calling names and let's stop my damn face. I will my damn face. I will my damn face. I will >> stay plastered. >> stay plastered. >> stay plastered. >> Gentlemen, let's >> Gentlemen, let's >> Gentlemen, let's >> Tell me about your intuition that there >> Tell me about your intuition that there >> Tell me about your intuition that there is an absence now of elite class is an absence now of elite class is an absence now of elite class solidarity when in the past that solidarity when in the past that solidarity when in the past that existed. Because I know my read of existed. Because I know my read of existed. Because I know my read of history, you think about McCarthyism, history, you think about McCarthyism, history, you think about McCarthyism, right? Where they're getting each other right? Where they're getting each other right? Where they're getting each other like destroyed from public life, you like destroyed from public life, you like destroyed from public life, you know, on the assumption being a know, on the assumption being a know, on the assumption being a communist whether or not it's true that communist whether or not it's true that communist whether or not it's true that elite politics has often been very elite politics has often been very elite politics has often been very rivalrous and that assumptions of rivalrous and that assumptions of rivalrous and that assumptions of solidarity have never held at any for solidarity have never held at any for solidarity have never held at any for any great number of them. any great number of them. any great number of them. >> So, I have to confess that this is >> So, I have to confess that this is >> So, I have to confess that this is a manifestation of a vulgar Marxism a manifestation of a vulgar Marxism a manifestation of a vulgar Marxism that's probably in me where that's probably in me where that's probably in me where I I I see two creatures that should have the see two creatures that should have the see two creatures that should have the same class instinct and should be same class instinct and should be same class instinct and should be naturally sympathetic to the each other. naturally sympathetic to the each other. naturally sympathetic to the each other. But as you say, actually elite division But as you say, actually elite division But as you say, actually elite division or elite or elite or elite rivalry is the rule rather than the rivalry is the rule rather than the rivalry is the rule rather than the exception across history, particularly exception across history, particularly exception across history, particularly in the US because the country's so in the US because the country's so in the US because the country's so large. You have all kinds of economic large. You have all kinds of economic large. You have all kinds of economic sectors. It's very difficult to unite sectors. It's very difficult to unite sectors. It's very difficult to unite each fraction of the elite into one each fraction of the elite into one each fraction of the elite into one organization. The only periods in organization. The only periods in organization. The only periods in American history and I'd say also in American history and I'd say also in American history and I'd say also in European history and and more broadly on European history and and more broadly on European history and and more broadly on a global scale that you do have elite a global scale that you do have elite a global scale that you do have elite unity and solidarity is when there's a unity and solidarity is when there's a unity and solidarity is when there's a working class threat on the other side.

working class threat on the other side. working class threat on the other side. So, when it comes to anti-communism or So, when it comes to anti-communism or So, when it comes to anti-communism or crushing the labor movement under crushing the labor movement under crushing the labor movement under Reagan, that is really the last time you Reagan, that is really the last time you Reagan, that is really the last time you had a concerted employer offensive. But had a concerted employer offensive. But had a concerted employer offensive. But once that opponent is severely weakened once that opponent is severely weakened once that opponent is severely weakened and fractures, you immediately have and fractures, you immediately have and fractures, you immediately have elite factionalism showing up. So, yes, elite factionalism showing up. So, yes, elite factionalism showing up. So, yes, you're right. They should not like each you're right. They should not like each you're right. They should not like each other or they're not destined to like other or they're not destined to like other or they're not destined to like each other. Still, I think it's striking each other. Still, I think it's striking each other. Still, I think it's striking because it is violence within a specific because it is violence within a specific because it is violence within a specific class and it should not be confused for class and it should not be confused for class and it should not be confused for the type of the type of the type of radical polarization that we've often radical polarization that we've often radical polarization that we've often been taught to think about in the last been taught to think about in the last been taught to think about in the last 10 years where somehow society is highly 10 years where somehow society is highly 10 years where somehow society is highly polarized. I think a lot of recent polarized. I think a lot of recent polarized. I think a lot of recent politics can be more explained through politics can be more explained through politics can be more explained through elite polarization rather than social elite polarization rather than social elite polarization rather than social polarization as a whole. But that's polarization as a whole. But that's polarization as a whole. But that's still, I mean, a different discussion. still, I mean, a different discussion. still, I mean, a different discussion. >> I've >> I've >> I've I wrote a book on polarization a couple I wrote a book on polarization a couple I wrote a book on polarization a couple years back, and this is actually the years back, and this is actually the years back, and this is actually the argument of the book that the elites are argument of the book that the elites are argument of the book that the elites are polarizing. polarizing. polarizing. And then they're giving the public much And then they're giving the public much And then they're giving the public much more polarized choices, which is more polarized choices, which is more polarized choices, which is polarizing the public in turn, and it polarizing the public in turn, and it polarizing the public in turn, and it creates a kind of flywheel. creates a kind of flywheel. creates a kind of flywheel. And I think that's very true. And I think that's very true. And I think that's very true. Uh I I want to go back to this piece you Uh I I want to go back to this piece you Uh I I want to go back to this piece you did in the New Left Review where which did in the New Left Review where which did in the New Left Review where which is more focused on Trump and Trump's is more focused on Trump and Trump's is more focused on Trump and Trump's second term.

second term. second term. And you quote the political scientist And you quote the political scientist And you quote the political scientist Ivan Krastev, uh Ivan Krastev, uh Ivan Krastev, uh who writes that the essence of the who writes that the essence of the who writes that the essence of the Trumpian revolution Trumpian revolution Trumpian revolution is the implosion of time itself. is the implosion of time itself. is the implosion of time itself. Tell me a bit about that idea. Tell me a bit about that idea. Tell me a bit about that idea. >> Well, I mean, it's a it's a fascinating >> Well, I mean, it's a it's a fascinating >> Well, I mean, it's a it's a fascinating piece which you wrote for the Financial piece which you wrote for the Financial piece which you wrote for the Financial Times. It's a bit speculative. So, it's Times. It's a bit speculative. So, it's Times. It's a bit speculative. So, it's trying to trying to trying to make a couple of observations about make a couple of observations about make a couple of observations about Trump's mode of rule, which, I mean, Trump's mode of rule, which, I mean, Trump's mode of rule, which, I mean, anyone who's turned on the television or anyone who's turned on the television or anyone who's turned on the television or logged on to their social media logged on to their social media logged on to their social media platforms has probably gotten a taste of platforms has probably gotten a taste of platforms has probably gotten a taste of in the last 2 years. And it is in the last 2 years. And it is in the last 2 years. And it is obviously, I think, very different from obviously, I think, very different from obviously, I think, very different from previous American presidents. But previous American presidents. But previous American presidents. But there's one thing that really stands there's one thing that really stands there's one thing that really stands out, and that is it short-termism, or or out, and that is it short-termism, or or out, and that is it short-termism, or or the fact that the fact that the fact that there's no thinking beyond the 24-hour there's no thinking beyond the 24-hour there's no thinking beyond the 24-hour news cycle. In fact, a lot of political news cycle. In fact, a lot of political news cycle. In fact, a lot of political decisions seem to be informed by the decisions seem to be informed by the decisions seem to be informed by the presumed effects those decisions will presumed effects those decisions will presumed effects those decisions will have on a media cycle and on its have on a media cycle and on its have on a media cycle and on its perceived popularity. That doesn't mean perceived popularity. That doesn't mean perceived popularity. That doesn't mean there isn't a court around Trump that there isn't a court around Trump that there isn't a court around Trump that feeds ideas into the machine. So, feeds ideas into the machine. So, feeds ideas into the machine. So, obviously, there are different obviously, there are different obviously, there are different ideological factions, whether it's Rubio ideological factions, whether it's Rubio ideological factions, whether it's Rubio or it's Colby that have certain plans on or it's Colby that have certain plans on or it's Colby that have certain plans on how to reestablish American hegemony in how to reestablish American hegemony in how to reestablish American hegemony in the new century. But it seems that what the new century. But it seems that what the new century. But it seems that what Trump does is that he takes these Trump does is that he takes these Trump does is that he takes these suggestions, and then he evaluates them suggestions, and then he evaluates them suggestions, and then he evaluates them on their on their on their efficacy in terms of media effects. Will efficacy in terms of media effects. Will efficacy in terms of media effects. Will this keep me in the news for the next 24 this keep me in the news for the next 24 this keep me in the news for the next 24 hours? If I bomb this country, or if I hours? If I bomb this country, or if I hours? If I bomb this country, or if I do this, and then afterwards, for the do this, and then afterwards, for the do this, and then afterwards, for the next 48 hours, we'll come up with a next 48 hours, we'll come up with a next 48 hours, we'll come up with a different plan.

different plan. different plan. And I I thought it it's a very And I I thought it it's a very And I I thought it it's a very illuminating observation because it illuminating observation because it illuminating observation because it depersonalizes Trump to some extent as depersonalizes Trump to some extent as depersonalizes Trump to some extent as the symptom of a wider malaise that can the symptom of a wider malaise that can the symptom of a wider malaise that can also be institutionally explained. It's also be institutionally explained. It's also be institutionally explained. It's because everyone's so personally because everyone's so personally because everyone's so personally dependent on his caprices and because dependent on his caprices and because dependent on his caprices and because the GOP, despite some theories, is not a the GOP, despite some theories, is not a the GOP, despite some theories, is not a mass party. mass party. mass party. It's still, let's say, a small camarilla It's still, let's say, a small camarilla It's still, let's say, a small camarilla or a small clique that or a small clique that or a small clique that is very strongly attached to the state. is very strongly attached to the state. is very strongly attached to the state. That probably also explains why the That probably also explains why the That probably also explains why the administration cannot think a week in administration cannot think a week in administration cannot think a week in ahead or 2 weeks in ahead. I mean, it's ahead or 2 weeks in ahead. I mean, it's ahead or 2 weeks in ahead. I mean, it's a striking contrast with a Chinese a striking contrast with a Chinese a striking contrast with a Chinese Communist Party that is still Communist Party that is still Communist Party that is still formulating 5-year plans or 5-year formulating 5-year plans or 5-year formulating 5-year plans or 5-year designs designs designs and a a Trump admin that I think can and a a Trump admin that I think can and a a Trump admin that I think can revise a decision revise a decision revise a decision during, I mean, 1 day. during, I mean, 1 day. during, I mean, 1 day. >> Yeah, you have this line in there that >> Yeah, you have this line in there that >> Yeah, you have this line in there that what if short-termism is structural now? what if short-termism is structural now? what if short-termism is structural now? And I've been thinking about that line And I've been thinking about that line And I've been thinking about that line because because because I do think there is this constant I do think there is this constant I do think there is this constant question around Trump and Trumpism question around Trump and Trumpism question around Trump and Trumpism of whether or not with him you're of whether or not with him you're of whether or not with him you're looking at a very idiosyncratic looking at a very idiosyncratic looking at a very idiosyncratic psychology psychology psychology >> Mhm.

>> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> that is highly tuned to the particular >> that is highly tuned to the particular >> that is highly tuned to the particular moment. I've often described him as a moment. I've often described him as a moment. I've often described him as a like a human engagement algorithm. like a human engagement algorithm. like a human engagement algorithm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> And he really reflects to me the way >> And he really reflects to me the way >> And he really reflects to me the way Twitter thinks and the way X or Truth Twitter thinks and the way X or Truth Twitter thinks and the way X or Truth Social, whatever it is, feel. Social, whatever it is, feel. Social, whatever it is, feel. The people around him don't necessarily. The people around him don't necessarily. The people around him don't necessarily. You know, I I got a lot of critiques to You know, I I got a lot of critiques to You know, I I got a lot of critiques to make of make of make of a J.D. Vance, a Marco Rubio, a Stephen a J.D. Vance, a Marco Rubio, a Stephen a J.D. Vance, a Marco Rubio, a Stephen Miller. Miller. Miller. They're not actually short-term They're not actually short-term They're not actually short-term thinkers. All of them thinkers. All of them thinkers. All of them consider things on a longer time frame, consider things on a longer time frame, consider things on a longer time frame, think in a more to other political think in a more to other political think in a more to other political elites recognizably ideological way. elites recognizably ideological way. elites recognizably ideological way. >> [snorts] >> [snorts] >> [snorts] >> Joe Biden was >> Joe Biden was >> Joe Biden was towards the end of his administration, towards the end of his administration, towards the end of his administration, one of the things that his defenders one of the things that his defenders one of the things that his defenders were saying was that his plans were were saying was that his plans were were saying was that his plans were measured in decades, but unfortunately measured in decades, but unfortunately measured in decades, but unfortunately elections happen in, you know, mere elections happen in, you know, mere elections happen in, you know, mere years. years. years. And so there's a question of whether And so there's a question of whether And so there's a question of whether what Trump is is a kind of harbinger what Trump is is a kind of harbinger what Trump is is a kind of harbinger of what is coming or what is really of what is coming or what is really of what is coming or what is really going on, the short-termism, going on, the short-termism, going on, the short-termism, you know, you know, you know, for reasons of both for reasons of both for reasons of both deinstitutionalization and maybe online deinstitutionalization and maybe online deinstitutionalization and maybe online algorithms and other things, algorithms and other things, algorithms and other things, is coming, and he's like a tuning fork is coming, and he's like a tuning fork is coming, and he's like a tuning fork for the future.

for the future. for the future. Or not. Um, Or not. Um, Or not. Um, but I do look at a place like the UK and but I do look at a place like the UK and but I do look at a place like the UK and they're like running through prime they're like running through prime they're like running through prime ministers at incredible clip. ministers at incredible clip. ministers at incredible clip. Like there is a kind of volatility out Like there is a kind of volatility out Like there is a kind of volatility out there there there that is not affecting China in the same that is not affecting China in the same that is not affecting China in the same way. way. way. And and so, yeah, I guess I'd like to And and so, yeah, I guess I'd like to And and so, yeah, I guess I'd like to hear you talk more about to what degree hear you talk more about to what degree hear you talk more about to what degree you think this is short-termism is you think this is short-termism is you think this is short-termism is structural, to what degree you think the structural, to what degree you think the structural, to what degree you think the Trumpism that you're describing there is Trumpism that you're describing there is Trumpism that you're describing there is distinctive to a kind of person, distinctive to a kind of person, distinctive to a kind of person, is it simply an adjustment period in a is it simply an adjustment period in a is it simply an adjustment period in a kind of a new formation of technology? kind of a new formation of technology? kind of a new formation of technology? How do you see that? How do you see that? How do you see that? >> Yeah, I mean, it's a loaded metaphor, >> Yeah, I mean, it's a loaded metaphor, >> Yeah, I mean, it's a loaded metaphor, but I think some Darwinian reading in but I think some Darwinian reading in but I think some Darwinian reading in that you have the species and you have that you have the species and you have that you have the species and you have the environment. And the environment has the environment. And the environment has the environment. And the environment has obviously changed, so that is the obviously changed, so that is the obviously changed, so that is the structural story we're telling. But structural story we're telling. But structural story we're telling. But there does seem to be one species or one there does seem to be one species or one there does seem to be one species or one particular example of that species that particular example of that species that particular example of that species that really flourishes in this new really flourishes in this new really flourishes in this new environment, and that's environment, and that's environment, and that's Trump. And I do think there is a Trump. And I do think there is a Trump. And I do think there is a personal dimension to it. I mean, he personal dimension to it. I mean, he personal dimension to it. I mean, he himself went through the transition of himself went through the transition of himself went through the transition of different media regimes. He was the man different media regimes. He was the man different media regimes. He was the man of television, the kind of showman of of television, the kind of showman of of television, the kind of showman of reality TV, the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, reality TV, the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, reality TV, the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, and then he and then he and then he I think handily transitioned or moved I think handily transitioned or moved I think handily transitioned or moved into the era of the algorithm and social into the era of the algorithm and social into the era of the algorithm and social media.

media. media. But it's very clear that in the case of But it's very clear that in the case of But it's very clear that in the case of Rubio and Vance, the ideology is Rubio and Vance, the ideology is Rubio and Vance, the ideology is actually a burden. And it's precisely actually a burden. And it's precisely actually a burden. And it's precisely because Trump is unburdened by any because Trump is unburdened by any because Trump is unburdened by any ideological convictions. This doesn't ideological convictions. This doesn't ideological convictions. This doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe necessarily mean he doesn't believe necessarily mean he doesn't believe anything. It's more that anything. It's more that anything. It's more that ideology as a kind of cognitive frame ideology as a kind of cognitive frame ideology as a kind of cognitive frame that filters your decisions is not that filters your decisions is not that filters your decisions is not something that he's very familiar with. something that he's very familiar with. something that he's very familiar with. Um, he has other concerns that come Um, he has other concerns that come Um, he has other concerns that come first. And that probably also allows him first. And that probably also allows him first. And that probably also allows him to be such a showman and that's why he to be such a showman and that's why he to be such a showman and that's why he is is is was able to win those two elections. And was able to win those two elections. And was able to win those two elections. And I think someone like Vance who you can I think someone like Vance who you can I think someone like Vance who you can sense is opportunistic but is more sense is opportunistic but is more sense is opportunistic but is more invested in the idea of ideology, wants invested in the idea of ideology, wants invested in the idea of ideology, wants to write books in which he talks about to write books in which he talks about to write books in which he talks about his conversions and expose or sorry his conversions and expose or sorry his conversions and expose or sorry expounds his worldview. I'm not sure expounds his worldview. I'm not sure expounds his worldview. I'm not sure that his pitch to the contemporary media that his pitch to the contemporary media that his pitch to the contemporary media adult volatile voter will be as adult volatile voter will be as adult volatile voter will be as convincing as that of the showman convincing as that of the showman convincing as that of the showman himself. And it's very clear that some himself. And it's very clear that some himself. And it's very clear that some politicians also in Europe have tried to politicians also in Europe have tried to politicians also in Europe have tried to ape that Trumpian style. ape that Trumpian style. ape that Trumpian style. It's it's hard. I mean there is a It's it's hard. I mean there is a It's it's hard. I mean there is a there's a certain skill or or even there's a certain skill or or even there's a certain skill or or even artisanal quality to how he does it, artisanal quality to how he does it, artisanal quality to how he does it, which once again is a question of which once again is a question of which once again is a question of structure and agency at the same time.

structure and agency at the same time. structure and agency at the same time. >> Trump himself is a unusual case, but >> Trump himself is a unusual case, but >> Trump himself is a unusual case, but MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA as a a kind of broader movement MAGA as a a kind of broader movement MAGA as a a kind of broader movement that for many of its people you can that for many of its people you can that for many of its people you can really live in. It really does have really live in. It really does have really live in. It really does have ideas, increasingly it has institutions ideas, increasingly it has institutions ideas, increasingly it has institutions that are associated with it and leaders that are associated with it and leaders that are associated with it and leaders who are associated with it. You can live who are associated with it. You can live who are associated with it. You can live in its world. It it it can give you a in its world. It it it can give you a in its world. It it it can give you a sort of meaning. It has rallies. It has sort of meaning. It has rallies. It has sort of meaning. It has rallies. It has in some ways it seems very much more in some ways it seems very much more in some ways it seems very much more like past eras of politics do than like past eras of politics do than like past eras of politics do than anything we've seen more recently. anything we've seen more recently. anything we've seen more recently. So, from your perspective, is MAGA So, from your perspective, is MAGA So, from your perspective, is MAGA hyperpolitics? Is it the coming of hyperpolitics? Is it the coming of hyperpolitics? Is it the coming of something new? How do you see what is something new? How do you see what is something new? How do you see what is happening there on the American right? happening there on the American right? happening there on the American right? >> I think it's an interesting and >> I think it's an interesting and >> I think it's an interesting and complicated question because the first complicated question because the first complicated question because the first Trump term and the second Trump term are Trump term and the second Trump term are Trump term and the second Trump term are obviously very different. And I do think obviously very different. And I do think obviously very different. And I do think the second Trump term is much more the second Trump term is much more the second Trump term is much more institutionalized. I mean for the first institutionalized. I mean for the first institutionalized. I mean for the first election victory, he himself and his election victory, he himself and his election victory, he himself and his entourage were surprised that he even entourage were surprised that he even entourage were surprised that he even won. That wasn't the case second time won. That wasn't the case second time won. That wasn't the case second time around. The Heritage Foundation Project around. The Heritage Foundation Project around. The Heritage Foundation Project 25 that indicates that they were better 25 that indicates that they were better 25 that indicates that they were better prepared and that there was a project of prepared and that there was a project of prepared and that there was a project of institutionalization institutionalization institutionalization which they consciously pursued. The which they consciously pursued. The which they consciously pursued. The question whether MAGA is a mass movement question whether MAGA is a mass movement question whether MAGA is a mass movement and whether they've managed to reinvent and whether they've managed to reinvent and whether they've managed to reinvent I'd say even certain forms of 20th I'd say even certain forms of 20th I'd say even certain forms of 20th century far-right mass politics, which I century far-right mass politics, which I century far-right mass politics, which I think is also related to the so-called F think is also related to the so-called F think is also related to the so-called F question debate, whether Trump is a question debate, whether Trump is a question debate, whether Trump is a fascist or not.

fascist or not. fascist or not. I think yes, the second Trump term is I think yes, the second Trump term is I think yes, the second Trump term is different from the first. different from the first. different from the first. There has been a weaponization, for There has been a weaponization, for There has been a weaponization, for example, of parts of the security state example, of parts of the security state example, of parts of the security state such as ICE. There has been an attempt such as ICE. There has been an attempt such as ICE. There has been an attempt to create a solid base of supporters to create a solid base of supporters to create a solid base of supporters that will remain with them also through that will remain with them also through that will remain with them also through the fact that there's now all kinds of the fact that there's now all kinds of the fact that there's now all kinds of state funding involved. And of course, state funding involved. And of course, state funding involved. And of course, these kind of paramilitary organizations these kind of paramilitary organizations these kind of paramilitary organizations do resemble the 20th century do resemble the 20th century do resemble the 20th century squads that we usually associate with squads that we usually associate with squads that we usually associate with fascist politics. fascist politics. fascist politics. At the same time, the question always At the same time, the question always At the same time, the question always remains whether there will be a Trumpism remains whether there will be a Trumpism remains whether there will be a Trumpism without Trump. There's maybe a question without Trump. There's maybe a question without Trump. There's maybe a question whether Tucker Carlson or Marjorie whether Tucker Carlson or Marjorie whether Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene and some of the first Taylor Greene and some of the first Taylor Greene and some of the first Trumpers now see themselves as carrying Trumpers now see themselves as carrying Trumpers now see themselves as carrying that movement forwards, also by that movement forwards, also by that movement forwards, also by dissenting from certain types of GOP dissenting from certain types of GOP dissenting from certain types of GOP orthodoxy. orthodoxy. orthodoxy. I'm just less convinced that they have I'm just less convinced that they have I'm just less convinced that they have the institutional structure, except for the institutional structure, except for the institutional structure, except for a couple of podcasts and media channels, a couple of podcasts and media channels, a couple of podcasts and media channels, to keep that going. So, that is to keep that going. So, that is to keep that going. So, that is obviously an open question. We'll see obviously an open question. We'll see obviously an open question. We'll see what happens, but the GOP has not what happens, but the GOP has not what happens, but the GOP has not transformed itself into a mass transformed itself into a mass transformed itself into a mass membership party. The buying of a lot of membership party. The buying of a lot of membership party. The buying of a lot of the agents of ICE does seem to be the agents of ICE does seem to be the agents of ICE does seem to be heavily reliant not on their ideological heavily reliant not on their ideological heavily reliant not on their ideological agreement, but more on their financial agreement, but more on their financial agreement, but more on their financial opportunities they have in joining opportunities they have in joining opportunities they have in joining the security state. And when they lose the security state. And when they lose the security state. And when they lose the midterms and the midterms and the midterms and we'll see obviously what happens with we'll see obviously what happens with we'll see obviously what happens with the next election, I'm just not sure the next election, I'm just not sure the next election, I'm just not sure that it will persist for such a long that it will persist for such a long that it will persist for such a long time. There could of course be another time. There could of course be another time. There could of course be another mass movement that goes further and mass movement that goes further and mass movement that goes further and radicalizes it, but I don't think that's

radicalizes it, but I don't think that's radicalizes it, but I don't think that's the same as a party the same as a party the same as a party throughout the 20th century that could throughout the 20th century that could throughout the 20th century that could bide its time across cycles of 5 to 10 bide its time across cycles of 5 to 10 bide its time across cycles of 5 to 10 to even 20 years and then strike. to even 20 years and then strike. to even 20 years and then strike. When MAGA, I think, is so beholden to When MAGA, I think, is so beholden to When MAGA, I think, is so beholden to these contemporary media [music] cycles these contemporary media [music] cycles these contemporary media [music] cycles that are very short and very volatile that are very short and very volatile that are very short and very volatile that it could that it could that it could yeah, as easily rise as it could fall. yeah, as easily rise as it could fall. yeah, as easily rise as it could fall. >> [music] >> One thing that we've been talking about >> One thing that we've been talking about here is the way here is the way here is the way institutions, but we've I think institutions, but we've I think institutions, but we've I think primarily been talking about civic primarily been talking about civic primarily been talking about civic institutions have eroded. institutions have eroded. institutions have eroded. I think there's another question, which I think there's another question, which I think there's another question, which is about the way that the institutions is about the way that the institutions is about the way that the institutions of governance and power have ossified. of governance and power have ossified. of governance and power have ossified. And this maybe goes back to what you And this maybe goes back to what you And this maybe goes back to what you were saying earlier were saying earlier were saying earlier about the ways in which a system might about the ways in which a system might about the ways in which a system might have become more resistant. Not in this have become more resistant. Not in this have become more resistant. Not in this case to me just at individual power, but case to me just at individual power, but case to me just at individual power, but almost to any form of power, which is to almost to any form of power, which is to almost to any form of power, which is to say that in America say that in America say that in America where, you know, we have a much more where, you know, we have a much more where, you know, we have a much more closely divided politics where it's less closely divided politics where it's less closely divided politics where it's less I you're less likely to get bipartisan I you're less likely to get bipartisan I you're less likely to get bipartisan compromise, you get more filibusters, compromise, you get more filibusters, compromise, you get more filibusters, your ability to pass big bills has gone your ability to pass big bills has gone your ability to pass big bills has gone down over time. And and that is true down over time. And and that is true down over time. And and that is true even when power is arranged behind the even when power is arranged behind the even when power is arranged behind the bills. Like I remember for Barack Obama, bills. Like I remember for Barack Obama, bills. Like I remember for Barack Obama, you had the Chamber of Commerce and the you had the Chamber of Commerce and the you had the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO both supporting an AFL-CIO both supporting an AFL-CIO both supporting an infrastructure bill. It went nowhere.

infrastructure bill. It went nowhere. infrastructure bill. It went nowhere. There was a lot of power behind There was a lot of power behind There was a lot of power behind immigration bills in that era. They went immigration bills in that era. They went immigration bills in that era. They went nowhere. Right? Because you could kill nowhere. Right? Because you could kill nowhere. Right? Because you could kill so much more in Congress, there were so so much more in Congress, there were so so much more in Congress, there were so many more ways to wrap things up, so many more ways to wrap things up, so many more ways to wrap things up, so much more you can do in the courts. In much more you can do in the courts. In much more you can do in the courts. In Europe, um it's a situation I know less Europe, um it's a situation I know less Europe, um it's a situation I know less well, but certainly there is a a broad well, but certainly there is a a broad well, but certainly there is a a broad sense that the European Union has sense that the European Union has sense that the European Union has created more slowness, more created more slowness, more created more slowness, more powers that are acting upon you from far powers that are acting upon you from far powers that are acting upon you from far away. away. away. And I wonder if some of the movement of And I wonder if some of the movement of And I wonder if some of the movement of political energy political energy political energy to spaces of discourse, of posting, of to spaces of discourse, of posting, of to spaces of discourse, of posting, of things that on the one hand are things that on the one hand are things that on the one hand are low-effort, but at least low-effort, but at least low-effort, but at least some kind of answer comes back to you some kind of answer comes back to you some kind of answer comes back to you quickly. quickly. quickly. I wonder if it reflects to some degree I wonder if it reflects to some degree I wonder if it reflects to some degree a a a disillusionment disillusionment disillusionment with what you can get done with what you can get done with what you can get done in institutions that are now very hard in institutions that are now very hard in institutions that are now very hard to get anything done in. Just, you know, to get anything done in. Just, you know, to get anything done in. Just, you know, they've been around a long time. They're they've been around a long time. They're they've been around a long time. They're balancing out a lot of different balancing out a lot of different balancing out a lot of different interests. People know how to work them interests. People know how to work them interests. People know how to work them better.

better. better. Uh Uh Uh money can talk very loudly, but I money can talk very loudly, but I money can talk very loudly, but I actually always think it doesn't talk as actually always think it doesn't talk as actually always think it doesn't talk as loudly as people think it does cuz I've loudly as people think it does cuz I've loudly as people think it does cuz I've watched a lot of money fail to get its watched a lot of money fail to get its watched a lot of money fail to get its way in American politics and elsewhere. way in American politics and elsewhere. way in American politics and elsewhere. That it's just so much easier to block That it's just so much easier to block That it's just so much easier to block anything than to achieve anything anything than to achieve anything anything than to achieve anything that that that almost people don't believe in almost people don't believe in almost people don't believe in achievements. achievements. achievements. >> I I think I mean George Soros is of >> I I think I mean George Soros is of >> I I think I mean George Soros is of course a spectacular example of someone course a spectacular example of someone course a spectacular example of someone who's been spraying millions at certain who's been spraying millions at certain who's been spraying millions at certain causes. And if you look at where the causes. And if you look at where the causes. And if you look at where the world is headed, put it to clean, it's world is headed, put it to clean, it's world is headed, put it to clean, it's not very clear that he has the total not very clear that he has the total not very clear that he has the total control which some conspiracy thinkers control which some conspiracy thinkers control which some conspiracy thinkers attribute to him. Um I think yes, it is attribute to him. Um I think yes, it is attribute to him. Um I think yes, it is absolutely true that even on the level absolutely true that even on the level absolutely true that even on the level of the elite, so there's been a complete of the elite, so there's been a complete of the elite, so there's been a complete legalization of let's say outside legalization of let's say outside legalization of let's say outside election spending also in the US. It's election spending also in the US. It's election spending also in the US. It's also become easier in Europe, but it's also become easier in Europe, but it's also become easier in Europe, but it's not very clear that this increasing not very clear that this increasing not very clear that this increasing lobbying power actually also makes it lobbying power actually also makes it lobbying power actually also makes it easier to achieve your policy aims. And easier to achieve your policy aims. And easier to achieve your policy aims. And that I mean that is a paradox, right? that I mean that is a paradox, right? that I mean that is a paradox, right? Because you could say okay, social Because you could say okay, social Because you could say okay, social change has become impossible from below, change has become impossible from below, change has become impossible from below, but if you say also from above it's but if you say also from above it's but if you say also from above it's become very difficult to pursue. There's become very difficult to pursue. There's become very difficult to pursue. There's a much more profound puzzle to be a much more profound puzzle to be a much more profound puzzle to be examined there.

examined there. examined there. I think there is I think there is I think there is there is a question about the story of there is a question about the story of there is a question about the story of deinstitutionalization as affecting deinstitutionalization as affecting deinstitutionalization as affecting society but also affecting the state. society but also affecting the state. society but also affecting the state. Because what the adjustments in the '80s Because what the adjustments in the '80s Because what the adjustments in the '80s and '90s, the story that's often told as and '90s, the story that's often told as and '90s, the story that's often told as neoliberalism but which I think goes neoliberalism but which I think goes neoliberalism but which I think goes much deeper, is that it on the one hand much deeper, is that it on the one hand much deeper, is that it on the one hand entails a concerted attack on certain entails a concerted attack on certain entails a concerted attack on certain institutions which are seen as hampering institutions which are seen as hampering institutions which are seen as hampering economic recovery, particularly unions, economic recovery, particularly unions, economic recovery, particularly unions, which are blamed for inflation and which are blamed for inflation and which are blamed for inflation and thereby you have to get rid of them to thereby you have to get rid of them to thereby you have to get rid of them to basically restore economic normality. basically restore economic normality. basically restore economic normality. But on the level of the state, there is But on the level of the state, there is But on the level of the state, there is also a concerted displacement towards also a concerted displacement towards also a concerted displacement towards unelected, non-electoral bodies, also to unelected, non-electoral bodies, also to unelected, non-electoral bodies, also to keep them shielded from certain elite keep them shielded from certain elite keep them shielded from certain elite pressure groups. To say a central bank pressure groups. To say a central bank pressure groups. To say a central bank has to govern in the interest of has to govern in the interest of has to govern in the interest of everyone, everyone, everyone, and thereby they shouldn't be meddled and thereby they shouldn't be meddled and thereby they shouldn't be meddled with. But what's interesting is that with. But what's interesting is that with. But what's interesting is that that does two things. It did moves power that does two things. It did moves power that does two things. It did moves power to institutions that are not open to to institutions that are not open to to institutions that are not open to pressure, whether it's elite or popular pressure, whether it's elite or popular pressure, whether it's elite or popular pressure. Obviously, it's still easier pressure. Obviously, it's still easier pressure. Obviously, it's still easier for the elite to get access, but not as for the elite to get access, but not as for the elite to get access, but not as easy as as many people think it is.

easy as as many people think it is. easy as as many people think it is. And at the same time, it increases the And at the same time, it increases the And at the same time, it increases the attractiveness of the veto option you're attractiveness of the veto option you're attractiveness of the veto option you're describing. So, if we cannot get certain describing. So, if we cannot get certain describing. So, if we cannot get certain things through these institutions, what things through these institutions, what things through these institutions, what we have to do is just build a kill we have to do is just build a kill we have to do is just build a kill switch or switch or switch or create something that at least makes it create something that at least makes it create something that at least makes it possible to stop something if we don't possible to stop something if we don't possible to stop something if we don't want it going through. And that also I want it going through. And that also I want it going through. And that also I think becomes attractive from the lower think becomes attractive from the lower think becomes attractive from the lower half of society. half of society. half of society. I do think that just eliminating these I do think that just eliminating these I do think that just eliminating these veto capacities is not going to solve veto capacities is not going to solve veto capacities is not going to solve the problem either, because the problem the problem either, because the problem the problem either, because the problem is much more structural insofar as the is much more structural insofar as the is much more structural insofar as the attractiveness of the veto is a function attractiveness of the veto is a function attractiveness of the veto is a function of an institutional issue that's older. of an institutional issue that's older. of an institutional issue that's older. And if you want to make the contrast And if you want to make the contrast And if you want to make the contrast with China, with China, with China, Chinese state capacity means very little Chinese state capacity means very little Chinese state capacity means very little without the Chinese Communist Party. without the Chinese Communist Party. without the Chinese Communist Party. That's not just a state, that's an That's not just a state, that's an That's not just a state, that's an institution that plays, I mean, a very institution that plays, I mean, a very institution that plays, I mean, a very strange role in uniting classes, but strange role in uniting classes, but strange role in uniting classes, but also different factions of the elite. also different factions of the elite. also different factions of the elite. I don't see an American equivalent of I don't see an American equivalent of I don't see an American equivalent of the CCP, let alone a European the CCP, let alone a European the CCP, let alone a European equivalent, that could play that role.

equivalent, that could play that role. equivalent, that could play that role. >> I think China is such an interesting >> I think China is such an interesting >> I think China is such an interesting counterexample here. I don't ever counterexample here. I don't ever counterexample here. I don't ever pretend to know the structure of Chinese pretend to know the structure of Chinese pretend to know the structure of Chinese public opinion, public opinion, public opinion, but across a number of measures that but across a number of measures that but across a number of measures that people do look at, and I do think we, people do look at, and I do think we, people do look at, and I do think we, you know, you know, you know, feel like we have some confidence in. feel like we have some confidence in. feel like we have some confidence in. There is more optimism and sense of There is more optimism and sense of There is more optimism and sense of agency around things like AI in China agency around things like AI in China agency around things like AI in China than in America. Less pessimism. than in America. Less pessimism. than in America. Less pessimism. And you know, China's a place where as And you know, China's a place where as And you know, China's a place where as an individual you really don't have say an individual you really don't have say an individual you really don't have say in governance. You really There's very in governance. You really There's very in governance. You really There's very little you can do to affect what the top little you can do to affect what the top little you can do to affect what the top levels of the CCP are going to do. levels of the CCP are going to do. levels of the CCP are going to do. On the other hand, somebody is doing On the other hand, somebody is doing On the other hand, somebody is doing something constantly. something constantly. something constantly. And change is happening and movement is And change is happening and movement is And change is happening and movement is happening. happening. happening. And even if you are not the one acting And even if you are not the one acting And even if you are not the one acting upon the world, the world is there to be upon the world, the world is there to be upon the world, the world is there to be acted upon. acted upon. acted upon. I am not I am not I am not I would not want to live under that I would not want to live under that I would not want to live under that system. I'm not system. I'm not system. I'm not lauding it in that respect. lauding it in that respect. lauding it in that respect. But I do think it sits now as a a kind But I do think it sits now as a a kind But I do think it sits now as a a kind of counter example to a lot of Western of counter example to a lot of Western of counter example to a lot of Western systems where it almost has created this systems where it almost has created this systems where it almost has created this choice of choice of choice of do you want rights and inaction do you want rights and inaction do you want rights and inaction or few rights and action?

or few rights and action? or few rights and action? Trump is interesting from this Trump is interesting from this Trump is interesting from this perspective to me because he comes into perspective to me because he comes into perspective to me because he comes into office office office and is able to make a very big show and is able to make a very big show and is able to make a very big show of cracking the system, it appears, in of cracking the system, it appears, in of cracking the system, it appears, in half and doing things which half and doing things which half and doing things which people thought couldn't be done. He people thought couldn't be done. He people thought couldn't be done. He signs all these executive orders signs all these executive orders signs all these executive orders including one ending birthright including one ending birthright including one ending birthright citizenship and throws them out into the citizenship and throws them out into the citizenship and throws them out into the crowd and crowd and crowd and it looks like a WWE rally mixed with a it looks like a WWE rally mixed with a it looks like a WWE rally mixed with a governance function. governance function. governance function. But it turns out he has not cracked the But it turns out he has not cracked the But it turns out he has not cracked the code. code. code. He is passing less legislation than He is passing less legislation than He is passing less legislation than other presidents. Many of his things end other presidents. Many of his things end other presidents. Many of his things end up turned back in courts. Dodge moves up turned back in courts. Dodge moves up turned back in courts. Dodge moves with incredible force and speed for with incredible force and speed for with incredible force and speed for little while and then collapses little while and then collapses little while and then collapses entirely. He seems overwhelmed by entirely. He seems overwhelmed by entirely. He seems overwhelmed by events. He's in an Iran war he clearly events. He's in an Iran war he clearly events. He's in an Iran war he clearly has no control over. And so, you know, has no control over. And so, you know, has no control over. And so, you know, Trump had maybe an an attentional Trump had maybe an an attentional Trump had maybe an an attentional answer. He was able to create the answer. He was able to create the answer. He was able to create the spectacle of things happening. spectacle of things happening. spectacle of things happening. But then you're a member of the public But then you're a member of the public But then you're a member of the public and well, what has really happened that and well, what has really happened that and well, what has really happened that is different now for you? Are your is different now for you? Are your is different now for you? Are your prices lower? Does America seem like it prices lower? Does America seem like it prices lower? Does America seem like it is doing better? Is anybody really in is doing better? Is anybody really in is doing better? Is anybody really in control? And the answer again is no. And control? And the answer again is no. And control? And the answer again is no. And now Donald Trump is like falling asleep now Donald Trump is like falling asleep now Donald Trump is like falling asleep at meetings, and at meetings, and at meetings, and they're going to lose the midterms. And they're going to lose the midterms. And they're going to lose the midterms. And so, so, so, that sense of nobody is I am not in that sense of nobody is I am not in that sense of nobody is I am not in control, but nor is anybody else control, but nor is anybody else control, but nor is anybody else persists.

persists. persists. And I think you have this dilemma right And I think you have this dilemma right And I think you have this dilemma right now of a West that seems in a kind of now of a West that seems in a kind of now of a West that seems in a kind of political drift, often a dangerous one. political drift, often a dangerous one. political drift, often a dangerous one. But it is not like the illiberal forces But it is not like the illiberal forces But it is not like the illiberal forces in the West have mastered the system, in the West have mastered the system, in the West have mastered the system, either. either. either. China is moving very fast, and I think China is moving very fast, and I think China is moving very fast, and I think it exerts a kind of pressure on the West it exerts a kind of pressure on the West it exerts a kind of pressure on the West to move faster, but it's not really to move faster, but it's not really to move faster, but it's not really clear how to respond to it. clear how to respond to it. clear how to respond to it. And I just wonder about the politics And I just wonder about the politics And I just wonder about the politics that creates on both sides. that creates on both sides. that creates on both sides. The the politics of action there, but The the politics of action there, but The the politics of action there, but without much individual agency. The without much individual agency. The without much individual agency. The politics of individual agency here, but politics of individual agency here, but politics of individual agency here, but without much ultimate promise of action. without much ultimate promise of action. without much ultimate promise of action. >> Yes. I mean, I'd careful to say there's >> Yes. I mean, I'd careful to say there's >> Yes. I mean, I'd careful to say there's no such thing as input legitimacy in no such thing as input legitimacy in no such thing as input legitimacy in China, either. China, either. China, either. So, there is obviously not the electoral So, there is obviously not the electoral So, there is obviously not the electoral system system system that exists in the West, but it's very that exists in the West, but it's very that exists in the West, but it's very clear that, for example, protests around clear that, for example, protests around clear that, for example, protests around COVID did have an effect on how, let's COVID did have an effect on how, let's COVID did have an effect on how, let's say, the Chinese leadership refigured say, the Chinese leadership refigured say, the Chinese leadership refigured its its policies. And its its policies. And its its policies. And there is a kind of distinction one could there is a kind of distinction one could there is a kind of distinction one could make between input and output make between input and output make between input and output legitimacy, where legitimacy, where legitimacy, where parts of the West have seen an increase parts of the West have seen an increase parts of the West have seen an increase in input legitimacy. There's increasing in input legitimacy. There's increasing in input legitimacy. There's increasing turnout in elections, but when it comes turnout in elections, but when it comes turnout in elections, but when it comes to output legitimacy, which the Chinese to output legitimacy, which the Chinese to output legitimacy, which the Chinese state is so spectacularly good at, it's state is so spectacularly good at, it's state is so spectacularly good at, it's not very clear that that's happening. To not very clear that that's happening. To not very clear that that's happening. To me, the question is me, the question is me, the question is whether the discussion about state whether the discussion about state whether the discussion about state capacity, or the discussion about capacity, or the discussion about capacity, or the discussion about getting some of these policy packages getting some of these policy packages getting some of these policy packages through, can be linked not just to a through, can be linked not just to a through, can be linked not just to a discussion about what the state can do,

discussion about what the state can do, discussion about what the state can do, but rather what institutions are but rather what institutions are but rather what institutions are necessary for it. Because, as you say, necessary for it. Because, as you say, necessary for it. Because, as you say, deinstitutionalization also makes it deinstitutionalization also makes it deinstitutionalization also makes it harder for elites to plan. And Europe is harder for elites to plan. And Europe is harder for elites to plan. And Europe is I mean a striking instance of this I mean a striking instance of this I mean a striking instance of this where in the face of let's say Chinese where in the face of let's say Chinese where in the face of let's say Chinese competition, but also like the Trumpian competition, but also like the Trumpian competition, but also like the Trumpian onslaught of tariffs, the geopolitical onslaught of tariffs, the geopolitical onslaught of tariffs, the geopolitical rivalry they're currently embroiled in, rivalry they're currently embroiled in, rivalry they're currently embroiled in, European elites are simply not coming up European elites are simply not coming up European elites are simply not coming up with an answer at all. I mean there are with an answer at all. I mean there are with an answer at all. I mean there are a couple of plans that are floating a couple of plans that are floating a couple of plans that are floating around, but it's not as if there's an around, but it's not as if there's an around, but it's not as if there's an articulated plan. And for that you need articulated plan. And for that you need articulated plan. And for that you need some kind of institutional some kind of institutional some kind of institutional infrastructure to basically unite these infrastructure to basically unite these infrastructure to basically unite these different factions and make it sure that different factions and make it sure that different factions and make it sure that Europe relaunches itself into the 2020s. Europe relaunches itself into the 2020s. Europe relaunches itself into the 2020s. But but it's strange because you're put But but it's strange because you're put But but it's strange because you're put into a position, particularly as someone into a position, particularly as someone into a position, particularly as someone like me coming from the left, where you like me coming from the left, where you like me coming from the left, where you kind of have to help elites save kind of have to help elites save kind of have to help elites save themselves. I say like please get your themselves. I say like please get your themselves. I say like please get your act together and find some kind of organ act together and find some kind of organ act together and find some kind of organ that can coordinate between all the that can coordinate between all the that can coordinate between all the different factions of you. different factions of you. different factions of you. And I mean pointing out elite failure in And I mean pointing out elite failure in And I mean pointing out elite failure in itself is not a policy, but that's itself is not a policy, but that's itself is not a policy, but that's mostly what what let's say commentary on mostly what what let's say commentary on mostly what what let's say commentary on European politics has become in the last European politics has become in the last European politics has become in the last 10 years.

10 years. 10 years. >> One of the ways you're telling the story >> One of the ways you're telling the story >> One of the ways you're telling the story is you have mass politics, and that goes is you have mass politics, and that goes is you have mass politics, and that goes to the sort of more to the sort of more to the sort of more post-politics, post-politics, post-politics, like the calmer political period of the like the calmer political period of the like the calmer political period of the '90s, you know, your Bill Clintons, your '90s, you know, your Bill Clintons, your '90s, you know, your Bill Clintons, your Tony Blairs. Not everything is Tony Blairs. Not everything is Tony Blairs. Not everything is political, we're at the end of history. political, we're at the end of history. political, we're at the end of history. Everybody can calm down now, communism Everybody can calm down now, communism Everybody can calm down now, communism is fallen. is fallen. is fallen. That then gives way to the period after That then gives way to the period after That then gives way to the period after the financial crisis, you know, the financial crisis, you know, the financial crisis, you know, anti-politics, anti-politics, anti-politics, Occupy Wall Street, the key party Occupy Wall Street, the key party Occupy Wall Street, the key party political movements are rising, but that political movements are rising, but that political movements are rising, but that fundamentally hate the idea of political fundamentally hate the idea of political fundamentally hate the idea of political institutions that are not trying to in institutions that are not trying to in institutions that are not trying to in ways that are kind of traditionally ways that are kind of traditionally ways that are kind of traditionally recognizable to take them over, even recognizable to take them over, even recognizable to take them over, even build power in the way we normally think build power in the way we normally think build power in the way we normally think about it. And then you get about it. And then you get about it. And then you get hyper-politics. hyper-politics. hyper-politics. And one way of thinking about And one way of thinking about And one way of thinking about hyper-politics as a period hyper-politics as a period hyper-politics as a period is that it's actually just fundamentally is that it's actually just fundamentally is that it's actually just fundamentally destructive, destructive, destructive, but necessarily so. That that but necessarily so. That that but necessarily so. That that institutional story we're telling now institutional story we're telling now institutional story we're telling now is one in which is one in which is one in which culture, institutions, bureaucracies had culture, institutions, bureaucracies had culture, institutions, bureaucracies had ossified.

ossified. ossified. And is Donald Trump a good answer? No, And is Donald Trump a good answer? No, And is Donald Trump a good answer? No, he's not a good answer. But he he's not a good answer. But he he's not a good answer. But he demonstrated that somebody with more demonstrated that somebody with more demonstrated that somebody with more planning could do something like Doge planning could do something like Doge planning could do something like Doge and maybe do it in a way that is and maybe do it in a way that is and maybe do it in a way that is constructive. That many things that had constructive. That many things that had constructive. That many things that had become ideologically rigid from how we become ideologically rigid from how we become ideologically rigid from how we think about trade to immigration to think about trade to immigration to think about trade to immigration to China to much more China to much more China to much more is now opened up. You see a kind of rise is now opened up. You see a kind of rise is now opened up. You see a kind of rise on the left in American politics with on the left in American politics with on the left in American politics with the DSA and Mom Danni and others in that the DSA and Mom Danni and others in that the DSA and Mom Danni and others in that cohort. cohort. cohort. And there is a dynamism to it. And there is a dynamism to it. And there is a dynamism to it. And I think the question is whether or And I think the question is whether or And I think the question is whether or not not not this kind of just ends up in destruction this kind of just ends up in destruction this kind of just ends up in destruction and nihilism because nothing can gain and nihilism because nothing can gain and nihilism because nothing can gain power for long enough to build something power for long enough to build something power for long enough to build something that is new and enduring that is new and enduring that is new and enduring or it's actually in a Darwinian sense to or it's actually in a Darwinian sense to or it's actually in a Darwinian sense to go back to the metaphor you used go back to the metaphor you used go back to the metaphor you used earlier, this is a kind of necessary earlier, this is a kind of necessary earlier, this is a kind of necessary byproduct of revitalization. Right? You byproduct of revitalization. Right? You byproduct of revitalization. Right? You know, for Canada, for Europe, for others know, for Canada, for Europe, for others know, for Canada, for Europe, for others that that that what was there is breaking down what was there is breaking down what was there is breaking down and it is we're in a messy interregnum. and it is we're in a messy interregnum. and it is we're in a messy interregnum. Everybody loves quoting the Everybody loves quoting the Everybody loves quoting the misquotations of Gramsci here, you know, misquotations of Gramsci here, you know, misquotations of Gramsci here, you know, a time of monsters.

a time of monsters. a time of monsters. Do you Do you Do you come down on one side or another of come down on one side or another of come down on one side or another of this? this? this? That that we're going through a That that we're going through a That that we're going through a cleansing fire versus we're just going cleansing fire versus we're just going cleansing fire versus we're just going through a fire? through a fire? through a fire? >> Well, I mean, the problem with the time >> Well, I mean, the problem with the time >> Well, I mean, the problem with the time of monsters quote is that it's of monsters quote is that it's of monsters quote is that it's describing a pre-revolutionary describing a pre-revolutionary describing a pre-revolutionary situation. That was the age which situation. That was the age which situation. That was the age which Gramsci himself was living through in Gramsci himself was living through in Gramsci himself was living through in Italy. I don't think we're in that. I Italy. I don't think we're in that. I Italy. I don't think we're in that. I don't think we're in a don't think we're in a don't think we're in a pre-pre-revolutionary pre-pre-revolutionary pre-pre-revolutionary state. I do think we need to be honest state. I do think we need to be honest state. I do think we need to be honest about this particularly from the left. I about this particularly from the left. I about this particularly from the left. I do think there is something to be said do think there is something to be said do think there is something to be said about the revitalization about the revitalization about the revitalization story you're indicating. In that Trump story you're indicating. In that Trump story you're indicating. In that Trump at least has the refreshing effect of at least has the refreshing effect of at least has the refreshing effect of clarifying or forcing choice. He's ended clarifying or forcing choice. He's ended clarifying or forcing choice. He's ended some notion of the TINA dogma or the some notion of the TINA dogma or the some notion of the TINA dogma or the there is no alternative dogma, namely there is no alternative dogma, namely there is no alternative dogma, namely that you choose between that you choose between that you choose between Pepsi and Coca-Cola at the election Pepsi and Coca-Cola at the election Pepsi and Coca-Cola at the election booth and in the end it's it's basically booth and in the end it's it's basically booth and in the end it's it's basically the same product with a couple of the same product with a couple of the same product with a couple of tweaks. I think he has finished off that tweaks. I think he has finished off that tweaks. I think he has finished off that perception or that world of politics. At perception or that world of politics. At perception or that world of politics. At the same time, you can very clearly see the same time, you can very clearly see the same time, you can very clearly see that the increase in election turnout in that the increase in election turnout in that the increase in election turnout in the US is also a function of the fact the US is also a function of the fact the US is also a function of the fact that voters see choice. And if you want that voters see choice. And if you want that voters see choice. And if you want to shoot Donald Trump before the to shoot Donald Trump before the to shoot Donald Trump before the election, that means you very clearly election, that means you very clearly election, that means you very clearly see choice because you want to eliminate see choice because you want to eliminate see choice because you want to eliminate one side of one side of one side of the choice matrix that's presented to the choice matrix that's presented to the choice matrix that's presented to you. In Germany now, there's an election you. In Germany now, there's an election you. In Germany now, there's an election in Saxony where they're guessing that in Saxony where they're guessing that in Saxony where they're guessing that there's been a doubling of voter turnout there's been a doubling of voter turnout there's been a doubling of voter turnout from 2006. Let's say from 44% to 77%. I from 2006. Let's say from 44% to 77%. I from 2006. Let's say from 44% to 77%. I don't think that's a crisis of don't think that's a crisis of don't think that's a crisis of democracy. I think there there's an democracy. I think there there's an democracy. I think there there's an economic crisis in Europe, but democracy economic crisis in Europe, but democracy economic crisis in Europe, but democracy is is doing better and there's a is is doing better and there's a is is doing better and there's a beautiful phrase about political

beautiful phrase about political beautiful phrase about political literacy, literacy, literacy, namely the sense that people have that namely the sense that people have that namely the sense that people have that the factors in their social lives, the factors in their social lives, the factors in their social lives, whether it's their rent, the state of whether it's their rent, the state of whether it's their rent, the state of their roads, the price of the product, their roads, the price of the product, their roads, the price of the product, are partially subject to political are partially subject to political are partially subject to political decisions. Politics has an effect in my decisions. Politics has an effect in my decisions. Politics has an effect in my life, it matters, and it can change life, it matters, and it can change life, it matters, and it can change things. Hyperpolitics has entailed an things. Hyperpolitics has entailed an things. Hyperpolitics has entailed an increase in political literacy to some increase in political literacy to some increase in political literacy to some extent. Now, of course there's a lot of extent. Now, of course there's a lot of extent. Now, of course there's a lot of nonsense and nonsense and nonsense and let's say crazy theorizing going on let's say crazy theorizing going on let's say crazy theorizing going on online. Hyperpolitics is online. Hyperpolitics is online. Hyperpolitics is quite exhausting and it induces a quite exhausting and it induces a quite exhausting and it induces a nostalgia for the '90s and 2000s, which nostalgia for the '90s and 2000s, which nostalgia for the '90s and 2000s, which I cover in the book as well because I cover in the book as well because I cover in the book as well because people simply don't want to talk about people simply don't want to talk about people simply don't want to talk about woke with their uncle at the family woke with their uncle at the family woke with their uncle at the family gathering, for example. But at the same gathering, for example. But at the same gathering, for example. But at the same time, time, time, I want to make this very clear. This I want to make this very clear. This I want to make this very clear. This book is not rejecting or dismissing book is not rejecting or dismissing book is not rejecting or dismissing hyper-politicization hyper-politicization hyper-politicization as somehow reversible or even negative. as somehow reversible or even negative. as somehow reversible or even negative. I think it is good that people care I think it is good that people care I think it is good that people care about politics. Um I think we should about politics. Um I think we should about politics. Um I think we should celebrate the end of post-politics. The celebrate the end of post-politics. The celebrate the end of post-politics. The question is more where is hyperpolitics question is more where is hyperpolitics question is more where is hyperpolitics going and can there be such a thing as going and can there be such a thing as going and can there be such a thing as an institutional formula which extends an institutional formula which extends an institutional formula which extends hyper politics beyond mere outrage?

hyper politics beyond mere outrage? hyper politics beyond mere outrage? >> I think that is a good place to end. So, >> I think that is a good place to end. So, >> I think that is a good place to end. So, as our final question, what are three as our final question, what are three as our final question, what are three books you recommend to the audience? books you recommend to the audience? books you recommend to the audience? >> There are three books I chose which are >> There are three books I chose which are >> There are three books I chose which are a bit miscellaneous in that they belong a bit miscellaneous in that they belong a bit miscellaneous in that they belong to different genres. The first is The to different genres. The first is The to different genres. The first is The Prophet by Isaac Deutscher, a Polish Prophet by Isaac Deutscher, a Polish Prophet by Isaac Deutscher, a Polish historian who only learned English I historian who only learned English I historian who only learned English I think in his early 30s and then wrote think in his early 30s and then wrote think in his early 30s and then wrote one of the greatest biographies of the one of the greatest biographies of the one of the greatest biographies of the 20th century. It's a three-part 20th century. It's a three-part 20th century. It's a three-part biography of Leon Trotsky, the famous biography of Leon Trotsky, the famous biography of Leon Trotsky, the famous Russian revolutionary. It's obviously Russian revolutionary. It's obviously Russian revolutionary. It's obviously beloved by Trotskyists, so it has a beloved by Trotskyists, so it has a beloved by Trotskyists, so it has a sectarian appeal. There's a lot of sectarian appeal. There's a lot of sectarian appeal. There's a lot of neoconservatives neoconservatives neoconservatives that were brought up on its diet. Even that were brought up on its diet. Even that were brought up on its diet. Even Tony Blair is said to have read it, but Tony Blair is said to have read it, but Tony Blair is said to have read it, but I read it when I was in my early 20s and I read it when I was in my early 20s and I read it when I was in my early 20s and I've recently revisited it also in the I've recently revisited it also in the I've recently revisited it also in the form of an audiobook and it is form of an audiobook and it is form of an audiobook and it is completely enchanting. It is an absolute completely enchanting. It is an absolute completely enchanting. It is an absolute masterpiece, not just a biography, but masterpiece, not just a biography, but masterpiece, not just a biography, but also political history. It also captures also political history. It also captures also political history. It also captures a moment in time that feels enormously a moment in time that feels enormously a moment in time that feels enormously distant, but still very relevant and it distant, but still very relevant and it distant, but still very relevant and it is a pleasure to listen to and read in is a pleasure to listen to and read in is a pleasure to listen to and read in stylistic terms. So, even if you are a stylistic terms. So, even if you are a stylistic terms. So, even if you are a instinctual or aggressive instinctual or aggressive instinctual or aggressive anti-communist, I don't think you you anti-communist, I don't think you you anti-communist, I don't think you you will you will not like this book.

will you will not like this book. will you will not like this book. The second book is Cheese by Willem The second book is Cheese by Willem The second book is Cheese by Willem Elsschot, written in the 1930s. This is Elsschot, written in the 1930s. This is Elsschot, written in the 1930s. This is something much more obscure. It's by a something much more obscure. It's by a something much more obscure. It's by a Flemish or Belgian author and the story Flemish or Belgian author and the story Flemish or Belgian author and the story of the book is relatively simple. It's of the book is relatively simple. It's of the book is relatively simple. It's about a middle-aged man with a family about a middle-aged man with a family about a middle-aged man with a family who wants to become rich as a merchant who wants to become rich as a merchant who wants to become rich as a merchant and starts selling a product he hates and starts selling a product he hates and starts selling a product he hates and never eats, namely cheese, and fails and never eats, namely cheese, and fails and never eats, namely cheese, and fails at doing so. And that that's the whole at doing so. And that that's the whole at doing so. And that that's the whole plot. And I think it is a beautiful plot. And I think it is a beautiful plot. And I think it is a beautiful parable, particularly in the 21st parable, particularly in the 21st parable, particularly in the 21st century, for a society in which buying century, for a society in which buying century, for a society in which buying and selling things has become this and selling things has become this and selling things has become this compulsive, almost obligatory habit, um compulsive, almost obligatory habit, um compulsive, almost obligatory habit, um but we seem to be relatively indifferent but we seem to be relatively indifferent but we seem to be relatively indifferent to the products we actually are buying to the products we actually are buying to the products we actually are buying and selling. and selling. and selling. The final one, and I'm not sure there is The final one, and I'm not sure there is The final one, and I'm not sure there is already an English translation of this, already an English translation of this, already an English translation of this, is Some Months from My Life by the is Some Months from My Life by the is Some Months from My Life by the French writer Michel Houellebecq. So, a French writer Michel Houellebecq. So, a French writer Michel Houellebecq. So, a novelist who also plays a very prominent novelist who also plays a very prominent novelist who also plays a very prominent role in role in role in the book Hyperpolitics. He appears as a the book Hyperpolitics. He appears as a the book Hyperpolitics. He appears as a protagonist in in several chapters. It protagonist in in several chapters. It protagonist in in several chapters. It is not a novel, but more of a personal is not a novel, but more of a personal is not a novel, but more of a personal memoir of his, memoir of his, memoir of his, in which he relates a couple of rather in which he relates a couple of rather in which he relates a couple of rather chaotic months in his personal life, in chaotic months in his personal life, in chaotic months in his personal life, in which he was asked to star in an erotic which he was asked to star in an erotic which he was asked to star in an erotic movie, movie, movie, um and in which he then um and in which he then um and in which he then >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> These things happen.

>> These things happen. >> These things happen. It And uh after which he meditates on It And uh after which he meditates on It And uh after which he meditates on pre-questions of sexuality, cultural pre-questions of sexuality, cultural pre-questions of sexuality, cultural wars, politics, but I mean, this might wars, politics, but I mean, this might wars, politics, but I mean, this might be strange, but it's a profoundly moving be strange, but it's a profoundly moving be strange, but it's a profoundly moving book. book. book. >> You you you really take him as a a bit >> You you you really take him as a a bit >> You you you really take him as a a bit of a prophet, to use the first book's of a prophet, to use the first book's of a prophet, to use the first book's title, um title, um title, um in there. I've always meant to read some in there. I've always meant to read some in there. I've always meant to read some of his books, and I haven't. So, given of his books, and I haven't. So, given of his books, and I haven't. So, given that maybe the translation of this isn't that maybe the translation of this isn't that maybe the translation of this isn't out yet, if somebody want to start with out yet, if somebody want to start with out yet, if somebody want to start with his fiction, and you sort of see him as his fiction, and you sort of see him as his fiction, and you sort of see him as this like prophet uh figure, somebody this like prophet uh figure, somebody this like prophet uh figure, somebody who understands the future before it who understands the future before it who understands the future before it comes, even though his politics are comes, even though his politics are comes, even though his politics are very, very different than yours, very, very different than yours, very, very different than yours, what would be like the starting what would be like the starting what would be like the starting book of his fiction you'd recommend? book of his fiction you'd recommend? book of his fiction you'd recommend? >> So, his debut, which I think uh is >> So, his debut, which I think uh is >> So, his debut, which I think uh is translated into English as Extension of translated into English as Extension of translated into English as Extension of the Domain of Struggle, that is the best the Domain of Struggle, that is the best the Domain of Struggle, that is the best place to start. If you go for later place to start. If you go for later place to start. If you go for later works, I would recommend Serotonin, works, I would recommend Serotonin, works, I would recommend Serotonin, which also gave him a Nostradamus-like which also gave him a Nostradamus-like which also gave him a Nostradamus-like quality in France, because he seemed to quality in France, because he seemed to quality in France, because he seemed to predict part of the yellow vest and predict part of the yellow vest and predict part of the yellow vest and farmers protest that shook the country.

farmers protest that shook the country. farmers protest that shook the country. But once again, it's not just about his But once again, it's not just about his But once again, it's not just about his apperceptions of the contemporary world apperceptions of the contemporary world apperceptions of the contemporary world but also about but also about but also about yes I think he's a novelist for a world yes I think he's a novelist for a world yes I think he's a novelist for a world that has become less novelistic in some that has become less novelistic in some that has become less novelistic in some cases even resistant to novelization and cases even resistant to novelization and cases even resistant to novelization and I'm always impressed on how he's still I'm always impressed on how he's still I'm always impressed on how he's still able to to give us a a rendition of a able to to give us a a rendition of a able to to give us a a rendition of a world that somehow doesn't seem to world that somehow doesn't seem to world that somehow doesn't seem to produce very produce very produce very novel like characters. novel like characters. novel like characters. >> Antonio, thank you very much. >> Antonio, thank you very much. >> Antonio, thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. [music]