A few weeks ago the left-wing writer and critic Freddie DeBoer published an essay in New York magazine, in which he argued that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become “just a regular old Democrat now.” The piece described left-wing dissatisfaction with AOC’s record in Congress as an outgrowth of a larger left-wing disaffection with U.S. politics, and concluded the Democratic Party is simply structurally resistant to socialist change. DeBoer generated a lot of warranted counter-criticism, but also captured something very real about the sentiments of marginal Democrats—the ones who might vote blue as means of blocking authoritarians from victory, or who might abstain from voting when left-wing candidates lose their primaries. In that world, disenchantment with AOC and the left wing of the Democratic Party is palpable, and raises some interesting questions: Is their disenchantment rooted in real grievances? Are Democratic politics really so resistant to left-wing pressure that the Democratic Socialists of America ought to stop deluding themselves? What could DSA or future AOCs do to have a bigger impact on policy, one that wouldn’t leave so many of its members with the sense that it’s all pointless? Host Brian Beutler moderates a debate between Eric Levitz, a New York Magazine writer who wrote a lengthy critique of the DeBoer article, and Ryan Grim, the DC Bureau Chief of The Intercept and author of the forthcoming book The Squad.

A few weeks ago the left-wing writer and critic Freddie DeBoer published an essay in New York magazine, in which he argued that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become “just a regular old Democrat now.” The piece described left-wing dissatisfaction with AOC’s record in Congress as an outgrowth of a larger left-wing disaffection with U.S. politics, and concluded the Democratic Party is simply structurally resistant to socialist change. DeBoer generated a lot of warranted counter-criticism, but also captured something very real about the sentiments of marginal Democrats—the ones who might vote blue as means of blocking authoritarians from victory, or who might abstain from voting when left-wing candidates lose their primaries. In that world, disenchantment with AOC and the left wing of the Democratic Party is palpable, and raises some interesting questions: Is their disenchantment rooted in real grievances? Are Democratic politics really so resistant to left-wing pressure that the Democratic Socialists of America ought to stop deluding themselves? What could DSA or future AOCs do to have a bigger impact on policy, one that wouldn’t leave so many of its members with the sense that it’s all pointless? Host Brian Beutler moderates a debate between Eric Levitz, a New York Magazine writer who wrote a lengthy critique of the DeBoer article, and Ryan Grim, the DC Bureau Chief of The Intercept and author of the forthcoming book The Squad.

Have AOC and the Squad Become Part of the System?

Chris Christie

Last week, Pod Save America interviewed former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. An early and critical endorser of Donald Trump, Christie has now broken with his Republican contemporaries to wage a staunch never-Trump presidential campaign. So far, he’s the only candidate that has both qualified for the first GOP debate and demonstrated that he’ll attack Trump directly. Some PSA listeners were upset with our choice to give Christie a platform, but what does it really mean to give someone airtime? How quick should we be to reach for that deplatforming button? Are respectable news organizations always suckers for amplifying dishonest, or disreputable, or checkered people? Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, who interviewed Christie, and Oliver Darcy, a senior media reporter at CNN who covers platforming decisions, join host Brian Beutler to debate the role of shunning and accountability in media.

Last week, Pod Save America interviewed former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. An early and critical endorser of Donald Trump, Christie has now broken with his Republican contemporaries to wage a staunch never-Trump presidential campaign. So far, he’s the only candidate that has both qualified for the first GOP debate and demonstrated that he’ll attack Trump directly. Some PSA listeners were upset with our choice to give Christie a platform, but what does it really mean to give someone airtime? How quick should we be to reach for that deplatforming button? Are respectable news organizations always suckers for amplifying dishonest, or disreputable, or checkered people? Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, who interviewed Christie, and Oliver Darcy, a senior media reporter at CNN who covers platforming decisions, join host Brian Beutler to debate the role of shunning and accountability in media.

Should Crooked Media Have Interviewed Chris Christie?

The runaway favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination will soon be under felony indictment in three, or maybe four jurisdictions, but most leading Democrats are withholding comment on Donald Trump’s mounting legal problems. Joe Biden has reportedly ordered his campaign and the Democratic National Committee to keep quiet about it, even as Republicans work overtime to try to muddy Biden’s far more ethical record of conduct. Why aren’t Democrats doing more to emphasize character contrast between Biden and Trump? Are voters too mired in their personal circumstances to care which politicians are corrupt or cruel? Do appeals to their material well being, rather than appeals to morality, decency, or ethics reach more people? Faiz Shakir, the chair of Bernie Sanders’s 2020 campaign and founder of More Perfect Union, and Leah Greenberg, an executive director of Indivisible, join host Brian Beutler to hash it out. Should Democrats (other than Joe Biden himself) be more engaged in salacious infowars with the right? Or should they leave that kind of red meat politics to Republicans while building a singular economic policy appeal?

The runaway favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination will soon be under felony indictment in three, or maybe four jurisdictions, but most leading Democrats are withholding comment on Donald Trump’s mounting legal problems. Joe Biden has reportedly ordered his campaign and the Democratic National Committee to keep quiet about it, even as Republicans work overtime to try to muddy Biden’s far more ethical record of conduct. Why aren’t Democrats doing more to emphasize character contrast between Biden and Trump? Are voters too mired in their personal circumstances to care which politicians are corrupt or cruel? Do appeals to their material well being, rather than appeals to morality, decency, or ethics reach more people? Faiz Shakir, the chair of Bernie Sanders’s 2020 campaign and founder of More Perfect Union, and Leah Greenberg, an executive director of Indivisible, join host Brian Beutler to hash it out. Should Democrats (other than Joe Biden himself) be more engaged in salacious infowars with the right? Or should they leave that kind of red meat politics to Republicans while building a singular economic policy appeal?

Should Democrats be Trashing Trump?

Whatever you think of recent, watershed Supreme Court opinions, it’s indisputable that the court’s six Republican appointees are deeply out of step with the will of the public—not to mention the entire institution was constituted without public consent. But should anything be done about it? The Court’s architects think everything is wonderful and will claim any criticism of the justices represents some kind of subversive attack. But even good-faith critics can’t agree on an answer. Some influential liberals, like Joe Biden, think the answer is nothing. At least not now. Others think the answer is to pass a law expanding the court and fill the vacancies with liberals, so its balance reflects what it should have been all along. And between those two poles, there are a number of ideas for reforming the court to better insulate it from political ideology. Host Brian Beutler moderates a debate over which—if any—of these ideas is best, and how to go about enacting them given that the current state of the court suits Republicans just fine. Joining him are Atlantic staff writer Adam Serwer, whose criticisms of the court have put the justices themselves on the defensive, and Lawfare editor Benjamin Wittes, who has warned Biden’s commission on the Supreme Court against outright court packing.

Whatever you think of recent, watershed Supreme Court opinions, it’s indisputable that the court’s six Republican appointees are deeply out of step with the will of the public—not to mention the entire institution was constituted without public consent. But should anything be done about it? The Court’s architects think everything is wonderful and will claim any criticism of the justices represents some kind of subversive attack. But even good-faith critics can’t agree on an answer. Some influential liberals, like Joe Biden, think the answer is nothing. At least not now. Others think the answer is to pass a law expanding the court and fill the vacancies with liberals, so its balance reflects what it should have been all along. And between those two poles, there are a number of ideas for reforming the court to better insulate it from political ideology. Host Brian Beutler moderates a debate over which—if any—of these ideas is best, and how to go about enacting them given that the current state of the court suits Republicans just fine. Joining him are Atlantic staff writer Adam Serwer, whose criticisms of the court have put the justices themselves on the defensive, and Lawfare editor Benjamin Wittes, who has warned Biden’s commission on the Supreme Court against outright court packing.

Would Democrats Live to Regret Court Packing?

President Biden cut a deal with House Speaker McCarthy to increase the national debt limit. Or, more accurately, he defused the Republican threat to default on the debt and tank the economy if Democrats don’t accede to their policy demands––at least for the next few years. Many pundits have said Biden “won” the debt-limit fight, that he didn’t concede any more than he would’ve during the regular government-funding process, and that he achieved some semblance of bipartisanship. But that stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s approach; after House Republicans extorted much bigger concessions from him in 2011, Obama said it was a mistake to negotiate in the first place, and refused to do so again. Republicans talked a big game, puffed their chests, but ultimately backed down from future standoffs. Which approach is right? Those who argue Biden out-negotiated McCarthy, and thus “won”? Or those who say Biden’s decision to negotiate in the first place re-establishes a terrible precedent and thus precludes any claim to victory? Host Brian Beutler moderates a new, debate-style format for the show. Jordan Weissmann, Washington editor of Semafor, defends Biden’s approach, while David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect, argues this new precedent won’t age well.

President Biden cut a deal with House Speaker McCarthy to increase the national debt limit. Or, more accurately, he defused the Republican threat to default on the debt and tank the economy if Democrats don’t accede to their policy demands––at least for the next few years. Many pundits have said Biden “won” the debt-limit fight, that he didn’t concede any more than he would’ve during the regular government-funding process, and that he achieved some semblance of bipartisanship. But that stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s approach; after House Republicans extorted much bigger concessions from him in 2011, Obama said it was a mistake to negotiate in the first place, and refused to do so again. Republicans talked a big game, puffed their chests, but ultimately backed down from future standoffs. Which approach is right? Those who argue Biden out-negotiated McCarthy, and thus “won”? Or those who say Biden’s decision to negotiate in the first place re-establishes a terrible precedent and thus precludes any claim to victory? Host Brian Beutler moderates a new, debate-style format for the show. Jordan Weissmann, Washington editor of Semafor, defends Biden’s approach, while David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect, argues this new precedent won’t age well.

Guile and Error: a debate

Shortly after the Coast Guard kicked off its rescue mission to find the OceanGate submarine, one of the company’s founding advisers posted the following message online: “I hope to get a few hours of sleep, wake up and see very positive responses from the U.S. government in my Inbox. If I don’t, the whole world will know the names of the people who did not do their jobs.” It’s the latest example of powerful “disruptors” who got rich touting high-minded libertarian principles about innovation and deregulation, then blaming the government when everything predictably goes wrong. As with the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Silicon Valley Bank debacle, the taxpayers foot the bill for the cleanup, while the supposed visionaries get a slap on the wrist. Host Brian Beutler is joined by Crooked contributor Max Fisher, whose book The Chaos Machine examines the mass-scale wrecking Silicon Valley has done to our society. They talk about how American industry got here, the psychology and origin story of the disruptor class, and how the path from idealism to nihilism is shorter than Elon Musk’s temper.

Stop the Thiel

Donald Trump recently marveled that talking about trans rights whips his supporters into a frenzy far more effectively than economic issues like tax cuts do. He and other Republican leaders are (thus!) intensifying attacks on trans kids, banning health-care procedures and trying to separate them from their parents. The politics and discourse in some parts of the U.S. have left families with trans children little choice but to pack up their belongings and move to more welcoming places. Twelve-year-old trans activist and author Kai Shappley and her mother Kimberly left their home state of Texas and relocated to Connecticut less than a year ago. They join host Brian Beutler to talk about why they had to move, what it’s like being targeted by the state for gender expression, and how the Biden administration can better support girls like Kai.

Donald Trump recently marveled that talking about trans rights whips his supporters into a frenzy far more effectively than economic issues like tax cuts do. He and other Republican leaders are (thus!) intensifying attacks on trans kids, banning health-care procedures and trying to separate them from their parents. The politics and discourse in some parts of the U.S. have left families with trans children little choice but to pack up their belongings and move to more welcoming places. Twelve-year-old trans activist and author Kai Shappley and her mother Kimberly left their home state of Texas and relocated to Connecticut less than a year ago. They join host Brian Beutler to talk about why they had to move, what it’s like being targeted by the state for gender expression, and how the Biden administration can better support girls like Kai.

Girl, Interrupted

This week, just as Donald Trump was placed under arrest and arraigned for stealing and concealing troves of state secrets, House Republicans advanced a resolution to censure Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, who’s been one of their main boogeymen since the early days of the Trump administration. The resolution, which failed Wednesday afternoon, is best viewed as a diversionary tactic, and an attempt to pin Trump’s legal woes on Schiff, who was instrumental to Trump’s first impeachment and one of the Democrats’ most effective communicators about Trump’s corruption. The Congressman joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the latest Trump indictment, how vulnerable Trump is now, and what the Republican party’s continued loyalty to the former president means for their political future.

This week, just as Donald Trump was placed under arrest and arraigned for stealing and concealing troves of state secrets, House Republicans advanced a resolution to censure Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, who’s been one of their main boogeymen since the early days of the Trump administration. The resolution, which failed Wednesday afternoon, is best viewed as a diversionary tactic, and an attempt to pin Trump’s legal woes on Schiff, who was instrumental to Trump’s first impeachment and one of the Democrats’ most effective communicators about Trump’s corruption. The Congressman joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the latest Trump indictment, how vulnerable Trump is now, and what the Republican party’s continued loyalty to the former president means for their political future.

Blame Schiffting

If the debt limit fight was any indication, President Biden appears to be minimizing setbacks, pausing his forward-looking policy agenda, and focusing on the stuff he enacted last Congress. But is that the best he can do? After all, low-hanging fruit remains within reach of his executive power. No one expects the president to spend the next 17 months bombarding the political world with executive orders. But it’s worth asking what he’s capable of doing in theory, and why he isn’t doing those things now. Would Biden need to change how he conceives of politics and governing in order to make the most of his administrative power? The American Prospect has been keeping track of what Biden has chosen to do and what he’s left on the table ever since he took office. David Dayen is the executive editor of the magazine, and he joins host Brian Beutler to explore the limits of the possible in this divided government, and how Biden could use this moment to reconsider the full powers of his presidency.

If the debt limit fight was any indication, President Biden appears to be minimizing setbacks, pausing his forward-looking policy agenda, and focusing on the stuff he enacted last Congress. But is that the best he can do? After all, low-hanging fruit remains within reach of his executive power. No one expects the president to spend the next 17 months bombarding the political world with executive orders. But it’s worth asking what he’s capable of doing in theory, and why he isn’t doing those things now. Would Biden need to change how he conceives of politics and governing in order to make the most of his administrative power? The American Prospect has been keeping track of what Biden has chosen to do and what he’s left on the table ever since he took office. David Dayen is the executive editor of the magazine, and he joins host Brian Beutler to explore the limits of the possible in this divided government, and how Biden could use this moment to reconsider the full powers of his presidency.

Biden by the Rules

In the past few years, the Republican politics of crime and racial scapegoating have given way to the outright glorification of vigilante killers like Kyle Rittenhouse, Eddie Gallagher, and most recently, Daniel Penny. Last week, Penny choked a Black street artist to death for the crime of being mentally ill on a New York subway. In response, Ron DeSantis called him a “Good Samaritan” and said America has his back. Why has this trend taken hold? Is it new? And, most importantly, to what end? Host Brian Beutler welcomes Matthew Dallek, a professor at George Washington University and author of the new book Birchers, which details the founding of the far-right John Birch Society and its attempt to take over the GOP. Brian and Matt discuss the ever-shrinking line between violent right-wing extremists and mainstream Republican politicians, why the GOP is turning racist vigilantes into folk heroes, and how the groundwork for MAGA to take over the Republican Party was laid 50 years ago by a group of wealthy, extremist bigots.

In the past few years, the Republican politics of crime and racial scapegoating have given way to the outright glorification of vigilante killers like Kyle Rittenhouse, Eddie Gallagher, and most recently, Daniel Penny. Last week, Penny choked a Black street artist to death for the crime of being mentally ill on a New York subway. In response, Ron DeSantis called him a “Good Samaritan” and said America has his back. Why has this trend taken hold? Is it new? And, most importantly, to what end? Host Brian Beutler welcomes Matthew Dallek, a professor at George Washington University and author of the new book Birchers, which details the founding of the far-right John Birch Society and its attempt to take over the GOP. Brian and Matt discuss the ever-shrinking line between violent right-wing extremists and mainstream Republican politicians, why the GOP is turning racist vigilantes into folk heroes, and how the groundwork for MAGA to take over the Republican Party was laid 50 years ago by a group of wealthy, extremist bigots.

Upping the Vigilante

Positively Dreadful, hosted by Crooked Media’s Editor in Chief Brian Beutler, takes listeners below the headlines of the stories stirring widespread anxiety in today’s news landscape to give them a richer understanding and appreciation of how and why to remain engaged, even in the face of daunting challenges.

The World Health Organization and U.S. government have declared an end to the COVID-19 public health emergency. And it’s not hard to understand why: the herd got pretty immune. As great as it is that fewer people are getting sick and dying, memory-holing COVID has perverse consequences for people who are suffering from long-term effects of the disease. What happens to them now? Is there any progress towards a cure? And is the back-burnering of COVID-19 slowing that progress down? These questions are top of mind—for us, at least—because both host Brian Beutler and Associate Producer Emma Illick-Frank have different species of long COVID. They discuss the current state of long covid discourse, treatment, and research with Dr. Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, a physiatrist who developed the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic at University of Texas Health San Antonio.

The World Health Organization and U.S. government have declared an end to the COVID-19 public health emergency. And it’s not hard to understand why: the herd got pretty immune. As great as it is that fewer people are getting sick and dying, memory-holing COVID has perverse consequences for people who are suffering from long-term effects of the disease. What happens to them now? Is there any progress towards a cure? And is the back-burnering of COVID-19 slowing that progress down? These questions are top of mind—for us, at least—because both host Brian Beutler and Associate Producer Emma Illick-Frank have different species of long COVID. They discuss the current state of long covid discourse, treatment, and research with Dr. Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, a physiatrist who developed the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic at University of Texas Health San Antonio.

Ma Ma Ma My Corona

Joe Biden released his first re-election campaign video and it was…actually good. Instead of touting minimum wage or Medicare protection, Biden characterized this election as a fight for freedom––the freedom to choose when to become a parent, to be an out and healthy trans person, and to safely inhabit schools and other places of learning. It’s a big move considering Republicans have had a near monopoly on emotionally resonant rhetoric for the last 40 years. So what will Biden’s “freedom” re-election campaign look like in practice? Does coopting this rhetoric from Republicans represent something greater than savvy politics? Will the Democratic Party share the courage of Biden’s convictions? Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent joins host Brian Beutler to talk about what freedom means in American politics today, and why this campaign message is not only shrewd, but also philosophically correct.

Joe Biden released his first re-election campaign video and it was…actually good. Instead of touting minimum wage or Medicare protection, Biden characterized this election as a fight for freedom––the freedom to choose when to become a parent, to be an out and healthy trans person, and to safely inhabit schools and other places of learning. It’s a big move considering Republicans have had a near monopoly on emotionally resonant rhetoric for the last 40 years. So what will Biden’s “freedom” re-election campaign look like in practice? Does coopting this rhetoric from Republicans represent something greater than savvy politics? Will the Democratic Party share the courage of Biden’s convictions? Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent joins host Brian Beutler to talk about what freedom means in American politics today, and why this campaign message is not only shrewd, but also philosophically correct.

Tweedle Free and Tweedle Dumb

Clarence Thomas has been accepting lavish gifts from a Republican mega-donor for almost as long as he’s been on the Supreme Court, while disclosing none of it. Or rather, he initially disclosed some of it, but stopped when reporters got wise to the relationship. Meanwhile, his real-estate tycoon patron, Harlan Crow, has had business before the Supreme Court, and Thomas did not recuse himself. Since these revelations came to light, Thomas has shown no indication of remorse, or that he’ll change the nature of this relationship—he enjoys the same kind of impunity as Donald Trump, with the added benefit of lifetime tenure on the bench. We’ve never lived in a world of perfect political accountability, but the Clarence Thomas problem is new. Richard Nixon had to resign the presidency. Spiro Agnew went down. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969. What changed, and why? Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman joins host Brian Beutler to discuss her role on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate scandal, and what it would take to hold public figures accountable for their corruption at least some of the time, like we were able to in the 60s and 70s.

Clarence Thomas has been accepting lavish gifts from a Republican mega-donor for almost as long as he’s been on the Supreme Court, while disclosing none of it. Or rather, he initially disclosed some of it, but stopped when reporters got wise to the relationship. Meanwhile, his real-estate tycoon patron, Harlan Crow, has had business before the Supreme Court, and Thomas did not recuse himself. Since these revelations came to light, Thomas has shown no indication of remorse, or that he’ll change the nature of this relationship—he enjoys the same kind of impunity as Donald Trump, with the added benefit of lifetime tenure on the bench. We’ve never lived in a world of perfect political accountability, but the Clarence Thomas problem is new. Richard Nixon had to resign the presidency. Spiro Agnew went down. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969. What changed, and why? Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman joins host Brian Beutler to discuss her role on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate scandal, and what it would take to hold public figures accountable for their corruption at least some of the time, like we were able to in the 60s and 70s.

Clarence Sale

Republicans in the Tennessee  assembly expelled two of their colleagues for joining a protest for new gun laws at the state capitol after a nearby school massacre. And the whole stunt blew back at them righteously. The country saw a party that responded to a mass shooting by exerting maximum punishment on gun control supporters and their democratically elected colleagues (but only the Black ones). What’s happening in Tennessee might be remembered as a clarifying moment when voters had to pick a side and sided against reactionary politics and authoritarianism and racism. Yet these clarifying moments are starting to feel all too familiar. Similar moments happened in the 2010’s with the rise of the Tea Party, and continue today through as Donald Trump retains total control of the GOP. Has anything changed since the Tea Party? Why did Democrats struggle so much to make Republicans own their extremism then, but seem to be faring better now? Are Democrats, or at least state-level Democrats, getting better at illuminating these important choosing moments for voters? Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler knows how to beat reactionary politics better than anyone, and he joins host Brian Beutler to discuss how Democrats can build on victories and public enthusiasm in Wisconsin, Tennessee, and other states.

Republicans in the Tennessee  assembly expelled two of their colleagues for joining a protest for new gun laws at the state capitol after a nearby school massacre. And the whole stunt blew back at them righteously. The country saw a party that responded to a mass shooting by exerting maximum punishment on gun control supporters and their democratically elected colleagues (but only the Black ones). What’s happening in Tennessee might be remembered as a clarifying moment when voters had to pick a side and sided against reactionary politics and authoritarianism and racism. Yet these clarifying moments are starting to feel all too familiar. Similar moments happened in the 2010’s with the rise of the Tea Party, and continue today through as Donald Trump retains total control of the GOP. Has anything changed since the Tea Party? Why did Democrats struggle so much to make Republicans own their extremism then, but seem to be faring better now? Are Democrats, or at least state-level Democrats, getting better at illuminating these important choosing moments for voters? Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler knows how to beat reactionary politics better than anyone, and he joins host Brian Beutler to discuss how Democrats can build on victories and public enthusiasm in Wisconsin, Tennessee, and other states.

Wiscy Business

Donald Trump got arrested and the world didn’t end. The fear of backlash that seemingly paralyzed so many of our institutions of accountability now seems mostly like a figment of the imaginations of the people who run those institutions. What took so long? Some of that is attributable to corruption, to former Attorney General Bill Barr and other Trump loyalists who ran interference for him while he was president. But some of it looks more like cowardice. People were anxious about doing something hard, and talked themselves into reasons why they didn’t have to. So with the Band-Aid ripped off, what could decision makers have done differently? Former FBI counterterrorism investigator Peter Strzok joins host Brian Beutler again to discuss how we can improve our accountability systems so that threats like Donald Trump aren’t left beyond the reach of the law until it’s too late.

Donald Trump got arrested and the world didn’t end. The fear of backlash that seemingly paralyzed so many of our institutions of accountability now seems mostly like a figment of the imaginations of the people who run those institutions. What took so long? Some of that is attributable to corruption, to former Attorney General Bill Barr and other Trump loyalists who ran interference for him while he was president. But some of it looks more like cowardice. People were anxious about doing something hard, and talked themselves into reasons why they didn’t have to. So with the Band-Aid ripped off, what could decision makers have done differently? Former FBI counterterrorism investigator Peter Strzok joins host Brian Beutler again to discuss how we can improve our accountability systems so that threats like Donald Trump aren’t left beyond the reach of the law until it’s too late.

Arrested Developer

A social media app is causing a bipartisan furor in U.S. politics, and it’s the one where young people make funny dance videos. Because TikTok is owned by the China-based company Bytedance, Congress is concerned the platform is more of an espionage front than an entertainment medium. TikTok at least theoretically allows China to collect private data from Americans, sow division in U.S. society for geopolitical gain and even inundate U.S. users with propaganda to influence our elections. On the other hand, it isn’t hard to think of reasons why banning TikTok might be a bad idea. Are we just cowering to anti-China demagogues? What are the implications for free speech? And what are the political costs of banning an app that tons of Americans, particularly young Americans, love? Add it all up, and it’s hard to figure out the least-bad option. Data-privacy specialist Julian Sanchez joins host Brian Beutler to stress test the pros and cons of banning TikTok, and add nuance to what looks like a stark choice between either flooding our society with more anti-democracy propaganda or engaging in the kind of censorship we’d normally decry if another country did it.

A social media app is causing a bipartisan furor in U.S. politics, and it’s the one where young people make funny dance videos. Because TikTok is owned by the China-based company Bytedance, Congress is concerned the platform is more of an espionage front than an entertainment medium. TikTok at least theoretically allows China to collect private data from Americans, sow division in U.S. society for geopolitical gain and even inundate U.S. users with propaganda to influence our elections. On the other hand, it isn’t hard to think of reasons why banning TikTok might be a bad idea. Are we just cowering to anti-China demagogues? What are the implications for free speech? And what are the political costs of banning an app that tons of Americans, particularly young Americans, love? Add it all up, and it’s hard to figure out the least-bad option. Data-privacy specialist Julian Sanchez joins host Brian Beutler to stress test the pros and cons of banning TikTok, and add nuance to what looks like a stark choice between either flooding our society with more anti-democracy propaganda or engaging in the kind of censorship we’d normally decry if another country did it.

TikTok Dirty To Me

Silicon Valley Bank failed and it remains to be seen what unintended consequences we may have unleashed by bailing it out. What’s clear, though, is that SVB’s risk exposure could probably have been detected and its failure prevented, and SVB’s richest, most powerful depositors tried to whip up a broader banking panic in order to build pressure on the government to save them from their poor decisions. They warned of everything up to civilizational collapse if the government didn’t announce that they’d be held harmless. And they got exactly what they wanted, with no strings attached, no new regulation, no new legislation, no symbolic tax on their standing in public life. They’ve gone right back to pretending to be masters of the universe, and they grow seemingly more enthralled with fascist politics every day, as if the Democratic government didn’t just bail them out. Economist Dean Baker joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the stakes of the bail out, and if economics can account for the moral hazard of caving to demands of extremely powerful political activists, openly allied with the political right, who threaten to break the system if they don’t get their way.

Silicon Valley Bank failed and it remains to be seen what unintended consequences we may have unleashed by bailing it out. What’s clear, though, is that SVB’s risk exposure could probably have been detected and its failure prevented, and SVB’s richest, most powerful depositors tried to whip up a broader banking panic in order to build pressure on the government to save them from their poor decisions. They warned of everything up to civilizational collapse if the government didn’t announce that they’d be held harmless. And they got exactly what they wanted, with no strings attached, no new regulation, no new legislation, no symbolic tax on their standing in public life. They’ve gone right back to pretending to be masters of the universe, and they grow seemingly more enthralled with fascist politics every day, as if the Democratic government didn’t just bail them out. Economist Dean Baker joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the stakes of the bail out, and if economics can account for the moral hazard of caving to demands of extremely powerful political activists, openly allied with the political right, who threaten to break the system if they don’t get their way.

Came In Like A Teching Ball

Let’s talk about the movies. A bunch of factors have contributed to the shrinking of the movies and the Oscars in recent years. The film industry itself has changed. Streaming services have become fixtures in most households. COVID-19 happened. Social media wrecked everyone’s attention span and came to compete with every other kind of media for what was left of that attention span. Social media also tribalized the collective experience of movie watching and entertainment awards. It has tended to create multiple camps within which there’s only one right answer to questions like, Which movie was best? Which actor deserved to win? It doesn’t have to be like that! We think there’s a way to revive and modernize the way movies fit into our culture, including how people talk and disagree about them. We think we can make our collective experience of film a little more enjoyable, a little less like zero-sum warfare. Host Brian Beutler and Crooked Media Producers Kendra James and Olivia Martinez discuss the merits and flaws of last year’s hits and misses, from Top Gun: Maverick and M3GAN, to Babylon and Beast, and invent new award categories for these movies that better capture how fans relate to cinema in the modern era.

Let’s talk about the movies. A bunch of factors have contributed to the shrinking of the movies and the Oscars in recent years. The film industry itself has changed. Streaming services have become fixtures in most households. COVID-19 happened. Social media wrecked everyone’s attention span and came to compete with every other kind of media for what was left of that attention span. Social media also tribalized the collective experience of movie watching and entertainment awards. It has tended to create multiple camps within which there’s only one right answer to questions like, Which movie was best? Which actor deserved to win? It doesn’t have to be like that! We think there’s a way to revive and modernize the way movies fit into our culture, including how people talk and disagree about them. We think we can make our collective experience of film a little more enjoyable, a little less like zero-sum warfare. Host Brian Beutler and Crooked Media Producers Kendra James and Olivia Martinez discuss the merits and flaws of last year’s hits and misses, from Top Gun: Maverick and M3GAN, to Babylon and Beast, and invent new award categories for these movies that better capture how fans relate to cinema in the modern era.

We’d Like To Spank The Academy

D.C. is not a state. At least not yet. The District is allowed to govern itself in some ways, but its laws are subject to veto authority by the federal government. All that forms the backdrop for a big dust up surrounding a lengthy effort by the city council here to update the city’s janky old criminal code. What would ordinarily be a technical, local issue turned into a multifaceted political fiasco for the city, the mayor of Washington, the people of Washington, Democrats in Congress, and even President Joe Biden. What was actually in the much-debated bill? Why did Biden agree to overturn it? Will it be revived? Will Republicans continue to use the federal government’s power over the city as a wedge issue to divide Democrats? And what does the whole episode say about the future of the city and its and its determination to govern itself completely? Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the actual substance of the bill and what the whole incident reveals about how sincerely Democrats support equal rights and democracy reform, and whether they’re equipped to fight against an increasingly fascist opposition party.

D.C. is not a state. At least not yet. The District is allowed to govern itself in some ways, but its laws are subject to veto authority by the federal government. All that forms the backdrop for a big dust up surrounding a lengthy effort by the city council here to update the city’s janky old criminal code. What would ordinarily be a technical, local issue turned into a multifaceted political fiasco for the city, the mayor of Washington, the people of Washington, Democrats in Congress, and even President Joe Biden. What was actually in the much-debated bill? Why did Biden agree to overturn it? Will it be revived? Will Republicans continue to use the federal government’s power over the city as a wedge issue to divide Democrats? And what does the whole episode say about the future of the city and its and its determination to govern itself completely? Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the actual substance of the bill and what the whole incident reveals about how sincerely Democrats support equal rights and democracy reform, and whether they’re equipped to fight against an increasingly fascist opposition party.

Disorganized Crime

The train derailment in East Palestine, OH, created a state of uncertainty over how severe the contamination is and the risks posed by acute and chronic exposure to the chemicals that spilled and combusted. At the same time, we’re living through a period of scientific and industrial history that seems to drown us in information about what is and isn’t toxic. And it feels like all of us, not just residents of eastern Ohio, ought to have a clear sense of which products and pollutants pose real risks to us. How long can we expect the residents of East Palestine to remain exposed to toxic air and water? Even if government officials say the air and water is safe, can Ohioans rest easy? And generally, how can any of us process the deluge of information we receive about the risks of various substances and foods that we encounter or ingest all the time? Are microplastics actually killing us?! Is beef highly carcinogenic?! Or is it essential for good health?! Or neither?! It all becomes pretty overwhelming, and it’s easy to feel unsettled by, but also a bit numb to, so many dire warnings in the news, on social media, and elsewhere. Tufts Medical School Professor Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths joins host Brian Beutler to discuss how we can live happy lives without being anxious all the time, but with enough awareness and knowledge to protect ourselves from real dangers.

The train derailment in East Palestine, OH, created a state of uncertainty over how severe the contamination is and the risks posed by acute and chronic exposure to the chemicals that spilled and combusted. At the same time, we’re living through a period of scientific and industrial history that seems to drown us in information about what is and isn’t toxic. And it feels like all of us, not just residents of eastern Ohio, ought to have a clear sense of which products and pollutants pose real risks to us. How long can we expect the residents of East Palestine to remain exposed to toxic air and water? Even if government officials say the air and water is safe, can Ohioans rest easy? And generally, how can any of us process the deluge of information we receive about the risks of various substances and foods that we encounter or ingest all the time? Are microplastics actually killing us?! Is beef highly carcinogenic?! Or is it essential for good health?! Or neither?! It all becomes pretty overwhelming, and it’s easy to feel unsettled by, but also a bit numb to, so many dire warnings in the news, on social media, and elsewhere. Tufts Medical School Professor Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths joins host Brian Beutler to discuss how we can live happy lives without being anxious all the time, but with enough awareness and knowledge to protect ourselves from real dangers.

My Forever Chemical Romance

lots of p pops. get a good engineer; they’ll fix that for you.

technical difficulties

Clear, interesting, and timely. I love the show AND the name of the show—rubicon!!

01-25-20

Positively Dreadful

This impeachment is a test for Republicans: When it’s all said and done, when they’re all out of excuses, will they admit that what Trump did was wrong? Or will they vote, with the whole world watching, to say they’re fine with it.As the inquiry enters a new open phase, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent joins host Brian Beutler to discuss how close we are to that point, and whether Republicans will pass or fail the test when we get there.

This impeachment is a test for Republicans: When it’s all said and done, when they’re all out of excuses, will they admit that what Trump did was wrong? Or will they vote, with the whole world watching, to say they’re fine with it.As the inquiry enters a new open phase, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent joins host Brian Beutler to discuss how close we are to that point, and whether Republicans will pass or fail the test when we get there.

The Evidence

The impeachment inquiry will soon move into its closing phase. Republicans have given no indication that they will take any steps to protect the country from President Trump’s corruption. And we remain in the dark about a great deal. As the public hearings draw to a close, Quinta Jurecic, managing editor with the Lawfare blog, joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the dots left unconnected  thus far, and what we risk by not connecting them.

The impeachment inquiry will soon move into its closing phase. Republicans have given no indication that they will take any steps to protect the country from President Trump’s corruption. And we remain in the dark about a great deal. As the public hearings draw to a close, Quinta Jurecic, managing editor with the Lawfare blog, joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the dots left unconnected  thus far, and what we risk by not connecting them.

The Confession

Through two weeks of impeachment hearings, we learned a lot about the hoops President Trump and his associates jumped through before he hopped on the phone with his Ukrainian counterpart and said, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” What they left fairly murky is why Trump viewed Ukraine as such a ripe target for corruption in the first place. On this week’s episode, Brian Beutler and The Atlantic’s Frank Foer discuss the true origins of the Ukraine scandal, and how they fit into a much larger story of global corruption.

Through two weeks of impeachment hearings, we learned a lot about the hoops President Trump and his associates jumped through before he hopped on the phone with his Ukrainian counterpart and said, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” What they left fairly murky is why Trump viewed Ukraine as such a ripe target for corruption in the first place. On this week’s episode, Brian Beutler and The Atlantic’s Frank Foer discuss the true origins of the Ukraine scandal, and how they fit into a much larger story of global corruption.

The Backstory

With the impeachment of Donald Trump behind us, the most vulnerable Republican senators will now have to explain to their constituents why they voted to conceal evidence of Trump’s guilt, and let him off the hook, and contend with the fact that Mitt Romney, the former leader of their party, refused to participate in the coverup. But they’ll only face these questions if the rest of us keep the public eye trained on Trump’s corruption. Matthew Miller rejoins host Brian Beutler to discuss how what comes next matters just as much as what we’ve just been through.

With the impeachment of Donald Trump behind us, the most vulnerable Republican senators will now have to explain to their constituents why they voted to conceal evidence of Trump’s guilt, and let him off the hook, and contend with the fact that Mitt Romney, the former leader of their party, refused to participate in the coverup. But they’ll only face these questions if the rest of us keep the public eye trained on Trump’s corruption. Matthew Miller rejoins host Brian Beutler to discuss how what comes next matters just as much as what we’ve just been through.

To Be Continued

When Republicans acquit Donald Trump, it’ll mark the end of this impeachment process. Much more importantly it’ll mark the dawning of a brave new world. What kind of America will we live in? And, short of Trump losing the election soundly, will it be possible to go back?Susan Hennessey, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Executive Editor of the Lawfare blog, joins host Brian Beutler to discuss whether Republicans are unmaking the republic.

When Republicans acquit Donald Trump, it’ll mark the end of this impeachment process. Much more importantly it’ll mark the dawning of a brave new world. What kind of America will we live in? And, short of Trump losing the election soundly, will it be possible to go back?Susan Hennessey, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Executive Editor of the <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Lawfare</a> blog, joins host Brian Beutler to discuss whether Republicans are unmaking the republic.

The Proposition

What if the Senate completes an impeachment trial in a way that deprives the public of the fairness it demands, and plainly violates the oath senators take to do impartial justice? Harvard Law Professor, and host of the Noah Feldman joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the opening of the trial of Donald Trump, and the legitimacy crisis we face if Republicans complete his coverup for him.

What if the Senate completes an impeachment trial in a way that deprives the public of the fairness it demands, and plainly violates the oath senators take to do impartial justice? Harvard Law Professor, and host of the<a href="https://pushkin.fm/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Noah Feldman</a> joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the opening of the trial of Donald Trump, and the legitimacy crisis we face if Republicans complete his coverup for him.

The Fix

A deluge of new details about the Ukraine scheme have made Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump more desperate than ever to conceal as much incriminating information as they can. And they may still have the tools they need to keep the public from ever learning the full truth. Kate Brannen, the editorial director at Just Security who unearthed some of these details, joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the lastest extraordinary developments, and what Trump and McConnell, in their desperation, might do to prevent more of them from coming to light.

A deluge of new details about the Ukraine scheme have made Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump more desperate than ever to conceal as much incriminating information as they can. And they may still have the tools they need to keep the public from ever learning the full truth. Kate Brannen, the editorial director at Just Security who unearthed some of these details, joins host Brian Beutler to discuss the lastest extraordinary developments, and what Trump and McConnell, in their desperation, might do to prevent more of them from coming to light.

The Floodgates

When Donald Trump’s impeachment trial begins—whenever it begins—the Senate will be divided between Democrats, who will demand to hear from all the first-hand witnesses who defied the impeachment inquiry, and Republicans who will want to acquit Trump without letting any new incriminating information come to light.Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Sarah Binder joins host Brian Beutler to walk us through all the arcane rules and requirements senators will have to navigate if they hope to hold a fair trial—or a coverup.

When Donald Trump’s impeachment trial begins—whenever it begins—the Senate will be divided between Democrats, who will demand to hear from all the first-hand witnesses who defied the impeachment inquiry, and Republicans who will want to acquit Trump without letting any new incriminating information come to light.Brookings Institution Senior Fellow <a href="https://twitter.com/bindersab" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sarah Binder </a>joins host<a href="https://twitter.com/brianbeutler" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Brian Beutler </a>to walk us through all the arcane rules and requirements senators will have to navigate if they hope to hold a fair trial—or a coverup.

The Standoff

The House of Representatives has impeached Donald Trump, but the fight has only just begin. His trial won’t begin until 2020; but between now and then that fight won’t stop. In fact, this may be the most important phase of it. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent joins host Brian Beutler to look ahead, and discuss what each of us—Democratic members of Congress, presidential candidates, impartial journalists, activist, or just regular voters—can do to make sure both Trump and those who seek to cover up his crimes are held accountable.

The House of Representatives has impeached Donald Trump, but the fight has only just begin. His trial won’t begin until 2020; but between now and then that fight won’t stop. In fact, this may be the most important phase of it. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent joins host Brian Beutler to look ahead, and discuss what each of us—Democratic members of Congress, presidential candidates, impartial journalists, activist, or just regular voters—can do to make sure both Trump and those who seek to cover up his crimes are held accountable.

The Showdown

This week House Democrats announced the official articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Trump is just the fourth president in U.S. history to face the prospect of impeachment for alleged misconduct in office, but many were left wondering why there were only two articles, one for abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign and the second for obstruction of Congress. This week, Rubicon host Brian Beutler speaks to Michelle Goldberg, a columnist for the New York Times and cohost of the podcast, The Argument.

This week House Democrats announced the official articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Trump is just the fourth president in U.S. history to face the prospect of impeachment for alleged misconduct in office, but many were left wondering why there were only two articles, one for abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign and the second for obstruction of Congress. This week, Rubicon host Brian Beutler speaks to Michelle Goldberg, a columnist for the New York Times and cohost of the podcast, The Argument.

The Dodge

The best podcast episodes on non-current politics. Covering topics such as universal basic income, democracy, poverty & justice and more. For anyone interested in learning more about politics that affect that world, not just now, but in the longer term. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Non-Current Politics Podcasts

The best philosophy podcast episodes. Asking questions about how to live a better life, what it means to be and do good, to the idea of God. This topic includes episodes that bring about important questions that everyone should be asking themselves. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!