Both the American left and right are revolted by elites. But whereas the right has channeled its distaste for the powers-that-be into Trump and MAGA, the left has mostly failed to capitalize on populist hatred of American elites. So what to do? According to the influential Turkish political theorist Soli Ozel, [https://x.com/soliozel2] progressives need to reread Christopher Lasch, author of the 1995 classic, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Elites]. In an essay entitled “Lasching Out [https://www.theideasletter.org/essay/lasching-out/],” Ozel observes that Lasch's critique of meritocratic elites who abandoned their sense of social responsibility—what he calls their noblesse oblige—offers a progressive roadmap for understanding why figures like Kamala Harris failed to connect with working-class voters, and how the left might forge a new populist coalition that prioritizes material interests over cultural absolutism.

1. Lasch predicted Trump decades before 2016 - Writing between the 1970s & 90s, Christopher Lasch warned that American elites had abandoned their sense of social responsibility (noblesse oblige), creating conditions for populist backlash that would eventually manifest as Trumpism.

2. The new meritocratic elite looks down on ordinary Americans - Unlike traditional elites who felt obligated to society, today's managerial class views working people as "uncouth, racist, xenophobic" and prefers to ignore them rather than engage or convince them of better ways of living.

3. Kamala Harris epitomized elite denial - Harris couldn't acknowledge her elite status or explain why she wanted to be president, representing exactly the kind of disconnected leader Lasch criticized—one who presents herself as embodying the "American dream" while being fundamentally out of touch.

4. The left needs "left conservatism" - Progressives should be economically leftist but culturally conservative, supporting incremental change that maintains social institutions like family while prioritizing working-class material conditions over cultural absolutism.

5. Leadership and coalition-building matter more than ideology - Like FDR's New Deal coalition, the left needs charismatic leaders who can forge alliances across different constituencies, avoiding the absolutism that has alienated educated elites from the broader population.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The Revolting Elites: How Christopher Lasch Predicted Trump and the Crisis of American Democracy

Dubbed the Meme Queen of Depression [https://mashable.com/article/meet-aiden-rata-meme-queen-of-depression-instagram] by Mashable, Aiden Arata [https://aidenarata.com/]'s real goal on Instagram was to build a big enough following to convince traditional publishers to let her write a book. Thus her new collection of essays, You Have a New Memory [https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/aiden-arata/you-have-a-new-memory/9781538767597/], in which Arata reveals the chillingly empty realities about her millennial "Doom" generation's relationship with social media. There really isn't much of an influencer economy, Arata confesses, acknowledging that most social media "stars" are, in fact, grifters. So the only way to monetize one's influencer status is by writing a traditional book which, Arata argues, also offers a refuge from what she calls the "flattened" language of digital media.

1. Arata Became an Influencer to Enable Her Real Dream

"I think that I created an internet following to trick people into letting me write a book. I've always wanted to write a book... I've always been a writer."

Arata reveals her Instagram success was strategic - a means to literary credibility rather than an end goal.

2. Social Media Has "AI'd" Us Before AI Arrived

"I think it's interesting because just sort of the way that algorithms train us to use certain language... we kind of have AI'd ourselves by mimicking certain phrases and just flattening... the field of interpretation for words."

She argues we've already been conditioned to communicate like machines, making actual AI less of a leap.

3. Digital Content Creates an Existential Crisis

"I call it plastic bag theory. And it's this idea that... the internet is like a plastic bag, it's disposable, but it's also forever. It's sort of on its trash island swirling out there somewhere. And then when we use the internet, we kind of become that as well."

Her metaphor captures how online content - and creators - exist in a liminal state between temporary and permanent.

4. The "Doom Generation" Faces Unprecedented Awareness

"We've never been so aware of all of the atrocities that happen around us and to us. And we've sort of also never been so aware of our own powerlessness to affect change."

She explains why her generation feels particularly anxious about the future.

5. Books Offer Refuge from Digital Language Flattening

"A book is a really beautiful response to that. It's reclaiming language as something that can go on these sort of philosophical eddies and can have a metaphor that's a little bit complicated... that is like just perfect in its weird slanty little way."

Despite her digital success, she sees traditional publishing as essential for preserving nuanced human expression.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Confessions of a Meme Queen: I Created an Instagram Following to Trick People Into Letting Me Write a Book

The troubling thing about William F. Buckley [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.], the media savvy founder of modern American conservatism, isn’t so much his politics, but his likability. How could such an overtly reactionary racist and homophobe (even if he was himself gay), be such a charming fellow beloved by all who knew him? That’s one of the central questions which Sam Tanenhaus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Tanenhaus] addresses in his massive new biography Buckley [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/176399/buckley-by-sam-tanenhaus/]. Tanenhaus reveals shocking new details about the Buckley family's secret funding of segregationist newspapers and White Citizens Councils—information that even appalled Buckley's own son Christopher. Buckley explores how someone could be genuinely charitable and philanthropic in his personal affairs while promoting such corrosive politics. Tanenhaus argues we live in a moment when it seems "almost impossible to disentangle those personas," yet Buckley embodied both simultaneously. This wasn't just genteel bigotry—it was a foundational contradiction that changed the United States and now helps define the theatrical toxicity of Trump’s America.

1. Buckley's Family Secretly Funded Segregationists

"Buckley's family actually sponsored the publication of a newspaper that supported the White Citizens Council... Buckley had kept it secret. He never told anyone."

Tanenhaus reveals that the Buckley family funded segregationist publications in the South—a bombshell that "appalled" even Buckley's own son Christopher.

2. The Paradox of Personal Charm vs. Political Toxicity

"Gary Wills... said Buckley was simply the most charitable man you would meet that he had ever known. And he said, I love everything about Bill Buckley, but his crazy reactionary politics."

The central mystery: How could someone be genuinely kind in person while promoting destructive ideologies? Tanenhaus argues this contradiction is what made Buckley so complex and influential.

3. Questions About Buckley's Sexuality Haunted His Public Life

"Vidal called Buckley a crypto-Nazi and Buckley said, don't call me a Nazi, you queer or I'll sock you in the goddamn face."

The famous 1968 debate with Gore Vidal exposed underlying tensions about Buckley's identity, with suggestions he was a "closeted gay man" himself while using homophobic language.

4. Buckley Invented Modern Political Theater

"Buckley's innovation... was to see that media itself could become the instrument for a kind of theatrical presentation of history. And that proved to be really precious. And that's what we're living with now is politics is a kind of theater and even entertainment."

Through "Firing Line" and his seemingly ubiquitous media presence, Buckley pioneered the performative politics we see today.

5. His American Dream Was Reactionary Restoration

"It was a dream of restoration... what he wanted to do was to create an America his own parents would have been comfortable in."

Buckley sought to return to the "late 19th and early 20th centuries of entrepreneurialism, of laissez-faire economics"—a world Tanenhaus calls "a powerful delusion."



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The charming gay racist who invented modern American conservatism: Sam Tanenhaus on William F. Buckley's absurdly implausible contradictions

Yesterday, we focused on the death [https://keenon.substack.com/p/the-death-of-the-american-way-of] of the American way of work. But today the news on the AI front isn’t quite as dire. According to the New York based economic historian Dror Poleg [https://www.drorpoleg.com/], AI will be too busy to take your job. That’s the provocative thesis of Poleg’s upcoming book focused on the radical opportunities in our AI age. He argues that AI's massive energy consumption will actually preserve human employment, as society redirects computing power toward critical tasks rather than simply replacing human labor with algorithms. Unlike Yuval Noah Harari's pessimistic "useless class" prediction, Poleg cheerfully envisions a future where everyone becomes valuable through constant experimentation and human connectivity. He believes we're entering an era where work becomes indistinguishable from leisure, interpersonal skills command premium value, and the economy depends on widespread human creativity and feedback to determine what's truly valuable in an increasingly unpredictable world. That’s the electrifying truth about our AI era. For Poleg, AI represents something even more transformative than electrification itself—a utility that will flow like water and affect everything, reshaping not just how we work but the very nature of economic value and human purpose.

1. AI's Energy Demands Will Preserve Human Jobs

"Energy is too valuable to waste on tasks humans can do... we as an economy, as a society, will basically want to throw as much electricity as possible at the things that matter up to the point that maybe automating different tasks that human can do... we'll decide to take electricity away from today's computer, even from people using Excel today and saying, Okay, that electricity is more valuable somewhere else."

2. AI Is More Transformative Than Electrification

"I would say it's more significant... I think it's at least as significant as electricity and electrification. And in many ways... it is more of a utility than anything else for better or worse. So it will flow like water and it will affect everything."

3. Everyone Will Become Valuable Through Experimentation

"My view of the future is actually exactly the opposite [of Harari's useless class]. I think that in the future everyone will be valuable and almost any activity would be valuable because we will not have any idea what is or who is valuable... as a society we will need as many people as possible to constantly do whatever they feel like, create whatever they want to create."

4. Work Will Merge With Leisure and Human Connection

"The general trend that I see is that work will become increasingly indistinguishable from leisure if we're looking long-term... we'll see more of these types of jobs, basically giving each other attention, helping each other know that we exist and sharing with each other more and more specialized and granular types of... service that only we can give to each other."

5. Physical, In-Person Interactions Will Become Premium

"If you wanna know if something is true, the only way to know that is to be there or to know someone who was there... I think that also pushes us back towards offline. In-person physical interactions that will be at a premium."



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

"AI Is Too Busy to Take Your Job: The Electrifying Truth about our AIgorithmic Future

In 1963, Jessica Mitford published her remarkable account of the American funeral industry, An American Way of Death [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Way_of_Death#:~:text=The%20American%20Way%20of%20Death%20is%20an%20expos%C3%A9%20of%20abuses,in%201996%2C%20appeared%20in%201998.]. Over sixty years later, another distinguished Englishwoman, the workplace futurist Julia Hobsbaw [https://www.juliahobsbawm.com/]m, is announcing the death of the American way of work. Whereas Mitford exposed the predatory practices of funeral directors, Hobsbawn reveals how corporate America has become equally disconnected from reality—clinging to outdated workplace models while other nations innovate. From Thomas Edison's countless inventions to Henry Ford's revolutionary assembly line, Hobsbawm notes, America dominated innovative 20th century work practices. But as countries like the UAE introduce more flexible policies than Silicon Valley, and demographic shifts reshape global labor markets, American corporations are "sleepwalking into disaster” by failing to adapt to both generational changes and to the post-pandemic workplace revolution.

1. America's Century of Workplace Dominance Is Ending

"I've always thought that America has dominated a century of the way the world works. I mean, everything we live and work on from, you know, the computer or the credit card or the communications industry, the car, it's all been American."

Hobsbawm argues that while America invented modern work culture—from Edison's innovations to Ford's assembly lines—its grip on workplace leadership is slipping as other nations pioneer new approaches.

2. Corporate America Is in Denial About Post-Pandemic Reality

"There is a desire on behalf of boards, corporate leaders, large corporates to, quote unquote, go back, to be quite rosy tinted in their spectacle view of what the past of work looked like."

She warns that American executives are refusing to acknowledge how fundamentally the pandemic changed worker expectations, instead clinging to outdated models while demanding returns to traditional office structures.

3. Other Countries Are Now Leading Workplace Innovation

"On the 1st of April this year the UAE introduced pretty much the most flexible working policies anywhere in the world, outside of the Nordics and the UK... America is weaker in the culture of work and the workplace policies around flexibility."

Nations once considered less progressive are now outpacing Silicon Valley on workplace flexibility, while American companies retreat from forward-thinking policies.

4. The One-Size-Fits-All Model Is Dead

"There is now a complete disaggregation of what norm is. And that is what is so difficult for businesses and corporations... you cannot impose a one-size-fits-all."

Hobsbawm identifies this as "the Achilles heel of the American way of work"—the inability to adapt to diverse, individualized worker needs across different generations and cultures.

5. Work Change Is the Defining Challenge of Our Time

"Work change is the new climate change. Every single workplace, every single worker, every single workforce, every single city product is going to be changed continuously."

She positions workplace transformation as the most critical issue facing society, requiring the same urgency and comprehensive response as climate change.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The Death of the American Way of Work: How the United States Lost Its Grip on the Future 

It’s an old thesis - that capitalism has created a religion out of money. But nobody, not even Marx, has been quite as theologically explicit as Paul Vigna, author of The Almightier: How Money Became God, Greed Became Virtue, and Debt Became Sin [https://www.amazon.com/Almightier-Money-Became-Greed-Virtue/dp/1250343283]. The former Wall Street Journal reporter argues that money literally functions as our modern deity, complete with faith-based belief systems, sacred rituals of accumulation, and moral frameworks that equate wealth with divine favor. Tracing money's origins back 5,500 years to — surprise surprise — Mesopotamian temples, he reveals how what began as a practical accounting tool has evolved into humanity's central organizing principle. Unlike Marx's revolutionary critique of capitalist exchange, Vigna argues in favor of recalibration rather than outright destruction. Imagining money as a useful hammer rather than an almighty god, he questions why we chase dollars instead of human welfare, especially in a digital age when innovative new technologies could provide basic needs for everyone.

1. Money literally originated in religious temples 5,500 years ago: "Money shows up first time about 5,500 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia, it is a product of temples. The temple in Uruk is where we find it and the temple scribes developed this system to keep track of the temple's possessions, which is called money."

2. Money isn't "real" - it's a collective belief system based entirely on trust: "Money isn't real. Money is an agreement among people. When you talk about trust, we're all trusting in this system. It's a system that we all buy into."

3. The Protestant Reformation transformed greed from sin into virtue: "Calvin says, God controls everything... So if you have money, you have it because God want you to have it. Therefore, if you become rich, God wanted you to become rich... you should work hard to make a lot of money because that's what God wants."

4. We've confused the tool with the goal: "We could provide the basic needs for every single human being on the earth... And what I say is, we don't do that... because we still have this deeply embedded belief that money... we are chasing money, we are not chasing the thing that society is supposed to be set up to do."

5. Bitcoin perfectly illustrates money-as-religion: "Bitcoin is absolutely a religion. It's got its own god in Satoshi Nakamoto... it is the most fascinating thing to watch because it really is, you saw a religion grow up around a monetary system."

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

How Capitalism Turned Money into God: Paul Vigna on Buying the Almighty

Douglas Rushkoff has spent decades warning how each new digital technological “revolution” has promised liberation but actually only compounds social and economic injustice. Six months after describing [https://keenon.substack.com/p/episode-2261-douglas-rushkoff-on] AI to me as the "first native app for the internet," the New York City media theorist and author returns with a provocative historical parallel: AI as the next "dumb waiter." Just as Thomas Jefferson's mechanical food elevator appeared automated but relied on hidden slave labor, today's artificial intelligence presents itself as magical automation while depending on vast networks of invisible human workers in developing nations like Kenya and the Philippines. Rushkoff argues that slowing down AI development—not accelerating it—might be our most revolutionary act. And that successfully harnessing AI to our needs and desires might represent our "last chance" to rewrite society.

1. AI is the "Dumb Waiter 2.0" - Like Jefferson's mechanical food elevator that appeared automated but depended on hidden slave labor, AI presents itself as magical automation while relying on invisible human workers. "So today you see AI is pitched to us as if you just put out a query and something comes back and there's been no human involved. There's tons of humans... it's not without humans, it's just that the human labor is hidden."

2. The "Pedal-to-the-Metal" AI Deployment is Actually Reactionary - Tech billionaires pushing for rapid AI development aren't revolutionaries but reactionaries. "The tech bros who seem to want the most rapid deployment of this stuff... They are not the revolutionaries. They are the reactionaries. The reason they want to do this pedal to the metal, rapid deployment of AI is to prevent change."

3. Jobs Were Invented and Can Be Reinvented - Employment as we know it was artificially created and can be reimagined. "Jobs were invented. Jobs were invented in the 11th and 12th century. When the charter monopoly came and said you're not allowed to be in business for yourself... jobs were invented. It means they can be reinvented or the economy can be re-invented."

4. We Have a "Last Chance" Window of Opportunity - AI represents a brief moment when fundamental change is possible. "There's also the same opportunity, which is why I'm excited that same 1991/92/93 opportunity, there's a new technology that hasn't quite settled, the clay is still really wet. And the possibilities are really are wide and many."

5. Slowing Down AI Development is More Revolutionary Than Speeding It Up - Rather than rushing deployment, we need time for thoughtful implementation. "What if we slow down enough to have distributed access to this technology? To look at more environmental ways of doing it... but really look at what do we want to do and have enough time to... ask deeper questions."

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

AI as Dumb Waiter 2.0: Douglas Rushkoff on How Smart Technology Isn't Quite as Smart as It Claims

So who killed privacy? It's the central question of Tiffany Jenkins [https://tiffanyjenkinsinfo.com/about/]' provocative new history of private life, Strangers and Intimates [https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/tiffany-jenkins/strangers-and-intimates/9781529034165]. The answer, according to Jenkins, is that we are all complicit—having gradually and often accidentally contributed to privacy's demise from the 16th century onwards. Luther started it by challenging Papal religious authority and the public sacraments, thereby creating the necessity of private conscience. Then came Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes who carved out bounded private political and economic spheres establishing the foundations for modern capitalism and democracy. Counter-enlightenment romantics like Rousseau reacted against this by fetishizing individual innocence and authenticity, while the Victorians elevated the domestic realm as sacred. Last but not least, there's Mark Zuckerberg's socially networked age, in which we voluntarily broadcast our private lives to a worldwide audience. But why, I ask Jenkins, should we care about the death of private life in our current hyper-individualistic age? Can it be saved by more or less obsession with the self? Or might it require us to return to the world before Martin Luther, a place Thomas More half satiricizes Utopia, where “private life” was a dangerously foreign idea.

1. Privacy is a Historical Accident, Not a Natural Human Condition

"There was a sense in which you shouldn't do anything privately that they wouldn't do publicly... This wasn't a kind of property-based private life." Jenkins argues that before the 17th century, the very concept of leading a separate private life didn't exist—privacy as we understand it is a relatively recent invention.

2. Martin Luther Accidentally Created Modern Privacy Through Religious Rebellion

"Luther inadvertently... authorized the self as against, in his case, the Catholic Church... if you follow the debates over the kind of beginnings of a private sphere and its expansion, whether you're reading Locke or Hobbes, there's a discussion about... the limits of authority." Luther's challenge to religious authority unintentionally created the need for private conscience, sparking centuries of development toward individual privacy.

3. The Digital Age Represents a Return to Pre-Privacy Transparency

"I think we do live in a period where there is little distinction between public and private, where the idea that you might keep something to yourself is seen as strange, as inauthentic." Jenkins suggests our current era of social media oversharing resembles pre-modern times more than the Victorian peak of privacy.

4. Modern Loneliness Stems From Social Fragmentation, Not Individual Psychology

"I sometimes wonder if we're pathologizing, actually, what is a social problem, which is a society where people are fragmented, not quite sure how to go beyond themselves... I would see that as a social problem." Rather than treating loneliness as a personal issue, Jenkins argues it reflects the breakdown of intermediate institutions between family and state.

5. Technology Doesn't Determine Our Privacy—We Do

"Can't blame the tech, tech isn't the problem... It comes down really to what sort of society we want to live in and how we want to be treated. That's not a technical thing. That has not to do with technology. That's to do humans." Jenkins rejects technological determinism, arguing that privacy's fate depends on human choices about social organization, not inevitable technological forces.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or

From Luther to Zuckerberg: Who killed Privacy?

Is Mohammed bin Salman a tyrant or an enlightened despot? According to the former Wall Street Journal publisher Karen Elliott House [https://www.karenelliotthouse.com/], Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Man Who Would Be King [https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/the-man-who-would-be-king-review-a-very-modern-monarch-bd35aa6d], a new biography of MBS, he might be both. Or neither. House who spent years reporting from and writing on Saudi Arabia, offers a complex (and unofficial) portrait of the Crown Prince's ambitious transformation efforts, his deeply troubling human rights record, and the uncertain fate of his grand vision for modernizing the oil kingdom. Drawing on extensive access to MBS himself, she explores whether his reforms can succeed or will ultimately crumble like the ruins in Shelley's "Ozymandias." Rather than Lee Kuan Yew or Saddam Hussein, that’s probably MBS’ fate. A ruler neither sufficiently enlightened or tyrannical to leave a historical footprint.

1. MBS as an "Enlightened Despot" Shaped by Personal Experience

"He is an enlightened despot. He grew up in that period when you couldn't do anything... all this trying to put the religious police aside is personal, not just policy for him."

House argues that MBS's reforms stem from his own frustration with Saudi Arabia's religious restrictions, making his changes deeply personal rather than merely strategic.

2. The Khashoggi Murder: A "Rendition Gone Wrong"

"I do believe that he too smart to order somebody to do that. I think what he ordered, that it was a rendition gone wrong. He said, bring the guy back... I don't think it would have happened if the crown prince had said, bring me that guy, but you know be sure he gets here alive."

House suggests MBS likely ordered Khashoggi's return to Saudi Arabia but didn't intend for him to be killed, though she acknowledges the brutal outcome.

3. Human Rights Have Worsened Under MBS

"Yes, absolutely. But, you know, the only countries probably that are worse... basically Iran, China, North Korea, countries like that."

When asked if Saudi's human rights record has deteriorated under MBS, House confirms it has, placing the kingdom among the world's worst offenders.

4. Ambitious Projects Face Reality Checks

"Some of his ideas are like the line in Naom... I mean that's a, you know, some might say a monstrosity... it's now down to there will be a mile and a half of it by 2030."

House describes how MBS's grandiose vision for NEOM has been dramatically scaled back, suggesting his ambitious projects may be unrealistic.

5. Uncertain Legacy: The Ozymandias Question

"I quote in the book, the poet Shelley's poem, Ozymandias, about dirt and the look at me, mighty and despair, that it could all turn to dirt... if it were me and I had all of these issues that he faces now, I'd probably crawl under the bed and take a sleeping pill."

House remains uncertain about MBS's ultimate success, comparing his potential fate to the fallen ruler in Shelley's poem while acknowledging his determination to persist despite enormous challenges.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Is Mohammed bin Salman a Tyrant or an Enlightened Despot? Karen Elliott House on MBS's Transformation of Saudi Arabia

Sociocide is a chilling word. Coined by the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, it means the deliberate destruction of a society's social infrastructure and capacity to function as a cohesive unit. According to Boston College sociologist Charles Derber [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Derber], this kind of social suicide is now destroying America. In his latest book, Bonfire [https://www.routledge.com/Bonfire-American-Sociocide-Broken-Relations-and-the-Quest-for-Democracy/Derber/p/book/9781032793634?srsltid=AfmBOorMWbdgAW0w_9i9UpA7ThYQdRgKOA-g2gcanc1PAclMD2sf7qoH], Derber argues that America is slipping and sliding into a sociocide of broken social and political relations. Drawing on decades of research, Derber connects rising isolation—people eating alone, losing friends, living in "civic deserts"—to the rise of authoritarianism. When social bonds collapse, he warns, isolated individuals become vulnerable to strongman leaders who exploit their fear and loneliness.

1. Sociocide is Social Suicide at the Societal Level

"We're kind of breaking apart into individual atomized individuals who have no sense of real enduring connection with each other... When societies commit suicide, unravel, it breaks down the possibility of sort of a normal, humane community and life and opens the door to what we're facing today, which is an authoritarian sort of dictatorial kind of leader."

2. Americans Are Becoming Dangerously Isolated

"More and more people are eating all their meals alone. I've seen data that has up to 68% of people say they eat most of their meals alone. The numbers of people who claim to have close friends, the numbers of who get married or stay married. The number of people who feel connected at their workplace to other workers or to their employers is all on a downward path."

3. Isolation Creates the Perfect Conditions for Authoritarianism

"Hannah Arendt, de Tocqueville, many great thinkers have recognized that isolation and atomization is a foundation for authoritarianism and strong labor who capitalize on the fear and disconnection. When people are isolated, they look to strong leaders who will protect them."

4. Trump Voters Aren't Choosing Death—They're Choosing Survival

"The people with the lowest integration into society have the lowest relationships, eat more alone, have fewer friends. The Trump base is, at least according to the data that I've been able to collect, is the part of America most characterized by sociocide... They're scared economically, most of them say they're one paycheck away from poverty."

5. The Solution Requires Coming Together in Sustained Ways

"The answer to social side is coming together... People have to persevere in public protest together. I mean, you have to come together... I think it's only by trying to build in every phase of your life these connections that give you a sense of hope and caring and possibility."



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Why America is Destroying Itself: Charles Derber on Sociocide and America's Social Suicide

The daily show about the big ideas, new technologies, books and people changing the world. Hosted by Andrew Keen.

Keen On

Andrew Keen's Show

The daily show about the big ideas, new technologies, books and people changing the world. Hosted by the writer and commentator Andrew Keen.

To subscribe: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keen-on/id1448694012

KEEN ON clips

Highlights from KEEN ON, the daily show about the big ideas, new technologies, books and people changing the world

Subscribe: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keen-on/id1448694012

Andrew Keen

Shows