“The United States has conducted an unusually ideological foreign policy, an unusually economic foreign policy, and an unusually democratic foreign policy. These three features have been present from the eighteenth century to the present.” — Michael Mandelbaum

 

Is there an “American way” of foreign policy? Does that make the now almost 250 year-old republic unique? Michael Mandelbaum [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-american-way-of-foreign-policy-9780197840931], author of The American Way of Foreign Policy: Ideology, Economics, Democracy [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-american-way-of-foreign-policy-9780197840931], says yes and no. America is exceptional. But that exceptionalism is unexceptional.

 

Mandelbaum says that American foreign policy over the last 250 years has been unusually ideological, economic, and democratic. Foreign policy realists say great powers all behave the same way. Mandelbaum, as an idealist, says: not America. Uniquely in world history, he says, America has pursued its principles overseas without prioritising its political, economic, or military self-interest.

 

And yet The American Way of Foreign Policy isn’t triumphalist. Mandelbaum opposed NATO expansion in the 1990s. He was in the anti-Vietnam marches as a Harvard student in the Sixties. Nor is he partial to demonstrations of overt nationalism. His July 4 plans, for example, are to watch baseball. As a lucky man in a fortunate Republic, what better way to celebrate 250 years of independence than to enjoy its national pastime?

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       Three Distinctive Features: Ideological, Economic, Democratic: Mandelbaum’s thesis: American foreign policy has differed from the foreign policies of other countries in three enduring ways. First, ideological: political ideas and the effort to spread them have been more important to America than to other powers. Second, economic: America has used economic instruments to achieve political goals — trade, aid, sanctions — rather than the imperial model of using political power for economic gain. Third, democratic: American public opinion has always had greater influence over foreign policy than in other countries. For almost all other countries, for most of their histories, foreign policy was the preserve of a small elite. That was never true of the United States.

 

•       Idealist and Realist: Both Apply: Andrew invokes Kenneth Waltz and the realist tradition, which argues that great powers always behave the same way regardless of their self-image. Mandelbaum’s response: realism fits American foreign policy up to a point. America has fought twelve significant wars and has not been oblivious to military power. But it has also conducted idealist foreign policies that cannot be explained by realism — policies driven by its liberal political ideas rather than its material interests. The distinctive feature of American foreign policy is not that it ignores realism, but that it goes beyond realism in ways that other great powers have not.

 

•       NATO Expansion: Mandelbaum’s One Big Regret: In the 1990s, Mandelbaum was opposed to the expansion of NATO, alongside George Kennan — one of the architects of Cold War containment. His fear: it would do a lot to alienate Russia. He acknowledges that he cannot blame NATO expansion explicitly for the Russian attack on Ukraine. But he notes that the fear was reasonable and that, as he puts it, alas, it has come to pass. He does not think that the Russian attack was inevitable or that NATO caused it. But he does think the warning was worth issuing and that it deserved more serious consideration than it received.

 

•       Vietnam and the Antiwar Movement: Was It Counterproductive? As a graduate student

The Unexceptional Exceptionalism of the United States: Michael Mandelbaum on the American Way of Foreign Policy

“Objects in museums have to come from somewhere. The stories of how they came to be in those collections often involve laws being broken, unethical behaviour, and extreme violence.” — Matthew Campbell

 

Imagine a gay Jeffrey Epstein who set up shop in Thailand. Only rather than peddling young girls, he traded in bodybuilders and priceless antiquities. That’s the story of the British émigré Douglas Latchford, the subject of Matthew Campbell [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/739182/the-man-who-stole-the-gods-by-matthew-campbell/]’s new book The Man Who Stole the Gods [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/739182/the-man-who-stole-the-gods-by-matthew-campbell/]. It’s the true story of a man who was born in the last days of the British Raj, made his fortune in Bangkok, became the world’s leading dealer of Khmer antiquities, and was indicted for criminal conspiracy in 2019.

 

Campbell’s tale is simultaneously a crime story, a history of Cambodia, and a parable about the relationship between Western wealth and the world’s cultural heritage. The Khmer Empire, which dominated Southeast Asia from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, produced one of the finest civilisations of the medieval world. Angkor in the twelfth century had 750,000 people — making it ten times the size of London. After the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, every Khmer site in Cambodia was systematically looted. The pieces went to the Metropolitan Museum, to Christie’s, to private American collectors. Latchford was the central conduit. The Jeffrey Epstein enabler.

 

Like Epstein, Latchford got away with it for years. Unlike Epstein, he died a free man, even chalking up a 2020 New York Times obituary [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/arts/douglas-aj-latchford-khmer-antiquities-expert-dies-at-88.html] as a Khmer antiquities expert.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       Douglas Latchford: The British Jeffrey Epstein of Asian Art: Born in the last days of the British Raj, educated in the UK, Latchford made his fortune in Bangkok and became the world’s leading dealer of Southeast Asian antiquities — selling pieces for millions of dollars to the Metropolitan Museum, Christie’s, and wealthy American collectors. He presented himself as an expert and connoisseur. He gave to universities and lent to exhibitions. He received a glowing obituary in the New York Times in August 2020. The dark side: he was, Campbell shows, the central organiser of a decades-long criminal conspiracy to loot Cambodia’s cultural heritage. He was indicted in 2019 but died before he could be extradited.

 

•       The Khmer Empire: 750,000 People When London Had 40,000: The Khmer Empire dominated Southeast Asia from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, ruling directly or indirectly over what is now Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and parts of Malaysia. Its capital, Angkor, had 750,000 people in the twelfth century — when London had 40,000 at the absolute outside. The Khmer built extraordinary temple cities — Angkor Wat is only the most famous — and produced remarkable stone and bronze sculpture. Every single Khmer site in Cambodia was systematically looted. The pieces all went somewhere. A great many came to the West.

 

•       The Vietnam War, Nixon, Kissinger, and the Conditions for Genocide: The Vietnam War is central to Campbell’s story. The Ho Chi Minh Trail ran partly through Cambodia, making Cambodia of great interest to Nixon and Kissinger. Beginning in 1968, large-scale American bombing of Cambodia — ostensibly aimed at destroying a supposed communist headquarters that, Campbell notes, never actually existed — helped destabilise the country and created the conditions in which the Khmer Rouge could emerge. The Khmer Rouge ideology: Pol Pot believed civilisation needed n

The Jeffrey Epstein of Antiquities: Matthew Campbell on the Man Who Got Away With Stealing the Gods,

“AI represents successful capitalism. What we have alongside that is unsuccessful government. Government has no plan — left or right.” — Keith Teare

 

It’s the 82nd anniversary of D-Day. On June 6, 1944, there was an unambiguous end game — the defeat of Nazi Germany. But today, end games are more controversial, especially in terms of harnessing the AI revolution to benefit everyone.

 

For Keith Teare [https://thatwa.st/], publisher of That Was the Week [https://thatwa.st/], the AI end game requires an “Institute of the Future.” Everyone from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to Elon Musk and Sam Altman should hammer out a plan to harness AI for the benefit of society. Keith offers the internet governance organisation ICANN as a model for this institute. It will shape the future for all of our benefit, he promises.

 

So a D-Day for AI? I’m sceptical of this type of Brave New World-style technocracy. Firstly, Sanders, Warren, Musk and Altman agree on very little. And Musk and Altman hate each other. I’m also dubious that AI will or can benefit everyone. As Keith notes, some professions — teachers, for example — will be decimated by AI. Where I agree with Keith, however, is that we need a new politics for this new age. Political parties, rather than institutes, of the future. Innovation rather than ICANN.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       The Anthropic IPO Slip — and Why SpaceX Now Looks Small: Anthropic accidentally filed for its IPO this week — what the New York Times described as a slip. The terms of SpaceX’s unconventional $75 billion IPO were also revealed. Keith’s observation: SpaceX now looks small by comparison. He tried to buy SpaceX shares this week through his brokerage and expects to get none — the demand will be way bigger than the supply, and the price will go up from the offering. San Francisco real estate is already feeling the Cerebras effect: 800 employees are now millionaires. The three big IPOs — Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX — will compound that on a much larger scale.

 

•       Successful Capitalism, Unsuccessful Government: Keith’s framework for the week: AI is capitalism working. Resources are directed to money-making opportunities via the profit motive, which coincides with innovation and, at least in the short term, creates lots of jobs. That is successful capitalism. Alongside it: unsuccessful government. The Trump administration went from hands-off to requiring all AI models to be submitted for a 30-day assessment before launch — in the same week. No plan. No endgame. Everyone has an opinion. Nobody states what outcome they want.

 

•       Keith’s PhD: Why Capitalism Is Never Static: Andrew challenges Keith’s authority to pronounce on these matters. Keith reveals: he has a PhD from the University of Kent in Canterbury — on why capitalism is never static, and why new entrants always eclipse what went before. Andrew: that was the 1970s, Keith. Does a fifty-year-old PhD give you authority? Keith: it’s a useless criticism. You could say that to anyone about anything. The exchange is revealing: the argument is not about credentials but about frameworks. And Keith’s framework — capitalism as dynamic, government as static — has at least the virtue of consistency.

 

•       Credit to Bernie and Warren: At Least They’re Having the Conversation: Andrew expects Keith to trash Bernie Sanders (50% government ownership of AI companies) and Elizabeth Warren (high taxation of AI profits). Keith surprises him: at least they’re having the conversation. His criticism is not that they’re wrong to want wealth distribution but that their framing — tax, centralise, spend — is unattractive to most people and captured by the interests of the old economy: teachers’ unions, trade unions, legacy coalitions t

D-Day for AI: How to Create an End Game That Will Benefit Everyone

“He didn’t just say it, he meant it, he felt it — and the combination of the power guy, the ruthless power guy, and the profound idealist was fascinating, and also hard for him.” — Evan Thomas on Bobby Kennedy

 

Who was the greatest riddle in 20th century American political life? Judging from the ever-expanding library of Bobby biographies, Robert Francis Kennedy ranks very high on that list. Indeed, according to Evan Thomas [https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Evan-Thomas/1067235], one of RFK’s most acclaimed biographers, this third Kennedy son is, indeed, the most sphinx-like riddle in 20th century America.

 

In his classic 2000 biography, Robert Kennedy: His Life [https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Robert-Kennedy/Evan-Thomas/9780743203296], Thomas unravels the good and the bad Bobby. But, rather than presenting parallel narratives, his portrait treats the Machiavellian and the idealist as the same riddle. Raised by his father to exercise raw power, RFK discovered that mid-century America wasn’t living up to its own ideals. The contradiction of the ruthless Kennedy machine politician and the profound idealist was what continues to make him so intriguing to Americans of every political stripe.

 

Bobby concurred with Churchill’s dictum that courage is the greatest virtue because, without it, you can’t have the other virtues. So he lived a life of ridiculous physical and moral courage — taking insane risks that would terrify ordinary mortals. And, of course, his most insanely courageous act was his last — running for President in 1968 knowing that he was likely to be assassinated. Where have you gone, Bobby Kennedy? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       The Central Paradox: Power Guy and Idealist in the Same Man: Bobby Kennedy was raised by his father to be the henchman of the Kennedy machine — doing the dirty stuff in Boston politics to keep Jack floating free and grand. He was pretty ruthless about it. At the same time, in mid-century America, he discovered that the country was not living up to its own constitution, and he wanted to make things right, and genuinely felt it. The combination of the machine politician and the profound idealist was what made him so endlessly fascinating. It also made him hard for himself: a man permanently at war with his own nature.

 

•       Courage: The Only Word That Mattered: No word was more important to Bobby Kennedy than courage. Churchill: it’s the greatest virtue, because without it you can’t have the others. Kennedy believed in physical courage, emotional courage, mental courage. He was a runty little kid at the wrong end of the dinner table — Jack and Joe and Kick at the golden end with the father, Bobby with the nuns and the mum. He got kicked out of prep school for cheating. He was not the athlete, not the golden one. Real courage comes from suffering. It took courage just to overcome being the loser. That was the source.

 

•       Making Up for Missing the War: Physical and Moral Courage: Bobby missed World War Two, basically. He got in at the very end and ended up scraping the deck of a destroyer in the Caribbean, far from combat. His brother Jack is a war hero on steroids — PT boat cut in half by a Japanese destroyer, rescues his men, written about in The New Yorker and Reader’s Digest. Joe volunteers for a secret dangerous mission to replicate Jack’s glory and dies. Pretty high bar of courage. Bobby spends the rest of his life making up for it — swimming the Colorado River, climbing Mount Kennedy in the Yukon, jumping overboard off the coast of Maine to save Jack’s jacket. Sometimes stunts. But increasingly, moral courage — which is the greater thing.

 

•       The Mob, Joe Kennedy, and the Beehive:

Good Bobby, Bad Bobby: Evan Thomas on the Greatest Riddle in 20th Century American Politics

“That kind of put soccer on my radar as a sport. I saw how deeply it meant to people, in a way I didn’t appreciate prior to that. And then I was in London when the World Cup began, and I saw the opening match — Argentina and Cameroon, with Cameroon winning in an upset. Just the whole spectacle of it gave me an appreciation for the game.” — Brian Bunk, on Ireland, Italia ’90, and the moment everything changed

 

Not long now. Only seven days until the World Cup begins. Just enough time to read Brian D. Bunk [https://theexperimentpublishing.com/catalogs/summer-2026/the-shortest-history-of-soccer/]’s new The Shortest History of Soccer: From Ancient Kicking Games to the World’s Most Popular Sport [https://theexperimentpublishing.com/catalogs/summer-2026/the-shortest-history-of-soccer/]. History isn’t Bunk with Brian. He looks a bit like Elton John, which is appropriate given that old Rocket Man was chairman of Watford and bankrolled the tiny English club to almost winning the league. Pop stars like Ed Sheeran (Ipswich) and Robert Plant (Wolves) love football, Bunk notes. Probably because it reminds them of where they came from.

 

Bunk’s thesis is that soccer’s global dominance is not accidental. Born in the industrial communities of nineteenth-century England, the game gave workers a new identity, new evidence of their collective power, proof they’ll never walk alone. That same logic explains why middle-aged men all over America religiously gather at their local bars to watch English teams with strange names like Ipswich Town and Wolverhampton Wanderers. Such is religion in our globalised post-industrial age.

 

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don’t like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that,” the great Liverpool manager Bill Shankly quipped. That’s the shortest of short histories of football. What the working-class Shankly meant was that it gives us social meaning — which is, indeed, more historically significant than the life or death of a single individual. Or even God. Football saves our souls, Brian Bunk concurs with Bill Shankly. Enjoy the World Cup.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       Soccer Was Born in Industrial Communities for a Reason: The game emerged in industrial Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century not by accident but because industrialisation had shattered traditional community life. Mass migration to cities, technological disruption, the loss of familiar rhythms — all created a need for new kinds of identity and belonging. Soccer filled that need. It gave factory workers a team to follow, a ground to gather at, a shared identity that transcended ethnic and class lines. Bunk’s argument: this community function is baked into the game itself, which is why it has replicated across every culture it has touched.

 

•       Why Americans Love the Premier League: Bunk identifies the 1990s as the pivotal decade for American soccer. The 1994 World Cup on home soil. The women’s World Cup. The formation of MLS. The arrival of the FIFA video game. The Premier League broadcasting deals with ESPN and Fox. All of these combined and snowballed. Add to that the NFL owners investing in English clubs, the celebrity ownership wave (Ryan Reynolds, Elton John), and the cultural footprint of shows like Ted Lasso and Welcome to Wrexham. The result: a generation of Americans for whom following the Premier League is a primary source of community.

 

•       Maradona: All the Contradictions of Football in One Man: Asked which historical match he would most want to attend, Bunk chooses Mexico City, June 1986: Argentina vs England. Not for the Hand of God goal — which was cheating — but for the second goal, the one where Maradona picked up the ball in his own half

Why Football Saves Our Souls: Brian Bunk on the Collective Beauty of the World’s Most Popular Game

“Get the f*** out of your house and join an organisation. Groups are how we make movements. They’re how we make political and social change. They’re how we transform. Nobody does anything of value alone.” — Yotam Marom

 

If you’re feeling politically powerless, you’re not alone. Yotam Marom [https://thenewpress.org/books/for-louder-days/] — full-time organiser, facilitator and veteran of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter — has spent his adult life on the front lines of progressive movements. His new book, For Louder Days: Reaching Beyond the Politics of Powerlessness [https://thenewpress.org/books/for-louder-days/], explains why progressive movements keep losing — and what to do about it.

 

Marom’s diagnosis is that the left has developed a “politics of powerlessness” — an attachment to purity, insularity, and performing resistance rather than building power. In contrast, the right understands that people’s pain is real, and channelling it into something organised is the only route to political change. The liberal model of showing up every few years, voting, and then going home is insufficient. And the left too often sabotages itself by dodging conflict and choosing righteousness over action.

 

His prescription is to “get the f*** out of your house” and join an organisation. Groups are how societies change and where people find meaning, purpose, and connection. So go on the streets. Turn up the volume. Your days will be louder and more meaningful.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       The Politics of Powerlessness: Why the Left Keeps Losing: Progressive and left movements have repeatedly put enormous numbers of people into the streets — and repeatedly failed to convert that energy into durable political power. Marom’s explanation: a politics of powerlessness has taken hold. It prizes purity over winning, insularity over coalition, righteousness over effectiveness. It avoids conflict because conflict feels dangerous. It avoids leadership because leadership feels hierarchical. The result is movements that are morally serious and politically weak. The right, by contrast, is very good at taking pain and converting it into organised power.

 

•       The Right Channels Pain. The Left Needs to Do the Same: Trump’s most effective political move, in Marom’s analysis: he tells people that they’re being screwed — and he’s right about that. Then he continues to screw them. But the left cannot simply counter this with policy arguments. The people who voted for Trump are not wrong that the system has failed them. Income inequality is growing. Politicians don’t listen. There is no leverage. Marom’s argument: the left needs its own version of this — speaking directly to people’s pain and offering a genuine path to power. Bernie, AOC, and Mamdani know how to do this. They’re not the only ones.

 

•       Liberal Democracy Is Necessary but Insufficient: Voting, electoral participation, civic engagement — these are important and necessary parts of a healthy democratic society. But they are not sufficient to make big political change. The right understands this and has been exploiting it for a decade: the failure of the liberal establishment to deliver for ordinary people is the fuel for right-wing populism. Marom’s answer is not to abandon liberal democracy but to supplement it with the kind of mass social movement that has historically produced the big political changes: the labour movement, the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement.

 

•       Conflict and Leadership Are Good, Actually: Two of the left’s most self-destructive habits, in Marom’s experience as a facilitator: avoiding conflict and avoiding leadership. Groups that learn to face conflict with dignity and care come out with better strategies. Lead

Get the F*** Out of Your House: Yotam Marom on How to Raise the Volume on the Politics of Powerlessness

“Be optimistic about the boom, but don’t buy the stock.” — Liaquat Ahamed on the AI bubble

 

Yesterday, Alexander Starritt argued that the 2008 financial crash ruined the lives of his generation. But compared with the great crash of 1873, 2008 looks like a tremor. The Pulitzer Prize-winning economic historian Liaquat Ahamed [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306461/1873-by-liaquat-ahamed/] has a new book out today, 1873 [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306461/1873-by-liaquat-ahamed/], which presents this 19th century economic crash as the first truly global financial crisis.

 

In 1870, three globalising infrastructure projects were completed in quick succession: the US transcontinental railroad, the Suez Canal, and the Trans-India railroad linking Bombay to Calcutta. Into this newly integrated global economy, the Franco-Prussian War injected a trillion-dollar-equivalent indemnity that the Rothschilds helped France raise — and the resulting dramatic capital flows produced three simultaneous bubbles in Berlin, Vienna, and New York. A French journalist named Jules Verne worked out that for the first time, you could circumnavigate the globe in less than eighty days. Around the world in one global economic crisis.

 

The lesson for posterity, Ahamed warns, is that the authorities made a catastrophic error by doubling down on the gold standard, producing decades of deflation that triggered an anti-semitic and anti-globalist populism, and ultimately led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. So what does that tell us about today’s AI boom, which is about to be rocketed by three trillion-dollar IPOs? Be optimistic about the boom, the wise Ahamed says. But don’t buy the stock.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       Jules Verne and the First Global Economy: In 1870, three iconic infrastructure projects were completed: the US transcontinental railroad, the Suez Canal, and the Trans-India railroad linking Bombay to Calcutta. A French newspaper noted that for the first time, a traveller could circle the globe in less than eighty days. Jules Verne read the article and found his next novel. The point for Ahamed: this moment marked the creation of a genuinely integrated global economy for the first time in history. And with global integration came the first global financial crisis. The boom of the 1850s and 1860s was not irrational. It reflected real economic growth. The crash came from what happened next.

 

•       The Trillion-Dollar Indemnity and Three Simultaneous Bubbles: Under the peace treaty ending the Franco-Prussian War, France was required to pay Germany an indemnity worth the equivalent of $1.2 trillion in today’s money. With the help of the Rothschilds, France raised this sum in six months. The resulting capital injection caused the Berlin and Vienna equity markets to rise 200–300 percent. Simultaneously, European capital fleeing the war flowed into US railroad construction, inflating that bubble further. A third bubble formed in foreign borrowing on the London capital markets, as money chased yield in countries that should never have been given credit. Three bubbles, one crash.

 

•       The Wrong Lesson from 1873: Gold Standard Orthodoxy: When the crash came, the authorities made a catastrophic error: they concluded that the gold standard had worked because the 1850s and 1860s boom had happened under it. They failed to see that the crash itself was partly produced by the gold standard’s rigidities. The resulting decade of deflation crushed farmers, debtors, and ordinary people across Europe and America, fuelling anti-globalist populism. The same orthodoxy — applied by Montagu Norman and others in the 1920s — helped cause the Great Depression. We always fight the last war.

 

•       The Rothschilds: Scape

Around the World in One Long Depression: Liaquat Ahamed on 1873 & the Making of the Global Economy

“To explain the lives of people living in this moment, to look at the historical forces that are shaping all of us, you have to look at business and technology. In our period, what is it that’s shaping us? I would suggest it’s the long fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and the technology revolution that’s been happening in California.” — Alexander Starritt

 

How to write a novel about our times? For Alexander Starritt [https://groveatlantic.com/book/drayton-and-mackenzie/], it means juxtaposing friendship and ambition alongside the grand historical forces of the age. Just as George Eliot did in Middlemarch. Whereas for Eliot, those forces were the 1832 Reform Acts and the industrial revolution, Starritt’s forces are the 2008 financial crisis and the digital revolution.

 

His novel, Drayton and Mackenzie [https://groveatlantic.com/book/drayton-and-mackenzie/], longlisted for the Financial Times Business Book of the Year, follows two ambitious Gen X’ers through the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The 2008 crash, Starritt says, ruined the lives of many of his generation. Rather than being in a Gramscian interregnum, our brave new 21st century world is already visible. But in contrast with many progressive critics of our neo-liberalism age, Starritt isn’t apocalyptic about the future. Think of Drayton and Mackenzie [https://groveatlantic.com/book/drayton-and-mackenzie/] as Middlemarch and McKinsey. Revolutions will come and go, but, for Alexander Starritt, friendship and ambition are unchanging.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       The First Novel on the FT Business Book List in 15 Years: The Financial Times and Schroders Business Book of the Year longlist typically features books on China, AI, and tech giants. In 2025, for the first time in fifteen years, it included a novel. Starritt’s reading of why: there’s a gap. The literary and cultural worlds have become so estranged from the business world that very few writers are even attempting to write seriously about the forces that actually shape people’s lives. That gap, he says, says as much about the cultural moment as any quality the book itself might have.

 

•       George Eliot’s Method: Historical Forces as the Engine of Fiction: When George Eliot wrote Middlemarch, the historical forces she was dramatising were the Reform Acts and the industrial revolution. Starritt’s equivalent: the 2008 financial crisis and the California tech revolution. His method is Eliot’s — use a closely observed relationship (in his case, a male friendship rather than a marriage) as the engine through which the reader experiences history. The friendship gives the historical canvas an emotional charge. The historical canvas gives the friendship its full weight. Neither works without the other.

 

•       Male Friendship: The Most Important Relationship Nobody Writes About: We’ve all read too many books and seen too many films about romantic and sexual relationships. Starritt’s observation: there is another type of relationship — friendship — that is incredibly important to almost all of us, and that gets almost no literary attention. Drayton and Mackenzie is his attempt to take it seriously. The friendship between James (straight-lined, disciplined, brilliant) and Roland (impulsive, self-sabotaging, charming) evolves from incomprehension to something described by the Financial Times as “unbreakable” — and the reviewer admitted that by the end, their vision wasn’t the clearest.

 

•       The Post-Liberal World Is Already Here: Everyone quotes Gramsci’s interregnum — the old world is dying, the new one hasn’t been born yet. Starritt’s counter: the new world has already been born. You can see i

Drayton and Mackenzie: Alexander Starritt on How the 2008 Crash Ruined Everything

“When you’re in a world that is careening out of control, where we’ve broken through seven of the nine safe dimensions of safe operating space that scientists have discovered, it’s unrealistic in my view to focus on those little things and think that will lead to a real better outcome. What’s realistic is backcasting.” — Jeremy Lent

 

There Is An Alternative. That is the central argument of Jeremy Lent [https://mhpbooks.com/books/ecocivilization/]’s new book, Ecocivilization: Making a World That Works for All [https://mhpbooks.com/books/ecocivilization/]. Margaret Thatcher’s historically materialist TINA — THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE — was both the most seductive and disempowering message the neoliberal establishment ever produced. As long as everyone believes in the inevitability of free market capitalism, nothing will ever really change. Anti-agency is the name of agency. We just push for slightly higher carbon taxes and slightly fewer fossil fuel subsidies and give it the euphemism of “progress.” For Lent, however, this is environmental capitulation.

 

Jeremy Lent imagines a genuinely sustainable world — one where humans have a long-term relationship with the living Earth. From that vantage point, the steps that look realistic to the incrementalists seem timid or counterproductive. He reminds us that we’ve broken through seven of the nine safe operating dimensions that scientists have identified for a stable Earth system. No, incrementalism isn’t realism. Rather than progress, it’s a trance-like slide into the apocalypse.

 

Rather than state control or free markets, the alternative Lent introduces in Ecocivilization is the commons — Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom’s third way in which humans self-organise in the collaborative ways of the natural world. It is already happening, he says, in places as far apart as Cleveland, Ohio and Jackson, Mississippi. Maggie was wrong, the Anglo-American Lent insists. TINA is bunk. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       The Consensus Trance: Why Nobody Is Freaking Out: Everyone knows who’s in and who’s out in Washington today. Everyone knows their team’s sports score. Almost nobody is aware of some of the bigger existential questions facing all of us. Lent’s explanation: we have media owned by billionaires who don’t benefit from people freaking out. The entire system is designed to lull people into what he calls a “consensus trance.” We broke through seven of the nine safe operating dimensions that scientists have identified for a stable Earth system. In normal times that would be front-page news every day. Instead: the news cycle moves on.

 

•       Backcasting vs Incrementalism: The Two Realisms: There are two ways to use the word “realistic.” Realistic given the forces of destruction and oppression all around us right now: push for slightly higher taxes on the uber-wealthy, slightly fewer fossil fuel subsidies. Realistic given what a genuinely sustainable world would actually look like: start from the destination and work backwards. The first kind of realism may be taking us in the wrong direction. Lent’s argument: when you’re in a world careening out of control, the timid steps of incremental realism are not realistic. Backcasting is.

 

•       The Commons: Ostrom’s Third Way: The political debate of the last hundred years has been between state control and free markets. Both have failed. Lent’s alternative, via Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom: the commons. Not the state owning things. Not markets extracting profit. Humans self-organising together in the way they evolved to do — collaboratively, cooperatively, with attention to the common good. Ostrom showed, empirically, that commons governance works. The Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland,

Ecocivilization and Our Discontents: Jeremy Lent on Why TINA Is Wrong

“I don’t look to companies to be moral guides. I want them to be good companies. When you invest in the stock market, you want them to be growing fast and making profit. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.” — Keith Teare

 

If it’s Saturday, it must be our weekly tech show. Before we went live, That Was the Week publisher Keith Teare [https://thatwa.st/] told me it wasn’t a big news week. He was wrong, of course (as he often is). The really BIG news this week, which Keith conveniently missed, is that Anthropic overtook OpenAI as the world’s most valuable AI startup. Dario Amodei’s AI startup raised $65 billion this week, putting its valuation at $900 billion, way ahead of OpenAI’s last round at $730 billion. Keith says, without any proof, that they’ve cooked their numbers. Which makes this week’s news even tastier.

 

The more interesting story, for Keith at least, is Sam Altman’s latest pivot: that humans need stakes in the AI platforms whose wealth they help create. Rather than Patagonia-style moral corporations (which Keith says would make him “throw up”), it should be the responsibility of the state or government to make capitalism more moral.

 

But even slippery Sam got outpivoted this week by Anthropic, who sent a co-founder to Rome to do a deal with the Pope. Leo XIV’s new encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” is Anthropic’s papal pivot. It’s the smart model for value investing in the AI age.

 

Five Takeaways

 

•       Anthropic Tops OpenAI — But the Numbers May Be Wrong: Anthropic raised $65 billion this week at a $900 billion valuation, overtaking OpenAI’s last round at $730 billion. The VCs backing it — Green Oaks, Sequoia, Altimeter, Dragoneer — are credible. Andrew’s argument: they’ve seen the books. Keith’s counter: the VCs are playing a different game. They expect two to three times their money at IPO and they’ll probably get it — not because the revenue numbers are solid, but because the only way is up right now. The real test: the S-1, which requires audited accounts. Keith’s prediction: the revenue numbers will look different when the SEC sees them.

 

•       Dario’s Credibility Problem — But Claude 4.8 Is Fantastic: Keith has consistently characterised Dario Amodei as “slightly juvenile” and has long been sceptical of Anthropic’s public positioning. This week he cites Om Malik and the All In podcast in support of the revenue numbers critique. But he is careful to separate the man from the product: Claude 4.8, released two days ago, is “fantastic.” At SignalRank, Keith’s firm, Claude rebuilt an entire agent valuation workflow in an hour that would have taken days manually. Andrew’s observation: Andrew is now Anthropic’s newest fan. He has replaced Spurs with Anthropic as his team.

 

•       Altman’s Pivot: From UBI to Ownership: Sam Altman has shifted his public narrative on AI and labour. Previously: UBI — universal basic income — as the answer to mass unemployment. Now: ownership. Humans need to own stakes in the AI platforms whose wealth they help generate. Not welfare. Not redistribution. Ownership. Keith’s verdict: it’s an interesting and significant move. More interesting than Amodei’s continued fearmongering about AI devastation. Andrew notes that Altman seems to have genuinely grown up in the last two months. His tone is markedly different.

 

•       Patagonia Capitalism Would Make Keith Throw Up: The week’s interview of the week: Eric Ries on Incorruptible, arguing that great companies stay great by choosing a higher moral purpose — the Patagonia model. Keith’s response: it would make him throw up. He doesn’t want companies to be moral guides. He wants them to be profit machines. Moral guidance is the job of politics. And politics, he acknowledges, is massively disappointing.

Anthropic Trounces OpenAI with Its Papal Pivot: Value Investing in Our AI Age

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

Keen On