How should we punish criminals? In Impermissible Punishments [https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo243487113.html], the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Judith Resnik [https://law.yale.edu/judith-resnik], provides a historical narrative of punishment in European and American prisons. Tracing the evolution from Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian Panopticon through post-World War II human rights frameworks, Resnik argues that punishment systems developed as a transatlantic rather than uniquely American project. Her analysis reveals how prisoners themselves, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights during detention. Resnik’s new book chronicles a crucial divergence after the 1980s, when European systems maintained stronger human rights commitments while American prisons retreated from recognizing prisoners as rights-bearing individuals, thereby making prison a problem for its democracy.

1. Prison systems developed as a transatlantic project, not American innovation Punishment theories and practices emerged from shared Enlightenment thinking across Europe and America in the 1700s-1800s. Figures like Beccaria, Bentham, and Tocqueville created interconnected ideas about rational, purposeful punishment that crossed national boundaries.

2. Prisoners, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights While reformers debated how to punish effectively, it was people in detention themselves—like Winston Talley in Arkansas in 1965—who first argued they retained fundamental rights during incarceration. This represented a revolutionary shift from viewing prisoners as "civilly dead."

3. World War II created the crucial turning point for prisoners' rights The horrors of concentration camps and fascist regimes made clear the dangers of treating any group as less than human. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1955 UN prison rules marked the formal recognition of prisoners as rights-bearing individuals.

4. America and Europe diverged after the 1980s on prisoner treatment While both regions initially embraced prisoners' rights in the 1960s-70s, the U.S. retreated during the "war on crime" era. Europe maintained stronger human rights commitments, while America expanded punitive measures like solitary confinement and mass incarceration.

5. Prison conditions reflect broader democratic health Resnik argues that how a society treats its most marginalized members—prisoners, immigrants, minorities—indicates the strength of its democratic institutions. Authoritarian treatment of any group threatens the rights of all citizens in a democratic 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 Should Criminals be Punished? From Bentham's "Enlightened" Panopticon to the Universal Human Rights of Prisoners

In a week dominated by the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cynthia Miller-Idriss [https://press.princeton.edu/our-authors/miller-idriss-cynthia?srsltid=AfmBOorNDwzewAdnlSEVFDhM03gh7Xj2dd6jNcsaj2KUbh7TpzFv64Ib]’ insights as the founding director of American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL [https://perilresearch.com/]) are particularly valuable. Her new book about what she identifies as “the new misogyny and the rise of violent extremism” is entitled Man Up [https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691257549/man-up?srsltid=AfmBOormo673YVJtS2Iou5pZ41HuUKydn2G_RObfBCZx7xFF5zgBoYvP]. But its message might be summarized as Man Down in its attempt to temper the violent fringes of what she calls the manosphere. Miller-Idriss, one of America’s leading researchers on violent extremism, argues that misogyny is the cause of today’s troubling rise of political assassinations and mass shootings. Her research across seven countries reveals that hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence. She traces a disturbing pipeline from seemingly innocuous self-help searches by lonely young men to radicalization by influencers who blend fitness advice with violent scapegoating of women and minorities. Miller-Idriss documents how 60% of mass shooters have histories of domestic violence, yet this connection rarely appears in media coverage when targets aren't explicitly gendered. Her work suggests that what she calls "the law enforcement arm of patriarchy" is crucial in preventing both left and right-wing political violence that has reached levels unseen since the 1970s.

1. Misogyny is a Cross-Ideological Predictor of Violence Hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence across seven countries, appearing in both left-wing and right-wing extremism. This suggests misogyny functions as a mobilizing force that transcends traditional political boundaries.

2. The Domestic Violence-Mass Shooting Connection is Underreported 60% of mass shooters have documented histories of domestic and intimate partner violence, yet this pattern rarely receives attention in media coverage when the eventual targets aren't explicitly women. This represents a missed opportunity for early intervention and threat assessment.

3. Generation Z Shows Unprecedented Acceptance of Political Violence While 93% of Baby Boomers believe political violence is never acceptable, only 42% of Generation Z holds this view. This generational shift reflects young people's loss of faith in political solutions and their perception that "there is no political solution" to major issues.

4. Online Self-Help Searches Create Radicalization Pipelines Innocent searches by lonely young men for fitness, dating, or financial advice often lead to influencers who mix legitimate self-improvement content with violent scapegoating of women, feminists, and minorities, creating pathways to extremism.

5. Community-Based Early Warning Systems Could Prevent Violence Nearly every mass shooter makes plans and leaks intentions to someone beforehand, but communities lack accessible resources for reporting concerning behavior that falls short of immediate FBI involvement. Mobile advisory centers, like those used in Germany, could fill this gap.

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.su [https://keenon.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Why Misogyny May Be America's Most Dangerous Ideology: The Role of the Manosphere in Political Assassinations and Mass Shootings

Today’s $3 trillion investment in AI is not only rational and beyond inevitable - it’s “predestined”. At least according to That Was The Week [https://www.thatwastheweek.com/] newletter publisher and techno-determinist Keith Teare. Exuberance is not only required, Keith argues, but absolutely essential in today’s AI mad gold rush. And he’s particularly critical of all skeptics - from traditional tech naysayers (like myself) to mainstream publications like The Economist - which are all a touch questioning of today’s unprecedented boom. What if the $3 trillion AI investment tsunami goes wrong? The Economist asks [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/09/11/what-if-the-3trn-ai-investment-boom-goes-wrong]. But for Keith, it can’t possibly go wrong. The investment has already been made, he argues, and the resultant technology will inevitably benefit humanity. He envisions a world where AI adds $20 trillion to global GDP by 2035, where a kid in rural Africa with an Android phone can access the world's best AI, and where economic growth hits an unprecedented 20% annually. I think this type of teleological argument adds up to about $3 trillion worth of madness. But what do I know?

1. The Scale Defense: $3 Trillion is Actually Small Teare argues the massive AI investment looks rational when measured against projected returns - $20 trillion added to global GDP by 2035, potentially creating $400 trillion in company value (at 20x multiples). His math: even if the investment seems huge, the predicted gains are exponentially bigger.

2. AI's Business Model Advantage Over Previous Tech Booms Unlike the internet (which relied on advertising and attention-grabbing) or early TV (which devolved into reality shows), AI operates on subscriptions and API usage. Teare believes this model doesn't require undermining human outcomes to generate profit - making it fundamentally different from past transformative technologies.

3. Individual Failures Don't Equal Systemic Collapse While specific companies (like Perplexity at $20B valuation) might fail, Teare argues the overall AI ecosystem is "failure-proof" because trained models retain their value even if companies go bankrupt. He compares it to the Channel Tunnel - the infrastructure survived financial collapse and eventually thrived.

4. The "Western Suicide Wish" Cultural Diagnosis Echoing Elon Musk and Alex Karp, Teare sees Western civilization as increasingly "ashamed" of Enlightenment values - viewing humans as problems rather than solutions. He argues AI represents a return to human agency and innovation as answers to global challenges.

5. Content Creators Face a Reckoning The decline of web traffic (8% this year) signals the end of advertising-based content monetization. Creators must either embrace quality/subscription models or find ways to integrate with AI systems through attribution and linking - but the traffic-based economy is dying.

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]

Rational Exuberance: Why $3 Trillion in AI Investment is Mathematical Certainty, not Madness

David Lesch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Lesch] is a poster child for something. I’m just not sure what. On the one hand, given his personal reinvention from Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft pick to official biographer of Bashar al Assad, some might consider him proof that the American Dream still exists. But others, including even himself , would argue that his incredible pivot from baseball protege to Harvard-educated Middle Eastern expert, reflects the privilege of his social class and perhaps even gender. In any event, the Lesch story is pretty amazing - which is why the San Antonio-based biographer Catherine Nixon Cooke [http://catherinenixoncooke.com/]has just published Dodgers to Damascus [https://tupress.org/9781595343239/dodgers-to-damascus/], the story of his journey from star pitcher to star diplomat. So it was intriguing to not only host Cooke but also David Lesch to discuss his highly unusual journey from the youthful potential of baseball to the grim reality of Bashar al Assad’s Syria.

1. Privilege complicates the reinvention narrative Lesch's transformation from baseball to diplomacy required significant advantages - supportive family, financial stability, and access to elite education. His story demonstrates both genuine resilience and the reality that dramatic career pivots often depend on existing social capital.

2. Failure as preparation has limits While Lesch credits baseball's culture of failure with preparing him for diplomacy, this framework works better in retrospect. The "fetishization of failure" narrative is easier to embrace after achieving success than during actual setbacks.

3. American Middle East policy remains deeply flawed Despite Lesch's generous B-grade assessment based on narrow objectives (oil access, Israeli security, Soviet containment), the broader record suggests more fundamental failures in understanding regional complexities and long-term consequences.

4. Assad's evolution illustrates power's corrupting force Lesch's insider perspective on Bashar al-Assad's transformation from potential reformer to authoritarian ruler provides a case study in how institutional constraints and personal ambition can override initial intentions.

5. Listening skills transfer across domains The interview emphasizes how Lesch's approach to conflict resolution - particularly deep listening and cultural understanding - represents transferable expertise that America needs more of, regardless of political administration.

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]

From Dodgers Top Draft Pick to Harvard Trained Middle Eastern Maven: Does the American Dream Still Exist? 

Things aren’t quite as sunny on the environmental front as some recent guests suggest. According to the award winning science writer Peter Brannen [https://www.peterbrannen.com/], our planet is in an unprecedented crisis. We’re burning 500 million years of the earth's history in a few decades, Brannen warns, so we should all quit pretending that our recycling will miraculously save the planet. That said, though, his latest book, The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything, [https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-story-of-co2-is-the-story-of-everything-peter-brannen?variant=42382167638050] is the complex narrative of how carbon dioxide (CO2) both made and might unmake our world. So CO2 is simultaneously the good guy and the villain in our environmental story. Without carbon dioxide, Brannen warns, Earth would freeze into an uninhabitable ice ball. But too much creates a Venus-like greenhouse hell in which all life would be quickly extinguished. We hang in a delicate sweet spot that took nature millions of years to manufacture —and we humans are now disrupting this ecological balance at breakneck speed. The result is what Brannen calls a terrifying planetary experiment with no safety net. So stop pretending your recycling will save the earth, he warns. Fixing the planet will require more than a new Tesla and regular trips to Whole Foods.

1. CO2 is Earth's Essential Paradox Carbon dioxide both enables life and threatens to destroy it. Without CO2, Earth would freeze into an uninhabitable ice ball within decades. But too much creates a Venus-like greenhouse hell. We exist in an extremely narrow window that took millions of years to establish.

2. We're Conducting an Unprecedented Planetary Experiment Humans are burning 500 million years of stored solar energy (fossil fuels) in just a few decades, releasing ancient CO2 at a rate 100 times faster than natural volcanic processes. This speed overwhelms Earth's natural ability to rebalance the system.

3. Individual Consumer Actions Won't Save Us Recycling, driving electric cars, and other personal choices create demand for better technologies but won't solve a problem of this scale. The focus on consumer responsibility was actually a strategy pushed by fossil fuel companies to deflect from systemic change.

4. Technology Offers Hope, But Carbon Removal is Fantasy Solar power costs have plummeted dramatically, offering genuine reasons for optimism. However, carbon capture and removal technologies are thermodynamically expensive and cannot scale to meaningful levels—they're "basically useless" if we don't first cut emissions to nearly zero.

5. Democracy May Be Too Slow for Climate Action International climate treaties produce "mealy-mouthed press releases" while missing targets. Brannen suggests the most realistic path forward is that clean energy becomes so economically superior that countries adopt it regardless of political will, potentially leaving the U.S. behind if it doesn't adapt.

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]

We're Burning 500 Million Years of Earth's History in a Few Decades: So Stop Pretending Recycling Will Save the Planet

If Geoffrey Hinton is the Godfather of AI, then Bruce Schneier [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier] might be described as the Godfather of Security. A celebrated cryptographer and computer security expert, Schneier’s latest co-authored (with Nathan Sanders) book is entitled Rewiring Democracy [https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262049948/rewiring-democracy/] and speculates on how AI might transform our politics, government and citizenship. American democracy, Schneier notes, runs on archaic 1776 technology in today’s digital 2025 world. Rather than fighting against AI then, he suggests, Americans should adapt this new technology to update how they do politics in the 21st century. But Schneier offers the crucial caveats that AI can neither solve fundamental human problems nor transcend ideology. "A value is just a bias we like," he warns about the impossibility of a “valueless” AI system. While cautiously optimistic about AI's potential to democratize power—from helping local politicians without resources to enabling mass citizen assemblies—he warns that without fixing underlying political and economic structures, AI will simply radically empower the already powerful. Trust the Godfather of Security on this one. AI might well turn out to be reassuringly less revolutionary than both its critics and supporters promise.

1. You're Already Using AI More Than You Think Schneier distinguishes between generative AI (ChatGPT, Claude) and the AI that's already embedded everywhere - from Google searches to map apps to spell checkers. While he rarely uses generative AI himself, he points out we're all using AI constantly without realizing it.

2. AI Can't Solve Democracy's Core Problems "A value is just a bias we like," Schneier argues. AI won't transcend human ideology or provide objective answers to political questions. Democracy isn't about getting the "correct" answer - it's about the messy human process of figuring things out together.

3. Trust No One with Too Much Power - Including AI Leaders When asked about trusting Sam Altman or other tech leaders, Schneier is clear: "I don't want anyone to have that sort of power, no matter who they are." The problem isn't the individual but the system that allows such concentration of power.

4. Politics and Economics Matter More Than Technology AI will either democratize power or make the rich richer, but technology alone won't determine which. "If you don't have the agency politically, no amount of tech can change that," Schneier insists. Fix the political and economic structures first.

5. AI-Run Government Would Be Dystopia, Even If It Worked Even if an AI could make perfect decisions about climate policy or monetary supply, Schneier argues it would be fundamentally dystopian. Democracy is the process of deciding, not just the outcome. Lose that process, and we're no longer in control of our future.

Thanks for reading Keen On America! This post is public so feel free to share it.



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 Godfather of Security, Bruce Schneier, Rewires Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government and Citizenship

There are few more prolific Americans than the Harvard scholar, activist and athlete Cass Sunstein [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein]. The author of almost 30 books (including the best-selling Nudge) as well as an influential advisor in the Presidencies of Biden and Obama, Sunstein’s new book, On Liberalism [https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262049771/on-liberalism/], is an unambiguously full throated defense of freedom. Both Reagan and FDR are part of the same big tent liberal family, Sunstein argues, in this defiantly bipartisan reminder of foundations of modern American freedom. There’s not a lot of nudging On Liberalism. He warns that while liberalism faces "severe pressure" today, its core commitments to freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law must unite American citizens across political divides. The alternative, he says, is an unAmerican scenario of unfreedom. In a word: illiberalism.

1. The Liberal "Big Tent" Includes Both Reagan and FDR

Sunstein argues that liberalism isn't just for the left—it's a broad tradition unified by commitments to freedom, pluralism, rule of law, and security (freedom from fear). This tent includes everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, from Ronald Reagan to Franklin Roosevelt, united against illiberal forces like Hitler, Stalin, and Putin.

2. "Experiments in Living" Are Liberalism's Foundation

While just a throwaway line for John Stuart Mill, Sunstein sees "experiments in living" as central to liberalism. Whether it's entrepreneurs trying new businesses, people exploring different religious commitments, or individuals choosing unconventional lifestyles, liberalism protects and celebrates this diversity of human experience.

3. Nudging and Freedom Are Compatible

Sunstein defends his famous "nudge" concept as fundamentally liberal. Like a GPS that suggests routes but lets you choose your destination (or ignore its advice entirely), nudges inform and guide while preserving freedom of choice. Calorie labels nudge but don't coerce; you can still choose the fudge.

4. Liberalism Faces "Severe Pressure" But Isn't Collapsing

While warning that attacks on universities and political opponents are "not consistent with liberal traditions," Sunstein maintains optimism. America's robust liberal foundations—from the Revolutionary War to its cultural commitment to freedom—remain strong, though renewal and vigilance are needed now more than ever.

5. Both Right and Left Harbor Illiberal Tendencies

Sunstein critiques illiberalism across the spectrum: from those who attack political opponents and universities on the right, to the "woke left" that sometimes opposes free speech and seeks to shame rather than persuade. His prescription: a liberalism focused on opportunity and individual agency, free from shaming and open to all.



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]

Here Comes the Sunstein: Cass Sunstein on Why American Liberalism Now Needs Defending More Than Ever

Can we humans make it to 2125? According to Gary F. Bengier [https://garyfbengier.com/], author of Journey to 2125 [https://www.amazon.com/Journey-2125-Century-Family-Challenges/dp/1648861148], our species faces three existential threats over the next 100 years. His horsemen of the apocalypse are climate change, nuclear war and robots. No great surprises there. Where Bengier is more original is his stress on narrowing the manifold threats to humanity. Focus, focus, focus is Bengier’s species survival mantra. The ex-eBay technologist turned philosopher argues we're distracted by too many doomsday scenarios. His classic Silicon Valley solution: ignore the noise, solve these three core problems, and humanity might be able to "muddle through." But, as always in these cliffhanger narratives, there's a potential catch—nuclear war could destroy the resources needed to fight climate change, while robot factories in the business of building more robot factories could short circuit capitalism itself. Ooops. So there’s no guarantee that any of us - even (or especially) those Kurzweilian crazies who believe we can live forever - will squeak through to 2125.

1. The Three Threats That Actually Matter Bengier argues humanity faces three existential challenges over the next century: climate change, nuclear war, and mass unemployment from robots that build robot factories. His core message: stop getting distracted by "50 other things" and focus solely on these civilization-ending threats.

2. The Dangerous Interconnection Nuclear war isn't just catastrophic on its own—it could destroy the economic resources needed to fight climate change. A limited nuclear exchange (losing "10 or 20 cities each") would consume so much wealth in rebuilding that climate action would become impossible, creating a cascade of existential failures.

3. The Robot Revolution Will Be Different This Time While the current AI wave won't eliminate most jobs, Bengier warns of a second wave when AI-embedded robots become ubiquitous. When "robots build the robot factories that build the robots," the fundamental question becomes: who owns the robot factories? This could mark the end of capitalism as we know it.

4. Nuclear Power Is Essential, Solar Isn't Enough Despite solar costs dropping 90%, Bengier argues we need nuclear power (especially small modular reactors) because renewables alone can't provide consistent baseline power. More critically, developing nations need accessible nuclear technology to avoid using their cheap fossil fuel reserves.

5. Consciousness Isn't Coming to Machines Against Silicon Valley hype about AGI and conscious AI, Bengier (who studied philosophy of mind) argues machines lack "qualia"—the subjective experience of what things feel like. Machines can analyze an apple's 37 components but can't understand what an apple actually is. The "hard problem of consciousness" remains nowhere near solved.

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]

Can We Get To 2125? Humanity's Most Existential Threats Over the Next 100 Years

For anyone who has seen Michael B. Jordan’s excellent new movie Sinners, it’s clear that any sort of deal with the devil - what has become known as the Faustian Bargain - is still very much alive. So relevant, in fact, that cultural historian Ed Simon has a book, just out in paperback, about its enduring relevance entitled Devil’s Contract [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/741049/devils-contract-by-ed-simon/]. From Shakespeare and Goethe to Thomas Mann and Donald Trump, Simon argues, the Faustian Bargain is more than just a literary trope. In fact, he suggests, it is as relevant today, in our social media age of the Mephistophelian Donald Trump as it was in the German Reformation of the equally populist Martin Luther. The Art of a Deal with the Devil. And we all know how it ends. Go and see Sinners. Spoiler warning: not without the spilling of a great deal of innocent blood.

1. The Faustian Bargain is Fundamentally About Irrationality Despite knowing the terrible consequences, Faust signs the contract anyway. As Simon explains, "if you know that the devil is real and that the Devil collects souls at the end of your life, then like you'd never sign on the dotted line. And yet these characters continually do." This captures our human tendency to act against our own best interests.

2. The Contract Makes It Modern What distinguishes the Faust legend from earlier devil stories is the literal paperwork. Simon argues this bureaucratic element - signing on the dotted line - transforms it into a distinctly modern tale about legal systems, capitalism, and bureaucracy. It's not just about temptation; it's about documentation.

3. AI is Our Latest Faustian Bargain Simon sees artificial intelligence as having "a shockingly obvious kind of Faustian gloss" - from the magic of conjuring something from nothing to the environmental destruction of massive server farms. We're trading our future for technological convenience, knowing the costs.

4. Trump is Mephistopheles, Not Faust In Simon's reading, Trump isn't the one making the deal - he's the devil others make deals with. JD Vance becomes the perfect example: fully aware of what Trump is, yet "willing to seemingly abandon whatever principles he may have had in the past... for power alone."

5. Sometimes Faust Wins (But Usually Doesn't) While Goethe's Faust finds redemption and salvation, most versions end badly. The American "Yankee Faust" tries to trick the devil but still gets his house burned down. The lesson? You might think you're clever enough to beat the devil, but the house always wins.

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 Art of a Deal with the Devil: on Faustian Bargains from Shakespeare and Goethe to Thomas Mann and Donald Trump

How to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U [https://www.thantmyintu.com/bio], in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker [https://www.thantmyintu.com/books]. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it could help bring ceasefires to seemingly endless wars. Like in Ukraine and Gaza.

1. U Thant's crucial role in preventing nuclear war has been erased from history During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U Thant provided the face-saving framework that allowed both Khrushchev and Kennedy to step back from the brink. He articulated the missiles-for-no-invasion deal, gave Khrushchev a neutral party to respond to instead of American ultimatums, and bought Kennedy time against his hawkish advisors. Yet this intervention barely appears in American or Soviet accounts.

2. The UN's decline stems from lost enthusiasm on both sides The UN's marginalization wasn't inevitable. It resulted from America's disillusionment after Vietnam-era challenges to its power, combined with a new generation of Third World leaders less interested in the global stage than their predecessors like Nehru, Nasser, and Nkrumah. Both superpowers and smaller nations stopped investing in the institution.

3. Decolonization needed the UN's framework to succeed Without the UN providing a structure where newly independent nations had equal status and a voice, decolonization might have resulted in continued informal empire or Commonwealth arrangements. The UN gave these countries both legitimacy and a platform to resist neo-colonial pressures.

4. The next Secretary-General selection could determine the UN's survival With the current term ending in 2025, the choice of the next leader—requiring agreement between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping—may be the UN's last chance for relevance. Without strong leadership focused on the UN's core peacemaking function, the institution may not survive.

5. The UN worked best when it rejected Cold War binary thinking The non-aligned movement wasn't passive neutrality but active rejection of a world divided into camps. Leaders like U Thant succeeded by creating space for all parties to negotiate without choosing sides, offering an alternative to the superpower confrontation that risked nuclear war.

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]

When the United Nations Actually Mattered: Remembering the Burmese Schoolteacher who Ran the U.N. in its Glory Days

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