Keen On America

Back in 1990, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur called Jim Fruchterman chose purpose over profit. In his new book, Technology for Good, Fruchterman explains how nonprofit leaders like him are using software and data to solve our most pressing social problems. Thirty five years ago, when his investors vetoed a reading machine for the blind because the market was only $1 million annually, Fruchterman walked away from his $25 million-funded AI company to start his first nonprofit. Today, he’s still on the front line of the battle to show that technology’s greatest potential lies not in making billionaires richer, but in serving the 90% of humanity that big tech conveniently ignores.1. When profit and purpose clash, profit usually wins Fruchterman argues that when companies face a choice between social good and making money, they “pretty much always pick making more.” His own experience—investors vetoing a reading machine for the blind despite having the technology ready—exemplifies this. Even OpenAI, which started with a nonprofit mission, ultimately flipped to prioritize profit when Sam Altman was briefly fired then reinstated.2. The nonprofit sector is 15 years behind in technology adoption While companies like Uber and banks have essentially become software companies, most nonprofits are still operating with outdated technology. This creates what Fruchterman calls a “target-rich environment” for improvement—nonprofits don’t need cutting-edge AI to transform their operations, just the basic data and software tools that for-profit businesses mastered years ago.3. Effective altruism has gone “out of control” Some philanthropists focus so narrowly on measurable impact that they dismiss causes like women’s rights or education as “immoral” investments compared to deworming programs. Fruchterman advocates for diversity in philanthropic approaches, arguing that the complexity of global problems requires varied solutions, not just those with the cleanest metrics.4. U.S. foreign aid primarily benefits Americans Contrary to isolationist arguments, 80% of U.S. foreign aid money goes to American staff and American products. Cutting aid doesn’t help American farmers—it just leaves their grain piling up in silos. Fruchterman sees nonprofit work as “market development capital for the capitalist system,” turning aid recipients into future customers.5. Mental health represents AI’s most promising social application Within five years, Fruchterman believes AI could revolutionize mental health support—not because the technology is revolutionary, but because “we’ll never have enough people to help solve our mental health issues.” While big tech’s algorithms have exacerbated mental health problems for profit, the same tools could be redesigned to provide accessible support at scale.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

It’s not exactly news that the Nazis didn’t like the Jews. But according to the Rutgers historian Jochen Hellbeck, author of World Enemy Number One, the Nazi obsession went so far as to believe that the Soviet Union was owned and operated by a global cabal of Jews. And so, Hellbeck argues, it was not the Western powers but Communist Russia that Nazi Germany viewed as an existential threat—in fact, “World Enemy No. 1.” Jewish revolutionaries, the Nazis believed, had seized power in 1917 and were preparing the Soviet state to destroy Germany and the world. This paranoid delusion drove Nazi Germany’s most catastrophic decision: launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941. While Hitler made tactical alliances and fought on multiple fronts, Hellbeck demonstrates through his meticulous archival research that the destruction of “Judeo-Bolshevism” remained the Nazis’ primary ideological mission. Drawing on overlooked Soviet sources, including war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg’s writings, Hellbeck shows how this twisted worldview shaped not just propaganda but military strategy, ultimately leading to both the Holocaust and Germany’s catastrophic defeat on the Eastern Front.1. The Nazis saw “Judeo-Bolshevism” as one unified threat The Nazis genuinely believed Soviet communism was a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. They conflated Russians, Bolsheviks, and Jews into a single enemy - viewing Karl Marx’s Jewish heritage as proof that communism itself was a Jewish plot to destroy Germany.2. This obsession drove Nazi military strategy, not just propaganda Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union wasn’t merely opportunistic. German military planning for attacking the USSR, including detailed preparations for different rail gauges and propaganda leaflets, began in the mid-1930s - showing this was a long-term ideological priority, not a tactical decision.3. Soviet sources deserve serious historical consideration Western historiography has often dismissed Soviet wartime accounts as propaganda. But Hellbeck’s research, particularly examining war correspondent Ilya Ehrenburg’s work against German documents, shows these Soviet sources accurately documented Nazi atrocities and mindsets without fabrication.4. Ordinary Germans, not just the SS, committed atrocities The Wehrmacht’s brutality on the Eastern Front wasn’t limited to special units. Hellbeck found that whenever German soldiers felt threatened, they defaulted to extreme racial violence - a pattern that intensified as the Red Army approached Germany in 1944-45.5. The war’s memory continues shaping current conflicts The different ways Eastern and Western Ukraine remembered WWII (Soviet liberation vs. Soviet occupation) contributed to the country’s political divisions. Putin’s Russia still invokes the “Great Patriotic War” to justify current actions, showing how WWII’s contested legacy remains politically explosive.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

The numbers are mind blowing. According to Roadkill authors Henrietta Moore and Arthur Kay, cars have killed more people than both world wars combined. That’s how toxic our relationship with cars has been over the last century, they argue. The UN figures they cite—60 to 80 million direct deaths since the automobile’s invention—don’t even include premature deaths from air pollution or the millions seriously injured. Yet we’ve become “car blind,” Moore and Kay contend, unable to see how we’ve surrendered 80% of urban public space to vehicles that sit idle 96% of the time, creating what they call a hidden “car industrial complex” that reshapes cities in its image. So what to do? They advocate for “choice not obligation”—redesigning cities so people can drive if they want but aren’t forced to. They point to successful experiments from Barcelona’s superblocks to Dallas’s highway cap parks, where reclaimed streets have actually increased business revenue by up to 34% in some cases. Their goal isn’t to ban cars but to stop letting them dominate every aspect of urban planning and life.1. The Deadly Math of “Car Blindness” Cars have directly killed 60-80 million people since their invention—more than WWI and WWII combined. Yet we’ve normalized this death toll and become “car blind” to how thoroughly automobiles dominate our lives, with 80% of urban public space dedicated to vehicles that sit unused 96% of the time.2. Electric and Self-Driving Cars Aren’t Silver Bullets Moore and Kay argue that EVs and autonomous vehicles like Waymo don’t solve the fundamental problem: they’re still cars taking up urban space. Plus, EVs bring their own issues—from lithium extraction devastating places like Chile’s Atacama Desert to the question of whether electricity generation is actually clean.3. “Choice Not Obligation” - A New Freedom Framework The authors aren’t advocating car bans but rather redesigning cities so driving becomes optional rather than mandatory. They argue true 21st-century freedom means being able to walk to school safely, access nearby shops, and move through cities without car dependence—not just the 20th-century freedom to drive anywhere.4. Global South Solutions Leading the Way Surprisingly, innovations aren’t coming from Copenhagen but from places like Nairobi’s matatu system (on-demand informal transit) and Dallas’s highway “cap parks.” These demonstrate that car reduction isn’t just for wealthy European cities but can work across diverse economic contexts.5. Follow the Money - It Actually Works When done properly, reducing car dominance boosts business. Times Square restaurants saw revenue jump 34% after pedestrianization. The key is integrated planning with communities rather than top-down mandates, ensuring alternatives exist before removing parking.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

It’s the $320,000 question both parents and students are asking themselves: Is that four-year liberal arts degree really worth it? According to Brandeis University President Arthur Levine, it’s a question they should, indeed, be asking. In his co-authored book The Great Upheaval, Levine argues that the United States is experiencing a profound transformation not seen since the Industrial Revolution—when America’s classical colleges adapted to meet the needs of an emerging industrial economy. So what, exactly, does that mean for a useful liberal arts education today? Should students really invest their time in women’s studies in our AI age of Claude and ChatGPT?1. America is experiencing its second great transformation in historyLevine argues we’re in a shift from national analog industrial economies to global digital knowledge economies—comparable only to the Industrial Revolution. This creates massive winners and losers, with educational level becoming the primary dividing line in society.2. The $320K liberal arts degree must prove its worthTraditional liberal arts education isn’t enough anymore. Levine is reforming Brandeis’s curriculum to combine “durable life skills” (critical thinking, communication) with practical “career skills,” creating a second transcript to show employers what graduates can actually do.3. Higher education is splitting into two unequal systemsWe’re developing one system for the wealthy (traditional campus experience) and another for working people (online education). Only 20% of college students now fit the traditional model of 18-24 year-olds attending full-time on campus.4. Universities are under political attack because they represent changeThe populist backlash against “elite” institutions isn’t really about ideology—it’s about anger from those left behind by economic transformation. Universities are being scapegoated as symbols of a changing world that has hurt many working-class Americans.5. Federal policies are actively damaging higher educationInternational student visa denials, research funding cuts based on forbidden words, and threats of deportation for student activists are isolating America and weakening universities’ capacity to innovate and compete globally.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

Some liberals might shake their virtuous heads and tut-tut disapprovingly. But, as the Brookings scholar William Galston argues, Donald Trump’s Old Testament politics of retribution has exposed the limitations of liberal thought. In his new book, Anger, Fear, Domination, Galston argues that liberals must recognize the dark passions driving politics and incorporate them into their own language. The power of political speech, Galston reminds us, depends on the recognition and promise of human passion. Those passions don’t have to be so hatefully retributive as Trump’s, of course. But contemporary liberals, Galston argues, must recognize that humans aren’t simply calculating machines and shape their language accordingly. Only then, he warns, will they be able to take on and defeat the dark passions currently corroding American politics. 1. Liberals Have Been Politically Naive About Human Nature Galston argues liberals have expected “dark passions” (anger, fear, domination) to disappear through rational discourse and commercial interests, but these emotions are “perennial” and “part of our nature.” Trump succeeded because he understood this; liberals failed because they were surprised by it.2. Trump’s Politics Are Fundamentally About Retribution, Not Policy His famous CPAC line “I am your retribution” wasn’t campaign rhetoric—it was a governing philosophy. Trump genuinely believes his supporters have been wronged and that “revenge and retribution represent justice the old-fashioned way.”3. Political Speech Can Either Inflame or Soothe These Passions Galston advocates for leaders who use rhetoric like “foam on a runway fire”—dampening rather than stoking destructive emotions. He points to FDR’s “only thing we have to fear is fear itself” as an example of transforming paralyzing fear into productive confidence.4. History Has No Predetermined Direction Unlike Hegelian or Marxist narratives, Galston argues there’s no “History with a capital H” moving inexorably toward liberal democracy. Regression is always possible, and believing in historical inevitability is one of liberalism’s dangerous illusions.5. Americans Are Growing Tired of Constant Political Combat Despite polarized extremes, Galston detects a “rising sense that we need civil peace” and believes many Americans are “yearning” for a peacemaker who can restore “domestic tranquility”—creating an opening for the right kind of leader.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

In a captivating discussion, Keith Teare, tech entrepreneur and publisher of 'That Was The Week,' dives into OpenAI's Pulse, a revolutionary AI assistant. He describes Pulse as a transformative tool that reshapes daily habits, but poses concerns about its impact on human capability. The conversation touches on privacy issues, scaling AI, and the rising competition among tech giants. Teare also critiques the monetization strategies within AI, arguing that consumer demand is driving massive infrastructure investments. Will Pulse become the AI ‘front door’ everyone uses?

“What Trump is doing is not popular”. For the This Old Democracy podcaster and veteran Democratic activist Micah Sifry, that’s the good news of Trump’s sub-40% approval rate. The bad news, Sifry warns, is that the Dems remained a weak, divided party struggling to counter the MAGA-controlled Republicans. Learning from the campus success of Charlie Kirk, he says, the Democrats need to rediscover what once made them a party of the vibrant counterculture. And that certainly isn’t going to happen if grey functionaries like Schumer and Jeffries retain control of an increasingly gerontocratic party. He favors economic populism over identity politics, arguing that progressives made a “gigantic mistake” by favoring the woke politics of the university over working-class concerns. And so the New York based Sifry is cautiously optimistic about Zohran Mamdani whose primary victory, he is convinced, demonstrated that young voters will turn out for dynamic candidates who offer both generational change and credible ways to address economic anxiety. 1. Trump’s Weakness Creates Democratic Opportunity Sifry argues that Trump’s sub-40% approval rating means 50-60% of Americans are politically available to the opposition. The challenge isn’t Trump’s popularity (he’s not popular) but Democrats’ failure to effectively organize and mobilize this majority.2. Democrats Must Use Their Leverage or Lose It Rather than capitulating on government funding, Sifry advocates that Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats should force shutdowns when necessary. Trump backs down when faced with sufficient pushback, as evidenced by his quick reversal on tariffs when markets crashed.3. Generational Change Is Already Underway Mamdani’s primary victory over Mario Cuomo signals the end of the Biden-Clyburn-Pelosi era. Young voters (under 40) turned out in unprecedented numbers, suggesting the Democratic Party’s old guard has lost touch with a crucial demographic.4. Economic Populism Beats Identity Politics Sifry admits progressives made a “gigantic mistake” by centering identity hierarchies that marginalized working-class concerns, particularly young men. He advocates for Bernie Sanders-style economic populism that focuses on class and corporate power rather than cultural issues.5. Charlie Kirk Built What Progressives Lack Despite disagreeing with Kirk politically, Sifry acknowledges he created a successful youth movement through genuine debate, chapter-based organizing, and relationship building. Progressives have no equivalent infrastructure for engaging and converting opponents through sustained conversation and local organizing.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

Jacob Ward warned us. Back in January 2022, the Oakland-based tech journalist published The Loop, a warning about how AI is creating a world without choices. He even came on this show to warn about AI’s threat to humanity. Three years later, we’ve all caught up with Ward. So where is he now on AI? Moderately vindicated but more pessimistic. His original thesis has proven disturbingly accurate - we’re outsourcing decisions to AI at an accelerating pace. But he admits his book’s weakest section was “how to fight back,” and he still lacks concrete solutions. His fear has evolved: less worried about robot overlords, he is now more concerned about an “Idiocracy” of AI human serfs. It’s a dystopian scenario where humans become so stupid that they won’t even be able to appreciate Gore Vidal’s quip that “I told you so” are the four most beautiful words in the English language. I couldn’t resist asking Anthropic’s Claude about Ward’s conclusions (not, of course, that I rely on it for anything). “Anecdotal” is how it countered with characteristic coolness. Well Claude wouldn’t say that, wouldn’t it?1. The “Idiocracy” threat is more immediate than AGI concerns Ward argues we should fear humans becoming cognitively dependent rather than superintelligent machines taking over. He’s seeing this now - Berkeley students can’t distinguish between reading books and AI summaries.2. AI follows market incentives, not ethical principles Despite early rhetoric about responsible development, Ward observes the industry prioritizing profit over principles. Companies are openly betting on when single-person billion-dollar businesses will emerge, signaling massive job displacement.3. The resistance strategy remains unclear Ward admits his book’s weakness was the “how to fight back” section, and he still lacks concrete solutions. The few examples of resistance he cites - like Signal’s president protecting user data from training algorithms - require significant financial sacrifice.4. Economic concentration creates systemic risk The massive capital investments (Nvidia’s $100 billion into OpenAI) create dangerous loops where AI companies essentially invest in themselves. Ward warns this resembles classic bubble dynamics that could crash the broader economy.5. “Weak perfection” is necessary for human development Ward argues we need friction and inefficiency in our systems to maintain critical thinking skills. AI’s promise to eliminate all cognitive work may eliminate the mental exercise that keeps humans intellectually capable.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

So where exactly is Trump’s America? According to the Brookings fellow Jonathan Rauch, the world’s largest economic, military and cultural power is “half way to Hungary” - the small, landlocked Central European country run by an equally small and landlocked man called Viktor Orban. For Rauch, this suggests that America is on its way to becoming the sort of pathetically petty patrimonial state that the wannabe dictator Orban is trying to establish in Hungary. But the idea of the world’s dominant superpower being “halfway to Budapest” sounds more like the title of a characteristically absurd central European novel. It suggests that Trump’s America is, in fact, currently lost in the mid-Atlantic. It’s nowhere. And if making America great again really does require borrowing anything from a country as small and landlocked as Hungary, then I fear for the historical significance of both Trump and his MAGA movement. Surely they could come up with a more original playbook than that?1. America is Following the “Hungarian Playbook” of Modern Authoritarianism Rauch warns that Trump is deploying Viktor Orbán’s four-part strategy: sue critics into bankruptcy, use regulatory power to threaten licenses, buy out media outlets, and intimidate advertisers. This represents a new form of authoritarianism that doesn’t require tanks or military coups.2. The Rise of the “Woke Right” - Postmodern Tactics Adopted by Conservatives The right has borrowed from postmodern philosophy the idea that there’s no objective truth, only power and narrative control. This creates a “postmodern right” that focuses on winning stories rather than establishing facts - exemplified by claims about vaccine dangers or election fraud.3. Constitutional Crisis is Already Underway, Not Coming Rauch argues we’re not heading toward a constitutional crisis - we’re already in one. He points to executive orders targeting political enemies and the “naked politicization” of prosecutorial systems as evidence that democratic norms have already been breached.4. 2028, Not 2026, Will Be the Real Test While Rauch expects the 2026 midterms to be relatively fair (70-80% likelihood), he’s deeply concerned about 2028. The administration won’t have enough time to fully implement election interference by 2026, but 2028 could see systematic attempts to rig the democratic process.5. Resistance Requires Slowing Down Authoritarian “Shock and Awe” The most effective resistance strategy is to slow down Trump’s rapid implementation of authoritarian measures through litigation and civil society pushback. Early capitulation doesn’t work - it only invites more demands. The key is preventing the normalization of antidemocratic behavior.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

Donald Trump made his own controversial case against the United Nations at the UN today, lecturing world leaders that “the UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.” But he was beaten to this anti-UN manifesto by the New York City based journalist Seth Barron, who wrote “The End of the UN ” cover story for Tablet magazine this month. While Barron’s historically grounded critique is more academically rigorous than Trump’s, it essentially makes the same realpolitik argument: that there’s an irreconcilable contradiction between American interests and multilateral governance. Barron blithely suggests it’s time for the United States to withdraw from the UN entirely. But as I pressed him, without success, in our conversation, what then would replace international institutions when it comes to resolving seemingly intractable conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond? 1. The UN Is Already Dead in PracticeBarron argues the UN has lost all meaningful influence and relevance. He compares it to the Roman Senate, which continued meeting for 200 years after Rome’s collapse in 476 AD, discussing wars and public works they had no power to conduct. The UN, he suggests, has become a similar zombie institution.2. Peacekeeping Missions Have Been Catastrophic FailuresFrom Somalia (1993) and Rwanda (1994) to Bosnia (1995) and Haiti, Barron cites repeated examples where UN peacekeepers either failed to prevent massacres or, in Haiti’s case, became predators themselves—with Sri Lankan peacekeepers systematically raping Haitian children while building brothels.3. International Law Is a Fiction Used by the PowerfulBarron argues that without enforcement mechanisms, international law becomes merely “a cudgel by powerful countries to throw their weight around.” He notes that the International Criminal Court typically prosecutes African leaders from weak nations while ignoring crimes by major powers.4. Israel Has Become the UN’s ScapegoatSince 2015, the UN has passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel compared to just 27 against Russia and 12 against Syria. Barron sees this as evidence of institutional anti-Semitism and argues that post-colonial nations use Israel as a “whipping boy” to deflect from their own human rights violations.5. No Viable Alternative to National SovereigntyWhen pressed on what would replace the UN, Barron offered no clear answer beyond bilateral agreements and regional arrangements. He dismissed the idea that global challenges like climate change require international cooperation, arguing that agreements like the Paris Accords are toothless without enforcement mechanisms. Barron’s critique has some merit but offers no constructive vision for addressing genuinely global problems in an interconnected world. 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