Hyperfixed - Presenting: American Prestige w/ Morgan Spector

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

Hi! It's an off week for us but we wanted to give you something to listen to for the holiday, so we are sharing an episode of the fantastic podcast American Prestige. American Prestige gives listeners the essentials on U.S. foreign policy and global affairs, bringing new voices and ideas to those skeptical of mainstream media’s narrow perspectives on America’s role in the world.LINKS: American Prestigehttps://americanprestigepod.com/American Prestige Twitterhttps://x.com/AmPrestigePodAmerian Prestige instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/americanprestigepod/?hl=enAmerican Prestige Youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/@AmericanPrestige Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Hey, everyone, this is Alex. So the other day I got an email from a very nice listener who basically said to me, like, hey, I like hyperfixed, I want to support it. It is hard for me to justify spending $60 a year on a single show. And, you know, as much as I'd like everyone to become a premium hyperfix member, I get it. And, you know, as the media landscape gets more and more inhospitable to creators, people are needing to choose what to support and when. and the idea of spending, you know, $60 a year on a single show isn't for everyone.

So, right now we are in the middle of the fall Radiotopia Fundraiser, and I just wanted to spot like that as an alternative to people who want to support not just my show, but a number of shows with a one-time or recurring donation. If you don't know what Radiotopia does for us, on top of selling our ads, they help us with promotion, they connect us with collaborators, They help us purchase ads for big stories. They help me with submissions for award shows. And, you know, Radiotopia is the home of some of my favorite podcasts of all time.

From limited run series like appearances, to ear hustle and articles of interests, Kitchen Sister, Song Exploder, Memory Palace, and, you know, of course, Yo-A-Shaw's proxy, with whom we collaborated a couple months ago. You can donate one time or monthly at any level to Radiotopia, and 100% of that money will go. go to supporting all of those shows, as well as Hyperfixed and dozens of others. Your contributions to Radiotopia are tax deductible, and from now until December 31st, 2025, every gift to Radiotopia will be matched one to one up to $50,000 by a generous PRX donor.

So if the idea of a premium hyperfixed membership is just not your bag, I encourage you to support Radiotopia because we wouldn't exist without them. You can go to Radiotopia.org slash donate to support, and thank you so much for listening. Hey, everybody, this is Alex. This episode, which we are dropping on Thanksgiving, is not a hyper-fixed episode. It is an episode of a podcast called American Prestige, and I have one of the hosts of American Prestige. Daniel Bessner with me, how you doing?

Good. Thanks so much for having me and for doing this feature. swap. Absolutely. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your show is about and how you came to making this show. In brief, this show is really about U.S. foreign policy and international affairs extraordinarily broadly defined. We have series, for example, on the history of Vietnam. We have a series on the history of currency, the history of Silicon Valley. But essentially, it feels like, I don't know if people agree, we're living through a transitional moment to say the least.

A lot of the notions of the past, a lot of the shibbolists of the past are being questioned. And so what American Precise does, or what our show does, is sort of like look at U.S. foreign policy and international affairs, asking the question, what if the assumptions of the past about the United States running the world or having the strongest military were questioned? And that we hope, at least, that this will open up new spaces for reimagining and rethinking what the United States's role in the world should be in a 21st century that's going to be very different from the 20th. Where the show came from, so I am actually an expert in U.S.

Foreign Relations and U.S. foreign affairs, and my co-host, Derek Davidson, runs a substack called Foreign Exchanges. I mean, one of the things that I find in looking at foreign policy as a person who's a bit of a dilettante, I read the news, but I don't know a lot about the history of it, is that in almost every contemporary description of our foreign policy, it's completely divorced of context. The history is gone. Similar actions by the U.S. government are gone. So it's really refreshing to listen to your show with people who have a, I don't want to, you know, I don't want to blow smoke up your ass, but like pretty encyclopedic knowledge of the history of our

foreign policy. It's really fascinating to get that context. It helps understand these actions in a much more granular way. Yeah, and I think you're right. I do think that Americans in general, but especially when it comes to foreign policy, tend to live in an eternal presence where the things that happened 20 years ago are either ignored or forgotten.

And what one thing we try to do with the show is really historicize and contextualize, you know, if the Trump administration is bombing Venezuela, what is the United States done vis-à-vis Venezuela the last 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 100 years. And we hope that in doing so, people will get a broader and deeper understanding of what's going on abroad and why the U.S. acts in the world in the ways that it does. So you sent us specifically an episode with actor Morgan Specter.

And I'm wondering if you could tell us the audience a little bit about who Morgan Specter is. And I was genuinely shocked as a person who's not familiar with much of his work at how deeply knowledgeable this guy was about. about foreign policy it was wild yeah he's a super smart guy so morgan is the uh one of the stars of the tv show the gilded age um people might also know him he was the star of the show the plot against america which i believe came out uh in or at the very least around covid and um he's someone who's you know my age kind of like an elder millennial who was politicized at a very similar moment during the iraq war so he actually just happened to drop our podcast name in an interview with rolling son and i was like oh that's interesting so

We reached out and started talking to him, and he was a really interesting and compelling guy, and we invited him on this show. And I think what I really like about the episode is that it allows you to see how people from different careers and different professions relate to US foreign policy and could have, I mean, Morgan has an incredibly deep understanding and knowledge of US foreign policy.

And it's kind of hearkening back to an era where like the arts and culture and intellectual life all sort of overlapped with each other, in a meaningful way. And I think maybe this is nostalgic and romantic, but I think that, you know, despite the problems of the previous errors in U.S. history, that is something to aspire to, where culture informs politics and politics informs culture, but in a deeply knowledgeable and we hope at least also entertaining way. One thing that we really do try to do with the show is, as you do, of course, Alex on Hyperfix is make it fun, make it entertaining. And so it's not

like you're just eating gruel, but you're, you know, you're getting nutrition, but it's also you got a few marshmallows in your lucky charm cereal to butcher an already butchered metaphor. I also really liked the way that his relationship with Hollywood unions and Hollywood history informed the way he understood politics and the way that sort of political affiliation is shifted over time. And it also the way it informed his foreign policy understanding. Like it was really interesting. It was a perspective that I hadn't really heard before. So that was, I really enjoyed listening to that. Yeah, I mean, it's a totality, you know, Hollywood affects politics, politics affects Hollywood, and what's happening

larger in the world in terms of the structural transformation of our era affects both. Right. So after listening to this, are there any other episodes you'd recommend? And also, how should our listeners find your show? That's a great question. So we are on supporting cast, subscribe to it on any podcast feed, just search American Prestige. And if you'd like to become a paid listener, a premium listener, whatever the term de jour is, you could go to AmericanPrestigepod.com. That's again, AmericanPrestigepod.com. And you could search through all of our series and our past catalog.

I would point people toward our series on the history of Afghanistan, the history of Brazil, the history of the military industrial complex and those are nice deep dives and you know just keep people abreast of if you want to listen you could just be kept abreast

of what's going on in the world by just tuning into the podcast for everyone else that is not the two of us enjoy this episode of American prestige that's kind of conversation to your soul

that's conversation Hello, Prestige Head I'm Danny Bessner, here as always with my friend in Comrade, Derek Davison, and we are very excited to welcome to the podcast today. Morgan's an actor, and he's also the star of HBO's The Guilded Age, also HBO's The Plot Against America and he's appeared in many other

films and TV shows and he very helpfully dropped our name in a Rolling Stone interview which is how I found out he was a fan and we just wanted to have him on to talk about a bunch of stuff and now we're going to give him the American prestige problem. Yeah, the interrogation you've entered

the Octagon but thank you thank you very much for joining us Morgan we really do appreciate it. Oh it's my pleasure. I mean I'm an avid listener. I've been I feel like you guys have taught me a lot about history and foreign policy. So it's a real joy to be on. Yeah, thanks, man.

Really appreciate that. I have to say, like, my wife is so excited about this interview. Like, for the last two or three days, she has been trying to give me tips on how to do a successful podcast, basically. It is, like, a big deal in this household. My wife and my mom, who lives with us, are, like, have been binge watching. the Gilded Age. They're way ahead of me. So no spoilers. I'm not caught up all the way. Not at all. But they are, they are so excited about this interview. So, you know, they'll be listening. I'm proud in your podcast. Yeah, you know, I'm taking, taking all their advice on board.

This is why we do it, you know. This is why we get into podcasting. This is all been, it's all been building to this. This is the apex, apex mountain of American prestige. So one of the things that I really found interesting about just, you, you more, Morgan, is that you talked about in the Rolling Stone interview, but also you, executive produced a documentary on socialism. And we're around the same age. We're elder millennials slash Gen X Cusp. And I always find it interesting to know how people my age came to socialism.

Because I came to it so strangely. I happened to be reading because I decided to waste my life in graduate school, a lot of German socialist theory from the 20s. And I'm like, oh, this is like way better than libertarianism or neoliberalism or whatever was going around the late aughts. But what's your political development? How did you come to be a socialist? I mean, I think it's, I've been asked, it's funny because I sort of wonder, I have been

wondering recently why it didn't happen sooner and why it happened when it did myself. I think I was sort of on the ride that I think a lot of other people have been on. I mean, I think it was, I think it was sort of, I grew up in a house where, you know, my father read the paper page, you know, cover to cover every day. We talked about the day's events. You know, we sort of like, you know, one of the obligations of citizens. is to be familiar with what's going on in politics and have an opinion on it, an informed take, right? And his informed take was basically the strong eat the weak.

You know what I mean? That's the thing you observe over and over again. And so, and he was, there was a, he had, despite, he had an abiding fury and it has an abiding fury about that that that I think represented a kind of like a kind of socialist perspective, but he wouldn't call it that. right i mean it was like almost it was like a sort of a rage on behalf of the working class that i don't think he would never that he would have put it in those terms but yeah so i i don't know i would say i was like not particularly political for much of my adolescence and even into college and then um was very i would say not radicalized but moved moved very you know moved to the left became i think politically aware actually because of foreign policy because of the iraq war and because of

George Bush. And that whole period in American life was the thing that put its stamp on me politically. Same. Same. I watched that, you know, you watch the Constitution be just like eviscerated. I mean, I still think all the stuff that everyone's like, Trump is going to do this. The Bush administration, they just came in and did it, right? They just came in and did kind of fascism. And, you know, they, you know, I mean, when you think about like rendition, when you think about a lot of the, you know, like the Padilla case, you think about a lot of the things that they did where they just abrogated people's rights without even really, you know, we just like the secret legal justifications. I mean, it was truly hideous and terrifying. And then Obama came in, I think

this is actually the pivot for me is that Obama came in and he'd said all the right things during his campaign. And so I had all these expectations that there was going to be a restoration of order, right? There was going to be a restoration of some kind of legal framework that no one was above. And that was obviously naive. And I think there were people who saw that that was not going to happen before it failed to happen. But that, I think it was that disappointment. It was that heartbreak that made it so that when Bernie came along, I was like, yes, okay, let's go. This is like, this is what's actually required, excuse me, in order to, in order to really make change is somebody who's going to talk about the structure of this system and how to, how to really reform it

structurally as opposed to just sort of, I don't know, changing the aesthetics, which is ultimately what I think Obama did. Yeah, I mean, the whole thing with Obama, to me, with the big takeaways, is that the liberal process shit doesn't actually prevent the death of the empire and the horribleness of capitalism. And that was essentially his gambit. If you read the memoir, which is, I think, the time he's been most honest, he's like, I did all these processes. And, like, because I instituted all these various processes, I knew no, he actually says as fucking psychotic, that no one would have been able to have come. to a better decision than the one

that I came to because I instituted the processes. And that to me is the type, I know it's crazy. It's like really like on a different level of sociopathy. He's written so much that you know he knew better. Right. But we still got the outcome that we

got. That's very disillusioning. He doesn't even see that it's the process that is itself the problem. And also, just Morgan, to get back what you said initially, and I think this is really like our specific microgeneration is that we grew up at the end of the Cold War when there really was no sense of the left. And for people who came of age in the late

80s and 90s, it's hard to overstate the degree to which it just seemed in a genuine sense that there was no alternative to capitalism and even to posit an alternative to capitalism was kind of stupid. And which is why Bernie was such an outlier and why he's so old, because he was the only, him and Richard Wolfe were the only people who were basically positing this position, which is interesting because Hollywood, in particular, the entertainment industry was one of the fonts of American leftism, American socialism, and really American communism as well. And this is why, for example, one of the groups that Truman went after was the Hollywood committee in favor of defense, something along those lines, because they were one of the first

three groups Truman goes after is in Hollywood. So I wanted to bring, this brings us to our next question, which is like the industry. Because what is the politics of the industry? Because as an academic, people are always like it's lefty. I would say no, it's very liberal. It's very Elizabeth Warren, I would say is sort of the center of the humanities in the university. And I'm curious, what have you found amongst people in the industry related to their politics? I mean, I think it, to be honest, I think it really varies. I think there's a, there's a, there's a, There's an echelon that is like the people that do business. That's actually much, you know, agents, producers, studio people.

That's actually pretty right wing, I would say. Like, you know, it's definitely center-right liberal. I mean, with like, you know, liberal social justice values. And but pretty right-wing otherwise. And then there are people who are just, I think, out-and-out-right-wing. Like, I don't think that's, I mean, that's not normal for people who are like above the line, and, you know, I think it's pretty standard that everybody is kind of broadly humanitarian

and liberal in that sense. But, yeah, I do think that's there. And then, yeah, I think that for the people who are liberal, my experience has mostly been up until fairly recently that people are liberal in a social justice sense, that people really care about representation, right? Because that is one thing that you can really track in our business. I mean, my most cynical take is that there are a lot of people

who are like, well, I'm in the room. So that's, and that's a moral value, right? Like, and there is something, sometimes that can be true, right? Like, it is true. That is, you know, there are these representational struggles that actually sort of overlap with labor struggles in our field. But there's also a kind of easy, you know, I have triumphed, therefore justice has triumphed thing that you see sometimes.

And I think that can be a little narcissistic and ugly. I don't know, it's strange. It's a, it's a strange business because we are, you know, it is, we are unionized. We are a heavily unionized industry. And in fact, I think that's why, you know, we're still making decent livings, those of us who are working, because we have enjoyed those protections,

unlike musicians, unlike adult performers who have seen their business completely eviscerated by the internet. Like, there's, you know, there are many examples, obviously publishing media. Reality TV,

I mean, some of the most exploited people are, I think it was Bethany Frankl, somebody was trying to basically unionize reality television. I mean, and the unions is a whole another story in Hollywood because they're very unique also in the pantheon of American unions. The sort of

they emerge from this theater sort of quote unquote below the line workers, but it's yeah, it's something quite interesting. Derek, off to you. We're, I mean, we have to start talking about the podcasters union, Danny, at some point. Is there actually any discussion of that?

No. No, we're all small businessmen. No, I mean, we're all like owners. Yeah. It's like, I mean, I'm a small business man. No, there's been no talk about that. I mean, it's interesting, because we're also subject to the platforms. So the platforms would be able to in two seconds cut anyone off.

And I think that there would be a lot of reticence to do that. Because like every other industry, it's basically conglomerated. There's four podcast platforms, just like there's kind of four studios now in Hollywood, four conglomerates. And so there's been no discussion about that, I think, because of that. because they could just be like, foop, no, you have no income anymore. Not if they'd have, not if cutting off one of you meant cutting off all of you, right? I mean, that's the...

That would be the half, it would have to be. Yeah, it would have to be that. I don't know why you're not in SAG, actually. I mean, it would make sense to be in SAG. I mean, this is a big, I mean, this is my, one of my things about the WGA. I mean, one of the unions needs to get streamers, needs to get podcasters, needs to get YouTube people. When YouTube is 25% of eyeball watching time, that's the future of entertainment.

I mean, it's going to be 50% soon. But then it gets into, you know, unions have their own sclerosis and inertia over time. But that, to me, is the future of it. They need to unionize the streamers especially. That's the business, yeah. And influencers. I mean, like, you know, those people are self-exploiting, but it doesn't mean they're not exploited. Yeah, and you see it, like, agents don't know what to do with them, you know.

Right now in the business, people just don't know what to do with it. And that's going to change as there's younger agents and younger managers. but I imagine, I haven't done the research, I imagine Hollywood's like a gerontocracy too a little bit. I mean, just look at the heads of all the studios, right? These are similar in academia, similar in everything. And so once there's a generational turnover, you're going to start seeing shifts.

Yeah, it's funny. There's a great oral history of CAA, and have you read that? And it's all, like, you know, it's in the 80s and 90s. These guys are 33 years old, and they're running the biggest agency in the business. And yeah, that's definitely not the case anymore. I don't think it's quite extremist. But yeah.

And that was true across the board. The one that I always point to is RAND's second head was 32, the most important national security thing. And that shit will just never happen for the Germanocratic reasons we all know. Yeah. So, Morgan, to drill down a little bit on the question, on Danny's last question, I wanted to ask you, you've been quite outspoken about Gaza. And basically, what was your journey to come to the place that you're at in terms of the Palestinian cause? And how have you, especially since October 7th, but beyond that, just in general, what sort of reception or kind of environment you found in Hollywood for those, on that issue particularly?

I mean, like I said, I think, like in terms of coming to being outspoken about it, I think it would, I think it does have to do with the fact that part of my real, I think my political commitments come from a sense of outrage at U.S. foreign policy. Like, that is the sort of origin of it. And I think part of that is because, and I wanted to ask you guys about this, but I think I, there's, I care in a deep way about what a. America means in the world, the story that we tell about America. And when America is the country that goes into a place like Iraq and kills a million people for absolutely no reason, I think that America become like the sort of idea of this country is obviously disfigured. And supporting what was happening in what's happening in Gaza to the extent that the U.S.

is, is like a darker continuation of. that story where the U.S., instead of being sort of hegemon by consent, even by, you know, partial consent or having legitimacy, you know, in terms of its global power, that just becomes an assertion of raw strength. And being a citizen of a country that rules in that way is, I don't think that different from being a citizen of Nazi Germany. I mean, it just is like, it's absolutely hideous. It's utterly discomforting. And I don't know. you know, it is, I don't know, all I, I am not someone who wants to advocate for violence. And I also feel that the type of protest we've been able to do thus far has clearly been

ineffective. I don't know what to do, but continue to sort of like ring the bell. But it's, but yeah, it's, I don't know. Well, Morgan, we're all good liberal subjects here. We could never countenance any revolutionary violence. That is so beyond the pale to even suggest. How dare you? No, I think that's right. And maybe just to piggyback on Derek's question, as a Jew, does that affect you? Because to me, that's like a really big thing as well. And the answer is no, that's no.

But like just to see people who speak in the name of international jury is just like really offensive. You know, it's a term I don't use that often. No, I agree. I think it is offensive. I also think there's something about American Jews who live behind, live in the comfort of this sort of imperial core, speaking as Jews without acknowledging their Americanness, without acknowledging their culpability and their privilege. A thousand percent.

And they speak only from this place of vulnerability, as if they don't live in Los Angeles or New York. Like, I don't know. It's like, that drives me crazy. But I also, I'm very secular. You know, I grew up, like, I did not grow up religious. I was not parmissible. Like, you know, it's, you know, I think for some people,

I wouldn't even count because it's my father. my father's Jewish, not my mother. So, but, but yes, coming, I think coming from that, and also actually my father, you know, I did not come from a family where Israel was dogmatic, you know, on my father's side, it was not dogmatically celebrated. Like, my father always thought, you know, you make a country that's entirely Jewish. Like, that country is going to have to do a moral, you know, international things. That's not going to be good for the Jews, ultimately. And I don't, and I think, you know, that was, that was one of his objections. But so, yeah, it was not. something that we was ever remember some of my some of my family is very very pro-israel but yeah it's

yeah and i mean obviously to second the anti-semitism thing i think that is just such a distraction from what's actually going on in the world and to center that in the moment of when israel's committing genocide is to me really morally suspect to say the very least because like i agree with you i mean like i walk through the world as an american white guy uh fundamentally and to pretend otherwise is i think dishonoring people who don't walk through the world and that way, and let alone to use that to defend the horrible actions of a foreign government that pretends to speak in my name is really a choice. But Derek, I see you jumping at the bit. Off to you.

No, I was, I was, once the conversation turns out, as the Gentile member of this podcast, I let that stuff, that conversation go. But I was wrapped, yes, I was wrapped watching you guys talk about this. Should we maybe, well, sorry, go ahead. No, Morgan, I ask you. The second half of the question, which was what's been the sort of, you know, or like, you know, have I had any response from the industry? And I, like, to be honest, I have not.

My guess is there are people who have looked at the position I've taken and have been like, fuck that guy. I won't hire him or I don't want to engage. But like, you know, this is such a generational thing, right? So people who are my age and younger, it is obvious who, what the, who's in the right? and who's in the wrong here, for the most part. And I think, you know, people maybe have different, they may have come to that at different moments.

They may have different comfort level in terms of taking a public position. But I don't know, we had, there was this thing. It was like a cinema for Gaza fundraiser that was like a year, maybe a year ago. And, you know, the list of people who were involved was like a who's who of young Hollywood. I mean, it was not, it was impressive how many people were coming out in this direction. It's just so clear, like, this is the future. You can't, you know, the people, I don't know, the people who at this point are like,

the starving children had cancer already or had rickets. Derek, I think you were putting out on Twitter. Like, you know, it's, it's, uh, yeah, they're not starving. They have rickets. Well, what do you, how do you treat ricketts? Is anybody Googled rickets? Like, yeah, it's amazing. Oh, it's, well, maybe, I mean, maybe we could get into, to talking about,

you know, kind of the political valence of some of your work. And I guess the obvious place to start is Danny already mentioned it, the documentary, the Big Scary S word, which I watched part of the other day. Oh, cool. Really interesting.

I'm sure, you know, people who know you from the Gilded Age or know you from the Plot Against America may not be aware that you were involved in this project. But talk a little bit about the genesis of that documentary and what you guys were doing. I mean, you know, Bernie had run, we, like, and I think been kind of kneecapped by the DNC and and then Trump had won, right? And I think in the aftermath of that victory, a lot of people were looking around going, what can I do about this? Like, how can I, you know, maybe if I, I felt like

I needed to be more politically involved than I had been, both because, both because I was inspired by Bernie and also because I was, you know, pretty shocked by Trump's victory. I mean, I was, I didn't, I didn't call that shit. And so, yeah, I had a friend who was a dockmaker. She and I had always wanted to do something together. And there wasn't, we were, we were also in conversation with some of the people of Jacobin at the time about, like, who wanted to, they wanted to do like a bio doc of Bernie, which at the time, it was not clear that Bernie was going to continue to participate

at the level he did in national political life. And I was kind of like, I don't know that that's evergreen. I don't know that that's the way to go. Actually, I think this is a bigger story about a kind of sea change in American politics, which I hold to. I mean, yeah, so we sort of wanted to tell that story

of this resurgence of socialism as an actual viable thing that, you know, because prior to Bernie, it had really been an epithet and even a disqualifying one. I mean, it had been effective. People ran from it. Obama ran from it whenever he was accused of it. And that was so recently, right?

I mean, that was just a couple of years before, and then Bernie completely turned it. So we wanted to look at the history, particularly in America, and sort of trace how that had happened and what maybe what resources there were to draw on in terms of that tradition, but American tradition.

Because it's always part of it has been that this is a foreign intervention in American politics. So that was something we were really interested in. What is the U.S. history of this political tradition? Well, what do you think about the state of socialism and how it's sort of gone over the last eight years. It does seem to me that obviously the left hasn't won, but there's been a genuine resurgence

in a way that would have been shocking in the 1990s, of people at least willing to embrace this left core of what was New Deal liberalism and has now been rebranded as sort of American Democratic socialism. But how have you understood that shift? Well, part of it is just that it is a reality. I mean, there are DSA endorsed candidates winning in various, at various levels throughout American politics. And so they are a force to be reckoned with.

And I think, I mean, the other thing is that their positions are popular, right? The thing, you know, everybody wants Medicare for all, really. Like, that is, so I think some of the, and it's, I mean, I think, you know, Paul Krugman used to want Medicare for all, too. You know, it's like, there, that's, I think that's that, that thing where liberalism actually can't fulfill its own promise, but social can fulfill the promise of liberalism, I think that, I think that's really true, and I think that's become clearer and clearer. I mean, Danny, you talk a lot about how liberalism we're living through this crisis of liberalism, right? Liberalism is failing. And I think, I think that's palpable to everyone. And so I think there's a sense of we need, we need a vision. We need a vision of the

future. I think that's, I mean, you know, you think about, you know, Jonathan Haight or whoever writes about this crisis of Gen Z and Gen Alpha, maybe I'm saying his name wrong, but, you know, that, like, everybody's anxious. Everybody's, and I have to think, the part of that is this sense that there's no future. There's no, there's no, like the, you know, we're living in a sort of apocalyptic age when it comes to climate. And we're just watching these two parties sort of divvy up the spoils of imperial collapse. And the only people, I mean, this is why I think Zoranandani is such an incredible figure, because this is somebody who he's young, he's vibrant, he's energetic, and he articulates a vision of the future that's

inclusive. He has a kind of, I think he has the capacity to synthesize like the identity politics wing of left liberalism and the kind of New, you know, New Deal democratic socialism. And I think that that there's a sense there that we could actually have a vector that goes into a future we'd all want to be in. I don't think that's, I don't see that anywhere else. No, you're totally correct. I mean, this really is the era of capitalist realism in this book I have coming out, imperialist realism where it does seem like the future is closed off. And I'm starting to see glimmers of it. And to me, it's just institutionally protected by that gerontocracy to say nothing of the oligarchy. With Zauron, I'm really excited about him. I'm very curious how he's going to deal with

the police union. I think that is going to be his primary thing. I don't know if you remember. You're a New York guy, if I recall. When they turned their back on de Blasio, de Blasio should have fired the entire leadership of the NYPD that day. So I'm curious what That, to me, is the big question about Zoran. Is he going to be able to take on these, like, Tammany Hall-type unions? I know he did the Tammany Hall thing today. That, to me, is a big question in New York, as being born and raised there. Yeah, I mean, it's been uplifting and frustrating at the same time,

because it's uplifting that he won the primary and the people seem to be energized by this message. But then you watch the gerontocracy go into action at the top of the Democratic Party. just, you know, the same people who say, well, maybe we can work with Donald Trump. Maybe we can find some common ground with Donald Trump. This guy wins the primary, wins the party primary. And it's like, no, fuck no. We can't, you know, he's out, no way.

We can't have anything to do with that. And it's very frustrating. And I know, you know, all you have to do is punch through that. And it looks like he's going to do it in the general election, certainly. But, you know, there's still this institutional resistance to the, the message that he's bringing that is frustrating and I think could still wind up. And, you know, the police union's one thing he's going to have to deal with. But he's also going to have to deal with every lever of power above the New York mayoralty

pushing down on him, Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter. And that, that to me is frustrating. Yeah, I mean, I agree. Danny, I totally agree that the, you know, it's like if you want to do a coup, you've got to get the military on your side, right? And I think the NYPD is so powerful. I mean, I actually

literally paramilitary force at this point. Yeah, they are. I mean, and they would rival like many countries, militaries in terms of their, you know, their budget and their, their material. But, but I think he, I think

his sort of conception of public safety, like trying to get cops on board saying, like, this is not, this is not the thing you're good at. This is not the thing you're trained to do. You're being held accountable for, you know, things that you are not really your deal, like mental health. Let's get another.

group of people in there that are going to handle those things i i think there's a way to frame that that's actually very pro cop i don't i don't that is like pro public safety and pro cop and that is again synthetic like i think that's that could be his real skill is that he's able to sort of take these opposing things and he's gonna have to find the right people in the mypd i have some inside sources i just know people uh know people uh and there's general skepticism i think it's also generational because these institutions are so bureaucratized and they're so inertia

and I hope that working with Lander and people like that are going to allow him to sort of navigate the very complex New York City politics and find the right people

in these institutions that he's going to have he's going to have to find the Zoran Mamdani and the NYPD and maybe not make that guy commissioner but promote that person

man or woman into a different position and so that's going to be a real test of political skill because city politics particularly New York City It is so fucking corrupt. I grew up in Rockaway Queens

and just the power of those unions, FDNY and the NYPD is just incredible, and they have a very particular view on the world. I mean, very similar to Trump. Trump is an Outerboro New York guy. And I think that they share a lot of those politics. So, I mean, it's a matter of political skill, and we'll see, he might be the guy.

He does seem to be a genuine operator in the right way, unlike Obama. So I am hopeful. Derek, do you have something to say? Not I've got a question. Sorry, no, I was responding to a text from our producers, so go ahead. Jake, you fucked it up. This is how the sausage is made.

There's business going on even when we're doing the interview. Jesus Christ, it never ends. So, Morgan, I want to actually turn to your work, and I'd like to start with the Gilded Age, because I watched the show before you even dropped our name. And something that really, there's a couple of things that struck me. One, I think your casting is quite interesting. that they didn't cast a Vanderbilt looking guy, you know, or a Carnegie looking guy.

So I was wondering if you had any thought. This is the first thing that I thought when I watched the show is like they cast a guy who looked, you know, not necessarily like a wasp American who looked Jewish precisely. And so I was, I actually was wondering if there was going to be a plot that the character was actually a crypto Jew at some point to something like that was going to come out because like the best capitalist in the room,

particularly in the first season, is someone who's visually coded as Jewish. So I'm wondering if you had any thoughts about the casting and how you react to that if you did. I mean, I think part of what really, part of what it does for us, I think, dramatically, is it helps us with a dynamic that's really, that Julian Fellows, to his great credit, has set up.

That's quite brilliant, which is he's set up the richest people in the show, the people who have the most financial power, he's set them up as outsiders. So you can enjoy them, And it's interesting to see the way that the show has been received, right? Like Peggy Noonan loves the show, but also, like, a lot of leftists that, like, you know, organize around Gaza stuff also love the show.

And so there's a, there's, I think part of that is that, right? You can enjoy it in its, as like a straightforward, these people deserve to be where they are. They pull, they, they're self-made, like, you know, successful individualists. But you can also enjoy them as the outsiders coming in as sort of people storming, storming the gates. And I think that my casting does help with that. I think also they were looking at Gould. They were looking at J. Gould as a kind of prototype. And he was someone who was not Jewish, but was like Semitized, I don't know if that's a word, but was, you know, was figured as a kind of almost Jewish figure as a symbol of rapacious capitalism in that period. So I think that was something

else that they were wanting to evoke. It is interesting watching the show and thinking, like in the back of my mind, I shouldn't be rooting for any of these. But you do kind of want to pull for the Russells because they're like the new people, you know, they're the new faces, they're pushing against this old guard. There's a sort of rebel quality to that that's very appealing. But like on some level, you're like, I shouldn't like any of these people. Come on, man. Well, it's what capitalism should be. And that's why Julian Fellows is interesting, right? Because this is what the ideal version of capitalism, which is that the people who are smart and better at things should be the ones who rise to the top. So it's almost a fantasy. of the ideal of what capitalism should be. And to some degree, in the 19th century, it was more like that. Not 100%, obviously.

You don't want to buy in into the fantasy of capitalism, but there was a freedom there to advance yourself, like a Rockefeller, who did not really come from anything or a Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant, to actually make it to the top, or a ghoul. So the next question that I wanted to ask, is as an actor, how did you go into getting into the mindset of one of these 19th century industrialists?

One joke that I have is that socialists are actually really good capitalists to go back to the idea of podcasting because we have no illusions about the system. We know we're not friends here. We know that this is just an arrangement of exchange. So I'm just curious if your politics actually wound up in forming your portrayal of the character. Or really, I found it very fascinating. How did you get into the mindset of one of these 19th century?

robbery robber barons um i mean part of it was uh you know i did i did some you know i did i researched gould in particular because that's what that's what who julian told me i was mostly based on in terms of his character and i found him i found him really fascinating because he really he sort of he his father i think his father owned a dairy farm and he kind of worked his way up through he became a tanner um and then and then he uh or a surveyor and then a tanner and at one point there was like a he had a conflict over the with the owner of the tannery about who was going to control the tannery and he rounded up a bunch of guys with sticks and they rounded up a bunch of guys with sticks and they had like a actual like knock down drag out war over who controlled this

tannery he won you know and was able to sort of hold it and then build up enough capital to come into new york and become who he became um and that was that was really informative for me actually because there was a sense that these guys were not that far from a kind of power and a kind of wealth accumulation that actually happened, you know, at the barrel of a gun, essentially, that there was a latent capacity for violence in a person of this era, possibly, that was maybe interesting. But also, yeah, I mean, I agree there is a way in which you see, like, this guy is a player in a game, right? And he happens to occupy the most powerful position. But his incentives are, like, the challenge with the character like this is allowing him to be a good person, I think, actually, and believing that he's a good person. And I think that's just part of a kind of Marxist analysis is that this is the problem here is a system, right? That the guy, this is a guy who is operating from a particular position within a particular system, the incentives all force.

him to be utterly ruthless and unscrupulous. And that isn't because he's a bad guy or because he wants to hurt people. It's just because that is the function he has to perform within the system. And on the show, they do it a lot through gender dynamics, right? The character is very progressive in his view toward gender. And I think that's used, again, smartly, because it's an HBO show in neoliberal capitalism to sort of humanize, you know, like to make you root for him. obviously Carrie Coon is such an amazing actress and you love her and you want her to succeed like a billion times over and the fact

that he supports her. I remember it's such a smart storytelling move that he could get like the guy to commit suicide but at the same time like you love him because he's allowing Carrie Coon to sort of dominate the old wasp elite which Americans fucking hate. The one thing that's so interesting to me as a show

and it's interesting that it's made by an Englishman is that it was like Americans hate that waspalit. We're all products of the 1880s and 1920s immigration that really reacted against the billed the butchers of the world who were part of you know the Christine Baranski sort of

set and it's just like it's just such smart storytelling I mean some of these showrunner professionals are just so good at what they do they like immediately lock in on how to tell a compelling story to the larger people and I think that was just it's a post immigration story almost which I think is your casting

also helps get people on board because no one likes that fucking waspal eat you know like I mean and it's a really interesting, and then I'll shut up. But someone did, like, the Supreme Court is now all Catholic. And someone posted, like, Millard Fillmore would have lost his mind if he saw this, right? So we're living in like a very post-immigration world, which the show is very smart from a storytelling perspective. No, I totally agree. And I think, I mean, Julian is a real, like, avid student of American history. And he all, but he also is in love, I mean, all Brits, and I'm married to one, like, think of the

U.K. as like this stodgy place where nothing can happen, and America as this dynamic place where anything is possible. And the 19th century, as you're saying, is like, was really kind of like that, and certainly to a greater degree than it is now here. And that's, I think, the thing that he's also in love with is that people who can, because the wasps were sort of just sitting on their, sitting on their wealth and maintain, and in a very conservative way, like maintaining the strictures of society. And the people, the Vanderbiltz, who were the other group, were based where sort of the people came in and said, no, no, we're going to do it however the fuck we want.

And I think in a certain way, he loves that, right? That's the, it's the overthrowing of the prior order that he's really, that thrills him, I think. And it's interesting to put in dialogue with Downton Abbey, which to some degree is how the continuation of the old order in a new, slightly more egalitarian way. That would actually be an interesting article to write to really compare the two shows and how the change of setting.

And also, I mean, frankly, the change of the industrial production of film of the UK versus the U.S. must be very different in how one approach is something like show running. Yeah, well, they also do it very differently. I mean, they, you know, he, in the UK television writer, writes the whole show and then turns it over to a director-producer. They don't really have a showrunner in the same way. I mean, these figures like David Simon or Milch or some of these other, you know, David Chase, these like people who concentrate, producer, writer, sometimes also director,

that isn't how they do it over there. So, yeah, he's much more the sort of classic, British TV writer film writer. Yeah, in a position only just recognized after the last, the 2023 negotiations as an official position. So wild to think that showrunner was, yeah, showrunner was not an official position within the WGA

hierarchy until 2023. You did like EP stuff and things along those lines, but from what I understand it, I wasted a lot of time looking into this. That is the case. I'm also wondering you have any thoughts about the show as a New York show. As someone who spent a lot of their career in New York,

Correct me from wrong and not L.A., right? You're more of a New York-face. Oh, you're looking at L.A., yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, like, how do you approach the show as a New York show, which is also, like, its specific genre? Because to me, New York is really the city of the exact period,

the Gilded Age takes place in roughly post-Civil War to 1945. And then L.A. really becomes the city of America for a variety of reasons. Obviously, Hollywood is there, and so it exports American fantasies. It's a city built on roads, which means it's a city built on empire, which means it's a city built on constant access

to things like rubber and oil, it necessitates an empire. And then, of course, it's the center of the defense industry. The big, plane manufacturing was Douglas Aircraft, and then the Iran Corporation is there. So I think L.A. actually displaces New York in the late 20th century as the paradigmatic American city.

But I'm wondering what do you think about the Gilded Age as sort of the story of like the rise of New York, which itself becomes the center of finance capital, only in the early 20th century, basically at the end of the Gilded Age. yeah i mean i i i when you walk around new york and you or when you consider the sort of like when you consider new york the sort of fantasy of new york i think it is very much like a late 19th century fantasy and the the most beautiful buildings of the of in the city are well i mean there are some

gorgeous like deco skyscrapers and stuff like that but really with the the most beautiful buildings you see are from this period these these people really left their stamp uh on new york aesthetically in kind of a great way. I mean, it's at least, you know, like when you, when you vacate however, you know, however they earned their wealth, the, the, the landscape they left behind, the architecture left behind is gorgeous. I mean, Grand Central, I don't know, I have always loved that space. You walk into that space and it feels like it's amazing. Yeah, it's amazing. I don't know how it is ennobling of the human spirit to be in that kind of space. And we don't

build buildings like that anymore. And I don't know. There's, it gives me a I don't know a soft spot for these for these guys because they wanted a legacy that that meant that included that

and I don't see that from our current that's what I was that's what I was gonna get into at least Carnegie builds his goddamn libraries even though interesting if you go back and look at

a lot of times when one of the Carnegie libraries would arrive in the city there'd be a gigantic union action against it so it's very interesting because they were like fuck this guy You know, like he's not actually in supportive workers.

So that's not much work. There's actually an interesting space. But I'm glad you brought that up because I wanted to, what do you see as the difference? I'm sorry, Derek, you go. No, I was just going to add, like this is my contention. And I'm sure every generation feels this way. But my contention is that we have the worst oligarchs of all times at this point.

Like the worst class of oligarchs this country has ever had in the current moment. No, it's just, I mean, these guys built stuff, right? Like, they built things, they left at least, at the very least. They funded universities. They built, you know, institutions. They built, built nice-looking buildings. What we have now is just, like, they make, you know, the new thing that I saw was the mattress pad that, you know, you have to buy a subscription for, and it keeps you cool

at night. And they got $100 million in VC funding. Fake nonsense, right? I mean, yeah, at least Duke and Vanderbilt built university. So I was wondering about, like, has this given any insight or how has this shaped your thinking vis-a-vis a musk or a teal or a Zuckerberg? I mean, to some degree, it just feels like these are first a tragedy, next to as far as, as capitalism goes on, everything's going to become more and more degraded instead of building universities. We've got the My Pillow guy. So, but I was just like, how, what do you think was motivating these guys in a different sense?

Why did they have a sense of civic purpose in a way? that a musk basically all these guys just want to escape earth like that that to me is must fan escape earth and live forever uh as opposed to carnegie who's trying to leave some sort of civic legacy even if he broke unions and blah blah blah blah blah blah i mean i think what i really think about it is is kind of weird and i don't know if it makes any sense at all but like the guys in the 19th century were building things that were about the body right like they they were embodied people and they created embodied spaces where and that moved people's bodies around and then you could occupy physically. And these people are creating platforms and virtual spaces that excludes the body

where you don't, the thing that, the only thing that matters is, is like this very particular type of intellectual engagement that is emotionless. I mean, I think genuinely, it is, I don't mean to be ableist here, but I think a lot of these guys are somewhere on the autism spectrum that, like, there is a. Never, Morgan. How dare you say that about Elon Musk? Peter Thiel, the work that our system has started to value at this, I mean, the investment in AI, when you look at it even relative to China, which is our closest competitor, we're investing like 10 times or more what they're investing. That for whatever reason, the markets have decided in this country that that's the kind of, that's the most valuable type of labor. And that type of labor is done by people who are like, don't want to include their bodies or their emotions in the product that they're creating. And I think, Don't even necessarily want to include humanity. I mean, there is this creepy obsession with, like, this is going to supplant us. Like, our job is to birth the AI that's going to supplant humanity.

Like, what the hell, man? Like, it's just, yeah, it's so weird and creepy to me. Yeah, I agree. And I think, I mean, I don't know. I don't, I have yet, you know, there are a few things in the world that I, like, there are these sort of big unanswered questions that just seem to sort of persist, even as everyone operates as if they knew the answer. But, like, AI to me is, why do we want this?

Like, if you took the amount of money that they've invested in developing these AIs, and you just gave it to a bunch of scientists to do pure research and development over a sustained period of time, are you telling me that they wouldn't have enormous breakthroughs? Like, we know the human brain is a fucking miracle. Like, we don't need to invent another thing. We just need to actually allocate resources to what we have. It's a falling rate of profit.

I mean, I genuinely think that explains artificial intelligence because in the 19th century you could do things like consolidate the railroads or my joky thing is you could build St. Louis and you're going to get a big return if you build St. Louis. But now there's just fewer and fewer places for capital to invest. So the only thing that capital is able to do in the second half of the 20th century is to reduce labor costs. First, the easiest way to do that is through blue-collar labor. So first you automate.

I'm in the Pacific Northwest. Basically, going down from like the gigantic saw to the chain. saw destroyed the logging industry because you just got rid of seven workers in five seconds. So you automate blue-collar workers, and then you, once globalization, these global connections happen with American Empire, then you're just

offshore. And so that's the story of blue-collar work. But with AI, what they're essentially trying to do, I think, is do that to the white-collar workforce, which is that they need to get rid of labor costs because there is no other basically useful place to invest. And this is what Marx said. He would say, over time, the rate of

profit would fall. Capital would have more difficulty finding places to keep the same rate of return going. And so what it would do was emiserate the workers. And for this reason, the proletariat need to recognize itself as the subject object of history organized and basically put the miracles of capitalism in service of humanity. The problem is we're not in the era of putting it in the service of humanity. So you get AI. That's how I view it, at least.

No, that makes a ton of sense to me. I guess I just, one of the things I find frustrating is I, you know, it feels like like because we are living in this era of climate breakdown, there is this, we are, there is the possibility to rebuild St. Louis. Like every, every building in this country needs to be re-insulated. We need to shift to a whole, you know, we need to redo our entire electrical grid. There is actually a lot of that work to do that, that to me is like, why couldn't that be profitable? Like, why are we not going to that? That's financialization. So I think the, this is what happens when society's decay, whether you're looking at the United Kingdom or the Dutch Republic, right, towards

the end of their hegemony, they always basically become financialized because they become organized around short-term profits, because people don't actually believe, unlike the Russells or the Vanderbiltz or whatever, in sort of the long-term project of the United States, they only believe on short-term return. I mean, talk about Hollywood. Look at how Hollywood has been totally overcome with basically high finance, just getting in there and purchasing all of these companies. So I think that's the other part of the story, is that financial capital has no interest in these sorts of long-term nationalist projects, which explains why they wouldn't solar panels. You know, that China's doing it. Why not do solar panels? Why not rebuild these

things? And that, I explain that through financialization and sort of the shareholder incentives of the corporation and the needing to make money off money, crypto. I mean, that's just not it's a fake. It's just an asset class that's totally fucking fake, totally disconnected from anything. And it's a sign of really a cancerous decay at the heart of the society, ultimately, a sign of decline imperial decline. I think this is too, this is also why, I mean, again, to come back to somebody like Zoron, but like we're desperately in need of people who can tell us a story about the future that's going to, that could create. I mean, this is why this is again, this is something that I went obf, this is why I liked Obama too, was it felt like this is somebody who could say,

here's the new national project. Here's what we're going to, here's what America is going to be about. Here's what we're going to do going forward. And we're, and you need that story in order to be able to reorganize your economy, your political economy. And I think, like, we're still looking for that. I don't know what, you know, Trump's version of that story is, like, it is fundamentally backward looking, right? It is not, it is about restoration, I think. It is not about a radical restoration of a very, you know, of a very hierarchical order, as opposed to something new. It's also literally pre-financial, sorry, just very quickly. It's like the tariffs are only on goods. You can't not regulate finance and expect there to be any, any effect, right? So it's

literally a 19th century McKinley-esque mindset that imagines that the American economy is primarily about goods, which it is just not any longer. It's about financial transactions, primarily and services. And so he has zero regulate, the only regulation he lives is fucking goods on tariffs on goods, which makes no sense. So again, it's all k-fayb, which is actually I think good, quote-unquote, just because he's not going to be able to build a lasting base off of that. If he had done like a National Socialism-Nazism-esque thing where he actually distributed

wealth to the to the United, that's scary. If he actually did that, but he's not going to do that. He's an Outerboro New York guy who just wants to literally Tammany esk, boss tweed-esque more than anything else. Sorry, Derek. Well, I mean, to

pick up on the AI discussion again, I mean, Morgan, I'm curious your take on AI in Hollywood, because this has been a big topic of conversation. I just read an article the other day. It was from a couple of years ago, but it was about the AI 4K render

of, I think it was True Lies, which I love is a great movie. And you look at these still images from the upscale, and like Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like a cartoon. Like Tom Ardle looks like a cartoon. It's unwatchable. But it's only gotten worse. I mean, this has only gotten

bigger, like the idea that we're going to stop hiring extras and just put AI rendered characters in the backgrounds of movies. That was a big element of one of the strikes, I know. And just, you know, what's going to happen here is this technology, which, you know, seems wretched to me in most ways, but just becomes a bigger, a bigger part of the studio consideration when they're making movies and TV series. Yeah, I have a nephew who is in the film business, and he is a first, and he was telling me a story about working on independent feature in the UK. And basically they had a bit to open the open the,

I think it was the first shot of an episode of a series. And to open the shot, it's this big, open the show, it's this big sweeping drone shot, pushes up over a cliff into a sort of small village and then comes into like the window of the house. And there we find our main characters. And they were looking at the budget to actually do that with a drone and, you know, a sort of second unit team and housing them and blah, blah, blah. And then there was like a visual effects house that's it's using LLM-based VFX models who are like, we'll do it for, I mean, a tiny fraction of the cost, right? And also their first draft of it that was like,

we'll throw something together was great, right? It was like exactly what they wanted and they delivered it that afternoon. I'm, you know, slightly exaggerated. But, you know, that is hard to fight. And I think when it comes to big crowd scenes, when it comes to some of those shots, I don't know, like, unless Ayatzi in the States, like, gets together and says, you're not allowed to do this, I think that is, some of that stuff is a foregone conclusion. I think the idea, and maybe this is just, like, naively optimistic.

I think I probably am a bit of a naive optimist in a lot of ways. Like, you know, I think people don't want to see fake acting, fake people acting. I think the game that's interesting is you're watching a real person pretend to do something. Otherwise, it's just animation, right? I mean, it seems like very possible to me that you're going to invent an easy, cheap, sort of third category here of animation that is AI-based. And you might get some brilliant art out of that, right? Like, if one guy can sit in a room and make a feature film that's animated, you might get some brilliant art out of it. A lot fewer people are going to be employed in the business.

I think that's correct. Literally, what you just said is precisely what I think is going to happen. And I think, again, it just marks this guy knew what he was saying. It's going to mirror the rest of the economy, right? Like if you're an actor on an HBO show, you're going to be fine, but it's going to basically cut out that fat, the 90% of people who like kind of, you know, you could kind of just put that extra in the background, et cetera, et cetera.

It's going to do the same in FX. I think writing, it's going to do less because the Guild, I think, was very, very good on this. They said you can't credit AI. So ironically, I think writing is going to be one of the most protected elements of the entertainment industry, because no matter what, there's going to have to be a human getting credit on that script. But I think it's going to affect things otherwise.

So, Morgan, we've kept you here a while. I don't want to keep you too much longer. But you said you wanted to ask us some questions and wanted to give you the opportunity. If, you know, flip the classroom, as they say in academia. I have two questions that, I mean, I could sit here for many, many hours and ask you guys questions. But I have two questions that I really want to ask you. One is, you know, I think, Danny, the first time I became a way, of you, you wrote an essay in N-plus-1 calling for the left to develop a foreign policy,

a socialist foreign policy. And I know that, you know, with Quincy and the sort of restrainers movement, I think, you know, a lot of socialists have been part of that. But that's also something that libertarians are involved in, sort of some conservatives are involved in. Do you think that that's happened or do you think that we've made progress toward having It's something you could say this is a, you know, any good socialist candidate that would be DSA approved or that we would get behind, you know, socialists would get behind is going to have essentially a version of this foreign policy. That's a really good question. And I would say the answer is no, for a couple of reasons. One, that institutional destruction that I talked about vis-a-vis like the Hollywood Committee for Defense, that really, I think, knocked out the institutional basis of the American left. So you essentially have, let's say, from 1948 to 2014-15, just no institutions of what a genuine left-wing foreign policy would be. So we're still in the nascent stage of institutions. building. And I think you need those institutions, particularly in foreign policy, which is such like an expert technocratic space to really develop that. What I think Quincy is trying to do is

basically reach back to almost a pre-World War II moment. Morgan, I don't know if you heard me say this, but really the whole notion of sort of a liberal center and then the left and a right only started to be used in the United States in the 40s, primarily because New Deal liberals wanted to present themselves in their project as the common-sense middle that was different from the communists on the left and the fascist on the right and we're the center. But what Quincy is trying,

there are much deeper strands in U.S. history that are skeptical of intervention. Like Charles Beard, who would later be considered, you know, right-wing and Eugene Debs had kind of a similar almost George Washington skepticism of foreign entanglements, at least when it came to outside the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere, of course,

always within. They're isolationists, not in terms of Latin America. No one's isolationist in terms of Latin America, but I'm just going to bracket that for a second. So I do think that there is a deep strand of anti-interventionism, anti-imperialism in U.S. history that could genuinely, in the short term, begin to exert an effect on U.S. foreign policy. Trump talked like that to some degree, obviously didn't govern like that.

There's also problems on the left because you have some people on the left, people that I respect and have worked with like Matt Duss, who, for example, wanted to arm Ukraine from a left-wing perspective. right? Like as leftists, you know, you support the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Why wouldn't you support the noble Ukrainians against Russia, right? There's an argument there.

I just come down on the side of like, yes, when we're talking about the 30 sure, but there's been 75 years of actual U.S. imperial governance. And what this demonstrates over and over and over and over again is when the United States intervenes, it just fuck shit up. So I would say that that historical record,

that's what I based my sort of just extreme anti-imperialism on, which is just basically Yankee come home. But there are differences in the left about that. So that's why I think it's going to be difficult in the short or medium term for there to be like a left-wing approach because you could see the logic behind, you know, arming the noble Ukrainians. It usually doesn't come to arming the noble Palestinians, but that's a different story

for a different time for various reasons. I think, sorry, Derek, please. No, go ahead. Go ahead, Morgan. No, no, I just was going to say, like, I, that leads me to my, adds a question and leads me to my next question. So, Derek, please, if you were going to say something about that, go ahead. Well, okay, I mean, I think, you know, and this is something we talked about actually with Shadi Ahmed the other day, Danny. The part of the destruction of the institutions

is a diminishment of the capacity for the left to prepare for power. There are think tanks like Quincy that are oriented around a particular ideological strain or pushing a particular point, Quincy is very much oriented around the idea of foreign policy restraint, but that's not a left, that's not limited to a left foreign policy. And what you miss with, when you don't have institutions like CAP or, you know, the senator to CSIS or some of these other places, is you don't have these places where people are getting together and writing policy or writing like this is what we would do if a leftist was elected president

and where you can draw then from the personnel in these institutions to fill out an administration. That's got to be... Thousands of positions, by the way. Thousands of positions need to be filled. This is where we're going to get our secretary's state from.

Like, it's every political appointee in the state department, every political appointee in the Pentagon, and who knows after Trump, that may be everybody if they strip civil service protections. So you're really lacking, I think, the institutional basis

to build out an administration if you got to that point where there was one. So there's a lot of work to me that has to be done. And just very quickly, just to two-finger that, one of the things that we were doing within the Bernie campaign, which I thought was really exciting, was thinking about how to reform the actual state because the state is so fucking anti-democratic.

Like, the NSC is an insane institution if you think about it. Like, you could just appoint anyone like Henry Kissinger to just go in there, and now he's the king of foreign policy. So there also needs to be like serious institutional reform, which I think Trump has shown a Bernie-esque figure, could do. Just go in there and issue 500 executive orders on the first day, right? Let them deal with that, but do it leftistly. It's not great. I wish we couldn't, we didn't have that system, but this is the one we're in. Sorry, Morgan, off to you. No, no. Yeah, I remember when

it looked like Corbyn might be a prime minister. That was a real problem what they were facing, was that there just was not that institutional capacity to staff and to come in with like white papers on here's what we're going to do. We need to, you know, when we need to develop nitty-gritty policy stuff that that institutional capacity wasn't there is there any how do we get there from here how do we develop those institutions because obviously i mean there could be i don't know who you know there could be someone that that steps up and becomes a kind of real heir to bernie obviously zoron's born in uganda he can't be the president but uh you know somebody like that who was a real star you know who would they draw on i mean it would it would be podcasters

podcasters and little magazine writers I mean this is one of the problems with the destruction of academia I mean that's where people would go oftentimes when the leftists would go when they weren't allowed into Washington DC but I think consciously or unconsciously capitalism has just destroyed the American university

I don't know if you saw what's happening at UChicago they're not accepting any PhD students in the humanities where do you think these people are going to come from next year they're stripping programs to have any foreign language element to them like they're just getting rid of them So, I mean, to be honest, the real answer is you would need a Russell-esque figure to come in and fund it, and Alex Soros, who was genuinely left wing to be like, I'm going, I'm so wealthy, I'm going to, these institutions aren't that expensive, to be honest, that you have budgets $5 million a year. It's not very much. You would need to have like a David Geffen on the left come in and just fund it. But the problem in capitalism is that it turns out the Uber capitalists are,

aren't actually left wing. And so I think this is a problem. And just point to one example, Morgan, I'm sure you know the Frankfurt School, right? The Institute of Social Research, they were funded by the son of an industrialist. Engels, the son of an industrialist funds Marx, right? So we need our sons to really stand up and help us going forward.

Rebell against your capitalist billionaires' dads. But that's the depressing answer, simple answer is money. Yeah, Bill Ackman's daughter, right? she's the she's the marxist right which is why he hits harvard okay yes i have all right so one more this is one question with a part b or part a i guess so one is throughout the uh throughout the genocide in gaza um it has never been made clear to me except in platitudes why the u.s is so committed to supporting israel and i was listening to um I was listening to a podcast yesterday where some people were making an argument that the, you know, the sort of Walt Mearsheimer thesis that the lobby drives a lot of it is false and sort of like pointlessly liberal because actually it's about imperialism and it's about capitalism and it's about this sort of, it's about geopolitical control over the region.

And all of the arguments, all of the sort of points that they made in support of that argument, which obviously I'm sympathetic to in many ways, we're from like the Cold War period. And it seems to me that post-Cold War, I don't fucking understand what the utility of the rural country is, right? Like we have bases all through Saudi and Jordan, right? Like who Egypt, C.C. is like a puppet, a U.S. puppet. I mean, maybe that's probably oversimplifying things, but there's an enormous amount of influence there. Like, what is the fucking purpose that this serves when it's doing so much harm to the U.S.? And really, I actually even, like, thinking about this from the perspective of a Biden president. I mean, I know he's old and his brain was fucking soup.

And, like, he's still living in the Cold War, I think, in terms of his ideology. But I don't know. From their perspective, from the perspective of a Biden or from a, let's say, an Anthony Sullivan or Anthony Blinken or Anthony Blinken or a Jake Sullivan, or from the perspective of somebody inside the Trump administration, what is the purpose that this country serves that is unique, that makes it all worth this? Derek, you want to start? I mean, there's a few things to say about this.

First of all, I disagree with the take that the domestic aspect doesn't matter at all, that the Israel lobby doesn't matter. I think it matters a great deal, especially to politicians who are, let's say, of a, certain age or came up through a system that functions in a way that they understand that if you cross Israel, APEC comes down and you're like a ton of bricks and you lose. And whether that's true or not anymore, and I think there's an argument to be made that it's changing, this is the world that they know. The world that they know is you don't fuck with APEC. Beyond that, and this is

more on the Republican side, but you also have an extraordinarily powerful religious Christian Zionist lobby that works for the same. ends to a much different purpose, right? They want Israel to exist for a much different reason than APEC does, but they're pushing in the same direction. So first of all, I think that discounting that entirely is wrong. The second point I would make is in terms of the utility for the empire, some of that is muscle memory too. Some of that is, as you said, a guy like Joe Biden, who is still living in some Cold War fantasy. But even with younger people like Blinken and Sullivan, they were trained in a certain way and certain rules about how U.S. foreign policy works,

and you have that drilled into you. And if you want to get ahead in that world, you understand those rules and you parrot them back and you operate within that system. So it's kind of ingrained in them that Israel matters from that perspective. And the third thing is it still matters, I think, from the perspective of Iran. And some of that's Muslim memory, too. Some of that is like we're still pissed off over the embassy seizure in 1979, and we want to make them pay for it. But also, Iran is a prize in the same way that Iraq was viewed as a prize. If there's oil here, it's a state in the middle of the region that is anti-American,

and if we can turn that into a bastion of whatever, freedom and democracy, that will resonate through the entire world. And Iran now is the prize. And what Israel gives the U.S. in that sense is a place to pressure Iran for the ultimate goal of regime change. There's other things, too. There's the military benefit of having a country that's willing to test out all of America's weapons on subject populations like the Palestinians in Gaza that's prepared to buy a lot of U.S. weapons, even if it's with money that the government sends, then gets funneled, recycled through Israel back to defense contractors. So there's a lot of that, too. It is a laboratory in some senses for the U.S. military to play around in or to have the Israelis play around on their behalf and see what works and what doesn't.

Unfortunately, that results in the death and starvation of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. But that's a side effect that we here in the United States are willing to suffer through because it doesn't really affect us. Yeah, and just to add on that, Derek, what you're saying, it serves the function that Latin America used to serve an American foreign policy as the laboratory of empire,

and now you could just really offshore it in a way that you couldn't before. And then I think this is, I'm obviously more of a materialist, but I also think it's envisioned as a white redoubt of civilization in a region of barbarism. Like when Merch said that Israel's doing

the dirty work of the West for it, and so you have this irony where the Jews who were basically the object against which Western Mardanity was formed in a real, you know, the figure of the Jew as other, they're fully welcomed in to the project of Western Mardanity by essentially serving as a settler colonial society in a region of barbarism. And so I also think that is sort of this like substrate going on here. But I do think it is changing. I think the problem, though, is

it'll change by the time that Israel has quote unquote won by creating greater Israel, which makes it very grim and very depressing. And this is, again, why I often say it sometimes does feel like we're living through the era of mutual ruin. That, you know, we didn't control the great things produced by capitalism. They wound up controlling us. We're alienated in a foundational Marxist sense from these things. And it's depressing. And I think we need to find a way out of it. But, you know, in my more pessimistic moments, that's what I think. Yeah. All right, can I ask the part B to that or the part? Yeah, please.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go for it. Then I'll let you guys go. But so I'm very persuaded by the restrainer position, right? I mean, I do think, you know, broadly speaking, the U.S. ends up pouring gasoline on the fire most of the time when it gets involved in these places. I mean, certainly in Ukraine, you know, we, the, the, it was impossible to escalate with Russia up beyond a certain point. So there was no effective opposition that could really be marshaled by NATO and the West. So all you can do is prolong this grinding conflict.

I think that was patently obvious immediately. And it drove me fucking crazy that no one else would see that. All you were doing is throwing bodies on this fire. So anyway, that's Ukraine. But also from the restrainer perspective, though, when you – I'm always – I love the bi-monthly conversations with Robert Wright Because I think his commitment to international law, I actually, I'm quite taken with it. And I love, I mean, I think, and you know, let's build that new world order as fast as we fucking can, as long as it's democratic. It's fine with me.

But, but yeah, I wonder, you know, when you have a situation like Gaza where it needs to stop right now, right? Like, they don't get to fire another bullet. Like, if I had the levers, right? They don't get to fire another bullet. they don't get to move another guy. The shit is over right now. And the only way to really do that, I think, is with military force at this point. Like, yes, maybe if we said no more weapons and you're sanctioned, maybe they would be so shocked

that they would stop. But possibly they wouldn't. I mean, I think clearly Netanyahu's political, his domestic political incentives are so driven by the settler domination of their politics, I don't know if he can stop. And I don't want to say he's like a helpless figure here. But I think he's in a, I think he is also compelled in some ways to continue doing what he's doing. So yes, I think you really have to maybe put a put some real force on the scale to stop. And in the absence, I mean, what's the, what is the restrainer position on a case like this?

I mean, I don't know if a Sudan might be a similar situation. I mean, is obviously I don't want the U.S. going in because the U.S. has its own incentives. but is it like is the desire is the wish that there were a true multilateral force that could that could go in and stop situations like this it's a good question i for this one i always look at what eisenhower did with suez which is like you fucking continue this another second you're you're basically out of the family and we're never going to help you with anything and then the british and the french and the israeli stopped in about two seconds because they're ultimately still clients of the united states so i think the restrainer position is that these are clients and because these are effectively clients you could essentially do what you want. I think if the United States, if Trump or Biden or any of them just said you have until tomorrow to stop or you're going to be out of this family of Western nations, they would actually stop. Barring, barring. So I think the question what you're asking is like about the responsibility to protect, which was this idea in the 90s and 2000s. It's like if Milosevic is just like murdering

these people, do you just like let it happen or Srebrenica? Do you just like let that happen, right? or Rwanda, which they did let happen, et cetera, et cetera. Right, this is supposed to be the animating principle after the Cold War. This is what the U.S. does with its superpower. Until 9-11 helped us, and we could just have we could do whatever the fuck we want.

But I think this is a really difficult question because ultimately I am of the view that you can't get the type of positive benefit that we all want to see in the world as humanists, as universalistic humanists, who think that every life is equal with the empire. So the problem is if you do use the empire, in a quote-unquote good way,

it necessitates the use of the empire and the bad way. And again, I think history demonstrates that. You don't get like the ending of Srebrenica without now we have the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. They actually fundamentally go together. So that's why I'm of the position that even in these humanitarian crises,

it can't be the U.S. state running them. In an ideal world, you would have a genuinely democratic institution in which the U.N. is not and has never been run something like that, where there was a democratically decided military force that in a legitimate way speaks on quote-unquote behalf of humanity. And I don't think we're going to get that

with the U.S. imperial prerogative as it is, which is why in my lifetime as a historically situated person who does want to see one-world government, who does want to see that type of military force, my primary project is Yankee Go Home, because I don't think you would get that otherwise. And that's just a personal thing because no one wants to see,

I mean, to put it bluntly, babies get killed wherever, in Gaza or elsewhere. It's horrible. You want to end that. This is the motivating ideology of Samantha Powers' career. But if anything, this is what her career demonstrates,

right? That you can't actually use the empire for good. It just doesn't work that way historically. And to your second case, Morgan, which I think is actually more vexing Sudan. because I think there are levers that you could pull with Israel to stop what's happening in Gaza at relatively little cost or, you know, that wouldn't violate a restrainer ethos.

Sudan, I think, is harder because there isn't that client relationship. There is the UAE arming the paramilitaries, the rapid support forces who commit, you know, a lot of the atrocities in that conflict. But even if the U.S. went to the U.S. went to the U.S. and said, you know, knock it off or you're out of the tent, you're out of the club, whatever. Like, I don't know that that would stop the conflict. And at best, if it did stop the conflict in the sense that the RSF was no longer able to function, and the Sudanese military won, where does that really leave the people of Sudan?

I mean, the military is not much of an improvement. So then the question is, you know, what have you actually achieved? And it's, it's, I don't have a good answer for that. have a good answer for what you do with something like that under a restrain or worldview, except to say that, yeah, it would be great if we had some international law or an international ability to do things in a multinational basis to end conflicts like that. But we don't, and under the, you know, I don't see any nation state, particularly not a powerful nation state, actually exceeding or to a situation or a structure like that and giving up a,

power to something that could really do do meaningful things in the world. This is why when I think in the medium term, we're going along, Morgan, sorry to keep it so long, man. But like, you have to start thinking in, like, the U.S. and Canada and Mexico are effectively one economy in actual reality, right? If you look at the material reality,

that's where you could start building these sorts of democratic linkages, ideally. And it's from there that you start building. If you think about the history of the last 1,000 years, of essentially people moving up, their imagination of the community that they belong to, from the family to the village, to the town, to the state, to the nation. There's no region we can't eventually get to the world. But first, I think you can't skip. The problem with international law is that it tried to

skip the regional element to just go to like the world. But what really happened was that the United States identified itself as acting on behalf of humanity because of our insane millenarian Protestant belief that has defined this country from the beginning. But it tried to skip a step. So I think that we could start as leftists really building up that sort of regional integration in a democratic way where we're not just exploiting Mexico or Central America, but we're building

genuine institutions that are representative of some sort of people's will for over the next several hundred years. If you imagine the nation state as a project took several hundred years to go, this is also going to take this is also going

to take this type of building up over time. And that's what my, again, as someone who's living in the 21st century, I wish I was living in the 28th century, I try to do, is to sort of push towards those sorts of linkages over time. Yeah, so it seems like the left foreign policy project has to be a kind of international project,

albeit a regional one. Yeah, it's time. I'm a historian, right? Like, you have to understand, and this is, again, back to Marx, you have to understand where you're situated in time. And to argue in favor of international law in 2025 is, I think, to argue with a figment because we're just, we haven't done the work to get there.

And if you listen to me and Bob, this is like the fundamental law, right? What did Churchill say about democracy, whatever? Or I forget, it's a good idea. Whoever said it, like, it's a good idea. It is a good idea. It's a great idea if it was actually able to be enforced. But what international law meant in practice

was the right of the United States to arrogate to itself, the ability to act on behalf of humanity because we didn't do the work to get to do the work to get to a genuine international law. That's my problem with it, not with the idea of international law, which is obviously good, but with the reality of the historical moment in which it was tried to be implemented. Isn't it about the U.S. yielding its sovereignty, right? I mean, so in some way, I guess this is a thing I wonder is like, could the actual, you know, could the project of creating real international law actually be a kind of project for the domestic

U.S. left, right? Because we are the ones who could change U.S. policy in terms of saying we need to transition from being an empire to being like part of an international community. I know that's fucking. That sounds I think at the moment, but yeah.

I think in terms of steps, you've got to get rid of the empire first. You're not going to have that with the 750 basis. Right. Right. It's that just like, you can't have the material reality of empire and the ideological reality of international law. Again, Marx.

So that's why my project now is Yankee go home. But if that succeeds in 25 years, now we're talking about how do you genuinely get international law to supersede domestic law, which is, of course, why all the Republicans in the Congress and the 20s voted against the League of Nations. They didn't want that. So this is a major problem in American history. I mean, it was very much a missed opportunity in the 90s, I think. And Danny, you and I have talked about this before, that for the people.

who really claim to care about the, you know, so-called values, American values, human rights and democracy and all these things, that was the moment to cede the sovereignty, to seed the power to an international body that could institute those things as norms and actually, you know, work to make them a reality in the world. But we decided it would just be easier for the United States to be world police. And that was it. That was the end of that moment. And that was the period Bob was politicized in. So that's why he's very committed to it.

Everyone's just historically situated history, the greatest discipline. Morgan, thank you so much for joining us, man. This was one of the best episodes we've done. Really, really appreciate it. And honestly, I hope to have you back again whenever. Such a pleasure to actually talk to you guys. It was really a joy. Thank you for all you've taught me over the years, genuinely.

Appreciate it. Radio, yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, uh, uh,

radiotopia, from PRX, from PRX. From PRX. Thank you.