TALKING POLITICS

David and Helen talk to Shashank Joshi, Defence Editor at the Economist, about the fallout from the killing of Soleimani and the future of American power. Is Trump a madman or is he a realist (or is he neither)? What sort of threat does Iran pose to American interests in the region and the wider world? And what has all this got to do with oil and climate change? Plus, in the week Trump's impeachment trial gets underway, we ask who or what can limit the power of the presidency. Talking Points:  The narrative on the killing of Soleimani has changed: was this a victory for the United States? - The shooting down of the Ukranian plane has put the Iranian leadership on the back foot and constrained their ability to weaponise the outrage against the United States. - But when the dust settles, it might not play to America’s advantage. - The Quds Force will carry on. There is a tension between the need to reassert American power in the region and the problem of Iraq. - The Americans may be more disliked in Iraq now than the Iranians. - The Americans are playing with a handicap; the Iraqi political class shields Iran, but not the U.S. - Iran will always be in the region; America won’t be there forever.  - If the U.S. does withdraw, the Chinese and the Russians will get more involved.  Trump wants to get out, but the collapse of the Iran Deal is pulling him back in. - This is not unfamiliar: Obama wanted to pivot to Asia and get out of the Middle East, but he couldn’t do it. - Americans have been obsessed with the Persian Gulf for decades. Executive power vs. American power: which one dominates? - Executive power enables this kind of American power.  - Bush, Clinton, and Obama have all increased executive power. - A key difference is that in the Trump administration there are fewer checks on the use of this power within the executive branch.  Mentioned in this Episode:  - Helen’s piece in The New Statesman.  - The William Barr profile in The New Yorker - The Atlantic on Obama - The Macron interview with The Economist - The Economist briefing on aircraft carriers - The 2017 National Security Strategy  And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

An extra episode with Azeem Azhar, tech entrepreneur and host of the Exponential View podcast and newsletter. We talk about Azeem's predictions for what will shape politics and technology over the next decade, from climate change to artificial intelligence. Plus we discuss the Dominic Cummings agenda: will the UK government really be able to harness the dynamism of the tech start-up mindset within the hidebound structures of Whitehall?  This is the first of a two part special - you can find the other half of this conversation in a couple of days at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/exponential-view-with-azeem-azhar/id1172218725 Azeem's newsletter is here: https://www.exponentialview.co/ and the blog by Dominic cummings here: https://dominiccummings.com/  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We are back for 2020 to talk about Labour's future after Corbyn. How can the party move the argument beyond Brexit? Does the voting system help or hinder Labour's chances of returning to power? And what to do about Scotland? Plus, we ask how much damage would be done if the next leader turns out to be the only man in the field. With Helen Thompson, Chris Brooke and Chris Bickerton. Talking Points:  Electoral Reform seems to be a perennial issue for the Labour Party. - Starmer says he wants to win a majority—but it’s hard to see how.  - Would electoral reform get Labour any closer to winning?  - In 1987, Tony Blair pointed out that there is a real risk of collapse for centre-left parties under proportional representation systems. - We often think of alliance politics as being anti-Tory, but look at 2010: sometimes it works the other way. - First Past the Post keeps Labour in place as the only alternative government. Is England a broadly conservative country or an anti-conservative country whose electoral system doesn’t reflect society? - It’s hard to know—there does seem to be a core conservative voting bloc.  One reason that pessimism isn’t evenly distributed in the Labour party despite the defeat is that people think the biggest problem was fighting an election with an unpopular leader. - Corbyn and Brexit may have been sufficient conditions for a Labour defeat. - Would Labour fare better with a different leader? - The generational divide poses a challenge—how can Labour appeal to over 65’s without alienating young people. The leadership election appears to be Keir Starmer’s to lose. - Will the fact that he’s facing three women be a problem? - Rebecca Long-Bailey has a lot of prominent support, but she’s not a great media performer. Mentioned in this Episode: - Tony Blair for The New Statesman in 1987 - Daniel Finkelstein’s column on Keir Starmer - The YouGov poll on the next Labour leader - The 2019 election, broken down by age Further Learning:  - David’s lecture on the generational divide in politics - Our YouTube video on Labour leadership And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

 In the final episode of our American Histories series, Sarah Churchwell tells the incredible story of the politics of abortion during the 1970s. How did evangelicals go from supporting abortion to being its die-hard opponents, what did the switch have to do with the politics of race and what have been the lasting consequences for American democracy? Talking Points:  A lot of people think that the U.S. abortion debate started in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, and that evangelical republicans have always been anti-abortion. Both assumptions are wrong. - There weren’t many laws against abortion in the United States until after the Civil War.  - After the Civil War there were large waves of migration. This led to a rise of nativism. Many early abortion laws were rooted in scientific racism and anxieties over ‘race suicide.’ Initially, the Democrats pandered to the Catholics by taking on a more pro-life position. - Evangelicals were not particularly politically active (with a brief exception in the 1920s and 30s). Republicans wanted to change this. - Roe v. Wade was fought on a right to privacy issue. Abortion was seen as a thing that white, middle class people did in their home. - Evangelical Christian magazines, even in the years immediately after Roe, tended to characterize abortion as a question of indiivdual health, family welfare, and social responsibility.  - Yet by 1978, this had completely flipped. What happened? After Brown v. Board desegregated schools, a bunch of white Christians created whites-only Christian academies and claimed tax-exempt status.  - Anxiety about the federal government interfering in Christian life got caught up in itself.  - Abortion for many became a proxy issue: it was easier (and more politically acceptable) to oppose abortion than integration. Today the battlelines feel entrenched and we could be moving towards the repeal of Roe v. Wade. - But these are not immutable dividing lines in American politics.  - This doesn’t mean that abortion isn’t extremely important to many evangelicals: it is. But it’s important to recognize the contingency in what questions are politically central.  Further Learning:  - Sue Halpern on how Republicans became anti-choice - More on the origins of the religious right - NPR ‘Throughline’ podcast issue on evangelicals and abortion And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Gary Gerstle explores the forgotten history of Mexican deportations from the southern United States in the 1930's and asks how it fits into the longer story of US immigration policy up until today. From open borders to 'Build That Wall': what's next? Talking Points:  Immigrant labour has always been vital to U.S. economic development. - The United States presented itself as being a different kind of society. This was partially ideological, and partially a labour imperative. In the early 20th century, the labour imperative became less acute.  - America still thought of itself as a Protestant society. - In this period, the United States implemented draconian immigration restrictions, including racialized quotas. - The fear of revolutionary organized labour also affected quotas. The Jews and the Italians were targeted due to anxiety over communism and anarchism. Immigration from Mexico has always been a slightly different story. - The restrictive immigration laws of the 1920s excluded the western hemisphere. Mexicans were still coming in large numbers because agricultural corporate interests needed Mexican migrant labour.  - But because this was land-based immigration, there was more flow back and forth. Much of this migration was temporary, or at least the powers that be thought that it could be. In the 1930s, over 500,000 Mexicans were deported, mostly by state and local governments. - This was mass expulsion with little due process. - The idea was that Meixcan labour was driving down wages; but the forces at work were much greater than immigration, and deportation didn’t solve the agricultural crisis. The ongoing need for labour led to the creation of the first guest workers’ program in the 1940s (the Bracero Program).  - The United States was still treating Mexico as a controllable surplus labour pool, but there has always been seepage. - In the 1960s, the immigration system was overhauled again to make things more egalitarian: but this disadvantaged Mexicans. - There’s another key overhaul in the 1980s to allow for the right to asylum. If Trumpism continues, these laws will likely be reversed. Further Learning:  - America’s forgotten history of Mexican-American ‘Repatriation’ - More on illegal deportations in American history - The archives of the Bracero program, the first Mexican guest workers system And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Sarah Churchwell tells the tortured history of the campaign to secure votes for women and how it was tied up with another campaign to suppress votes for black Americans. From the 15th amendment in 1870 to the 19th amendment in 1920: why the promise of enfranchisement is often not what it seems. Talking Points:  The struggle for votes for women and votes for black people have been linked from the beginning. - Some activists wanted to do both at once, but slavery was deemed more urgent.  - Of course, in practice, white lawmakers soon stripped the 15th amendment of its practical power by passing laws such as poll taxes and grandfather clauses. Many suffragettes believed that if they supported the 15th amendment, Republicans would turn around and recognize their claims, and that black legislators in particular would argue for rights for women. - It didn’t work out that way. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Antony felt that they had been betrayed by the Republican cause. The 19th amendment is explicitly modeled on the 15th amendment. - But it passes in part because people are convinced (correctly in the short term) that it won’t lead to the enforcement of the 15th amendment. Another thing that happens in this moment is the 18th amendment, or prohibition.  - Temperance was extremely important to many politically active women at the time. - At the time, women had no rights within marriage, and no redress against domestic violence or poverty. - But it was also about nativism. Drinking was associated with certain immigrant cultures, especially catholic cultures.  - Temperance gains traction in part as a way of criminalizing suspicious foreign conduct. Further Learning: - How racism almost killed women’s right to vote - Brent Staples op ed on the rift between white and black women going back to the suffrage fights - Interview with Lori Ginzberg in NPR about her biography of Elizabeth Cady Stanton - More on African American women and voting rights And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Gary Gerstle talks about the journalist who brought down a business empire, when Ida Tarbell went after the power of John D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Corporation at the start of the twentieth century. Could anyone do the same to Facebook or Amazon today? Talking Points:  America’s foundational myth is about rebelling against monopolies: a monopoly of power in the hands of the King.  - How does an anti-monopolistic society get dominated by monopolies? - Industrialization and the free economic environment after the Civil War created different conditions.  - The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment to mean that corporations are individuals and therefore protected by the Bill of Rights. Resistance to monopolies reached a peak during the first Gilded Age. - Some of the resistance was political, but some of it was journalistic. - Journalists known as ‘muckrakers’ sought to expose the practices that produced extraordinary power. - The reports of journalist Ida Tarbell ultimately led to the breakup of Standard Oil of Ohio. - Journalism set the tone for the progressive reform movement. The election of 1912 was about what to do about the trusts/monopolies. - Debs wanted to nationalize them; Wilson wanted to break them up; Roosvevelt said regulate them; only Taft carried take a stand. - Roosevelt’s approach ultimately carried the day. What can the past tell us about today?  - Warren is carrying forward the breakup agenda. - Previous anti-monopoly movements took a long time; don’t expect much too quickly. - But the sentiments haven’t gone away. And the forces that Warren and Sanders have unleashed will continue to percolate. Mentioned in this Episode:  - Dark Money by Jane Mayer Further Learning:  - More on Ida Tarbell - A Talking Politics Guide to … the Gilded Age - More on Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up big tech And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Gary Gerstle tells the story of Anthony Comstock, the man who tried to stamp out pornography in the final decades of the nineteenth century, using the US Postal Service as his weapon. Where he succeeded and how he ultimately failed still has echoes now, even in the age of the internet. Talking Points:  States were exempted from the Bill of Rights from the 1790s until essentially the 1960s. - Some states pursued extraordinary influence over the lives of their citizens.  - There were always states that were more liberal and more repressive. - For many Americans, the government was the state government. Anthony Comstock was a moral crusader who used the postal service as the vehicle of anti-vice politics at the federal level. - The federal government can only exercise the powers mentioned in the constitution. - The constitution doesn’t give the government the power to regulate morals but it does give the government power over the post office. - The post office was a large and efficacious bureaucracy. - Any mail traveling between states was carried by a federal agency; Comstock seized upon this as a national censorship mechanism.  Today, the dynamics have largely reversed. Instead of seeing the federal government as a way to control states, today’s moralists want to punt things back to the states. - This has been particularly effective in the case of abortion. Further Learning:  - ‘Sex and the Constitution,’ more on Comstock and the moralists - The history of the post office - A profile of Anthony Comstock And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the first of our American Histories series, Sarah Churchwell explains the lessons to be learned for Trump and his opponents from what happened in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson was impeached by Congress and survived his trial in the Senate by a single vote. What are 'high crimes and misdemeanours' anyway? Talking Points:  What was Reconstruction? - The period immediately following the Civil War and the first attempt at civil rights in the United States. - The 14th and 15th amendments gave rights to black men. There were black legislators and black senators. - There was also pushback, namely from what would become the Ku Klux Klan. Johnson became president after Lincoln’s assassination: his whole presidency was about overturning the gains of Reconstruction. - Johnson was a unionist but also a white supremacist: he basically pardoned the entire white South.  - This is the conflict that led to impeachment. The immediate act that precipitated impeachment was Johonson breaking a law designed to restrain him, the Tenure of Office Act.  - There were 11 articles of impeachment. - He ultimately survived by 1 vote in the Senate.  - If he had been impeached, he would have been succeeded by Benjamin Wade, a radical Republican. The moderates didn’t like this. One of the lessons of history is that it’s almost impossible to remove the president. - Johnson had clearly broken the law and the Senate was hostile.  - Trump has much more favorable circumstances. Mentioned in this Episode:  - W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America Further Learning: - How impeachment works - Jill Lepore on the history of impeachment - Historian Eric Foner on Reconstruction - What does ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ really mean?  And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Letting you know about an exciting new series: Over the holidays David is joined by historians Sarah Churchwell and Gary Gerstle for six special editions of Talking Politics looking at crucial moments in American history. From impeachment to enfranchisement, monopoly to pornography, deportation to abortion, these are the stories that help make sense of present, as we get ready for election season 2020.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David and Helen talk to bestselling author Michael Lewis about the effect that Trump's presidency is having on the workings of the US government and the risks we are all running as a result. From wilful ignorance to breathtaking corruption, we explore the different ways that one man can change the character of an entire political system. Plus we ask what, if anything, can be done about it. https://bit.ly/2M1yzVk  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We gather the morning after the Tory triumph the night before to discuss how they did it and what it means. From Swinson's hubris to Corbyn's comeuppance, from Scottish independence to constitutional challenges, from the start of Brexit to the end of the Brexit party, we try to cover it all in a bumper edition. With Helen Thompson, Chris Brooke, Chris Bickerton, Alison Young, Peter Sloman, Kenneth Armstrong, and some overnight reflections from other TP regulars. If you want to hear more, David and Helen are also on 538 discussing the election result. Talking Points:  It was a good night for the Conservatives, a bad one for Labour, and cosmically bad for the Lib Dems. - The Lib Dems made a fatal mistake in backing Revoke and running a presidential style campaign. - They lured fewer Tory remainers than they had hoped. - Six months ago, the Conservatives were in existential crisis, and now they are like Thatcher in all her pomp. How grim are things for Labour?  - They lost seats they’ve held for decades. But they didn’t lose by that much. If the problems are Corbyn and Brexit, those won’t be there the next time around.  - Realignment in the North and Midlands may not be permanent. - Labour is popular among young people and renters. There are more of them in cities, where Labour is already strong.  - Who can bridge the urban-rural, traditional base-new base divide?  Now that there’s a clear majority, will Parliament go back to working as usual? - It’s not only the two parties: there’s also the SNP. - They will probably repeal the fixed term parliament act. - What about the Supreme Court? Could Scotland be the next thing they weigh in on? What will happen to the Labour Party post-Corbyn?  - It’s not easy to separate the Corbyn factor from the Brexit factor.  - Corbyn’s record on security issues mattered—his support never recovered from the Salisbury poisoning. A lot of people don’t see him as a patriot.  Mentioned in this Episode:  - Our video on Jo Swinson - ...and on the next Labour leader Further Learning:  - David and Helen talk about the election with our friends at 538 - Talking with Anand Menon before the elections And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

For our last pre-election episode we talk with Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe, about what might happen to Brexit once the vote is done. What choices does Johnson face if he wins? What paths are there to a second referendum if he loses? And what will remainers do if Britain does finally leave the EU? Plus we discuss what the rest of Europe makes of it all. With Helen Thompson. Tomorrow, we talk about the result of the election as it happens. Talking Points:  There are basically two scenarios: Johnson gets a majority and the withdrawal bill passes, or there’s a hung parliament. - The first is slightly more probable, but the margins are getting closer. - If Johnson has a majority of even one, the UK will probably leave. - But we still don’t know what Johnson wants. Will he be a prisoner to the ERG or will he be a one nation Tory and go for a softer Brexit? - The next crunch point will be the end of June with the extension for transition.  EU leaders have been assuming a Johnson victory. - There’s a conversation in Brussels about how flexible the EU should be, given Johnson’s comments on European trade. - Relations within the EU have gotten more fraught. - What about the UK’s security relationship with the EU?  Would a hung parliament inevitably lead to a second referendum? - It’s not clear that a Corbyn minority government could legislate for a referendum. You might actually get another election. The gap between Labour and the Conservatives is as wide as it has been in recent history. - The Lib Dems have again fallen behind. - The public seems to be uncomfortable with revoke. It’s not a vote winner. If the UK leaves, where do the remainers go?  - It doesn’t seem that project rejoin would have much steam in the short term. - If Johnson wins, it will be on less than half of the vote. And the likelihood of a fifth Conservative victory is unlikely.  - There is a reason for Labour to believe that next time is their real chance. Mentioned in this Episode:  - On the tension between Macron and Merkel - Robert Tombs in the Spectator. Further Learning:  - Follow Anand on Twitter here - Anand on negotiating a trade deal with Europe And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week Helen and David explore some counterfactuals: What if Remain had won in 2016? What if Corbyn hadn't got on the leadership ballot in 2015? What if Scotland had voted for independence in 2014? We consider whether British politics would be very different or whether a lot of what we are seeing in 2019 was coming anyway. Plus we explore if there are any circumstances in which the stranglehold of the two main parties could be broken in a general election and why the Lib Dems have so spectacularly failed to break it this time. Talking Points:  What would have happened if Remain won the referendum? - Cameron would have remained prime minister. - UKIP probably wouldn’t have collapsed.  - Johnson would still have been in a good position to become prime minister. What if Corbyn hadn’t been on the ballot for Labour leadership? - The membership supports him, but he almost didn’t make the ballot.  - The next leader probably would have been Andy Burnham. - Burnham would have fought the referendum with more enthusiasm, but the problems in the base would have remained the same. - Corbyn expanded the membership by being on the ballot; he didn’t rebuild the old Labour coalition. What if Scotland had voted for independence? - This would have been a disaster for Cameron: he’s a unionist to the core.  - Negotiations would have been extremely complicated, especially over the currency question. - Scottish independence would have posed an existential question for the Labour party. Can a third party break through? - It looked like the Lib Dems might do it, but the two main parties have pulled away.  - Is this a structural problem, or a contingency problem? - First Past the Post forces voters to make hard choices, often between two unpalatable options. - The revoke position is tricky, even if the donors like it. There’s no real way to reach hard core remainers in this electoral system. - The Remain vote is more geographically concentrated. There are also voters who prefer remain but respect the referendum result. Mentioned in this Episode: - Ken Clarke talking about First Past the Post Further Learning:  - David’s review of Cameron’s memoirs for the LRB - Who is Jo Swinson?  And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk about the impact of different online platforms on the general election campaign, from Twitter and Facebook to WhatsApp and TikTok. Is micro-targeting getting more sophisticated? Is viral messaging getting more important? Or are traditional electioneering techniques still driving voter engagement? Plus we ask whether there's any scope left for a 'December surprise'. With Charles Arthur, former technology editor of the Guardian, and Jennifer Cobbe, from the Cambridge Trust and Technology Initiative. Talking Points:  In 2017, Labour ran an incredibly successful social media campaign that the mainstream media outlets missed. Is 2017 repeating itself?  - Facebook has gotten more transparent about the ads they are running.  - There doesn’t seem to be a big Labour project, at least on Facebook. The Lib Dems on the other hand have a huge operation.  - Labour has at least a few ads that seem extremely well calibrated. - Are we more resistant to political messaging on social media now?  This election isn’t a binary choice. There are few single messages that you can push. (The NHS may be the exception.)    - But at the end of the day, the electoral system tends to force a binary choice. Is it old politics or new technology?  - The messages are relatively old school. Time spent on doorsteps may still be more valuable than a Facebook ad.  - But in other ways, things have changed. It’s much easier to publicly screw up. And when new candidates come onto the scene, the first thing people do is scroll through their social media history. - Do we overblow the consequences of a single screw up? What is political messaging trying to achieve? - Persuasion is incredibly difficult. Turnout will be key.  - Labour will need to get out the vote. There’s certainly been a big voter registration push on social media.  - Younger voters are online, but not on Facebook. YouTube, for example, is more important. The Tories don’t seem to have caught on to this.  - In an information economy, are people more likely to switch on right before an election, or switch off? Mentioned in this episode:  - Tech election… Part 1 - The Rob Delaney ad - The Sacha Baron Cohen speech on Facebook Further Learning:  - Charles’ new book - Charles’ blog, “The Overspill” - Jennifer’s Talking Politics Guide to… Machine Learning And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.