u/Freenore

The epsiode on Jefferson was one of the best, they explained him so well without seeking to overly judge or condemn him. The quietly analytical explanation is condemnation enough, while also explaining him.

Which is a bit amusing since their episode on Hamilton was one of their worst. Nothing on his role in Washington's cabinet, hardly even a mention of Federalist Papers essays, his economic views and his role in American banking system. All of it sacrificed so they could cover the duel. A proper case of prioritising the scandalous over substance.

The major distinction between the two is in the kind of history that interests them.

Dominic is a social historian who writes about society, it just so happens that politics and culture are the two obvious vehicles through which society is influenced. So the barrier for entry is much lower as people like reading about things they're already familiar with to some extent. Tom on the other hand is more like an academic historian (ironically), who writes on ideas — Rome and Christianity — which cannot be visualised and requires some degree of knowledge beforehand. And the depth is much greater than in social history, which is more about breath of how wide of a perspective you can take.

Dominic is more into personality, Tom is interested in ideas, and to some extent in form and structure. It is much easier to remember the world of Beetles than what Julius Caesar's world would've looked and felt like.

A fellow ReadEra user, I see.

Very lengthy paper. I fear I didn't get the format of the writing questions right.

Such a lengthy paper. And they put writing section at the end. I'm not sure I got the format right for each one of them.

It is a rich family thing. They have money so they try out more adventurous things than normal people would. RFK was advised to keep a low profile so soon after his brother's murder, he ran despite the constant death threats. This made Jackie paranoid and married Aristotle Onassis on such horrifying terms. JFK Jr. literally took the plane despite the warnings.

Joe Snr, among other things, from a sexual assaulter to a crook, was an anti-Semite and eugenicist, so lobotomy for the daughter who was too dim for his liking, and since he was rich, he could hide it.

Honestly, this is utter nonsense. There is no certain path to Presidency and success. Politics is never so simple.

James Buchanan had one of the most illustrious and extensive pre-Presidency — lawyer, fought in 1812 War, House Rep, Ambassador to Russia and Great Britain, Senator, Secretary of State. And finally President.

On the other hand, Lincoln had nothing but 2 years of House Rep and 8 years of Illinois state legislator experience. And he kept losing his Senate bids.

By this logic, Buchanan should've been miles better than Lincoln. Yet reality is complete opposite.

He didn't like Bush's domestic response to 9/11. He said that telling people to go out for shopping and take a trip was stupid. I got the impression he thought Bush failed to rise up to the moment and didn't unite the country meaningfully.

Although that was alongside being Bush's biggest supporter in the Senate for continuing the escalation of the Iraq war, and his foreign policy proposals were ... well, hawkish is one word for it. It is very lucky for McCain that he's now remembered only for a handful of moments and not the ideas he was actually espousing day in day out.

Republicans tend to nominate their most experienced or obvious candidate, unlike Democrats who are always on the hunt for someone new. You'll have to go all the back way to 1964 for a surprise, wildcard pick from Republicans.

Americans don't understand parliamentary system.

People don't vote for the head of the government, they vote for MPs who then elect the Prime Minister.

Steve Bannon is literally on record saying that they're trying to find some way.

I really think he'll try to find some way of doing a third term, whether the intervention of Supreme Court or becoming VP and getting the elected President to resign, which paves the way for him to be 'elevated' to the office.

Or something else. One of the things at the back of my mind is a scenario where Trump calls in the army, suspends the Constitution, and rules by decree as a military dictator. Elections and Constitution don't matter then. Army was the institution that resisted him more fiercely than any other in his first term, and Hegseth is certainly firing a lot of people and making changes. An army that is full of Trump loyalists might go ahead with such an order.

Jarrod thinks he could be the best bowler to have played the game.

To be honest, that was more the work of Germans and Austro-Hungarians on the Western Front. The battles fought there — Verdun, Passchendaele, Somme, Arras, etc. — left a deep psychological mark on the British and probably started the countdown on British Empire.

It is a matter of some interest and debate as to whether they should've fought the First World War at all, as it kickstarted the process that led to the end of the Empire.

The power of podcasts

Didn't see that backhanded compliment at Obama coming. I've noticed (not complaining) that Jon doesn't seem to compliment or praise any politician and seems to enjoy popping their balloon.

Eisenhower's victory was seen as the end of the era of intellectuals running the government, as FDR and Truman administration was full of intellectuals, Harvard graduates in particular.

In a way, Stevenson was the obvious successor as an intellectual himself. And Eisenhower was perceived as intellectual deficient. Acheson even made a snide remark once, saying that unlike some, Truman didn't need his information simplified and spoon-fed to him. To speak nothing of how Dulles irritated everyone, and at that time, it was felt that George Humphrey, the Treasury Sec, had too much power and is hindering the Administration's work overall.

Eisenhower tried to run it like a military general, delegating work and leaving them to figure things out, as Marshall had done to him. People can make their judgement but his Presidency was all over the place. He never reined in Dulles (whose Brinkmanship policy was very dangerous) and McCarthy for one reason or another.

That seems to be the only viable way for a Third Candidate to have some meaning. Let neither of the two candidates gain a majority and make it go to the House, which forces them to compromise with you.

In the future this could be used as a consistent philosophy. Wallace, though utterly repulsive, actually had the right way of going about this. Focus on the Southern states as they're so different from rest of the country, and play king maker. I can see a very progressive candidate also using this tactic.

Classic AOC.

"capitalism is irredeemable"

proceeds to talk about social democracy; which is exactly that — redeeming capitalism by ensuring the generated wealth is distributed more fairly.

For all the Cummins comparisons with Waugh and their similar belief in experience over youth, I can't see Waugh being so chaotic to the point of confusion and dismissing the importance of batting order.

The next Democratic President should nationalise all of his companies and be done with it.

sigh

She's really on track to becoming another Sam Harris, isn't she? The anti-left liberal. As ever, she takes the online leftist people for the real thing. Expected as someone whose window of observation is 'online left'.

Can we somehow arrange an interview between the two? They're both thoughtful liberals.

From Chomsky to Obama, it also reflects Natalie's political trajectory.

Probably totalitarianism; see, for instance, Indira Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, suspending Constitution and ruling by decree from 1975 to 1977, throwing all opposition leaders in jail, press censored overnight, labour unions shut down, and mass sterilisation (stemming from overpopulation, and inability to eradicate poverty and develop urban cities to house poor).

She was voted out when she called elections when promised by intelligence agents of a victory. Interestingly enough, the new govt going after her in order to hold her responsible for her misdeeds allowed her to spin a narrative of herself as the victim of state persecution, and led to her comeback in 1980.

I guess the new government going after the defenestraded politician doesn't go well because you give them ammunition to make themselves seem like the victim.

I'll always remember the 2015-2019 period when Musk was practically adored by the internet for being so futuristic and cool. He was presented as an example of a cool billionaire who uses his money to further space exploration and whatnot. Musk certainly knew how to play the part, doing things like sending a car to space and selling flamethrower.

MKBHD, among others, was one of his most enthusiastic admirers. If you were a YouTuber in that period, you loved Elon Musk.

In hindsight, the flamethrower seems quite trivial now but back then, it had made him something of a memelord. You can even make a case that Musk is the first of this kind — a businessman who isn't content with merely making money but wants to be tapped into the pop culture and be seen as a guru on the right way to live life. Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and other Gilded Age businessmen were not interested in pop culture. Musk began this trend of tech bros — Thiel, Altman, Karp, with oldies like Bezos and Zuckerberg adapting — who want to be seen as relatable despite the absurdity inherent in any comparison between them and the common person.

They're so bad at winning over the unconvinced. It is telling that Congress' vote % has been stuck at ~20% in all three 2014, 2019, and 2024 general elections. Even Modi put Hindutva on the back burner and campaigned in 2014 on an economically progressive message about inflation, jobs, and development.

Just as an example, the Civil Rights Movement picked MLK to lead the movement because a Church Minister negated any accusations of communism and Soviet agents (this was the age of McCarthyism). Also, a preacher won over more people than a communist would've ever done.

They made sure to never be photographed in anything but trousers and suits because it would've taken away their seriousness, and spoke in democratic language about demanding their rightful rights.

The police brutality on 20th July was BJP's hubris destroying them because they galvanised the public opinion against them by beating innocent children so badly. There was no way BJP could've saved Pradhan after that. This is what public sentiment does.

Politicians and activists who are leading a movement have to pay attention to optics and how it shapes public sentiment. No smart leader would've ever used 'regime change'; what is even more worse is everyone from activists to Congress members are doubling down on this instead of realising just how terribly this would be used for propaganda by BJP.