Power and Progress

Hello, I hope that your summer is going great.  I’ll be in San Francisco for a public event on July 31st. 

One of my favorite economists and thinkers is Daron Acemoglu of MIT.  Daron has been researching poverty and prosperity for years and co-authored the bestseller “Why Nations Fail” a few years back.  I cite Daron’s work in the War on Normal People about how lifespans are getting shorter in the United States. 

Daron’s new book, co-authored with fellow MIT professor Simon Johnson, is “Power and Progress: Our 1,000-year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.”  It explores whether technological innovation naturally results in broad-based well-being.  That is, when we invent things do people in general do better?  Or are the benefits hoarded by a relatively low number of people who have access to the new technology? 

In reviewing innovations from modern agriculture to the industrial revolution to microchips, Daron and Simon find that, generally speaking, there are a relatively small number of people who benefit while the general public is left on the outside looking in.  For example, during the medieval era the development of agriculture left 90% of the population as peasants and serfs working farmland owned by a handful of landowners.  In more modern times, computer and Internet-enabled productivity gains haven’t raised the real incomes of most Americans even as they have given rise to incredibly valuable firms.  “This is the opposite of what a lot of the dominant public discussion would indicate,” Daron said during our interview this week.  “We are conditioned to think that a rising tide lifts all boats.” 

Of course, their findings are significantly more pressing in the age of AI. “What if AI fundamentally disrupts the labor market where most of us earn our livelihoods, expanding inequalities of pay and work? . . . AI appears set on a trajectory that will multiply inequalities” they write.  Most Americans instinctively sense that, while AI may indeed create a lot of value and a boom for certain companies, the average worker may not be among the beneficiaries.  

Of course, there have been instances when technology has given rise to a general increase in living standards, for example during the post-WWII period in the United States.  Daron and Simon argue that this didn’t happen by accident, but because of popular movements that fought for better work conditions and broader distribution of the benefits of new technologies.  “Electoral competition, the rise of trade unions, and legislation to protect workers’ rights changed how production was organized and wagers were set . . . they also forged a new direction of technology – focused on increasing worker productivity rather than just substituting machinery for the tasks [people] used to perform,” they observe. 

They posit that a few things would need to happen for the gains of AI and new technologies to benefit most American workers: the first is changing the narrative about how the tech is and should be used.  The second is to build a coalition of interest groups that can agitate for better outcomes.  The third is to have policy solutions based on the new narrative.  “A new, more inclusive vision of technology can emerge only if the basis of social power changes.” 

How optimistic is Daron that we are up for this challenge?  “It’s a tall order.  The tech industry and large corporations are politically more influential today than they have been for much of the last hundred years . . . A social movement to redirect technological change away from automation and surveillance is certainly not just around the corner.  All the same, we still think the path of technology remains unwritten.” 

It's hard to argue with so much history: “A thousand years of history and contemporary evidence make one thing abundantly clear; there is nothing automatic about new technologies bringing widespread prosperity.  Whether they do or not is an economic, social and political choice.” 

For my interview with Daron Acemoglu of MIT, click here.  To help build a popular movement for adaptation in the face of new technologies, check out Forward today.  Forward has its one year anniversary event on Thursday – click here to join us with special guests! 

Trump the Sequel

What would a second Trump term look like? 
 
That is in many ways the focus of “Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy from the Next Trump,” the new book by Miles Taylor.  You likely know Miles as ‘Anonymous,’ the author of the NYTimes Op-Ed warning of the dysfunction and venality of the first Trump administration.  Now Miles is back with a sobering insider look at what a Trump sequel would look like.

Miles ran Renew America, which joined with the Forward Party last year. Miles and Renew America sought to return the Republican Party to some degree of normalcy and principle.  “We failed miserably,” Miles comments wryly.  “MAGA has taken over not just at the federal level, but at the state levels and within the base.” 
 
What would happen under Trump the second time around? “Federal agencies would be weaponized against his political enemies,” Miles warns.  “Trump is running on retribution.  One official I interviewed said ‘It will be a revenge machine.’  You would see MAGA loyalists from the America First Policy Institute being brought in to run agencies as opposed to experts.  Trump learned his lesson last time not to bring in qualified people.” 
 
Miles details some of the ideas that Trump considered in his first term and would return to.  “Trump would cut off undocumented immigrant kids from public schools that receive federal funds.  That’s something he wanted to do last time. He also wanted to gut the Veterans Administration to save money.  He got talked out of that idea as bad for his re-election bid.  This time there is no re-election to consider.  He sees military veterans as ‘suckers’ because he dodged military service himself.” 
 
How realistic is it that Trump wins?  “It’s very realistic,” Miles says.  “Oddsmakers have it at 30%, which is a little bit low.  But he was at 9% in 2016 when he actually did win.  Biden won by only tens of thousands of votes in the swing states and the data shows that the energy among Democrats for Biden is low.  He could win one-on-one, and there are other candidates who could change the math.” 
 
I agree with Miles that Trump’s chances are being underestimated in some quarters.  I think that Biden and the DNC are making a mistake running an 81-year old incumbent with low approval ratings without a competitive process.  I also agree that a Trump return would be disastrous.  
 
Miles has direct knowledge of just what’s at stake.  A second Trump term would be the end of many of our institutions’ tenuous hold on credibility or viability.  And Trumpism is unlikely to end with Trump – the base of the Republican Party enjoys having control and doesn’t want to give it back.  There are two things that need to happen at the same time; we have to strengthen and modernize our system to make it more resistant to authoritarianism and demagoguery.  And we have to keep Trump out of the White House.  They’re both real challenges and time is of the essence.
 
For my interview of Miles on the podcast click here.  For Miles’s book click here.  To help Forward modernize our democracy click here.  

Summer Update

Hello, I hope that your summer is going great!  I'm writing this from Ohio after celebrating Independence Day at a barbecue upstate.  

Here in Ohio I met with Forward leaders and volunteers and got to introduce Dave Chappelle at his comedy show in Yellow Springs. It was a blast complete with epic fireworks.  

I’ve gotten great feedback on my talk at Aspen Ideas Festival on why we need a new party – so much so that we turned it into the podcast episode this week.  You can listen to it here or watch it on YouTube here.  
 
While I was in Colorado, the mayor of Fort Collins, Jeni Arndt, joined the Forward Party!  It was a massive win, as Jeni is a former state legislator who just wants to deliver for her constituents without having to play the partisan games.  That brings the number of elected officials who are affiliated with Forward to 15 – and there are more on the way.  Stay tuned. 
 
It’s been an exciting time for Forward, as we welcomed new Board members Krist Novoselic, co-founder of the rock band Nirvana, and Kerry Healey, former Lt. Governor of Massachusetts and President of Babson College among others.  These are serious, amazing people and leaders who are committed to making politics work for the people of this country.  Our CEO Lindsey Williams-Drath is continuing to put us on a path to success with the help of Matt Shinners, Joel Searby and many others. 
 
I saw a couple Forward team members, Kait Saier and Ali Backsheider, when I was in Ohio this weekend.  We met with local activists and leaders and had a lot of fun.  
 
This week I’m in New York for a few meetings before heading out West for a month or so.  I’ll also be pre-signing copies of my new book, “The Last Election,” a political thriller that I co-wrote with novelist Stephen Marche that comes out on September 12th.  It’s hard to believe that’s in two months. It’s about the campaign manager of a third party presidential candidate, a journalist who gets ahold of some juicy info, and what could happen in a system that doesn’t evolve with the times.  Could our next election be our last?  The book is already receiving positive reviews and I hope people enjoy it!  You can pre-order a signed copy today from the publisher here with the discount code LASTELECTION.  
 
The summer has been busy, but we are getting in our fair share of family time.  I hope that you are too.  Enjoy yourself – these are the times that we should relish and take advantage of!  There’s much to be grateful for and a lot to do.

To check out Forward in your area click here.  To check out summer movie times near you click here.  And wear sunscreen!    

Coming Apart or Coming Together

Hello, I hope that you are having a wonderful summer thus far!  4th of July is always a phenomenal holiday. 
 
What path is America on?  One of the thinkers who has influenced me the most these past several years is Peter Turchin, a Professor at the University of Connecticut who started out as a theoretical biologist.  He has since helped develop a science of history and societies measuring various data points to find relationships and patterns in big historical cycles.  I cite his work in both the War on Normal People and Forward. 

Peter has observed that societies typically have periods of integration followed by disintegration, each measured in decades.  He has developed a model that measures political stress that incorporates income and wealth inequality, wage stagnation, national debt, competition between elites, distrust in government, social mobility, tax rates, urban density, demographics and other factors that have led to instability and conflict in other settings.  Unfortunately we are now at Civil War levels: 

Turchin has a new book out, “End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration” that we discuss on the podcast this week.  “America is a plutocracy at this point,” Turchin says.  “Some people might not like to hear that, but that’s who has power and influence in the current system.”  “The top .1% or 1% or 10% of have reaped enormous benefits this past number of decades while things haven’t changed or have even gotten more unaffordable for the vast majority of Americans,” Turchin notes.  He calls this process the wealth pump; it exacerbates inequality while immiserating the vast majority.     
 
Peter describes an ever-growing group of aspiring elites that are left on the outside looking in.  “Think of it as a game of musical chairs, only the number of players keeps growing while the chairs stay the same.”  Peter argues that this predictably leads to political instability according to the experience of other societies.  He distinguishes among elites who have some combination of physical coercive power, economic power, administrative power and soft power of culture and influence.  In each, there are growing numbers of people who feel themselves on the outside looking in. 
 
He writes, “[H]uman societies follow predictable trajectories into revolutionary situations.  But how are these crises resolved?  Now that America is in crisis, we want to know what could happen next.”  Peter’s model projects surging political violence in the 2020s with repeating cycles of strife and exhaustion.
 
What does the model recommend to change this path?  Peter says, “The most direct thing you could do to help would be to increase the relative wage for most Americans.  This would reduce both the immiseration and elite overproduction.” 
 
I expressed to Peter in our conversation that popular frustration is manifesting as political polarization; we are told to blame the other ideological side.  He agreed and said, “One of the ways to push toward the positive path is when people on different political sides put aside their differences and start working together to address the root problems.”  That’s what most Americans want.  Unfortunately, if Peter’s data is an indicator, things might get worse before they get better.  Let’s spur a new form of politics as quickly as possible. 

For my conversation with Peter, click here.  To help Forward break us out of this cycle, click here. For my recent talk at Aspen Ideas on why a new party is needed click here.

AI, Regulation and Humanity

Hello, I hope all is great!  Forward is still buzzing about the news last week in PA. 
 
I appeared on CNBC last week to talk about the need for an AI-dedicated federal agency.  AI and its implementations are evolving so quickly that it needs to be the sole focus of knowledgeable regulators. 

One of the most prominent AI experts making a similar case is Gary Marcus, professor emeritus at NYU and founder of an AI company. Gary called for an International Agency to govern AI in a widely seen TED talk last month.  “These tools are so good at giving convincing narratives about just about anything.  I’m deeply concerned about misinformation.  Bad actors will use AI tools to threaten democracy.”
 
Gary took his message to the US Senate where he recently testified.  He said to me, “A ton of Senators from both parties showed up; there’s a clear desire to understand what the impact of AI is likely to be.  That was encouraging.”
 
Gary sat down with me in a podcast interview this week.  Among his proposed policies  - licenses for AI models. “I think licenses for AI models are a good idea.  They’re going to be used by millions of people, so it stands to reason that someone should make sure they’re not doing something destructive before they’re rolled out.” 
 
Gary’s big calls at TED were to synthesize both symbolic systems and neural networks in next-generation AI and to establish an international regulatory body.  Gary is skeptical that sentient reasoning AI – often described as Artificial General Intelligence (“AGI”) - is around the corner.  “I’d be very surprised if AGI is achieved in, say, the next decade.  But we have enough to be worried about with the current generative models and their uses right now.” 
 
I agree with Gary on just about every front.  There is a massive need for international collaboration on AI as well as a more coherent federal approach that includes a dedicated agency.  “91% of people think that we should carefully manage AI,” Gary notes.  I hope that our government rises to the challenge.   
 
I sometimes joke that Washington D.C. is on a twenty-year tape delay, in part because of the advanced ages of many of our leaders.  Legislators have been asleep at the switch when it came to social media for the past 20 years.  We’ve all paid for it.  Policy and politics are now often at cross-purposes; delivering good policy is more likely to exact a cost for individual actors than to reward them.  That’s what we have to change. 
 
I hope that we break from our recent pattern where AI is concerned.  It’s no exaggeration to say that our future is at stake.  Let’s make solutions politically rewarding and back those who want to do the right thing. 
 
For my interview with Gary click here. 
 
Click here to sign up as a recurring donor to Forward and get invited to a live zoom with me, Lindsey Drath the CEO of Forward, and many others this Wednesday! 

Forward in PA!

Hello, I hope all is great!  On Tuesday I attended the Cure concert where I met one of my childhood idols.   Then on Wednesday, I was a part of political history. 

In Harrisburg, PA two state senators – Anthony Williams and Lisa Boscola – signed up to become affiliates of the Forward Party!  With press and the public in attendance, they signed a pledge to work together with us and those who want to restore genuine pluralism and the ability to work with people of diverse party backgrounds. 

Their reasons were both personal and familiar.  Said Senator Williams, “The people I represent don’t care about politics, they’re just trying to heat their homes.  We’re not different teams, we’re all Americans and we’re supposed to represent the people that send us here!” 

Senator Lisa Boscola said, “I’ve been serving the people of Pennsylvania for decades.  They just want us to work together and get things done.  I’ve been the same person, but politics have become more and more divisive, and we need real leaders to turn it around.” 

It was a phenomenal event that has the potential to change politics nationwide.  Pennsylvania is an evenly divided swing state with a narrowly divided legislature – imagine a dozen state legislators from both parties that are committed to true pluralism and finding solutions, as well as reform measures like ranked choice voting and open primaries.  That could be pivotal. 

What’s happening in Pennsylvania could also be a template around the country.  There are hundreds of state legislators and officeholders in other states who are aligned with our goals and are looking for a way to improve our political incentives.  They will look at what Senator Williams and Senator Boscola did and think, “That’s what I want to do too!”    

We are succeeding in identifying a coalition of both voters and officeholders who want to end the hostility and hate toward people of another party or tribe and come together.  Being American or a good person doesn’t reside in one party or another.  Let’s make it safe for our leaders to make this case. 

Senator Boscola said, “A ton of the people I represent aren’t so much political, they’re independents.”  She’s right.  And she’s willing to act on her principles. 

There are others like Senator Boscola and Senator Williams.  Let’s find them and make it easier for them to do what they want.  Our future depends on it. 

Donate to Forward today to help us back Senator Williams and Senator Boscola and others like them!  With your help, we can make it safer for leaders to do right by all of us instead of just toeing the party line.  

Texas is Moving

What a week! 
 
I visited Dallas, Austin and Houston this past week to meet with Forward Party leaders and those who want to build a brighter future in the Lone Star State.  I met with people who had just arrived in the state a few years ago to those who have been there for generations. 

Everywhere I went, there was a massive appetite for change.  People know that politics in Texas is not serving them and isn’t representative of what most want.  The current political system is dividing the state up into noncompetitive red and blue zones, suppressing popular will.    
 
Yet there is a path; 43% of local races in Texas go uncontested and the majority of county seats, school board seats and other posts are nonpartisan.  If we take our blue and red hats off and make common cause, we can give rise to a new force in Texas that doesn’t subscribe to the ideological back and forth that serves to divide us rather than solve problems.    
 
You know how many Texans it takes to start a new major party?  82,000.  That’s very doable.  With that many people signed up, candidates could run for any post in the state under a new banner that doesn’t turn 50% of people off from the get-go.  People would have to listen to the candidate and regard them as an individual rather than just a team jersey. 
 
At the same time, the Forwardists of Texas will back reform-minded Democrats and Republicans who back measures like Ranked Choice Voting.  We are open-minded and practical; many people who have joined Forward remain registered Democrats and Republicans. 
 
Will this be easy?  No.  But imagine running 50 candidates in local races and having 10 of them win.  And then do it again.  Before you know it, you have a real coalition of change-making leaders who can be a fulcrum at every level. 
 
I came away from Texas 100% confident that there is an enormous need and hunger for reform.  The people who joined Forward at these events were phenomenal.  Our state leaders are revved up.  I’ll be back in September and I expect the movement will only be bigger and stronger.   
 
Does this sound like you?  Please do check out TexasForwardParty.org to connect with the incredible people in Texas fighting for a better future.  Even signing up for the mailing list will be a plus. 
 
What is the path toward better politics in Texas? 
 
It’s not left or right, but Forward.  Let’s lead the way.   

In a Bad State

One of the biggest stormclouds on the horizon for the US economy is empty office buildings.
 
$1.5 trillion in commercial mortgages will come due in the next two years – and midtown Manhattan office buildings have a reported 50% utilization rate according to Barbara Corcoran.  If you walk the downtowns of New York, DC or San Francisco, the foot traffic remains low as office workers have shifted to remote or hybrid. 

This has dire portents for regional banks, which hold 70% of bank-held commercial mortgages.  It also signals rough times ahead for city and state budgets, which rely on taxes on office buildings that are about to fall in value. 
 
What happens when the federal money runs out and cities and states have to tighten their belts?  That’s one of the main questions considered by David Schleicher, Yale Law Professor and author of “In a Bad State:  Responding to State and Local Budget Crises,” whom I interview on the podcast this week.  City and state budgets have been flush since 2020, when the federal government sent out billions in aid packages.  But that money is, in many cases, being clawed back, spent, or has already been committed to new programs. 
 
“When you have to bailout a city or state, you’re left with three choices,” David says.  “I call it a trilemma.  One, you can bail them out with federal money.  The problem is that everyone thinks that cities and states that get into trouble will get bailed out, which leads to bad behavior both from politicians who will continue to overspend and lenders who give them access to money.  Two, you can choose austerity.  The problem there is that you will cut workers and services, generally when things are already going badly, which makes a bad time worse.  Three, you can default on the debt.  This raises the cost of lending to cities and states, who build virtually all of our infrastructure.” 
 
“In our history, we’ve done all three,” David comments.  His book details how the US has handled local budget crises in the past, from Hamilton assuming state debts in the 1830s to Detroit’s managed bankruptcy and Puerto Rico today.  His argument is that there are ways to mitigate the downsides of each of these approaches with elements like conditional aid that push more responsible accounting and behavior.  “If each approach has a major problem, you can do a little of each: a little bailout, a little austerity, a little default.”  He uses Detroit as an example, where there was a bankruptcy but also state and philanthropic aid immediately afterwards. 
 
David cautions that states and cities are often set up to be vulnerable fiscally by what he describes as their ‘broken politics.’  “The central problem of state and local politics is that they lack functional popular politics.  Most voters know little and care less about state politics, with state elections outside of gubernatorial races largely serving as referenda on the president of the United States.  The lack of broad public engagement with state politics leaves state and local politicians in hock to the narrow set of voters and lobbying groups who dominate low-information elections like legislative primaries or off-cycle local elections . . . state and local officials do not seek, and do not receive, a public mandate from ordinary voters.  They are instead responsive to narrow and unrepresentative groups of voters and interests.” 
 
Basically, local politicians have to listen to special interests because they're the only ones paying attention.  That leads to financial precarity over time.  Who would make a tough call for the public good that antagonizes a powerful interest group?    

As David put it in his recent piece in the Atlantic, “We have ignored state and local politics, assuming that everything will work out fine.  Once federal cash stops flowing and budgets worsen, the costs of having done so will be all too clear.  Whether and how we respond are up to us.”  

Sounds like a challenge worth responding to. 
 
Want to improve local politics?  Check out Forward in your state!  For my interview with David click here. 

The First Review

The first review for ‘The Last Election’ is in and it is great!! The book got a starred review in Publisher’s Weekly:

Former Democratic presidential candidate Yang (The War on Normal People) teams up with novelist Marche (The Hunger of the Wolf) to craft a frighteningly plausible “what-if” scenario in this taut political thriller . . . Yang and Marche masterfully ratchet the tension to near-unbearable levels. The outcome, in this worthy 21st-century update of the 1962 classic Seven Days in May, is just possible enough to give readers nightmares.

As an author, you always are eager for the first bit of feedback. The Last Election is a new format for me as my first novel. I thought that a narrative would be a compelling way to convey a message as to what’s to come, and how we can improve on it. I’m excited to get this story out into the world.

The Last Election comes out on September 12th - you can pre-order your copy directly from the publisher here. Use the discount code LASTELECTION for 30% off and I’ll sign all pre-ordered copies. My plan is to go to the publisher’s office for a day in August with a few sharpies. ;)

Here not taking our elections for granted,

The Presidential Field Forms

The past week was a big week for the Presidential field. Mike Pence, Chris Christie, and Doug Burgum declared as Republicans. Chris Sununu decided against a run. Cornel West also declared in the People’s Party as a 3rd party candidate. And of course Trump was indicted by the DOJ for mishandling classified documents.

In the short run, other Republican candidates are rallying to Trump’s side while hoping his legal troubles make him seem increasingly unelectable in the general election.

People aren’t giving any of the 3 new Republican candidates much hope. I agree on Mike Pence – it’s very hard to see the appeal of someone who was Trump’s loyal sidekick only to break with the base and strike out on his own against his old boss. The evangelical base will be split among a number of candidates and Pence’s base is unclear.

Some feel the same way about Chris Christie. I was on a panel with Chris Christie a number of months ago and I think he can contribute a lot to the race. Unlike some others, he’s done this before. He fills a room. He has a mission. He’s tough, battle-hardened and can crack a joke. And he has been gearing up to give it to Trump on a debate stage for literally years.

Having been on the debate stage myself, it’s an odd environment. Most people will come across as phony or rehearsed if they mount an attack. Chris Christie will seem entirely natural. That will go a very long way. He’s going to have all sorts of memorable exchanges – if he gets there.

The first Republican debate is on August 23rd – the criteria to make it are 1% in 3 polls and 40,000 individual donors. Only 5 candidates seem assured of making the first debate: Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy, and Scott. Christie should make the polling but will struggle to get 40,000 individual donors in 10 weeks.

Doug Burgum has a fascinating profile; he sold Great Plains Software out of North Dakota to Microsoft for $1.1 billion in 2001 and stayed there through 2007. 9 years later he ran for Governor as an outsider and won twice. He has a combination of vast wealth and political experience that could make him a factor if everything clicks. His campaign video seemed tailor made for Iowa in particular.

Money has a ton of advantages. You don’t have to waste time fundraising; other candidates will disappear from the trail regularly to hit the money centers. You can hire a top-notch team. You can spend online to grow the following. But money also is a barrier to support in that no one wants to give to the campaign and candidate that is super rich.

Burgum, like Christie, will have a tough time getting 40,000 donors by August 21 and he will probably struggle to get 1% in polls too. He at least has some fans in North Dakota as the current governor that can give him a boost to his donor numbers.

Chris Sununu, like Larry Hogan before him, saw this field and thought that he’d be splitting the anti-Trump vote. Look for Chris to try and help non-Trump candidates wherever he can. The conventional wisdom is it’s Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and everybody else. Other candidates will be trying to break into the conversation.

On the Democratic side there will be no debates even as RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson climb in the polls. And now Cornel West is running with the People’s Party.

One thing that most people don’t realize – in most states it’s a lot easier to run for President as an Independent candidate than it is on a party line. Cornel is making a very specific choice, as People’s Party has to get on the ballot for someone to vote for Cornel.

Forward Party is going through a similar process trying to get party recognition and ballot access around the country. We have party recognition in six states, executive committees in twelve and state chapters in forty-eight. If you’d like to sign up to help, click here. We would love for you to join our efforts!

I sometimes catch wind of what different candidates are going to do; some of them call me up to take my temperature ahead of time. I’ve heard from several others who are considering running. I didn’t know Cornel was declaring until the day of. This probably means that more candidates are on the way. Trump’s second indictment makes that all the more likely.

Want better from our politics? Check out Forward Party today!