2025-09-26 23:12:37
For David and Larry Ellison, the credits of The Fantastic Four: First Steps are the best part of the film. Specifically, they are the opportunity: The scrolling list of more than 3,000 cast and crew members is a sign of an industry ripe for disruption. The Marvel movie’s staff — from visual effects artists and animators to costume designers and location scouts — is bigger than the entire workforce of Lyft or Reddit. The Ellisons, who are now one of the most powerful media and entertainment families in history, are the kid in The Sixth Sense. They see dead people. They don’t care if Hollywood is ready for AI. AI is ready for Hollywood.
David Ellison, the Silicon Valley scion who bought Paramount Global with a sliver of his father’s $349 billion fortune and is now pursuing a much bigger bid to acquire Warner Bros., is keen to drive the AI transformation. Buying Warner would combine two of the most storied movie studios and two major streaming services, Paramount+ and HBO Max. A deal announced by the White House gives Larry Ellison’s tech company, Oracle, a stake in the new American TikTok, along with oversight of the app’s algorithm for U.S. users. It also endows the family with more influence on our youth than anybody who doesn’t live in the same home … and their bond with President Trump means they’re unlikely to face any resistance.
On Day 1 as CEO of Paramount, David Ellison outlined his vision to shake up the company by investing in “high-quality storytelling and cutting-edge technology.”
Adorable.
He tried to assuage Hollywood’s concerns and barely mentioned AI. “Technology is not — and never will be — a replacement for human creativity,” he said. “Rather, it serves as a powerful multiplier.” I wonder if lions sitting in the reeds, identifying their next meal, think of themselves as “powerful multipliers”? In the 50 days since he took over, Ellison has gone on a spending spree, providing some hope to a nervous Hollywood.
Paramount won an auction for the big-screen reunion of Timothée Chalamet and James Mangold, the star and director of the Bob Dylan movie A Complete Unknown, and lured the Stranger Things creators from Netflix with the promise of delivering large-scale theatrical films. The company also plans to expand its annual movie output to 20 films from 8. Veteran producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura told the New York Times that Ellison “wants to do cool stuff. That sounds very basic, but underneath it all ‘making cool stuff’ is the Hollywood dream.”
Spoiler alert: Don’t count on a feel-good Hollywood ending for many/most of the crew members whose names appear in the credits of The Fantastic Four and other blockbusters. In his wider bid to take on Netflix and YouTube, Ellison is aiming for at least $2 billion in cost efficiencies and synergies (Latin for layoffs). The upshot will probably be as many as 3,000 job cuts.
Every (surviving) studio owner will rely on AI, which is reinventing the way movies are made, to generate content more quickly and cheaply. But David Ellison isn’t just any studio boss. His father, the Oracle co-founder, who briefly surpassed Musk this month to become the world’s richest man, is riding an “AI tsunami” with a staggering $455 billion pipeline of contracts to supply computing power. Paramount’s new CEO, who envisions a next-generation studio that leverages cloud computing, AI, and other digital tools, likely won’t waste any time in tackling Hollywood’s bloat. As Gerry Cardinale, whose RedBird Capital helped finance the $8 billion Paramount deal, explained: “This is not a nice-to-have. This is a need-to-have moment in Hollywood. You have a balkanized situation between technology and content, between Silicon Valley and Hollywood.”
Ellison isn’t just motivated by the fact that the attendees are much hotter at Cannes Lions than Dreamforce. With access to a seemingly infinite pool of capital, he sees an opportunity to meld the best of the tech and entertainment worlds. The younger Ellison will rely on former Oracle CEO Safra Catz and Scale AI Chief Financial Officer Dennis Cinelli — both now Paramount board members — as well as former Meta and Google executive Dane Glasgow, who will lead product vision and strategy.
We know the script: First comes consolidation, then comes “efficiencies.” It won’t be long before the younger Ellison is spotted helming a tank division headed over the Sepulveda Pass with AI-guided projectiles. As they expand their empire, they’ll brainstorm ways they can deploy AI to make three movies at $40 million apiece — or maybe 10 movies at $10 million a pop — instead of going all-in and producing a blockbuster such as The Fantastic Four for more than $200 million. Taking more shots on goal is a better approach given the risk complexion of a hit-driven culture. Yes, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice made hundreds of millions of dollars. But the studio gave that windfall back with Joker: Folie a Deux, which lost about $150 million.
In Hollywood, AI is often cast as the villain, whether that’s onscreen — in movies ranging from 1984’s The Terminator to the latest Mission: Impossible installments — or in real life. In 2023 writers and actors went on strike and shut down the business for several months, demanding protection from AI. In exchange for losing five months of their careers, WGA members got … dick. And when I say “dick,” I mean almost nothing. Almost nothing includes increases in compensation that lag inflation and illusory protections from AI. Their fears are well founded, as the studios begin to apply GenAI to visual effects, sound mixing, editing, production, and script writing in search of efficiencies. A recent study surveying 300 leaders across the entertainment industry estimated that AI will affect more than 200,000 jobs over three years, especially roles in visual effects and post-production, which focus on editing and finalizing content.
In the lead-up to the Oscars earlier this year, The Brutalist and Emilia Perez ignited controversy over their use of AI to enhance actors’ voices (even with their blessing). But it’s not that simple. Where some see an existential threat, others see innovation — an opportunity to lower the barriers to entry and democratize a field once reserved for the Hollywood elite and their offspring. Consider the multiple ways AI is already shaking up the industry:
Jeffrey Katzenberg, who founded DreamWorks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen more than three decades ago, captured the industry’s attention in 2023 when he predicted that AI could cut the cost of animated films by 90%. Katzenberg is familiar with technological shocks. He was a pioneer in the animation revolution in the 1990s sparked by the advent of computer graphics and the success of Pixar’s Toy Story. Today he sees promise amid the tumult, with AI accelerating a new wave of storytelling innovation. “I don’t believe it’s the end of Hollywood,” he told Bloomberg. “Will it function the way it has in the past? Absolutely not.”
Now Pixar is the one feeling the heat. OpenAI and Vertigo Films plan to wrap an AI-driven animated feature called Critterz after nine months of production, in time for the Cannes Film Festival in May. Only a couple dozen people are working on it, and the budget is less than $30 million — 80% cheaper than a typical animated movie.
History is clear. Technological breakthroughs create short-term disruption and painful job losses but also unleash lower production costs, creative ideas, bold new businesses, and, over the long term, a net increase in employment. In the car industry, automation destroyed jobs on the factory floor. But we didn’t envision the new jobs that building heated seats and car stereos would create down the road.
In 1999 the average cost of developing and launching an e-commerce site was $1 million. Today you can set up a decent website for around $5,000. Your investment is 99.5% less, and you’re entering a market that’s more than 40 times bigger. Hollywood will follow a similar path as AI opens the door to independent filmmakers. You won’t need tens of millions of dollars and Hollywood connections to produce a movie of theatrical quality. Ben Affleck is right: AI will make it easier for outsiders with compelling scripts to produce the next Good Will Hunting.
AI has become the Ozempic of the corporate world. While GLP-1 medicines switch off the signal in your brain that you need to eat more, AI suppresses the appetite to hire more, reducing companies’ cravings for the protein of human capital. Hollywood is no different. AI will create new roles and elevate the careers of those who learn to leverage it successfully, but jobs will vanish. The collision between Hollywood and Silicon Valley signals the end of the blockbuster and the industry as we know it. Disney’s Bob Iger and Warner’s David Zaslav will be out within 12 to 24 months, as their affinity for, and relationship with, the creative community is quaint and outdated. They grew up in an era when talent held the power. Their job was to not piss off people. The Ellisons, like the honey badger, don’t give a shit.
The younger Ellison wants to bring the best of Southern and Northern California together. In this case, the “togetherness” is Northern California invading the city of Angels. Like most wars, the battle is over before it starts, based on which side has more brute force. Picture Iger, Zaslav, SAG-AFTRA, and 50%+ of the creative community hunkering down behind Chateau Marmont, armed with squirt guns.
Life is so rich,
P.S. This week I spoke with Dr. Fiona Hill, a senior fellow at Brookings and a former U.S. National Security Council official. Listen to the episode here on Apple or Spotify, or subscribe on YouTube.
The post The End of the Blockbuster appeared first on No Mercy / No Malice.
2025-09-19 23:55:26
Political violence in America has (mostly) been a subject for history class — seen only in black-and-white photos and scratchy newsreel footage. Not since the 1960s and early ’70s have we seen a summer like 2025. Now, as then, we are caught in a crisis of our own making. But it isn’t a crisis of political antagonism or ideological dispute. It’s a crisis of meaning. A crisis of self-worth. The result of our failure to build and sustain an inclusive society of opportunity for all. We are arguing over a brush fire (which party is more to blame) as the forest burns. The nation cries out for leaders, but what we have instead are violence entrepreneurs.
Where others see challenges or threats, entrepreneurs see opportunity. At their best, politicians harness the energy unleashed in moments of crisis to implement new solutions: After the Soviets launched Sputnik, the U.S. invested in science and education to put a man on the moon. At their worst, politicians exploit tragedies to advance their own careers and consolidate power. When Saudi terrorists brought down the twin towers, the Bush administration used it as a pretext for domestic spying, torture, and the invasion of Iraq, a country with no connection to the 9/11 attacks — and, as it turned out, no weapons of mass destruction.
History takes time to sort itself out, but so far, our response to this crisis looks more like Wag the Dog than The Right Stuff. Charlie Kirk’s killer hadn’t even been charged before JD Vance promoted himself from vice president to podcast guest host, taking over Kirk’s show and pledging to crack down on “radical-left lunatics.” Among the first targets, he suggested, should be such nefarious organizations as the Ford Foundation and the Nation magazine. Trump adviser Stephen Miller blamed a “vast domestic terror movement” for Kirk’s death.
Josh Hawley turned the gaslighting into a strobe light: “We’ve had three assassinations, or assassination attempts, of major political figures in the last 18 months. All the targets are one persuasion, and all the shooters are one persuasion.” Persuasion is vague, but short of “human” your guess is as good as mine as to what it encompasses: a centrist Democratic governor (Josh Shapiro), a progressive Democratic state representative (Melissa Hortman), a Christian Nationalist podcaster (Kirk), and President Trump. And why could Hawley only count to three?
No leading Democrat has made any sort of equivalent assignment of blame or call for retribution, but they’ve been equally sclerotic. Condemning “violence” alone is just the sort of milquetoast response we’ve come to expect from the party of Schumer.
Hawley was right about one thing: The “shooters” have all been of one “persuasion.” Only it’s not political. The commonalities appear to be invisible in plain sight. They are angry men, mostly young and nearly all of them white, suffering from an array of financial, medical, and personal setbacks. They’re largely isolated from their families and physical communities. They’re unemployed or intermittently working; they’re not members of any sports teams, hobbyist clubs, or political organizations. These nominally “political” criminals held only shallow political views, defined by memes and enemies, not policies or ideologies.
Cody Balmer, charged with attempting to murder the governor of Pennsylvania, was recently divorced, about to lose his house to the bank, and fresh off a suicide attempt.
Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s alleged murderer, was described by neighbors as spending all day in his apartment playing loud music and video games. He inscribed his bullet casings with memes and gaming references, artifacts of his nihilist, irony-soaked online life.
David DePape, who nearly killed Nancy Pelosi’s husband in a botched effort to kidnap the former speaker, was estranged from his family, living in a rented garage.
Patrick White, who shot hundreds of rounds at the CDC, killing an Atlanta police officer, blamed the Covid vaccine for his deteriorating mental health.
Thomas Crooks’s motive for shooting Donald Trump remains a mystery, but the entirety of his political engagement was donating $15 to a progressive voter registration group when he was 17, then registering to vote as a Republican the next year.
Vance Boelter, indicted for the murder of Hortman, was an outspoken opponent of abortion, and appeared to be targeting pro-choice politicians, but was otherwise not notably political.
Luigi Mangione, alleged killer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was a prolific online writer about technology and history, but evidenced little interest in electoral politics or issues — except for his personal vendetta against the health insurance industry.
These men aren’t resorting to violence after losing at the ballot box. Few of them appear to have had much interest in politics at all, beyond their personal grievances. Several don’t appear to have even voted. They certainly aren’t the shock troops of a violent movement or the martyrs of a revolutionary cause. A dozen people picked at random would likely demonstrate more political engagement than these men, up until the moment they pulled the trigger.
They are evidence of a crisis that runs deeper than any political division. Now, dead or imprisoned, they are fodder for the wrong battle. Ironically, that these men weren’t partisan actors means the debate over which side they were on is unresolvable — they were on neither side — and thus can go on forever, generating clicks and clout. Besides political campaigns, the near-term financial beneficiaries are politicians raising money, cable news channels pumping ratings and social media companies seeking ad impressions.
Only once we stop pretending this violence is politics by other means, and recognize it as the result of our broken politics, can we envision solutions.
Our accelerating cavalcade of bloodshed rests on three pillars:
First, the massive tech media platforms, which feed us a daily diet of misinformation and tribal distrust. Sex sells. But Big Tech — 40% of the S&P 500 — has found something even better: rage. Eisenhower rightly warned us about the military industrial complex. In the decades after he left office, weapons manufacturers, think tanks, and politicians — the violence entrepreneurs of their era — conspired to make foreign wars and proxy conflicts into billion-dollar businesses. Today, Meta dwarves Lockheed Martin. “Make Memes Not War” is the trillion-dollar strategy.
My argument is not that politics is unrelated to the violence. (Or that there isn’t actual organized political violence, mostly from the far right, as has been well documented.) On the contrary, the ever more violent and inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation and the relentless demonization of every available scapegoat have left their marks all over the lives of the perpetrators. But demagoguery, dog whistles, and tribalism aren’t new. The dangerous novelty of our time is the fusing of capitalism and technology to make rage, and violence, profitable.
We’d go a long way toward dismantling the rage machine if we exposed its makers to liability, as we do with every other corporation. Reforming Section 230, which insulates online platforms from the externalities of the conspiracy theories and Chinese misinformation schemes they peddle, would be a massive first step. Age-gating social media would be a good follow-up.
And online media is an accelerant to our problem. As I often say, (including in my next book), the fire it fuels is disconnected rage. Rarely has a cohort fallen further, faster than young men. Most angry young men find peace. Some grasp a gun instead.
My friend Richard Reeves wrote a book, Of Boys and Men, that’s replete with good ideas: recruit more male teachers, invest in vocational training, destigmatize mental health problems. We should raise the minimum wage and create tax breaks for people paying off student debt and saving for home ownership. Implement national service to get young people off their devices and into their communities. Use tax credits that unleash the private building sector and anti-Nimby laws, to help us build 8 million new homes in 10 years. Enforce retirement ages and term limits so older people make room for the rising generation.
The third leg of this stool is the most obvious, but also the most politicized. This post comes nine days after Kirk was killed. In those nine days, 1,125 other Americans died from gun violence. Fifty were children. Two more people have been shot and killed since you began reading this post.
The U.K., where I’ve been living for the past three years, has much in common with the U.S. The problems are familiar: racial division, arguments over immigration, declining opportunity for young people. Yet one difference stands out. It will take more than a year for the U.K. to see as many gun deaths (per capita) as the U.S. experienced in the nine days since Kirk’s murder. Private handguns are outlawed here, and hunting firearms are tightly controlled.
This isn’t complicated: break Big Tech’s immunity, invest in boys, rein in guns. The hard part isn’t policy — it’s courage. The violence entrepreneurs aren’t selling solutions, they’re selling rage. And business is booming.
Life is so rich,
P.S. Check out our newest podcast: China Decode, co-hosted by Alice Han and James Kynge, with a new episode every Tuesday on the Prof G Pod feed. Listen to the inaugural episode here on Apple or Spotify, or subscribe on YouTube.
The post Violence Entrepreneurs appeared first on No Mercy / No Malice.
2025-09-12 23:35:23
The Atlantic’s George Packer wrote: “Charlie Kirk’s murder is a tragedy for his family and a disaster for the country. In an atmosphere of national paranoia and hatred, each act of political violence makes the next one more likely.” But that’s not what this post is about. The murder is another example of our broken culture. It’s a stain on our accomplishments. Many of America’s finest achievements took place overseas and have resulted in alliances that have scaled our power. We have wisely nurtured, and invested in, these alliances. Until recently.
The most powerful image of 2024 was Trump defiantly pumping his fist after an assassin’s bullet grazed his ear. Trump also had a hand in this year’s most powerful image — a photo of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi celebrating their new partnership. The caption for that photo should read “Axis of Own Goal,” as Trump’s geopolitical sclerosis and bullying have isolated America from its allies and united its adversaries.
Presidents of both parties have long understood that our strength doesn’t flow from our economic output, military prowess, or cultural exports, but the capacity to leverage those assets in service of coalitions that are greater than the sum of their parts. That’s not idealism, but pragmatism. The U.S. accounts for 4% of the world’s population and 26% of global GDP. By definition, going it alone would mean taking on 96% of humanity and 74% of Earth’s economic output. As Winston Churchill said, “There’s only one thing worse than fighting a war with allies, and that’s fighting a war without them.”
Less than a year into Trump’s second term, we’ve lost many friends and much influence. With the president praising authoritarians and casting doubt on our mutual defense commitments, our allies can no longer count on us. Demolishing USAID didn’t save much money — at 0.3% of the federal budget, the agency created substantial soft power on the cheap — but it did tell the world’s developing nations to look elsewhere for leadership. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs aren’t the crude tools of protectionism, but cudgels deployed in service of his id. (See: The 50% levy on Brazil for bringing criminal charges against former president Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup.) Since World War II, America has provided global security and economic stability, while serving as an (imperfect) vehicle to spread democracy and the rule of law. Under Trump, we’re an amoral chaos agent. Alienating allies weakens our position relative to China.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush coined the phrase Axis of Evil. Good branding, sub-scale threat. In 2002, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had a combined GDP of $162 billion, compared to U.S. GDP of $11 trillion. China, Russia, and (now) India are a different story. Combined, the three nations account for 38% of the world’s population and 34% of global GDP. And unlike the Axis of Evil, the Axis of Own Goal isn’t a rhetorical construct, but a product of Trump’s ineptitude. As the Economist put it, “To see the cost of Trump’s bullying, tally the world leaders flocking to China.”
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit was Modi’s first trip to China in seven years. The meeting came just days after Trump’s new tariffs on India took effect, hiking duties on some exports to 50% in retaliation for India’s continued purchases of Russian oil. The tariff increase only added fuel to a fire Trump set in May, when he claimed credit for ending India’s long-running feud with Pakistan. According to Modi, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on their own, ending a four-day border clash in May. According to Trump and Pakistan, Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
If the plan was to keep India in place as a bulwark against Chinese expansion and drive it away from Russia, the president’s moves backfired spectacularly. India continues buying Russian oil, while stabilizing its relationship with China. At the SCO summit, Xi said China and India should be friends, enable each other’s success, and choose cooperation. Modi highlighted “the positive momentum” in bilateral ties, characterizing the nations’ relationship as “partners rather than rivals.” That’s a remarkable turnaround for two countries that fought a border war in 1962 and have had continued clashes ever since, with the most recent skirmish occurring in 2022. Seeing the photo of Putin, Modi, and Xi, Trump posted, “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together!”
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be quick and relatively bloodless. Three years on, it’s a stalemate. Russia has suffered more than 1 million casualties. That would be a disaster for any other country, but Russia’s willingness to sacrifice the lives of soldiers is a competence. In World War II, the Soviet Union lost 10 million soldiers and another 24 million civilians; the U.S. lost roughly 400,000 soldiers and dropped two atomic bombs to avoid further casualties.
Russia’s chief asset is energy. As John McCain once said, “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.” By some estimates, revenue from oil and gas exports has accounted for 30% to 50% of Russia’s budget over the past decade. Sanctioning Russian energy exports has helped Ukraine, but only to a point. The reason? Russia is adding energy clients faster than we can marshal our erstwhile allies in an embargo. Ukraine can’t kill its way to victory, but by shifting its strategy to target Russia’s energy production it may ultimately inflict a price too high for Russia to stomach. We can and should help Ukraine pursue that strategy. Pushing India closer to Russia and China has the opposite effect.
Alice Han argued on our newest Prof G podcast, China Decode, that Trump missed a narrow window to do a “reverse Nixon.” In 1972, Richard Nixon went to China to drive a wedge between Beijing and Moscow. The gambit worked in geopolitical terms, but it also set the stage for an economic relationship that benefited U.S. corporations and consumers and helped China to lift 600 million people out of poverty between 1981 and 2004. Today, however, China and Russia are united by trade and their opposition to American hegemony, with Beijing as Moscow’s senior partner in a relationship the Chinese foreign minister described as “better than allies.”
Xi has cultivated his relationship with Putin, calling the Russian leader his “best friend.” Last week, with Putin by his side, Xi presided over a military parade that cast China as the allied savior in World War II. In response, Trump posted, “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.” U.S. presidents with FOMO is a bad look.
One of America’s greatest assets is its geography. Two oceans and a pair of friendly neighbors have saved the hundreds of billions another country might have needed to militarize borders and coastlines. China has land borders with 14 nations and maritime borders with an additional 11. In 1969, China and Russia fought a war over border disputes that dated back to the 18th century. Last year, bilateral trade between them reached an all-time high of $245 billion — double what it was in 2020.
China needs Russian energy to expand its economy, but friendly borders are the geopolitical priority. As journalist James Kynge argued on China Decode, the 1,700 miles of the Amur River that delineate the border between Russia and China tell the story in microcosm. Ten years ago, there weren’t any bridges spanning the Amur and commerce was nil. Today there are three bridges and business is booming on both sides of the river. “China’s biggest strategic priority is that, if it has to fight a war with Taiwan on its southern border, it can do so without worrying about its northern border with Russia becoming unstable.”
Zooming out, China has expanded the SCO and invested $1 trillion in “Belt and Road” infrastructure projects in more than 150 countries since 2013. The outreach has paid dividends. In 2000, U.S. trade totaled $2 trillion — 4x China’s total. Since then, U.S. trade has grown 167%; China, now the dominant trade partner for most of the world, has seen its total rise by 1,200% from 2000 to 2024. While China has comparable hegemonic firepower to the U.S. — a dominant military, capital, advanced technology, and cultural influence — we can’t plan beyond the next Congressional budget shutdown. China’s key asset is its ability to play the long game to achieve stability on its borders while spreading influence globally.
Last year, India became the top source of international pupils at U.S. universities, sending 331,602 students — a 23% increase from the previous year and more than any other country, including China. Up until a few months ago, India was one of a handful of countries globally where U.S. favorability remained positive, according to Pew, and one of only five nations where a majority of respondents had confidence in President Trump. Last week a former MMA fighter who showed up at an ICE career expo summed up our deteriorating relationship with India when he told the Washington Post, “I keep seeing these memes where Indians are bragging about taking our tech jobs. So I said, ‘Oh yeah? Well I’m going to work with these guys that are going to arrest you, slam your face on the pavement, and send you home.’”
We need India. Notwithstanding Trump’s folly, India has been a strategic check on Chinese expansion. We share democratic values, even if both nations are backsliding at the moment. English is widely spoken among India’s government officials, business leaders, and knowledge workers, with up to one-third of the population able to understand the language to some degree. India’s economy is growing at 6.4% — faster than any other major economy. Half of India’s population of 1.4 billion people is under the age of 29. Finally, India provides a pipeline of human capital that our universities and corporations can’t do without. Simply put, India’s best asset is its future: It looks like China in 2004, minus the totalitarian baggage. That’s a partner you want to cultivate.
Does India need us? Maybe not. Since its founding in 1947, India has been wary of alliances, preferring “alignment” as a means of navigating geopolitics. India aligned with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But in the 1970s, the U.S. granted India special trade status, allowing its goods to enter American markets duty-free. More recently, Modi has renewed the idea of Indian self-reliance, saying, “When we grow and excel, the world will acknowledge our worth.” He also set a goal of increasing India’s GDP to $10 trillion over the next 12 years — a target that would give India developed nation status. That may be overly ambitious at current growth rates, but according to the World Bank, it’s achievable, if Modi can push through an economic reform agenda.
I often say the best way to predict the future is to make it. Right now, America isn’t making the future — it’s destroying the good will, influence, and leadership it’s been building since the end of World War II. As a former Chinese diplomat explained, “The U.S. under Trump is launching revolution after revolution. The Chinese know about revolutions, and we know that you better know what the consequences will be if you launch a revolution. I don’t think Trump is fully aware of the consequences of all these tremendous forces he’s unleashing around the world.” The American century isn’t ending with a bang, but with tweets and a trade war. We built an empire in 80 years and are torching it in 8. Our edge was never the missile; it was the handshake. Restore alliances, or hand the 21st century to those who keep theirs.
Life is so rich,
P.S. Don’t just listen to me rage, watch me. Raging Moderates now has a dedicated YouTube channel. Subscribe here.
The post Own Goal appeared first on No Mercy / No Malice.
2025-09-06 00:38:54
Loneliness is lucrative. Leonid Radvinsky, the secretive owner of OnlyFans, received a $700 million windfall last year, while the platform’s top tier of content creators — mostly women — earn millions annually. With $7.2 billion in annual gross revenue and just 46 employees, OnlyFans may be one of the most profitable companies on the planet. The site is viewed as a porn-centric hub where men pay women for sexual content. The company claims it’s giving creators and their 378 million fans (greater than the population of the U.S.) something more: an opportunity to forge “authentic connections.”
Some crazy stats:
We’ve created a platform where 95.8% of men pay nothing but still consume content, while a tiny fraction of “whales” subsidize an entire economy built on loneliness. It’s digital feudalism with OnlyFans as the landlord collecting rent on human connection.
The pitch resonates with millions of men retreating from the high-risk but high-reward activity of forming real-world relationships. It also appeals to women. OnlyFans has paid more than $20 billion to creators since 2016. Women are flocking to the site, with an estimated one million-plus in the U.S. alone. The success of OnlyFans is making some people rich. However, it’s also a symptom of a loneliness epidemic with devastating second-order effects.
Humans are hard-wired to connect. Interacting with families and friends is as essential as food, water, and shelter. Through the 1970s, Americans seemed adept at forming social groups: political associations, labor unions, local memberships. Those bonds have faded. Weekly religious service attendance has fallen to 30% from 42% two decades ago. Marriage rates have plunged. “Third places” — public gathering spots outside home and work — are disappearing.
The driving factor is technology. Addicted to YouTube and TikTok, nearly half of American teens report being online almost constantly. Jonathan Haidt, my NYU colleague, estimates kids’ time with friends has been cut in half. We’ve literally taken childhood and poured it into a screen.
This isn’t just an epidemic. It’s a pandemic.
Loneliness affects nearly one in six people globally, contributing to 100 deaths an hour. The health impact is massive — loneliness is about as deadly as smoking 15 cigarettes daily. Social isolation reduces productivity, boosts job turnover, and drives up healthcare costs. The economic toll in the U.S. exceeds $400 billion annually.
Men are especially vulnerable. The most unstable, violent societies have one thing in common: a plethora of lonely young men. We are producing millions of them.
In Japan, 1.5 million people are hikikomori — modern-day recluses who withdraw for more than six months. In Britain, the loneliness crisis costs employers more than $3 billion annually. In Spain, the economic impact equals 1.2% of GDP. Millions of Chinese women seeking companionship are downloading AI boyfriends.
We’re in the midst of a “sex recession,” with rates at record lows. Participation in clubs is waning. Nearly three out of four restaurant orders in the U.S. aren’t eaten in the restaurant. As Esther Perel told me on the Prof G Pod, we’re in an age of artificial intimacy, where “we’re planning our extinction.” At current fertility rates in South Korea, you need to pass 20 people to find one who will have grandchildren.
In Britain, pubs are closing at a rate of one per day — faster than Nazi bombs destroyed them during WWII. Today’s owners blame taxes and costs, but young people increasingly choose online gaming, porn, drugs, Netflix, and OnlyFans over nightlife. I’ve gotten shit for suggesting young people should drink more. So be it. I believe the risks of alcohol to a 25-year-old liver are dwarfed by those of social isolation. When I go out to bars/clubs, I don’t see drunkenness … but togetherness.
My household had little money, but my mom made exceptions. She bought me Izod shirts, Sperry Top-Siders, and Vuarnets because she’d heard they were what cool kids wore, and she wanted me to have social capital. My college girlfriend threatened to stop having sex with me if I didn’t quit smoking weed. My first boss consistently pulled me into conference rooms for brutal feedback. These connections keep us on track and challenge our worldviews. Without them, citizens become vulnerable to radical ideas. A German study linked loneliness to authoritarian political views and conspiracy theories. As Hannah Arendt wrote, isolation and loneliness are preconditions for tyranny. A preview of what’s to come is to witness the behavior of orcas when they are put in isolation tanks. Simply put, they go crazy.
Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts is pushing investment in community infrastructure: centers, pools, green spaces, pedestrian malls. You cannot overfund these projects. Taxpayer-funded Westwood Park gave me a place to play sports and meet kids when I hit a growth spurt and was cut from my high school baseball team.
The best solution? Mandatory national service after high school, uniting young people from different backgrounds in service to something bigger than themselves.
There are glimmers of hope. The movement to ban smartphones in schools is gaining momentum. Independent bookstores are staging a comeback.
But as women flock to OnlyFans, many will ditch education and careers for webcams. There’s likely a one in three chance that an attractive young woman without a college degree outside a major city is on OnlyFans. Meanwhile, men choose frictionless digital connections over challenging but rewarding real ones, forgoing opportunities to find mates, friends, mentors, and business partners. As millennials and Gen Z tire of dating apps, we’re transitioning from a Tinder economy to an OnlyFans economy. The next frontier: AI startups like OhChat, building lifelike digital doubles for “spicy fantasies.”
I think about my sons — 15 and 18 — and the world we’re handing them. A world where human connection has been commoditized, where intimacy is artificial, where young people retreat into digital caves instead of stepping into the messy, and rewarding, complexity of real relationships. Being human is not a solo sport.
The loneliness epidemic isn’t just killing people at 100 deaths per hour. It’s killing our capacity for joy, for surprise, for the random encounters that make life worth living. Every swipe right, every OnlyFans subscription, every AI boyfriend is another step away from the fundamental truth: We not only need each other to survive, but to really live.
We can keep feeding, and ignoring, the machine that profits from our isolation, or we can remember what it means to be gloriously, beautifully human — together. The most subversive act in the 21st century may not be starting a unicorn … but showing up, approaching strangers, asking someone out, grasping for their hand. It’s not OnlyFans that will save us. It’s only us.
Life is so rich,
P.S. Prof G Markets recently unpacked the latest annual report from OnlyFans and the dark side of its growth. Listen here on Apple or Spotify, or watch it here on YouTube.
The post Lonely Fans appeared first on No Mercy / No Malice.
2025-08-29 21:13:06
Near the end of the pandemic, American workers had enough leverage to mount nearly 400 strikes, marking the greatest number of labor actions in 10 years. A former Department of Labor official and member of the National Labor Relations Board described 2023 — the year that gave us “hot labor summer” — as the “most active period” for labor she’d seen during her 30-year career. Fast-forward a few years and labor’s leverage is (mostly) declining due to economic uncertainty. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence has eliminated some jobs at the margins and raised existential questions about the meaning and purpose of work. My views on how we should define and compensate labor, however, haven’t changed. Put simply, we overpay with lip service, underpay in real dollars, and ignore unpaid labor, i.e., caregivers. As I’ve written before, we can do better.
This post was originally published September 9, 2022. Several of the charts have been updated to reflect recent data.
I’ve been thinking about labor and the holiday meant to celebrate our nation’s workers. My observation: “Labor” Day is a ruse, just as “hero” is a moniker typically attached to someone we’ve decided to underpay — teachers, frontline workers, etc. A more honest name for a holiday describing who/what we value would be “Capital” Day.
We don’t honor workers, we throw loaves of bread at them and give them circuses to distract them from their servitude to capital, which captures more of the spoils each year. Over the past five decades, U.S. GDP growth has outpaced wage growth by 63% — in years prior, GDP and wages expanded at the same rate. In 1970 the American middle class received 62% of the country’s aggregate income; today it’s 42%. The top 1% now owns 32% of our nation’s wealth, and the bottom 50% owns 3%. America has never been so disdainful of its workers.
There was a time when 30 years of hard work got you the American Dream: homeownership, college-educated children, retirement, greater economic security than your parents. No longer. Today economic security is defined by the assets you already possess. We impose harsher taxes on income gains (i.e., the fruits of labor) than on capital gains, and reward high-net-worth individuals with tax loopholes and bailouts. America is no longer the best place to get rich, but to stay rich.
Anyway … this week I’ve been thinking about labor. What it means, who performs it, and how the holiday can register real meaning again.
Unions are making positive headlines recently. Some Starbucks workers organized in December 2021. Amazon workers followed in April. So far this year, unions have won 641 elections (the most in nearly two decades) with a 77% win rate (the highest percentage on record). Almost 80,000 American workers have gone on strike in 2022 — three times as many as in the same period last year. Meanwhile, U.S. approval of labor unions is at its highest level since 1965. By the looks of it, unions are making a comeback.
People will say these wins for unions are wins for workers. Maybe. However, in my view, this is a dead cat bounce. Over the past several decades, unions have proven they don’t work.
As Rani Molla wrote, forming a union is the easy part. The hard part is negotiating a contract with the employer. Companies deploy various methods to ensure there is almost never an agreement with the union — usually just stalling. After Amazon’s Staten Island workers voted to organize, Amazon buried them in paperwork. Starbucks did the same. Almost a third of unions don’t reach an agreement within three years. Proving to the National Labor Relations Board (the agency that enforces labor law) that a company is unnecessarily stalling is difficult. And even if you do, per Rani Molla … “there’s not much it can do.” So the union gets tired and discouraged, the employees inevitably turn over, the effort bleeds out, and the company marches on sans union.
In many ways, the union is the corporation’s perfect enemy: disorganized, inexperienced, underfunded, and understaffed. “I want to work for the United Auto Workers union,” said no ambitious college graduate ever. It’s not a coincidence that, despite the recent uptick in union formation, union membership is in freefall.
The need for labor representation remains, however. The balance of power between capital and labor structurally favors capital. Capital has, well, the capital — to hire lobbyists and public relations teams, lawyers and strikebreakers, to outwait workers who need their paychecks to put food on the table. You don’t need to be a labor economist to see this, just review the past 50 years in America. And it’s likely to get worse: Automation is projected to put nearly 40% of American jobs at “high risk” by the early 2030s. We already let offshoring decimate a generation of American labor, we have a moral and economic obligation to better manage this greater transition. But if not labor unions as we know them, who?
There should be one union: the federal government. Unlike small, fragmented groups of workers, this is a force to be reckoned with — and companies must comply with its demands. It should demand more. Dignity in work, for starters. The right to not be sexually harassed or discriminated against is a good thing, but it’s a floor. In America, the wealthiest nation in the world whose corporations are registering the greatest profits in history, you can still work full time and fall below the poverty line. We must raise the minimum wage dramatically. If the federal minimum wage had risen at only the same pace as U.S. productivity since 1960, it would be three times what it is today. A $20-plus federally mandated minimum wage would send some consumer stocks down, and make many small businesses unviable. It would also be worth it.
We often talk about income inequality, the top 1% vs. the 99%, and we should. But there’s another cohort that’s rarely discussed, whose workers on an effort-adjusted basis may be the biggest losers re changes to the tax code: the 90th–99th percent.
Lawyers, doctors, accountants. Smart, ambitious, hardworking, college-educated people who’ve played by the rules and done everything right. While the media often buckets them in with the top 1%, many are actually struggling — but they’re too embarrassed to complain about it.
A lawyer living in San Francisco making $350,000 a year likely pays 49% of their income in federal and state taxes. Most “workhorses” need to live in a high-cost urban area (the average home in San Francisco costs $1.5 million), and things are likely tight. This is not a sob story — many Americans would kill for these problems. However, we’re being heavy-handed with the wrong people, as many could build real wealth and make the jump to light speed if we returned to a progressive tax system that charged the same rates on the top 1%. Asymmetric upside is reserved for the ultra-wealthy — accounting for capital gains tax, they pay lower tax rates than the 90th–99th percent. We have opted for a regressive tax system.
When we discuss labor, we almost exclusively talk about paid labor, the work we do for money. But there is an enormous, critical swath of labor this view overlooks, and it’s important work: caring for one another. Raising our kids, administering to the sick, and caring for the aging.
A good measure of a society is how well it provides for its weakest members. It’s also a good predictor of a society’s future. A poor system for raising children is a recipe for future failure. What’s our system? We turn to women. Among solo-parent households, 82% are headed by single mothers. When it comes to the elderly, 61% of caregivers are women, and they are much more likely to be the primary caregiver.
Besides the inequity, our assumption that Mom will take care of things is brittle. Covid illuminated how brittle. Students fell four months behind in school, and reading and math scores sank by the sharpest margin in three decades. The gender gap in employment and labor participation increased, and a quarter of mothers said they had to either stop working or work less.
In some distant past, when people lived in extended family units, with three or four generations under one roof and a dense network of siblings and cousins ready to pitch in, an “informal” system of caregiving — i.e., no system at all — might have been viable (though it was rarely fair between genders). But that’s not how our society works today, and more important, that’s not how we want it to work. Mobility and migration are the unlocks that have powered a century of innovation, but they mean we need to support people as they care for those who need support.
This is the role of government. It is neither feasible nor fair to expect employers (the paying kind) to abandon their competitive advantage and unilaterally support a societal good. Yet our existing protections for caregivers are deficient. The U.S. is one of only six countries that don’t offer paid family leave. The others? Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and Tonga. This is bad company. Every other developed nation provides substantial paid family leave, with the average OECD country offering more than 17 weeks.
The Biden administration tried to advance another much-needed policy to support family care work, the child tax credit. This is something I’ve long advocated for, inspired by Senator Michael Bennet. When we instituted this program on a temporary basis during the pandemic, we kept 3.7 million kids out of poverty and cut hunger by 25%. This was a massive win: Child poverty is a scourge, and its costs on society compound over a lifetime. But the Democrats were forced to strip a provision extending the credit from the Inflation Reduction Act, after Joe Manchin (and, to be fair, the entire GOP caucus) refused to go along. Maybe next year.
The rise of remote work and new flexibilities in employment will allow us to do more. I believe we need to explore an additional employment protection that gives people who care for others rights in flexible work arrangements. If working from home enables a single parent to stay in the workforce, that’s a win for society. Temporary part-time status and flexible schedules can match our needs to our resources. We should incentivize companies to make this happen and level the playing field so they’re not at a competitive disadvantage when they do so.
As always, the criticism of taxpayer support for care work is the cost. However, we spent $800 billion bailing out corporations with PPP loans while offering $1 trillion in tax breaks per year in the form of loopholes. No government agency can provide a good level of care, more efficiently, than a loved one. We need to arm citizens with the resources to care for loved ones.
A substantial increase in the minimum wage, restoration of a progressive tax system, and greater flexibility for caregivers starting with paid family leave. There’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed with what’s right with America. And Americans like to work. All of these efforts would come at a cost, and it’s likely the stock market would go down. But putting more money in the hands of middle-class Americans has one key advantage: They spend it.
Loneliness, stressed young families, a lack of connection, class warfare, the draining of meaning. All of these things plague America. There is no silver bullet. But there is something we can do to help address all of them. We can work.
Life is so rich,
P.S. On Prof G Conversations, I spoke with Esther Perel, psychotherapist and bestselling author, about the state of modern relationships and why friendship and intimacy are in decline. Listen here or watch here.
The post Labor Day appeared first on No Mercy / No Malice.
2025-08-22 23:29:35
Jessica Tarlov, my Raging Moderates co-host, has talked with a string of Democratic leaders since we launched the podcast about a year ago. Most agree that the party must do a better job of demonstrating what it stands for, not just what it’s against. However, politicians (and the media) devote most of their energy to opposing Trump, responding with outrage to the falsehoods, attacks on the rule of law, and damaging policy initiatives flowing from the White House.
Resistance is vital. But the party must also make a bolder and more specific case for how it plans to tackle concerns over the cost of living, immigration, jobs, AI, healthcare, and a host of other issues. This week, I’ve asked Jessica, a Democratic strategist and panelist on Fox’s The Five, to reflect on what she’s learned over the past 12 months and explore how the party can rebuild trust among disenchanted voters.
by Jessica Tarlov
When almost two-thirds of voters say they don’t like you, the highest level of disapproval in more than three decades, your party is in serious trouble.
This is the position Democrats are in a year after convincing themselves that Kamala Harris was the answer. It’s also been almost a year since Scott and I started Raging Moderates, our twice-weekly podcast and ode to centrism. We’ve spent hours talking to politicians and journalists about the state of the country and the Democratic Party, which most admit is a long way from being campaign-ready.
For now, that might be a good thing. When they’re not campaigning, these Democrats are advocating for smart policy. Their ideas aren’t just reversals of President Trump’s agenda; they are innovative ways to help people buy a home, improve classrooms, and even fix the border. Speaking to politicians on both sides of the aisle about the struggles of boys and men, I was surprised by how often they were not only aware of the problem but had answers about how to solve it.
I was also impressed by how effective podcasting can be in stimulating rich conversations. I heard politicians articulate their plans more deeply and honestly than they do anywhere else. I’m not the first person from television to realize this, but when you want to learn something new, host a podcast. It’s also refreshing for some listeners to hear me speak in longer than a 45-second sound bite. Who knew I could talk for three minutes straight when given the chance?
Last week, I was joined by Hillary Clinton, who told me she would nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize — if he could end Russia’s war in Ukraine without giving away Ukrainian territory. A funny moment, and a great social media clip. As the conversation continued, Trump faded into the background. She told me we have to “double down” on helping young men and women succeed in the AI era, saying young men in particular need support, not just in making a good living but in getting the “respect they deserve.”
She is optimistic about the future of the country and her party. Clinton said the Democrats need to present an alternative vision. Nobody knows what that will be, but right now, who cares? Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, just give me some compelling, concrete ideas. Here are five I’ve heard.
Trump won last year’s election on the issue of affordability, which the media defined as the price of eggs and milk. But before you put food on the table, there has to be a table.
America is in a housing crisis. Nearly a third of American households are “cost-burdened,” spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Half of all renters are in that position. And while more Americans own than rent, there are signs that dynamic could change as Gen Z enters adulthood.
The solution is to build more affordable housing, as all three leading candidates in New York City’s mayoral race will tell you. But many developers aren’t interested, because there is a huge gap between the cost of construction and the rents people can pay. Government intervention can fill it, but only if towns and cities have the resources.
Rep. Greg Landsman, a Democrat from Ohio, spoke with me about our broken economy in May. One of his top pledges: Fund a bank that provides zero-interest loans and forgivable grants to local communities. The loans would pay for housing and infrastructure and, coupled with permitting and zoning reform, allow towns to build “more quickly and in more places.”
It’s an ambitious plan. In Landsman’s own words, it would be the “largest federal investment in housing and community development in U.S. history.” But big problems require big solutions.
Teens who attended high school throughout the pandemic voted for the first time in a presidential election last year. Many lurched to the right. Harris’s vote share among voters aged 18 to 29 dropped 10 points nationwide compared to Biden four years before, according to the Fox News Voter Analysis. The decline was five points steeper in California, which had the lowest in-person schooling of any state.
Democrats can’t be surprised.
Remote learning during the pandemic drove academic and mental health declines. Research shows that kids in school districts that went mostly remote or hybrid in 2020-21 fell behind by more than half a year. Students who mostly attended school in person suffered from learning losses as well, but by only four months.
Many of those students are still in school, so there is time for them to catch up, and research consistently shows that one-on-one support is a great way to do it. Although providing more tutoring is a popular idea — teachers, parents, and unions love it — the problem is scale. Not only is there not enough money to hire tutors for millions of kids, but there also aren’t enough tutors in the first place.
Massachusetts Rep. Jake Auchincloss told me that live online tutoring is one of the keys to confronting the challenge, with artificial intelligence potentially complementing the role humans play. Implementing that plan might cause some tension with unions, but it would address the problem of scale. The technology, which is being piloted in programs across the U.S., is only going to advance. Democrats can help accelerate the progress.
Immigration, another area where Democrats missed the mark during the Biden presidency, ranked as the second most important issue in the last election, behind only the economy. Three in 10 voters called it the single biggest factor in their decision. Of those voters, 81% voted for Trump, compared with just 18% for Harris.
On Election Day, however, voters had mixed feelings about Trump’s agenda. While two-thirds favored reducing the number of immigrants allowed to seek asylum when they arrive at the border, only 44% supported deporting undocumented immigrants already living in the country.
Trump has, to his credit, overseen a decline in illegal crossings. But he’s also unleashed chaos and cruelty, from reviving family separation to hunting down immigrants at Home Depot. He pledged to deport “the worst of the worst.” Instead, his administration has detained thousands of people who have no criminal convictions.
James Carville has been blunt about the border for a while, repeatedly blaming the far left’s influence for Biden’s early failures. But when I interviewed him a few weeks ago, he also came with a blueprint for a smarter immigration policy. His solution is a points-based system that would not only expedite entry for high-performing talent, but also reestablish an orderly process for people who are already here.
As he told me: “Somebody who has been in this country for 35 years, held the same job, raised three kids, they’ve all gone to college, that person gets 10 points. Somebody is here for three months and they’ve committed three crimes, they get no points.”
Most voters like immigrants. What they don’t like is disorder. A merit-based immigration system both before and after entry would go a long way toward addressing that.
You’ve heard Scott talk about college a lot. Last year he lamented to the Wall Street Journal that “we still jam everyone through this four-year liberal arts construct.” For a lot of people, the “we” in that sentence means “Democrats.”
That’s why I was surprised and excited to hear from so many guests who wanted to help people find meaningful work, whether they have a degree or not. And in particular, boys and men who are at risk of falling further behind.
New York Rep. Ritchie Torres said work is “not only about economics, it’s about creating meaning in one’s life. It’s about giving someone the dignity of building a foundation on which to raise a family, on which to live a life of meaning and utility.” Torres — a college dropout himself — bemoaned the college-for-all culture, calling it a “profoundly corrosive” contributor to mental illness, substance abuse, and deaths of despair.
Our guests brought a handful of ideas to the table to help people find a fulfilling path. One that stood out for its simplicity and bipartisan appeal was from another New York congressman, Pat Ryan, who told me he wants to double the slots for existing national service programs, where there are currently more applicants than places.
Ryan, who served two combat tours in Iraq, said: “My life was changed by military service, and exposing me to a bunch of people I wouldn’t have otherwise met, forcing me to work together with them towards a common mission. … The greatest reward and joy in life is accomplishing something for a cause greater than yourself.”
There is a difference between bipartisan appeal and bipartisan support. Ryan said some Republicans like the idea but don’t want to put up the money. Still, he’s working with a bipartisan caucus of veterans to get it done.
Many Americans have positive views about joining the military. What happens when they return from service is often a different story. This country has a checkered history when it comes to looking after veterans. It got uglier this year: Thousands of them lost their jobs after Elon Musk slashed the federal workforce.
Veterans were particularly vulnerable to DOGE: They make up nearly 30% of the civilian federal workforce and often struggle to find work elsewhere because of culture gaps and problems translating military skills into regular jobs. They are also younger than some people assume: Nearly 3 in 10 are under the age of 50.
This is DOGE’s problem. Voters want a more efficient government. What they clearly don’t want are indiscriminate cuts that weaken important programs and harm people.
Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego wants to rehire every veteran at the VA and across the federal government. His proposal would include protections to ensure that a worker can still be fired for negligence, or if there is proof that their job is no longer needed. Enacting his bill would give dignity and stability back to veterans who deserve it and prevent the decline in mental health that goes along with long-term unemployment. The cost is negligible, especially when you compare it to Trump’s multitrillion-dollar tax cuts.
Gallego, a Marine veteran, is already seen as a potential presidential contender in 2028. More ideas like these would elevate him even higher on Democratic candidate wish lists.
I thought I knew almost everything about the Democrats. Over the past year, I’ve gained an even deeper understanding, hearing an array of practical solutions that could make a profound difference in the lives of millions of Americans. Blue governance has failed in some of our crown-jewel cities. But we can learn from leaders like Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, who’s working with Republicans on commonsense policies. Her message is simple: “Let’s get it done.”
Trump may be burning down institutions. But the Democrats — fueled by a younger generation of politicians keen to seize the moment and shake up the status quo — can help rebuild a better America. Among them is Mallory McMorrow, a state senator from Michigan who’s running for a U.S. Senate seat and turning 39 tomorrow. As she told me earlier this month, “the new American dream is ours to write.”
Jessica Tarlov
P.S. Hear more conversations about how the Democratic Party is seeking to rebuild and navigate the challenges ahead by following the Raging Moderates podcast. Listen here on Apple or Spotify, or watch us on YouTube.
The post Good Ideas Will Save the Country appeared first on No Mercy / No Malice.
