Loading summary
Transcript150 lines
- [00:03]
A
Hey everyone, this is Alex. So the other day I got an email from a very nice listener who basically said to me like, hey, I like hyperfixed. I want to support it. It is hard for me to justify spending $60 a year on a single show. And you know, as much as I'd like everyone to become a premium Hyperfix member, I get it. And you know, as the media landscape gets more and more inhospitable to creators, people are needing to choose what to support and when. And the idea of spending, you know, $60 a year on a single show isn't for everyone. So right now we are in the middle of the fall Radiotopia fundraiser and I just wanted to spotlight that as an alternative to people who want to support not just my show, but a number of shows with a one time or recurring donation. If you don't know what Radiotopia does for us, on top of selling our ads and they help us with promotion, they connect us with collaborators, they help us purchase ads for big stories, they help me with submissions for award shows. And you know, Radiotopia is the home of some of my favorite podcasts of all time. From limited run series like Appearances to Ear Hustle and Articles of Interest, Kitchen Sister, Song Exploder, Memory palace and you know, of course Yowei Shaw's proxy, with whom we collaborated a couple months ago. You can donate one time or monthly at any level to Radiotopia and 100% of that money will go to supporting all of those shows as well as Hyper Fixed and dozens of others. Your contributions to Radiotopia are tax deductible and from now until December 31, 2025, every gift to Radiotopia will be matched one to one, up to $50,000 by a generous PRX donor. So if the idea of a premium Hyper Fixed membership is just not your bag, I encourage you to support Radiotopia because we wouldn't exist without them. You can go to radiotopia.org donate to support and thank you so much for listening. This episode of Hyperfixed is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Praise and Coverage Match Limited by state law. Not available in all states. This episode of Hyperfixed is brought to you by Mood. Kids these days, they're always gone off that zaza.
- [02:35]
B
You feel me?
- [02:37]
A
Do you want to get gone off that zaza? Did you do you want to do that? Did you know that there's an online cannabis company that ships federally illegal THC right to your door? And they found a way to combine THC with carefully selected functional ingredients that target nearly every mood and health concern you can think of. I'm talking about Mood.com's incredible line of functional gummies. And you can get 20% off your first order@mood.com with the promo code hyperfixed. And let me tell you, this isn't any ordinary zaza. Mood's functional gummies are optimized to kick in in as little as 15 minutes and take you to the mood you're looking for. Whether that's mind magic gummies for deep work and creativity, PMS support to ease cramps and balance mood swings, or there's sexual euphoria gummies to help you feel ready for action and turn every touch into a full body experience. Best of all, not only is every mood product backed by 100 day satisfaction guarantee, but as I mentioned, listeners get 20% off of their first order with code hyperfixed. So head to mood.com, find the functional gummy that matches exactly what you're looking for, and let mood help you discover your perfect mood. And don't forget to use the promo code hyperfixed when you check out to save 20% on your first order. And if you aren't gone off that zaza, well, then that's kinda on you. Hey, everybody, this is Alex. This episode, which we are dropping on Thanksgiving, is not a hyper fix episode. It is an episode of a podcast called American Prestige. And I have one of the hosts of American Prestige, Daniel Bessner, with me. How you doing?
- [04:36]
B
Good. Thanks so much for having me and for doing this feed swap.
- [04:41]
A
Absolutely. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your show is about and how you came to making this show.
- [04:50]
B
In brief, this show is really about US Foreign policy and international affairs, extraordinarily broadly defined. We have series, for example, on the history of Vietnam. We have a series on the history of currency, the history of Silicon Valley. But essentially it feels like, I don't know if people agree, we're living through a transitional moment, to say the least. A lot of the notions of the past, a lot of the shibboleths of the past are being questioned. And so what American Prestige does or what our show does is sort of like look at US Foreign policy and international affairs asking the question, what if the assumptions of the past about the United States running the world or having the strongest military were questioned, and that we hope at least that this will open up new spaces for reimagining and rethinking what the United States role in the world should be in a 21st century that's going to be very different from the 20th where the show came from. So I am actually an expert in US Foreign relations and US Foreign affairs, and my co host, Derek Davison, runs a substack called Foreign Exchanges.
- [05:58]
A
I mean, one of the things that I find in looking at foreign policy as a person who's a bit of a dilettante, I read the news, but I don't know a lot about the history of it, is that in almost every contemporary description of our foreign policy, it's completely divorced of context. The history's gone. Similar actions by the US Government are gone. So it's really refreshing to listen to your show with people who have a. I don't want to, you know, I don't want to blow smoke up your ass. But, like, pretty encyclopedic knowledge of the history of our foreign policy. It's really fascinating to get that context. It helps understand these actions in a much more granular way.
- [06:37]
B
Yeah, and I think you're right. I do think that Americans in general, but especially when it comes to foreign policy, tend to live in an eternal presence where the things that happened 20 years ago are either ignored or forgotten. And what one thing we try to do with the show is really historicize and contextualize. You know, if the Trump administration is bombing Venezuela, what has the United States done vis a vis venezuela the last 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 100 years? And we hope that in doing so, people will get a broader and deeper understanding of what's going on abroad and why the US Acts in the world in the ways that it does.
- [07:14]
A
So you sent us specifically an episode with actor Morgan Spector, and I'm wondering if you could tell us, the audience, a little bit about who Morgan Spector is. And I was genuinely shocked, as a person who's not familiar with much of his work, at how deeply knowledgeable this guy was about foreign policy. It was wild.
- [07:36]
B
Yeah, he's a super smart guy. So Morgan is one of the stars of the HBO show the Gilded Age. People might also know him. He was the star of the show the Plot Against America, which I believe came out in, or at the very least around Covid. And he's someone who's, you know, my age, kind of like an elder millennial, who was politicized at a very similar moment during the Iraq War. So he actually just happened to drop our podcast name in an interview with Rolling Stone. And I was like, oh, that's interesting. So we reached out and started talking to him, and he was a really interesting and compelling guy, and we invited him on this show. And I think what I really like about the episode is that it allows you to see how people from different careers and different professions relate to U.S. foreign policy and could have. I mean, Morgan has an incredibly deep understanding and knowledge of U.S. foreign policy, and it's kind of harkening back to an era where, like, the arts and culture and intellectual life all sort of overlapped with each other in a meaningful way. And I, I think maybe this is nostalgic and romantic, but I, I think that, you know, despite the problems of his previous eras in US History, that is something to aspire to where culture informs politics and politics informs culture. But deeply knowledgeable and we hope, at least also entertaining way. One thing that we really do try to do with the show as, as you do, of course, Alex, on Hyper Fix is make it fun, make it entertaining. And so it's not like you're just eating gruel, but you're, you know, you're, you're, you're getting nutrition, but it's also, you got a few marshmallows in your lucky charm cereal to butcher and already butchered metaphor.
- [09:10]
A
I also really liked the way that his relationship with Hollywood unions and Hollywood history informed the way he understood politics and the way that sort of political affiliation has shifted over time. And it also, the way it informed his foreign policy understanding. Like, it was really interesting. It was a perspective that I hadn't really heard before. So that was. I really enjoyed listening to that.
- [09:36]
B
Yeah, I mean, it's a totality. You know, Hollywood affects politics, politics affects Hollywood, and what's happening larger in the world in terms of the structural transformation of our era affects both. Right.
- [09:49]
A
So after listening to this, are there any other episodes you'd recommend? And also, how should our listeners find your show?
- [09:56]
B
That's a great question. So we are on supporting cast. Subscribe to it on any podcast feed. Just search American Precision. If you'd like to become a paid listener, a premium listener, whatever the term du jour is, you could go to americanprestigepod.com that's again, American prestige pod dot com. And you could search through all of our series and our past catalog. I would point people toward our series on the history of Afghanistan, the history of Brazil, the history of the military industrial complex. And those are nice deep dives. And, you know, just keep people abreast of. If you want to listen, you could just be kept abreast of what's going on in the world by just tuning into the podcast.
- [10:41]
A
For everyone else that is not the two of us. Enjoy this episode of American Prestige.
- [11:08]
B
Hello, Prestige heads, and welcome to American Prestige. I'm Danny, best listener here as always, with my friend in comrade, Derek Davison. And we are very excited to welcome to the podcast today Morgan Spector. Morgan's an actor and he's also the star of HBO's the Gilded Age, also HBO's the Plot Against America, and he's appeared in many other films and TV shows. And he very helpfully dropped our name in a Rolling Stone interview, which is how I found out he was a fan. And we just wanted to have him on to talk about a bunch of stuff.
- [11:37]
C
And now we're going to give him the American Prestige.
- [11:40]
B
Yeah, the interrogation. You've entered the octagon gone. But thank you. Thank you very much for joining us, Morgan. We really do appreciate it.
- [11:49]
D
Oh, it's my pleasure. I mean, I'm, I'm an avid listener. I've been. I know. I feel like you guys have taught me a lot about history and foreign policy, so it's a real. It's a real joy to be on.
- [11:58]
B
Yeah, thanks, man. Really appreciate that.
- [11:59]
C
So I have to say, like, my. My wife has. Is so excited about this interview. Like, for the last two or three days, she has been trying to give me tips on how to do a successful podcast. Basically, it is. It is like a big deal in, in this household. My wife and my mom who lives with us are like, have been binge watching the Gilded Age. They're way ahead of me. So no spoilers. I'm not caught up all the way.
- [12:26]
D
Not at all.
- [12:27]
C
But they are. They. They are so excited about this interview.
- [12:30]
D
So they'll be listening proud in your podcast.
- [12:34]
C
Yeah, you know, I'm taking. Taking all their advice on board.
- [12:37]
B
This is why we do it. You know, this is why we get into podcasting was this is.
- [12:42]
D
It's all been. It's all been building to this.
- [12:44]
B
This is the apex, apex mountain of American prestige. So one of the things that I really found interesting about just you, Morgan, is as you talked about in the Rolling Stone interview, but also you executive produced a documentary on socialism, and we're around the same age, we're elder millennials slash Gen X cusp. And I always find it interesting to know how people my age came to socialism because I came to it so strangely, I happened to be reading because I decided to waste my life in graduate school. A lot of German socialist theory from the twenties. And I' oh, this is like way better than libertarianism or neoliberalism or whatever was going around the late aughts. But what's your political development? How did you come to be a socialist?
- [13:24]
D
I mean, I think it's. I've been asked. It's funny because I sort of wonder. I've been wondering recently why it didn't happen sooner and why it happened when it did. Myself, I think I was sort of on the ride that I think a lot of other people have been on. I mean, I think it was. I think it was sort of. I grew up in a house where, you know, my father read the paper page, you know, cover to cover every day. We talked about the day's events. You know, we sort of like, you know, one of the obligations of citizenship is to be familiar with what's going on in politics and have an opinion on it. An informed take, right? And his informed take was basically the strong eat the weak. You know what I mean? That's the, that's, that's the thing you observe over and over again. And so, and, and he was, There was a. He had, despite. He had an abiding fury and has an abiding fury about that that I think represented a kind of, like a kind of socialist perspective, but he wouldn't call it that. Right. I mean, it was like almost. It was like a, a sort of a rage on behalf of the working class. And I don't think he would never. That he would have put it in those terms. But. Yeah, so I, I don't know. I would say I was like, not particularly political for much of my adolescence and even into college and then was very, I would say not radicalized but moved. Moved very, you know, moved to the left, became, I think, politically aware actually, because of foreign policy, because of the Iraq war and because of George Bush. And that whole period in American life was the thing that put its stamp on me politically.
- [14:51]
B
Same, same.
- [14:52]
D
I watched that, you know, you watch the Constitution be just like eviscerated. I mean, I still think all the stuff that everyone's like, Trump is going to do this, the Bush administrators, they just came in and did it, right? They just came in and did kind of fascism and, you know, they, you know, I mean, when you think about like rendition, when you think about a lot of the, you know, like the Padilla case, you think about a lot of the things that they did. Where they just abrogated people's rights without. Without even really, you know, we just like the secret legal justifications. I mean, it was truly hideous and terrifying. And then Obama came. I think this is actually the pivot for me is that Obama came in and he'd said all the right things during his campaign. And so I had all these expect that there was going to be a restoration of order. Right. There was going to be a restoration of some kind of legal framework that no one was above. And that was obviously naive. And I think there were people who saw that that was not going to happen before it failed to happen. But that. I think it was that disappointment, it was that heartbreak that made it so that when Bernie came along, I was like, yes, okay, let's go. This is like, this is what's actually required. Excuse me, in order to. In order to really make change, is somebody who's going to talk about the structure of this system and how to really reform it structurally, as opposed to just sort of, I don't know, changing the aesthetics, which is ultimately what I think Obama did.
- [16:15]
B
Yeah, I mean, the whole thing with Obama, to me, one of the big takeaways is that the liberal process shit doesn't actually prevent the death of the empire and the horribleness of capitalism. And that was essentially his. His gambit. If you read the memoir, which is, I think, the time he's been most honest, he's like, I did all these processes, and like, because I instituted all of these various processes, I knew. No, he actually says it's psychotic. That no one would have been able to have come to a better decision than the one that I came to because I instituted the processes. And that, to me, is the type. I know, it's crazy. It's like really, like on a different level of sociopathy. And I.
- [16:50]
C
He's written so much that, you know, he knew better.
- [16:53]
B
Right.
- [16:54]
C
But we still got the outcome that we got that. That's.
- [16:57]
B
And he blames it on. He. He. He doesn't even, like, see that it's the process that is itself the problem. And. And also, just Morgan, to get back what you said initially, and I think this is really like our specific micro generation is that we grew up at the end of the Cold War when there really was no sense of the left. And for people who came of age in the late 80s and 90s, it's hard to overstate the degree to which it just seemed, in a genuine sense, that there was no alternative to capitalism. And even to posit an alternative capital to Capitalism was kind of stupid. And which is why Bernie was such. And why he's so old, because he was the only. Him and Richard Wolf were the only people who were basically positing this position. Which is interesting because Hollywood, in particular, the entertainment industry was one of the fonts of American leftism, American socialism, and really American communism as well. And this is why, for example, one of the groups that Truman went after was the Hollywood Committee in Favor of Defense, something along those lines, because they were one of the first three groups Truman goes after is in Hollywood. So I wanted to bring, bring. This brings us to our next question, which is like the industry, because what is the politics of the industry? Because as an academic, people are always like, it's lefty. I would say, no, it's very liberal. It's very. Elizabeth Warren, I would say, is sort of the center of the humanities in the university. And I'm curious, what have you found amongst people in the industry related to their politics?
- [18:28]
D
I mean, I think it, to be honest, I think it really varies. I think there's a, there's a, there's a, there's an echelon that is like the people that do business that's actually much, you know, agents, producers, studio people. That's actually pretty right wing, I would say. Like, you know, it's definitely center right liberal, I mean, with like, you know, liberal social justice values and, but, but pretty right wing otherwise. And then there are people who are just, I think, out and out right wing. Like, I don't think that's, I mean, that's, that's not normal for people who are like above the line cast. And you know, I think it's pretty standard that everybody is kind of broadly humanitarian and liberal in that sense. But, but yeah, I do think that's there. And then, yeah, I think that for the people who are liberal, my experience has mostly been up until fairly recently that people are liberal in a social justice sense, that people really care about representation. Right. Because that, that is one thing that you can really track in our business. I mean, my most cynical take is that there are a lot of people who are like, well, I'm in the room. So that's. And that's a moral value. Right. Like, and there is something sometimes that can be true. Right? Like it is true. That is, you know, there, there are these representational struggles that actually sort of overlap with labor struggles in our, in our field. But there's also a kind of easy, you know, I have triumphed, therefore, justice has triumphed thing that you see Sometimes. And I think that can be a little narcissistic and ugly. I don't know. It's strange. It's a. It's a. It's a strange business because we are, you know, it is. We are unionized. We are a heavily unionized industry. And in fact, that's. I think that's why, you know, we're still making decent livings, those of us who are working, because we. We have enjoyed those protections, unlike musicians, unlike, like, adult performers who have seen their business completely eviscerated by the Internet. Like, there's, you know, there are. There are many examples, obviously, publishing media, reality tv.
- [20:26]
B
I mean, some of the most exploited people are, I think was Bethany Frankel. Somebody was trying to basically unionize reality television. I mean, and the unions is a whole. A whole nother story in Hollywood because they're very unique also in the pantheon of American unions, the sort of. They emerge from this theater, sort of quote, unquote, below the line, workers. But it's. Yeah, it's something quite interesting. Derek, off to you.
- [20:49]
C
We're. I mean, we have to start talking about the podcasters union. Danny, at some point.
- [20:55]
D
Is there actually any discussion of that?
- [20:57]
B
No, no, we're all small businesses.
- [20:58]
C
I mean, we're all like, basically, like.
- [21:02]
B
We'Re saying, yeah, no, there's been no talk about that. I mean, it's because we're all so subject to the platforms. So the platforms would be able to, in two seconds, cut anyone off. And I think that there would be a lot of reticence to do that because like every other industry, it's. It's basically conglomerated. There's four podcast platforms, just like there's kind of four studios now in Hollywood. Four conglomerates. And so there's been no discussion about that. I think because of that. Because they could just be like, foop, no, you have no income anymore.
- [21:35]
D
Not if they'd have. Not if cutting off one of you meant cutting off all of you. Right. I mean, that's the.
- [21:39]
B
That would be the half. It would have to be. Yeah, it would have to be that.
- [21:43]
D
I don't know why you're not in sag, actually. It would. I mean, it would make sense to be inside.
- [21:47]
B
I mean, this is a big. I mean, this is my. One of my. Things about the wga. I mean, one of the unions needs to get streamers, needs to get podcasters, needs to get YouTube people, when YouTube is 25 of eyeball watching time. That's the future of entertainment. I mean, it's going to be 50 soon. And so but then it gets into, you know, unions have their own sclerosis and inertia over time but that to me is the future of it. They need to unionize the streamers especially that question of business. Yeah.
- [22:15]
D
And influencers. I mean like you know those people are self exploiting but it doesn't mean they're not exploited.
- [22:20]
B
Yeah. And you see it like agents don't know what to do with them. You know there, there's right now in the business people just don't know what to do with it. And that's going to change as there's younger agents and younger managers. But I imagine I haven't done the research. I imagine Hollywood's like a gerontocracy too a little bit. I mean just look at the heads of all the studios. Right. These are similar in academia, similar in everything. And so once there's a generational turnover you're going to start seeing shifts.
- [22:43]
D
Yeah. It's funny, there's a, there's a great oral history of CAA and have you read that? And, and it's all it like they're, you know, it's the, in the 80s and 90s these guys are 33 years old run and they're running the biggest, the biggest agency in the business. And yeah, that's definitely not the case anymore. I don't think it's quite extremist DC.
- [23:00]
B
But yeah and that was true across the board. My, the one that I always point to is Iran's second head was 32, the most important national security thing and that will just never happen for the gerontocratic reasons we all know.
- [23:14]
D
Yeah.
- [23:16]
C
So Morgan, to, to drill down a little bit on the question, on Danny's last question I wanted to ask you, you've been quite outspoken about Gaza.
- [23:27]
B
And.
- [23:28]
C
Basically what was your journey to come to the place that you're at in terms of the Palestinian cause and how have you especially since October 7th. But beyond that, just in general, what sort of reception or kind of environment you found in Hollywood on that issue particularly?
- [23:54]
D
I mean like I said, I think like in terms of coming to being outspoken about it, I think it was, I think it does have to do with the fact that part of my real, I think my, my political commitments come from a sense of outrage at US foreign policy. Like that is the sort of origin of it and I think part of that is because, and I wanted to ask you guys about this but I think I, there's, I care in a deep way about what America means in the world. The story that we tell about America and when America is the country that goes into a place like Iraq and kills a million people for absolutely no reason, I think that. I think that, you know, America become like this sort of idea of this country is obviously disfigured and supporting what was happening in. What's happening in Gaza to the extent that the U.S. is, is like a darker continuation of that story where the US Instead of being sort of hegemon by consent, even by, you know, partial consent or having legitimacy, you know, in terms of its global power, that just becomes an assertion of raw strength. And being a citizen of a country that rules in that way is, I don't think that different from being a citizen of Nazi Germany. I mean, it is like, it's. It's absolutely hideous. It's utterly discomforting. And I don't know. You know, I don't know. All I. I am not someone who wants to advocate for violence. And I also feel that the type of protest we've been able to do thus far has clearly been ineffective. I don't know what to do but continue to sort of like, ring the bell. But it's. But, yeah, it's. I don't know.
- [25:40]
B
Well, Morgan, we're all good liberal subjects here. We could never countenance any revolutionary violence that is so beyond the pale to suggest. How dare you. No, I think that. I think that's right. And maybe just to piggyback on Derek's question, as a Jew, does that affect you? Because to me, that's like, a really big thing as well. And the answer is no. That. That's no. But, like, just to see people who speak in the name of international Jewry is just, like, really offensive. You know, it's a term I don't use that often.
- [26:09]
D
No, I agree. I think it is offensive. I also think there's something about American Jews who live behind. Who live in the comfort of this sort of. Of imperial core, speaking as Jews, without acknowledging their Americanness, without acknowledging their culpability and their privilege, a thousand percent. And they speak only from this place of vulnerability, as if there's not. They don't live in Los Angeles or New York. Like, I don't know. It's like, that drives me crazy. But I also, I'm. I'm very secular. You know, I grew up, like. I did not grow up religious. I am not. I was not bar mitzvah. Like, you know, it's my. You know, I'm. I think for some people, I wouldn't even count because it's my f. My father's Jewish, not my mother. So. But. But yes, coming. I think coming from that. And also actually my father, you know, I did not come from a family where Israel was dogmatic, you know, on my father's side, it was not dogmatically celebrated. Like my father always thought, you know, you, you make a country that's entirely Jewish, like that country is going to have to do amoral, you know, international things. That's not going to be good for the Jews ultimately. And I, I don't. And I think, you know, that was, that was one of his objections. But so, yeah, it was not something that we. It was ever. Some of my, some of my family is very, very pro Israel. But yeah, it's.
- [27:24]
B
Yeah. And I mean, obviously to second the anti Semitism thing, I think that is just such a distraction from what's actually going on in, in the world. And to center that in. In a moment of when Israel is committing genocide is to me really morally suspect, to say the very least. Because, like, I agree with you, I mean, like, I walk through the world as an American white guy fundamentally. And to pretend otherwise is, I think dishonoring people who don't walk through the world in that way and let alone to use that to defend the horrible actions of a foreign government that pretends to speak in my name is really atrocious. But Derek, I see you jumping at the bit off to you.
- [27:59]
C
No, I was, I was once it. Once the conversation turns, you're just wrapped as the gentile member of this, of this podcast, I, I let that, let. Let stuff that, that conversation go. But I was wrapped. Yes, I was wrapped watching you guys talk about this. Should we maybe. Well, sorry, go ahead.
- [28:17]
B
No, Morgan, ask, Ask the second half.
- [28:19]
D
Of the question which was what's been the sort of, you know, or like, you know, have I had any response?
- [28:23]
C
Yeah, yeah.
- [28:24]
D
That industry and I like to be honest, I have not. My guess is there are people who have looked at the position I've taken and have been like, that guy, I won't hire him or I don't want to engage. But like more, you know, this is such a generational thing, right. So people who are my age and younger, it is obvious who. What the. Who's in the right and who's in the wrong here for the most part. And I think, you know, people maybe have different. That they may have come to that at different moments. They may have different comfort level in terms of taking a public position. But I don't know. We had. There was this thing was like a Cinema for Gaza fundraiser. That was like a year, maybe a year ago. And it, you know, the, the list of people who were involved was like a who's who of young Hollywood. I mean, it was not, I, it was impressive how many people were coming out in this direction. It's just so clear, like, this is the future. You can't, you know, the people, I don't know, the people who at this point are like, the starving children had cancer already or had rickets. Derek, I think you were pointing out on Twitter like, you know, it's, it's.
- [29:31]
C
Yeah, they're not starving. They have rickets. Well.
- [29:35]
B
Huh.
- [29:35]
C
Like, what do you, how do you treat rickets? Has anybody Googled rickets? Like, yeah, it's, it's amazing.
- [29:42]
D
Oh, it's.
- [29:43]
C
Well, maybe, I mean, maybe we could get into to talking about, you know, kind of the, the political valence of some of your work. And I, I guess the obvious place to start is Danny already mentioned it. The, the documentary, the Big Scary S Word, which I watched part of the other day. Oh, cool. Really interesting. I'm sure you know, people who know you from the Gilded Age or know you from the Plot Against America may not be aware that you were involved in this project, but talk a little bit about the genesis of that documentary and what you guys, what you guys were doing.
- [30:16]
D
I mean, you know, Bernie had run. We, like, and I think been kind of kneecapped by the dnc and, and then Trump had won. Right. And I think in the aftermath of that victory, a lot of people were looking around going, what can I do about this? Like, how can I, you know, maybe if I, I felt like I needed to be more politically involved than I had been, both because, both because I was inspired by Bernie and also because I was, you know, pretty shocked by, by Trump's victory. I mean, I, I, it, I was, I didn't, I didn't call that. And so, yeah, I had a friend who was a doc maker. She and I had always wanted to do something together, and there wasn't. We were, we were also in conversation with some of the people at Jacobin at the time about, like, who wanted to, they wanted to do like, a bio doc of Bernie, which at the time it was not clear that Bernie was going to continue to participate at the level he did in national political life. And I was kind of like, I don't know that that's evergreen. I don't know that that's the way to go. Actually. I think this is a bigger story about a kind of sea change in American politics, which I hold to. I mean. Yeah, so, so we sort of want. We wanted to tell that story of, you know, this resurgence of socialism as an actual viable thing that, you know, because it, prior to Bernie, it had really been an epithet and even a disqualifying one. I mean, it had been effective. People ran from it. Obama ran from it whenever he was accused of it. And that was so recently. Right. I mean, that was just a couple of years before. And then Bernie completely turned it it. So we wanted to look at the history, particularly in America, and sort of trace how that had happened and what maybe what resources there were to draw on in terms of that tradition, that American tradition, because it's always part of it has been that this is a foreign intervention in American politics. So that was something we were really interested in. What is the US History of this, this political tradition?
- [32:11]
B
Well, what do you think about the state of socialism and how it's sort of gone over the last eight years? It does seem to me that obviously the left hasn't won, but there's been a genuine resurgence in a way that would have been shocking in 1990s of people at least willing to embrace this left core of what was New Deal liberalism and has now been rebranded as sort of American Democratic socialism. But how have you understood that shift?
- [32:38]
D
Well, part of it is just that it is a reality. I mean, there are DSA endorsed candidates winning in various, at various levels throughout American politics. And so they are a force to be reckoned with. With. And I think, I mean, the other thing is that their positions are popular, right? The thing, you know, everybody wants Medicare for all, really. Like that is. So I think some of the. And it's, I mean, I think, you know, Paul Krugman used to want Medicare for all too. You know, he's like, there, that's, I think that's that, that thing where liberalism actually can't fulfill its own promise, but socialism can fulfill the promise of liberalism. I think that, I think that, I think that's really true. And I think that's become clearer and clearer. I mean, Danny, you talk a lot about how liberalism that we're living in through this crisis of liberalism, right? Liberalism is failing. And I think, I think that's palpable to everyone. And so I think there's a sense of we need, we need a vision. We need a vision of the future. I think that's, I mean, you know, you think about, you know, Jonathan Haidt or whoever writes about this crisis of gen Z and Gen Alpha. Maybe I'm saying his name wrong. It might be, but you know that like every this, everybody's anxious, everybody's. And I have to think that part of that is this sense that there's no future. There's no, there's no, like the, you know, we're living in a sort of apocalyptic age when it comes to climate, and we're just watching these two parties sort of divvy up the spoils of imperial collapse and the only people. I mean, this is why I think Zoran Mandani is such an incredible figure, because this is somebody who, he's young, he's vibrant, he's energetic, and he articulates a vision of the future, of the future that's inclusive. He has a kind of, I think he has the capacity to synthesize like the identity politics wing of left liberalism and the kind of new, you know, New Deal democratic socialism. And I think that, that there's a sense there, that we could actually have a vector that goes into a future we'd all want to be in. I don't think that's, I don't, I don't see that anywhere else.
- [34:33]
B
No, you're totally correct. I mean, this really is the era of capitalist realism. In this book I have coming out imperialist realism, where it does seem like the future is closed off. And I, I, I'm starting to see glimmers of it. And to me it's just institutionally protected by that gerontocracy, to say nothing of the oligarchy. With Zaron, I'm really excited about him. I'm very curious how he's going to deal with the police union. I think that is going to be his primary thing. I don't know if you remember, you're a New York guy. If I recall when they turned their back on de Blasio, De Blasio should have fired the entire leadership of the NYPD that day. So I'm curious what that, that to me is the big question about Zoron. Is he going to be able to take on these like, Tammany hall type un. Know, he did the Tammany hall thing today. That, to me is a big question in New York as being born and raised there.
- [35:20]
C
Yeah, it's, I mean, it's been uplifting and frustrating at the same time because it's uplifting that he won the primary and the people seem to be energized by this message. But then you watch the, the Gerontocracy go into action at the top of the Democratic Party. Just, you know, the same people who say, well, maybe we can work with Donald Trump. Maybe we can find some common ground with Donald Trump. This guy wins the primary. He wins the party prim primary. And it's like, no, fuck, no, we can't, you know, he's out. No way. We can't have anything to do with that. And it's very frustrating. And I know, you know, all you have to do is punch through that. And it looks like he's going to do it in the general election, certainly. But, you know, there's still this institutional resistance to the message that he's bringing that is frustrating and I think could still wind up and, you know, the police unions won. One thing he's going to have to deal with, but he's also going to have to deal with every lever of power above the New York mayoralty pushing down on him. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. And that, that to me is, is frustrating.
- [36:25]
D
Yeah, I mean, I agree, Danny. I totally agree that the, you know, it's like if you, if you want to do a coup, you got to get the military on your side. Right? And that's, and I think that the NYPD is so powerful.
- [36:34]
C
I mean, I, I actually am literally paramilitary forces.
- [36:38]
D
I mean, and they would rival like many countries military in terms of their, you know, their budget and their, their material. But, but I think, I think he, I think his sort of conception of public safety, like trying to get cops on board saying, like, this is not, this is not the thing you're good at. This is not the thing you're trained to do. You're being held accountable for, you know, things that you are not really your deal, like mental health. Let's get another group of people in there that are going to handle those things. I, I think there's a way to frame that that's actually very pro cop. I don't, I don't, that is like pro public safety and pro cop. And that is again, synthetic. Like, I think that's, that could be his real skill, is that he's able to sort of take these opposing things.
- [37:19]
B
And he's gonna have to find the right people in the nypd. I have some inside sources. I just know people, no people. And there's a general skepticism. I think it's also generational because, like, these institutions are so bureaucratized and they're so inertia. And I, I, I hope that working with Lander and people like that are going allow him to sort of navigate the very complex New York City politics and find the right people in these institutions that he's going to have, he's going to have to find the Zoran Mamdani of the NYPD and maybe not make that guy commissioner, but you know, promote that person, man or woman, into, into a different position. And so that's going to be a real test of political skill because city politics, particularly New York City, it is so corrupt. You know, I grew up in Rockaway, Queens and just the power of those unions, the FDNY and the NYPD is just incredible. And they have a very particular view on the world. I mean very similar to Trump. It's not a surprise Trump is an outer borough New York guy and I think that, that they share a lot of those politics. So I mean it's, it's a, it's a, it's a matter of political skill and we'll see. He might be the guy. He, he does seem to be a genuine operator in the right way, unlike Obama. So I am hopeful. Derek, do you have something to say? If not, I've got a question.
- [38:33]
C
Sorry, no, I was, I was responding to a text from our producer. So go ahead Jake, you it up. This is how the sausage is made. There's business going on even while we' the interview.
- [38:43]
B
Jesus Christ. It never ends. So Morgan, let's, I want to actually turn to your work and I'd like to start with the Gilded Age because I watched the show before you even dropped our name and something that really, there's a couple of things that struck me. One, I think your casting is quite interesting that they didn't cast a Vanderbilt looking guy, you know, or a Carnegie looking guy that they, they, they. So I was wondering if you had any thought. This is the first thing that I thought when I watched the show is like they, they cast a guy who looks, looked, you know, not necessarily like a WASP American who looked Jewish. Precisely. And so I was, I, I actually was wondering if there was going to be a plot that, that the character was actually a crypto Jew at some point if something like that was going to come out. Because like the, the best capitalist in the room, particularly in the first season, is someone who's visually coded as Jewish. So I'm wondering if you had any thoughts about the casting and how you reacted that if you did.
- [39:36]
D
I mean, I think part of what really, really part of, part of what it does for us, I think dramatically is it helps us with a dynamic that's really, that the Julian Fellows, to his great credit has set up that's, that's quite brilliant. Which is he set up the richest people in the show, the people who have the most financial power. He's set them up as outsiders, right, so you can enjoy them. And it's interesting to see the way that the show has been received, right? Like Peggy Noonan loves the show but also like a lot of leftists that like, like, you know, organize around Gaza stuff also love the show. And so there's a, there's, I think part of that is that, right, you can enjoy it in its as like a straightforward. These people deserve to be where they are. They pull, they, they're self made, like you know, successful individualists. But you can also enjoy them as the outsiders coming in as sort of people storming, storming the gates. And I think that the, my casting does help with that, that I think also they were looking at Gould, they were looking at Jay Gould as a kind of prototype and he was someone who was not Jewish but was like semitized, I don't know if that's a word, but was, you know, was figured as a kind of almost Jewish figure as a symbol of rapacious capitalism in that period. So I think that was something else that they were wanting to evoke.
- [40:52]
C
It is, it is interesting watching the show and thinking like in the back of my mind I shouldn't be rooting for any of these people, but you do kind of want to pull for the, the Russells because they're like the new people, you know, they're the faces they're pushing against this old guard. There's a sort of rebel quality to that that's very appealing. But like on some level you're like, I, I shouldn't like any of these people. Come on man.
- [41:14]
B
But yeah, well, it's what capitalism should be. And, and that's why Julian Fellows is interesting, right, because this is what the ideal version of capitalism, which is that the people who are smart and better at things should be the ones who rise to the top. So it's almost a fantasy of the ideal of what capitalism should be. And to some degree in the 19th century it was more like that, not 100. Obviously you don't want to buy in, into the, the fantasy of capitalism, but there was a freedom there to advance yourself like a Rockefeller who did not really come from anything, or a Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant to actually make it to the top or a Gould. So the next question that I wanted to ask is as an actor, how did you, you go into getting into the mindset of one of these 19th century industrialists. One joke that I have is that socialists are actually really good capitalists to go back to the idea of podcasting because we have no illusions about the system. Right? We know we're not friends here. We know that this is just an arrangement of exchange. So I'm just curious if your politics actually wound up informing your portrayal of the character or. Really I found it very fascinating. How did you get into the mindset of one of these 19th century robber barons?
- [42:31]
D
I mean, part of it was, you know, I did, I did some, you know, I did. I researched Gould in particular because that's what, that's what who Julian told me I was mostly based on in terms of his character. And I found him, I found him really fascinating because he really, he sort of, he, his father, I think his father owned a dairy farm and he kind of worked his way up through. He became a tanner and then, and then he. Or a surveyor and then a tanner. And at one point there was like a. He had a conflict over the, with the owner of the tannery about who was going to control the tannery. And he rounded up a bunch of guys with sticks and they rounded up a bunch of guys with sticks and they had like a actual like knockdown, drag out war over who controlled this tannery. He won, you know, and was able to sort of hold it and then build up enough capital to come into New York and become who he became. And that was, that was really informative for me actually, because there was a sense that these guys were not that far, far from a kind of power and a kind of wealth accumulation that actually happened, you know, at the barrel of a gun essentially, that, that there was a latent capacity for violence in, in a person of this era. Possibly that. That was maybe interesting, but also. Yeah, I mean, I agree there is a way in which you see, like, it's, it's. This guy is a player in a game, right? And, and he happens to occupy the most powerful position. But his, his incentives are like the challenge with a character like this is allowing him to be a good person, I think actually, and believing that he's a good person. And I think that's just part of a kind of Marxist analysis is that the problem here is a system, right? That this is a guy who is operating from a particular position within a particular system. The incentives all force him to be utterly ruthless and unscrupulous. And that isn't because he's a bad guy or because he wants to hurt people. It's just because that is the Function he has to perform within. Within the. Within the system.
- [44:32]
B
And on the show, they do it a lot through gender dynamics. Right. The character is very progressive in his view, toward gender. And I think that's used again smartly because, you know, it's an HBO show in. In neoliberal capitalism to sort of humanize, you know, like, like to. To. To make you root for him. Like, obviously, Carrie Coon is such an amazing actress and you love her and you want her to succeed like a billion times over. And the fact that he supports her is, I remember thinking, such a smart storytelling move that he could get like, the guy to commit suicide. But at the same time, like, you love him because he's allowing Carrie Coon to sort of dominate the old WASP elite, which Americans hate. And this. The one thing that's so interesting to me as a show, and it's interesting that it's made by an Englishman, is that it was like, Americans hate that WASP elite. You know, we're all products of the 1880s and 1920s immigration that really reacted against the build the butchers of the world who were part of, you know, the Christine Baranski sort of set. And it's just like, it's just such smart storytelling. I mean, some of these showrunner professionals are just so good at what they do. They like, immediately lock in on how to tell a compelling story to the larger people. And. And I think that was just. It's a post immigration story almost, which I think is your casting, also helps get people on board because no one likes that WASP elite, you know, like, I mean, and it's really interesting. And then I'll. I'll shut up. But someone did, like, like the Supreme Court is now all Catholic and someone posted like, Millard Fillmore would have lost his mind if he saw this, right? So we're living in, like, a very post immigration world, which. The show is very smart from a storytelling perspective.
- [46:07]
D
No, I, I totally agree. And I think, I mean, Julian is a real, like, avid student of American history and he all. But he also is in love. I mean, all Brits, and I'm married to one like, like, think of the UK as like, this stodgy place where nothing can happen and America as this dynamic place where anything is possible. And the 19th century, as you're saying, is like, was really kind of like that and certainly to a greater degree than it is now here. And that's. I think the thing that he's also in love with is that people who can. Because the wasps were sort of just Sitting on their. Sitting on their wealth and, and maintain. And in a very conservative way, like maintaining the strictures of society and the people. The Vanderbilts, who were the other group we're based on, were sort of the people came in and said, no, no, no, we're going to do it however the fuck we want. And I think in a certain way he loves that. Right. That's the, it's the, it's the overthrowing of the prior order that he's really. That thrills him, I think.
- [47:00]
B
And it's interesting to put in dialogue with Downton Abbey, which to some degree is how the. The continuation of the old order in a new, slightly more egalitarian way. That would actually be an interesting article to write, to really compare the two shows and how the change. Change of setting and also, I mean, frankly, the change of the industrial production of film of the UK versus the US must be very different in how one approaches something like showrunning.
- [47:24]
C
Yeah, well, it's.
- [47:25]
D
They also do it very differently. I mean, they, you know, he. In the uk, television writer, writes the whole show and then turns it over to a director, producer. They don't really have a showrunner in the same way. I mean, these figures like David Simon or Milch or some of these other, you know, David Chase, these like people who concentrate. Producer, writer, sometimes also director. That isn't, that isn't how they do it over there. So, yeah, he's much more the sort of classic British TV writer film.
- [47:50]
B
Yeah. And a position only just recognized after the 2023 negotiations as an official position. So wild to think that showrunner was. Yeah, showrunner was not an official position within the WGA hierarchy until 2023. So you did, like EP stuff and things along those lines. But from what I understand, and I wasted a lot of time looking into this, that is the case. I'm also wondering if you have any thoughts about. About the show as a New York show. As someone who spent a lot of their career in New York, correct me if I'm wrong and not L. A. Right. You're more of a New York. Yeah, yeah. So, like, how do you approach the show as a New York show, which is also like its specific genre, because to me, New York is really the city of the exact period the Gilded Age takes place in, roughly post Civil War to 1945. And then LA really becomes the city of America for variety of reasons. Obviously Hollywood is there and so it exports American fantasies. It's a city built on roads, which means it's a city built on Empire, which means it's a city built on constant access to things like rubber and oil necessitates an empire. And then of course it's the center of the defense industry. The big manufacturer, plane manufacturing was Douglas Aircraft and then the Rand Corporation is there. So I think LA actually displaces New York in the late 20th century as the paradigmatic American city. But I'm wondering what you think about the Gilded Age as sort of the, the story of like the ris of New York, which itself becomes a center of finance capital only in the early 20th century, basically at the end of the Gilded Age.
- [49:17]
D
Yeah. I mean, I, I, I, I, I. When you walk around New York and you, or when you consider the sort of, like when you consider New York the sort of fantasy of New York, I think it is very much like a late 19th century fantasy. And the, the most beautiful buildings of the of in the city are. Well, I mean there are some gorgeous like deco skyscrapers and stuff like that. But, but really the, the most beautiful buildings you see are from this period. These, these people really left their stamp on New York aesthetically in kind of a great way. I mean, it's at least, you know, like when you, when you vacate however the, you know, however they earned their wealth, the, the, the landscape they left behind, the architecture left behind is gorgeous. I mean, Grand Central. I've, I don't know. I, I have always loved that space. You walk into that space and it feels like it's amazing.
- [50:05]
B
Amazing.
- [50:06]
D
It's amazing architecture that it is ennobling of the human spirit to be in that kind of space. And we don't build buildings like that anymore. And I don't know, there's. It, it gives me a, it gives me a, I don't know, a soft spot for these, for these guys because they, they, they, they wanted a legacy that, that, that meant, that included that and, and I don't see that from our, our current.
- [50:28]
B
That's what I was, that's what I was going to get into. At least Carnegie builds his goddamn libraries. Even though interesting, if you go back and look at a lot of times when one of the Carnegie Libraries would arrive in the city, there'd be a gigantic union action against it. So it's very interesting because they were like this guy, you know, like, he's, he's, he's not, he's not actually in support of workers. So that's not much work. There's actually an interesting space. But I'm glad you brought that up because I wanted to what do you see as the difference? I'm sorry Derek, you go.
- [50:57]
C
No, I was gonna add like this is, this is my contention and I. I'm sure every generation feels this way, but my contention is that we have the worst oligarchs of at this point like the worst class of oligarchs this country has ever had in the current moment. No, it's just. I mean these guys built stuff, right? Like they built things. They left at least, at the very least they funded universities, they built, you know, institutions. They built nice looking buildings. What we have now is just like they make. You know, the new thing that I saw was the mattress pad that you have to buy a subscription for and it keeps you cool at night.
- [51:33]
B
Night.
- [51:34]
C
And they got $100 million in VC funding nonsense, right?
- [51:38]
B
I mean, yeah. At least Duke and Vanderbilt built universities. So I was wondering about like has this given any insight or how has this shaped your thinking vis a visa Musk or a Teal or a Zuckerberg? I mean to some degree it just feels like these are first a tragedy, next, as far as capitalism goes on, everything's going to become more and more degraded. Instead of building universities, we've got the MyPillow guy. So. But I was just like, like how. What do you think was motivating these guys in a different sense? Why did they have a sense of civic purpose in a way that a Musk. Basically all these guys just want to escape Earth. Like that. That to me is Musk's fan. Escape Earth and live forever as opposed to Carnegie who's trying to leave some sort of civic legacy even if he broke unions and blah blah blah blah blah.
- [52:24]
D
I mean I think what I really think about it is. Is kind of weird and I don't know if it makes any sense at all but like the guys in the 19th century were building things that were about the body, right? Like they, they were embodied people and they created embodied spaces where and that moved people's bodies around and then you could occupy physically. And these people are creating platforms and virtual spaces that exclude the body that you are that you that where you don't. The thing that the only thing that matters is is like this very particular type of intellectual engagement that is emotionally. I mean, I think genuinely it is. I don't mean to be ableist here, but I think a lot of these guys are somewhere on the autism spectrum that like there is a never.
- [53:07]
B
Morgan, how dare you say that about Elon Musk? Peter Thiel.
- [53:11]
D
It's weird the way the work, the you know, the work that we have now that our system has, has started to value at this. I mean, the investment in AI, when you look at it, even relative to China, which is our closest competitor, I mean, we're investing like 10 times or more what they're investing that for, for whatever reason, the markets have decided in this country that that's the kind of, that's the most valuable type of labor. And that type of labor is done by people who are like, don't want to include their bodies or their emotions in the product that they're creating.
- [53:40]
C
And I think that don't even necessarily want to include humanity. I mean, there is this obsession with, like, this is going to supplant us. Like our job is to birth the AI that's going to supplant humanity. Like, what the hell, man? Like, that's just, just. Yeah, it's, it's so weird and creepy to me.
- [53:59]
D
Yeah, I agree. And I think, I mean, I don't know. I don't. I have yet. You know, there are a few things in the world that I like. There are these sort of big unanswered questions that just seem to sort of persist even as everyone operates as if they knew the answer. But like AI to me is why do we want this? Like, if you took the amount of money that they've invested in developing these, these AIs and you just gave it to a bunch of scientists to do research and development over a sustained period of time, are you telling me that they wouldn't have enormous breakthroughs? Like, we know the human brain is a miracle. Like, we don't need to invent another thing. We just need to actually allocate resources to what we have.
- [54:37]
B
It's a falling rate of profit. I mean, I genuinely think that explains artificial intelligence because in the 19th century you could do things like two things like consolidate the railroads or my, my jokey thing is you could build St. Louis. And you're going to get a big return if you build St. Louis. But now there's just fewer and fewer places for capital to invest. So the only thing that capital is able to in the second half of the 20th century is to reduce labor costs first. The easiest way to do that is through blue collar labor. So you ease first, you automate in the Pacific Northwest. Basically the, the going down from like the gigantic saw to the chainsaw destroyed the logging industry because you just got rid of seven workers in five seconds. So you automate blue collar workers and then you once globalization, these global connections happen with American Empire then you just offshore. And so that's the story of blue collar work. But with AI, what they're essentially trying to do, I think is do that to the white collar workfor. Yeah, which is that they need to get rid of labor costs because there is no other basically useful place to invest. And this is what Marx said. He would say over time the rate of profit would fall, capital would have more difficulty finding places to keep the same rate of return going. And so what it would do it was immiserate the workers. And for this reason the proletariat needs to recognize itself as the subject object of history organized and basically put the miracles of capitalism in service of humanity. Humanity. Problem is we're not in the era of putting it in the service of humanity. So you get AI is that's how I view it at least?
- [56:02]
D
No, that makes a ton of sense to me. I guess I just. What I. One of the things I find frustrating is I, you know, we, it feels like because we are living in this era of climate breakdown, there is this. We are, there is the possibility to rebuild St. Louis. Like every, every building in this country needs to be re insulated. We need to shift to a whole, you know, we need to redo our entire electrical grid. There is actually a lot of that work to do that. That to me is like why couldn't that be profitable? Like why are we not going to that.
- [56:30]
B
That's financialization. So I think the. This is what happens when societies decay. Whether you're looking at the United Kingdom or the Dutch Republic, right towards the end of their hegemony, they always basically become financialized because they become organized around short term profits because people don't actually believe, unlike the Russells or the Vanderbilts or whatever in sort of the long term project of the. They only believe on short term return. I mean talk about Hollywood. Let's look at how Hollywood has been totally overcome with basically high finance just getting in there and purchasing all of these companies. So I think that's the other part of the story is that that financial capital has no interest in these sorts of long term nationalist projects. Which explains why they wouldn't solar panels. You know, that's. That, that China's doing it. Why not do solar panels? Why not rebuild these things? And, and that I explained that through financialization and sort of the shareholder incentives of the corporation and the needing to make money off money crypto, I mean that's just not. It's a fake asset. Right. It's just an asset class that's totally Fucking fake, totally disconnected from anything. And it's a sign of really a cancerous decay at the heart of the society, ultimately a sign of decline, imperial decline.
- [57:39]
D
I think this is true. This is also why, I mean again, to come back to somebody like Zoron, but like we're desperately in need of people who can tell us a story about the future that's going to, that, that could create. I mean, this is why this is again, this is something that, that I, when Obama, this is why I liked Obama too was it felt like this is somebody who could say, here's the new national project. Here's what we're going to, here's what America is going to be about. Here's what we're going to do going forward. And we're, and you need that story in order to be able to reorganize your economy, your political economy. And I think like we're still, we're still looking for that. I don't know what, you know, Trump's version of that story is like, it is fundamentally backward looking. Right? It is not, it is about restoration. I think it is not about a radical restoration of a very, you know, know, of a very hierarchical order as opposed to something new.
- [58:28]
B
It's literally, it's also literally pre financial. Sorry, just very quickly, it's like the tariffs are only on goods. You can't not regulate finance and expect there to be any, any effect. Right. So it's literally a 19th century McKinley esque mindset that imagines that the American economy is primarily about goods, which it is just not any longer. It's about financial transactions primarily and services. And so he has zero regulate. The only regulation he likes is goods on tariffs on goods, which makes no, no sense. So again, it's all Kayfabe, which is actually, I think good quote unquote. Just because it's, he's not going to be able to build a lasting base off of that if, if he had done like a National Socialism, Nazism esque thing where he actually distributed wealth to the, you know, to the, to the United. That's scary if he actually did that. But he's, he's not going to do that. He's an outer borough New York guy who just wants to literally Tammany esque, Boss Tweed esque more than anything anything else. Sorry, Derek.
- [59:22]
C
Well, I, I mean to, to pick up on the AI discussion again. I mean, Morgan, I'm curious your, your take on AI in Hollywood, because this has been a big topic of conversation. I just read an article the other Day it was from a couple of years ago, but it was about the AI 4K render of, I think it was True Lies, which I love. It's a great movie. And you look at these still images from the, the upscale and like Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like a cartoon. Like Tom Arnold looks like a cartoon. It's unwatchable, but it's only gotten worse. I mean, it's only gotten bigger. Like the idea that we're going to, you know, stop hiring extras and just put AI rendered characters in the backgrounds of movies, that was a big element of one of the strikes. I know. And just, you know, what, what's going to happen here is this technology wish, you know, seems wretched to me in most ways, but just becomes a bigger, a bigger part of the studio consideration when they're making movies and TV series.
- [60:23]
D
Yeah. I have a, a nephew who is in the film business and he is a first and he was telling me a story about working on independent feature in the uk and basically they had a. They. To open the, open the. I think it was the first shot of an episode of a series. And to open the shot, it's this big open the show. It's this big sweeping drone shot, pushes up over a cliff into a sort of small village and then comes into like the window of a house. And there we find our main characters. And they were looking at the budget to actually do that with a drone and you know, a sort of second unit team and housing them and blah, blah, blah. And then there was like a, a visual effects house that's using, that's using LLM based VFX models who are like, we'll do it for, I mean, a tiny fraction of the cost. Right. And also their first draft of it that was like, we'll throw something together. Together was all. Was. Was great. Right? Was like exactly what they wanted and they delivered it that afternoon. I'm, you know, slightly exaggerating, but, you know, that is hard to fight. And I think when it comes to big crowd scenes, when it comes to some of those shots, I don't know, like, unless Ayatsi in the States, like gets together and says you're not allowed to do this. I, I think that is, some of that stuff is a foregone conclusion. I think the idea, idea and maybe this is just like naively optimistic. I think I probably am a bit of a naive optimist in a lot of ways. I think people don't want to see fake acting. Fake people acting. I think the game that's interesting is you're watching a real person pretend to do something, otherwise it's just animation. I mean, it seems like very possible to me that you're going to invent an easy, cheap sort of third category here of animation that is AI based and you might get some brilliant art out of that. Right? Like if one guy can sit in a room and make a feature film that's animated, you might get some brilliant art out of it. A lot fewer people are going to be employed in the business.
- [62:18]
B
I think that's correct. I literally. What you just said is precisely what I think is going to happen. And I think again, it just marks this guy knew what he was saying. It's going to mirror the rest of the economy, right? Like if you're an actor on a, on an HBO show, you're going to be fine, but it's going to basically cut out that fat. The, the 90% of people who like kind of, you know, you could kind of just put that extra in the background, etc. Etc. It's going to do the same in FX. I think. Writing, it's going to do less because the Guild, I think, was very, very good on this. They, they said it can't credit AI so ironically, I think writing is going to be one of the most protected elements of the entertainment industry because no matter what, there's going to have to be a human getting credit on that script. But I think it's going to affect things otherwise. So, Morgan, we've kept you here a while. Don't want to keep you too much longer. But you said you wanted to ask us some questions and wanted to give you the opportunity if, if, if, you know, flip the classroom, as they say in academia.
- [63:16]
D
I have two, I have two questions that, I mean, I've, I could sit here for many, many hours and ask you guys questions, but I have two questions that I really want to ask you. One is, you know, know, I, I think, Danny, the first time I became aware of you, you wrote an essay in N plus 1 calling for the left to develop a foreign policy, a socialist foreign policy. And I know that, you know, with Quincy and the sort of restrainer movement, I think, you know, a lot of sort of socialists have been part of that. But that's also something that libertarians are involved in, sort of some, some conservatives are involved in. I don't. Do you think, do you think that that's happened or do you think that we've made progress toward having at something you could say, this is it. Say, you know, any, any good socialist candidate that would be DSA approved or that we would get behind, you know, socialists would get behind, is going to have essentially a version of this foreign policy?
- [64:07]
B
That's a really good question. And I would say the answer is no for a couple of reasons. One, that institutional destruction that I talked about vis a vis, like the Hollywood Committee for Defense, that really, I think knocked out the institutional basis of the American left. So you essentially have, let's say from 1948 to 2014, 15, just no institutions of what a genuine left wing foreign policy would be. So we're still in the nascent stage of institution building. And I think you need those institutions, particularly in foreign policy, which is such like an expert technocratic space to really develop that. What I think Quincy is trying to do is basically reach back to almost a Pre World War II moment. Morgan, I don't know if if you heard me say this, but really the whole notion of sort of a liberal center and then the left and a right only started to be used in the United states in the 40s primarily because new Deal liberals wanted to present themselves in their project as the common sense middle. That was different from the communists on the left and the fascists on the right. And we're the center. But what Quincy is trying to there. There are much deeper strands in US History that are skeptical of interference convention, like Charles Beard who would later be considered, you know, right wing. And Eugene Debs had kind of a similar, almost George Washington skepticism of foreign entanglements, at least when it came to outside the Western hemisphere. The Western hemisphere, of course, always within. They're isolationist. Not in terms of Latin America. No one's isolationist in terms of Latin America, but I'm just going to bracket that for a second. So I do think that there is a deep strand of anti interventionism, anti imperialism in U. S. History that could genuinely in the short term begin to exert an on US Foreign policy. Trump, Trump talked like that to some degree, obviously didn't govern like that. There's also problems on the left because you have some people on the left, people that I respect and have worked with, like Matt Dust who for example, wanted to arm Ukraine from a left wing perspective. Right, like as, as leftists, you know, you support the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Why wouldn't you support the noble Ukrainians against Russia? Right. There's an argument there. I just come down on the side of like yes, when we're Talking about the 30s, sure. But there's been 75 years of actual US imperial governance and what this demonstrates over and over and over and over and over again is when the United States intervenes, it just fucks shit up. So I would say that that historical record, that's what I base my sort of just extreme anti imperialism on, which is just basically Yankee come home. But there are differences in the left about that. So that's why I think it's going to be difficult in the short or medium term for there to be like a left wing approach. Because you could say, see the logic behind, you know, arming the noble Ukrainians usually doesn't come to arming the noble Palestinians. But that's a different story for a different time for various reasons.
- [66:54]
C
Yes, please.
- [66:55]
D
Sorry, Derek, please.
- [66:56]
C
No, go ahead, go ahead, Morgan.
- [66:57]
D
No, no, I just was going to say like I it lead, that leads me to my, I adds a question and leads me to my next question. So Derek, please, if you're going to say something about that, go ahead.
- [67:05]
C
Well, okay. I mean, I think, you know, and this is something we talked about actually with Sh. Shadi Hamed the other day, Danny. Part of the destruction of the institutions is a diminishment of the capacity for the left to prepare for power. There are think tanks like Quincy that are oriented around a particular ideological strain or pushing a particular point. And Quincy's very much oriented around the idea of foreign policy restraint. But that's not a left, that's not limited to a left foreign policy. And what you miss with when you don't have institutions like Cap or you know, the Senator Csis or some of these other places is you don't have these places where people are getting together and writing policy or writing like this is what we would do if a leftist was elected president. And where you can draw then from the personnel in these institutions to fill out an administration that's, that's got to.
- [68:05]
B
Be thousands of positions. By the way.
- [68:09]
C
This is where we're going to get our Secretary of State from. Like it's every political appointee in the State Department, every political appointee in the Pentagon, and who knows, after Trump that may be everybody if they strip civil service protections. So you're really lacking, I think, the institutional basis to build out an administration if you got to that point where there, there was one. So there's a lot of work to me that has to be done.
- [68:31]
B
And just very quickly, just to two finger that. One of the things that we were doing within the Bernie campaign, which I thought was really exciting, was thinking about how to reform the actual state because the state is so fucking Anti Democratic. Like the NSC is an insane institution if you think about it like you could just appoint anyone like Henry Kissinger to just go in there. And now he's the king of foreign policy. So there also needs to be like serious institutional reform which I think Trump has shown a Bernie esque figure could do. Just go in there and issue 500 executive orders on the first day. Right. Let them, let them deal with that. But do it leftistly. It's not great. I wish we couldn't, we didn't have that system, but this is the one we're in. Sorry Morgan, off to you.
- [69:08]
D
No, no, I, yeah, I remember, I remember when it looked like Corbyn might be prime minister. That was a real problem that they were facing was that there just was not that institutional capacity to staff and to come in with like white papers on. Here's what we're going to do. We need to, you know, when we need to develop nitty gritty policy stuff that, that, that institutional capacity wasn't there. Is there any. How do we get there from here? How do we develop those institutions? Because obviously, I mean there could be, I don't know who, you know, there could be someone that, that steps up and becomes a kind of real heir to Bernie. Obviously Zoron's born in Uganda, he can't be the president. But you know, somebody like that who was a real star, you know, who would they draw on? I mean it would, it would be.
- [69:49]
B
Podcasters, podcasters and little magazine writers. I mean this is, this is one of the problems with the destruction of academia. I mean that's where go oftentimes when the leftists would go when they weren't allowed into Washington D.C. but I think consciously or unconsciously capitalism has just destroyed the American university. I don't know if you saw what's happening at UChicago. They're not accepting any PhD students in the humanities. Where do you think these people are going to come from?
- [70:13]
C
I mean they're stripping programs that have any, any language element to them. Like they're just getting rid of them.
- [70:18]
B
It's ridiculous. So I mean, to be honest, the real answer is you would need a Russell esque figure to come in and fund it. Alex Sorrel, who was genuinely left wing to be like, I'm going, I'm so wealthy, I'm going to these, these institutions aren't that expensive, to be honest. They have budgets, $5 million a year. It's not very much. You would, you would need to have like a David Geffen on The left come in and just fund it. But the problem in capitalism is that turns out the uber capitalists aren't actually left wing. And so I think this is a problem. And just one point to one example, Morgan. I'm sure you know the Frankfurt School, right? The Institute of Social Research, they were funded by the. So an industrialist angles. The son of an industrialist funds Marx. Right? So we need our sons to really stand up and help us going forward.
- [71:07]
C
Rebel against your. Rebel against your capitalist dads. But that's the depressing answer. Simple. Simple answer is money. Yeah.
- [71:14]
D
Bill Ackman's daughter, right? She's the, she's the, the Marxist right.
- [71:18]
B
Which is why he hates Harvard. Okay, yes, I have.
- [71:20]
D
All right, so one more. This is one. This is a question with a part B or part A, I guess. So one is. Throughout the, throughout the genocide in Gaza, it has never been made clear to me, except in platitudes, why the US is so committed to supporting Israel. And I was listening to. I was listening to a podcast yesterday where some people were making an argument that the, you know, the, the sort of Walt Mearsheimer thesis that the lobby drives, a lot of it is false and sort of like pointlessly liberal because actually it's about imperialism and it's about capitalism and it's about this sort of. It's about geopolitical control over the region. And all of the arguments, all of the sort of points that they made in support of that argument, which obviously I'm sympathetic to, imagine many ways we're from like the Cold War period. And it seems to me that post Cold War, I don't understand what the utility of country is. Right? Like we have bases all through Saudi and Jordan. Right? Like who Egypt? CC is like a puppet, a US Puppet. I mean, maybe that's probably oversimplifying things, but there's an enormous amount of influence there. Like, what is the purpose that this serves when it's doing so much harm. Harm to the U.S. and, and really I actually even like thinking about this from the perspective of a Biden president. I mean, I know he's old and his brain was fucking soup and like he, he's still living in the Cold War. I think in terms of his ideology, but I don't know from their perspective, from the perspective of a, Of a Biden or, or let's. Or from a, let's say an Anthony Sullivan or a Jacob or Anthony Blinken or a Jake Sullivan or from the perspective of somebody inside the Trump administration, what is the purpose that this country Serves that is unique. That makes it all worth this.
- [73:18]
B
Derek, you want to start?
- [73:19]
C
Yeah. So, I mean, there's a few things to say about this. First of all is I disagree with the take that the domestic aspect doesn't matter at all, that the Israel lobby doesn't matter. I think it matters a great deal, especially to politicians who are. Are, let's say, of a certain age or came up through a system that functions in a way that they understand that if you cross Israel, AIPAC comes down and you're like a ton of bricks and you lose. And whether that's true or not anymore, and I think there's an argument to be made that it's changing. This is the world that they know. The world that they know is you don't fuck with aipac. Beyond that, you know, and this is more on the Republican side. But you also have an extraordinarily powerful religion, religious, Christian, Zionist lobby, that works for the same ends to a much different purpose. Right. They want Israel to exist for a much different reason than AIPAC does, but they're pushing in the same direction. So, first of all, I think that discounting that entirely is wrong. The second point I would make is in terms of the utility for the empire, some of that is muscle memory, too. Some of that is, as you said, a guy like Joe Biden who is still living in some Cold War fantasy. But even with younger people like Blinken and Sullivan, they were trained in a certain way and certain rules about how US foreign policy works. And you have that drilled into you. And if you want to get ahead in that world, you understand those rules and you parrot them back, and you operate within that system. So it's kind of ingrained in them that Israel matters from that perspective. And the third thing is it still matters, I think, from the perspective of Iran. And some of that's muscle memory, too. Some of that is like, we're still pissed off over the embassy seizure in 1979, and we want to make them pay for it. But also, Iran is a prize in the same way that Iraq was viewed as a prize, that there's oil here. It's a state in the middle of the region that is anti American. And if we can turn that into a bastion of whatever freedom and democracy, that will resonate through the entire world. And Iran now is the prime minister. And what Israel gives the US in that sense is a place to pressure Iran for the ultimate goal of regime change. There's other things, too. There's the military benefit of having a country that's willing to test out all of America's weapons on subject populations like the Palestinians in Gaza, that's prepared to buy a lot of US Weapons, even if it's with money that the government sends, that then gets funneled recycled through Israel back to defense contractors. So there's a lot of that, too. It is a laboratory in some senses, for the US Military to play around in or to have the Israelis play around on their behalf and see what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, that results in the death and starvation of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. But that's a side effect that we here in the United States are willing to suffer through because it doesn't really affect us.
- [76:26]
B
Yeah. And just to add on that also, Derek, what you're saying, it serves the function that Latin America used to serve in American foreign policy as the laboratory of empire. And now you could just really offshore it in a way that it. That you couldn't before. And then I think this is. I'm obviously more of a materialist, but I also think it's envisioned as a white readout of civilization in a region of barbarism, like when Mertz said that Israel's doing the dirty work of the west for it. And so you have this irony where the Jews, who are basically the object against which Western modernity was formed in a real, you know, the figure of the Jew as Other, they're fully welcomed in to the project of Western modernity by essentially serving as a settler colonial society in the region of barbarism. And so I also think that is sort of this, like, substrate going on here. But I do think it is changing. I think the problem, though, is it'll change by the time that Israel has. Has quote, unquote, won by creating Greater Israel, which makes it very grim and very depressing. And this is, again, why I often say it sometimes does feel like we're living through the era of mutual ruin, that, you know, we didn't control the great things produced by capitalism, they wound up controlling us. We're alienated, in a foundational, Marxist sense from these things. And it's depressing. And I think we need to find a way out of it. But, you know, in my more pessimistic moments, that's what I think.
- [77:52]
D
Yeah.
- [77:53]
B
All right.
- [77:54]
D
Can I ask the part B to that or the part.
- [77:55]
B
Yeah, please. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [77:57]
D
Go for it then. I'll let you guys go. But so I, I'm very persuaded by the restrainer position. Right. I mean, I do think, you know, broadly speaking, the US Ends up pouring gasoline on the fire most of the time when it gets involved in these places. I mean, certainly in Ukraine, you know, we, the, it was impossible to escalate with Russia up beyond a certain point. So there was no effective opposition that could really be marshaled by NATO and the West. So all you can do is prolong this grinding conflict. I think that was patently obvious immediately and it drove me fucking crazy that every, no one else would see that all you were doing is throwing bodies on this fire. So anyway, that's Ukraine. But also from, so, from the restrainer perspective, though, when you, I, I'm always, I love the, the, the bimonthly conversations with Robert Wright because I think his commitment to international law, I actually, I'm, I'm quite taken with it and I love, I mean, I think, and you know, I'm, let's build that new world order as fast as we can. As long as it's democratic, it's fine with me. But, but yeah, I wonder, you know, when you have a situation like Gaza where, where it needs to stop right now, right? Like they don't get to fire another bullet. Like, if I had the levers, right, they don't get to fire another bullet, they don't get to move another guy. The shit is over right now. And the only way to really do that, I think, is with military force at this point. Like, yes, maybe if we said no more weapons and you're sanctioned, maybe they would be so shocked that they would stop, but possibly they wouldn't. I mean, I think clearly Netanyahu's political, his domestic political incentives are so driven by the settler domination of their politics. I don't know if he can, and I don't, I don't want to say he's like a helpless figure here, but I, I, I think he's in a, I think he is also compelled in some ways to continue doing what he's doing. So, yes, the, I think you really have to maybe put a, put some real force on the scale to stop. And in the absence, I mean, what's the, what, what is the restrainer position on a case like this? I mean, I don't know if a Sudan might be a similar situation situation. I mean, is obviously, I don't want the US Going in because the US has its own incentives. But is it like, is the desire is the wish that there were a true multilateral force that could, that could go in and stop situations like this?
- [80:22]
B
It's a good question. I, I, for this one. I always look at what Eisenhower did with Suez, which is like, you continue this another second, you're. You're basically out of the family and we're never going to help you with anything. And then the British and the French and the Israelis stopped in about two seconds because they're ultimately still clients of the United States. So I think the restrainer position is that these are cl. And because these are effectively clients, you could essentially do what you want. I think if the United States, if Trump or Biden or any of them just said you have until tomorrow to stop or you're going to be out of this family of Western nations, they would actually stop barring. Barring. So I think the question what you're asking is like about the responsibility to protect, which was this our idea in the 90s and 2000s is like, if Milosevic is just like murdering these people, do you just like let it happen? Or Srebrenica, do you just like let that happen right this or Rwanda, which they did let happen, etc. Etc.
- [81:15]
C
And this is really supposed to be the animating principle after the Cold War, this is what the US does with.
- [81:19]
B
Its superpower until 9, 11 helped us and we could just said we could do whatever the we want. But I think this is a really difficult question because ultimately I am of the view that you can't get the type of positive benefit that we all want to see in the world world as humanists, as universalistic humanists who think that every life is equal with the empire. So the problem is if you do use the empire in a quote, unquote good way, it necessitates the use of the empire in the bad way. And again, I think history demonstrates that you don't get like the, the ending of the of Srebrenica without now we have the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. They actually fundamentally go together. So that's why I'm of the position that even in these humanitarian crises, it can't be the US State running them. In an ideal world, you would have a genuinely democratic institution, which the UN Is not and has never been run, something like that, where some that there was a democratically decided military force that in a legitimate way speaks on quote, unquote behalf of humanity. And I don't think we're going to get that with the US Imperial prerogative as it is. Which is why in my lifetime, as a historically situated person who does want to see one world government, who does want to see that type of military force, my primary project is Yankee go home, because I don't think you would get that otherwise. That, and that's just a personal thing because no one wants to see. I mean, to put it bluntly, babies get killed wherever, in Gaza or elsewhere. It's horrible. You want to end that. This is the motivating ideology of Samantha Power's career. But if anything, this is what her career demonstrates, right? That you can't actually use the empire for good. It just doesn't work that way historically.
- [83:02]
C
And to your second case, Morgan, which I think is actually more vexing. Sudan, because I think there are levers that you could pull with Israel to stop what's happening in Gaza at relatively little cost, or that wouldn't violate a restrainer ethos. Sudan, I think, is harder because there isn't that client relationship. That there is the UAE arming the paramilitaries, the rapid support forces who commit a lot of the atrocities in that conflict. But even if the US went to the UAE and said, knock it off or you're out of the tent, you're out of the club, whatever, I don't know that that would stop the conflict. And at best, if it did stop the conflict in the sense that the RSF was no longer able to function and the Sudanese military one, where does that really leave the people of Sudan? I mean, the military is not much of an improvement. So then the question is, you know, what have you actually achieved? And it's, it's. I don't have a good answer for that. I don't have a good answer for what you do with something like that under a restrainer worldview, except to say that, yeah, it would be great if we had some international law or an international ability to do things on a multinational basis to end conflicts like that, but we don't. And, and under the, you know, I don't see any nation state, particularly not a powerful nation state, actually exceeding or to, to a, a situation or a, a structure like that and giving up power to something that could really do, do meaningful things in the world.
- [84:42]
B
This is why I, when I think in the medium term and sorry, we're going along, Morgan, sorry to keep you so long, man. But like, you have to start thinking in re. Like the US and Canada and Mexico are effectively one economy in, in actual reality, right. If you look at the material reality, that's where you could start building these sorts of democratic linkages, ideally. And it's from there that you start building. If you look, if you think about the history of the last 1,000 years of essentially people moving up their imagination of the community that they belong to, from the family to the village, to the town, to the state, to the nation. There's no reason we can't imagine eventually get to the world. But first, I think you, you can't skip. The problem with international law is that it tried to skip the regional element to just go to like the world. But what really happened was that the United States identified itself as acting on behalf of humanity because of our insane millenarian Protestant belief that has defined this country from the beginning. But it tried to skip a step. So I think that we could start as leftists really building up that sort of regional integration in a democratic way where we, we're not just exploiting Mexico or Central America, but we're building genuine institutions that, that are representative of some sort of people's will for over the next several hundred years. Right. If you imagine the nation state as a project took several hundred years to go. This is also going to take, this is also going to take this type of building up over time. And that's what my. Again, as someone who's living in the 21st century, I wish I was living in the 28th century. I try to do is to sort of push towards those sorts of linkages over time.
- [86:16]
D
Yeah. So it seems like the, the, the, like the left Foreign Policy project is, has to be a kind of international project, albeit a regional one.
- [86:24]
B
Yeah, yeah, it's, it's time. This is. I'm a historian. Right. Like you have to under. And this is again back to Marx. You have to understand where you're situated in time and to argue in favor of international Law, law in 2025 is I think to argue with a figment because we're just, we haven't done the work to get there. This, and if you listen to me and Bob, this is like the fundament. I mean international law, right. What did Churchill say about democracy? Whatever, or I forget it's a good idea. Whoever said it like it's a good idea. It is a good idea. It's a great idea if it, if it was actually able to be enforced. But what international law meant in practice was the right of the United States to arrogate to itself the ability to act on behalf of human rights, humanity. Because we didn't do the work to get, do the work to get to a genuine international law. That's my problem with it. Not with the idea of international law, which is obviously good, but with the reality of the historical moment in which it was tried to be implemented.
- [87:17]
D
Isn't it about the US Yielding its sovereignty. Right. I mean, so in some way, I guess this is the thing I wonder is like could the actual, you know, could the project of creating real international law actually be a kind of project for the domestic U.S. left? Right. Because we are the ones who could change US Policy in terms of saying we need to, we need to transition from being an empire to being like part of an international community. But I know that's, that's, that sounds at the moment, but yeah, I think.
- [87:48]
B
In terms of steps, you got to get rid of the empire first. You got, you're not going to have that with the 750 bases, right? There's just, it's that just like you can't have the material reality of empire and the ideological reality of international law again. Marx. So that's, that's why my project now is Yankee go home. But if that succeeds in 25 years, now we're talking about how do you genuinely get international law to supersede domestic law? Which is of course why all the Republicans in the Congress in the 20s voted against the League of Nations. They didn't want that. You know, so this is, this is a, you know, a major, major problem in American history.
- [88:24]
C
I mean it's, it was very much a missed opportunity in the 90s, I think. And Danny, you and I have talked about this before that for the people who really claim to care about the so called values, American values, human rights and democracy and all these things, that was the moment to cede the sovereignty, to cede the power to an international body that could institute those things as norms and actually, you know, work to make them a reality in the world. But we decided it would just be easier for the United States to be world police. And that was it. That was, that was the end of, of that moment.
- [89:04]
B
And that was the period Bob was politicized in. So that's why he's very committed to it. He. Everyone's just historically situated history, the greatest discipline. Morgan, thank you so much for joining us. Man, this was one of the best episodes done. Really, really appreciate it and honestly hope to have you back again whenever.
- [89:21]
D
Such a pleasure to actually talk to you guys. It was really a joy. Thank you for all you've taught me over the years. Genuinely appreciate. About it. Radiotopia.
- [89:58]
B
From prx.