Podcast Summary: “How ‘Succession’ Captured the Trump-Era Hangover”

The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Host: Tyler Foggatt
Guest: Nomi Fry (Staff Writer, The New Yorker)
Date: May 31, 2023

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into how HBO’s Succession reflects and refracts contemporary American politics, especially the “Trump-era” and its lingering influence. Host Tyler Foggatt is joined by New Yorker staff writer Nomi Fry to discuss the show’s cynical worldview, the Roy family’s relationship to power and politics, and why Succession’s finale chooses ambiguity over resolution—particularly regarding the fate of the nation. The conversation peels back what the series reveals about elite influence, modern conservatism, and American anxieties post-Trump.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is “Succession” the Defining Show of the Trump Era?

• Succession operates in a landscape drained of optimism or faith in institutions, mirroring the “hangover” of the Trump era.
• Nomi Fry argues the show isn’t simply about specific politics, but reflects a moral fatigue:

  “…any sense of hopefulness or any sense of belief in goodness or any sense of looking to the rule of law or, you know, any sign of kind of moral certitude to lead us is pretty much gone on this show.” (Nomi Fry, 02:20)

• Both agree the series is “Trumpian” more in mood than in direct allusion, summing up the lingering anxiety that the abnormality of Trump could be repeated.

2. Origins of the Show and Political Context

• The first table read for Succession was on the night of the 2016 election, heightening the show’s uncanny resonance with the era:

  “…they went to [Adam] McKay’s house to like, celebrate Hillary Clinton’s victory or what they assumed would be her victory. And then obviously it turned into something else entirely.” (Tyler Foggatt, 05:07)

• The Trump/Brexit context provided the “vibe” and urgency that shaped the show’s creators.

3. How “Succession” Handles Politics

• The Roys bear similarities to the real Murdoch family and their Fox News empire, but Nomi emphasizes the show is fundamentally a family drama where politics are a means, not an end.
• Succession treats politics largely as disposable and transactional for the elite:

  “…this family is powerful and this empire…the Roy empire, is powerful, and they’ll cut a deal with a Republican or a Democrat....The sense that politics are a kind of corrupt sphere, no matter who wins, and so it doesn’t really matter also animates the show.” (Nomi Fry, 07:14)

• The finale leaves the actual election unresolved, highlighting the Roys’ apathy toward the stakes:

  “You know, like, it doesn’t matter who actually won the election. And yet the Roys definitely had a hand in setting one candidate on a path toward victory, which is like, it’s crazy that they have so much influence and yet don’t actually seem to care in the world of the show.” (Tyler Foggatt, 08:23)

4. Ideology vs. Power in “Succession”

• The Roys lack ideological conviction—winning is the only guiding principle, echoing a core feature of Trumpism.
• Characters’ prejudices (against weakness, marginalized groups, etc.) are implicit, surfacing in humor or cruelty rather than explicit policy stances.
• Memorable observation:

  “You know, it’s clear that their politics are about winning. And that is a right wing thing.” (Nomi Fry, 11:33)

• Storylines about inheritance and bloodline add subtext about race and belonging, as seen in the ambiguity around Kendall’s children’s parentage.

5. The Mencken Character: A Post-Trump Conservative Prototype

• Jared Mencken, a rising right-wing candidate, is discussed as a kind of “streamlined Trump”—youthful, media-savvy, and even more explicit in his extremism.
• Fry notes the shift from Trump’s “carnival barker” persona to Mencken’s chilling normalcy:

  “…he’s younger, he’s more modern, he’s attractive…But his views are even more extreme, you know, I mean, it’s dog whistley, but the dog whistle is pretty damn loud…his views are practically Nazi.” (Nomi Fry, 18:10)

• Quotes from Mencken in the show illustrate this:

  “Basically, people trust people who look like them. That’s just a scientific fact…Let’s just take a beat before we fundamentally alter [America’s] composition.” (Mencken, 16:12)

6. Media Power and Exaggeration in “Succession”

• The discussion addresses whether Succession overstates the power of media moguls to single-handedly orchestrate political outcomes.
• Fry argues the exaggeration is a dramatic device, but one that underlines a real lack of checks at the top:

  “…the show does that…because it’s a TV show. We want stakes. We want things to be clear cut….But I think…the show is trying to make a point about power. Right. And about how things are determined by a certain level of engagement between a certain level of people.” (Nomi Fry, 21:53; 24:20)

• The show intentionally keeps the consequences to “ordinary” people abstract, reinforcing the detachment of the powerful.

7. The Chilling Effect of the Finale

• The episode reviews Mencken’s victory speech, highlighting its polished but chilling content—simultaneously Obama-esque in style and deeply reactionary in message:

  “Don’t we long sometimes for something clean once in this polluted land? That’s what I hope to bring. Not something grubby with compromise, something clean and true and refreshing.” (Mencken, 25:49)

• Foggatt and Fry reflect on how Succession taps into liberal fears (“liberal anxieties about conservatives”) rather than being a direct lampoon of the right.
• Fry notes:

  “…it’s not a direct parody because you understand it. You can understand how it happens. It’s a satire, but it’s not so exaggerated as to feel unbelievable. In fact, it seems all too believable.” (Nomi Fry, 28:36)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “That’s interesting. Yeah, I think so. That sounds right to me. If only in the sense of the show being a kind of like post everything type of document…any sense of looking to the rule of law or, you know, any sign of kind of moral certitude to lead us is pretty much gone on this show.”
  — Nomi Fry on the “Trump Era” mood (02:20)

• “He [Jesse Armstrong, creator] says there’s a certain amount of post traumatic stress in America about the possibilities of what could have happened and what people still feel did happen…we’re not really past that era until normal Democratic politics, where people accept the outcomes of elections, resumes.”
  — Tyler Foggatt quoting Jesse Armstrong (03:39)

• “The ideology of Trump is power…that is kind of the sense of the Roy family as well. As long as they hold sway, politics are kind of beside the point.”
  — Nomi Fry (08:37)

• “He’s post Trump in that…we don’t need all the bells and whistles and weirdnesses of Trump. We’re open about who we are now, which is the kind of country who would vote for…”
  — Tyler Foggatt (20:25)

• “It’s a satire, but it’s not so exaggerated as to feel unbelievable. In fact, it seems all too believable.”
  — Nomi Fry (28:36)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:20] — Is “Succession” the defining show of the Trump era?
• [05:07] — Origins of the show and the 2016 election night
• [07:14] — The Roys’ detachment from real ideological politics
• [11:32] — The family’s “politics of domination” and echoes of Trumpism
• [16:12] — Mencken’s ideology: “People trust people who look like them…”
• [18:10] — The menace of a “normal” post-Trump right-wing politician
• [21:53] — Does Succession exaggerate media power?
• [25:49] — Mencken’s chilling victory speech
• [28:36] — Satire that’s “too believable”

Tone & Style

The conversation is sharp, incisive, and full of dry humor—mirroring the tone of Succession itself. Both Tyler Foggatt and Nomi Fry are thoughtful, wry, and sometimes bleak about contemporary politics and media. Their banter (“They should have just called it The Hangover 4,” [04:12]) keeps the discussion lively even as they dissect serious themes.

Takeaway

This episode is essential listening for anyone who wants to understand how Succession became a vessel for post-2016 anxieties and why its toxic, ambiguous view of power so precisely captures our political moment. Rather than offering clear answers or a didactic stance, the series—and this conversation—invite listeners to sit with the unease of living under the thumb of elites who value winning above all, in a world where ideology and morality have become secondary to maintaining power.