How “Succession” Captured the Trump-Era Hangover

Summary

---

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.

Transcript

[A]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[B]

You're listening to the Political Scene. I'm Tyler Foggatt and I'm a senior editor at the New Yorker. This past weekend, one of the stories I got to edit came from my colleague Nomi Fry, about the finale of the HBO series Succession. Nomi and I were fascinated by how the show managed to tie up nearly all of its loose ends, except for what presumably would have been the biggest the fate of the Nation. The final season of Succession sees the Roy family try to propel a conservative politician to the presidency. But at the end of the series, that election remains unresolved. The characters don't really care who wins, and so neither does the show. Nomi sat down with me in the studio to say goodbye to Succession and to discuss how the show deals or doesn't deal with politics. I've been eating up all of the post Succession coverage, including the wonderful piece that you wrote, Nomi.

[C]

Oh, thank you. Thanks to you.

[B]

And I was interested in a post Succession piece that was published by the Guardian, which referred to the series as the defining show of the Trump era. And I'm wondering if you would agree with that characterization.

[C]

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, in the sense that 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. And so I would say that even beyond the depiction of particular political moments, situations, you know, characters that are Trumpian, I think just the vibe, let's say, is one of Trump's America of a kind of hope is lost. Cynicism rules, atmosphere.

[B]

Totally. I mean, you almost sound like Jesse Armstrong himself describing that.

[C]

Please.

[B]

I have a quote from him. I love quoting Jesse Armstrong.

[C]

We love Jesse Armstrong. We love you, Jesse.

[B]

He's talked about how the show really was formed by the Trump era.

[D]

He.

[B]

He 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. And I think now, even though we're past the Trump presidency, we're not really past that era until normal Democratic politics, where people accept the outcomes of elections, resumes. It's funny to think of succession in some ways as a Trump era show, because so much of the show took place during the Biden era. But I guess you can see everything as the Trump era or the post Trump era in a way.

[C]

I mean, it's a hangover, right?

[B]

Yeah. They should have just called it the Hangover.

[C]

They should have just called it the Hangover 4. Right. Did we have three Hangover movies?

[B]

Unfortunately, yes.

[C]

There is this fear, I think, in kind of like liberal America that what has happened can once again happen. And that the reprieve of relative liberal, ish normalcy that we got with the Biden administration is but a fever dream that will be rent apart, you know, in 2024.

[B]

That's interesting that the Biden era is the fever dream, not the Trump era.

[C]

Yes, yes. That what we thought was a once in a lifetime fever dream was in fact just a harbinger of what might come.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, I was reading that. I guess the first table read for the show, like before the first season started airing, happened on Election Day.

[C]

Really?

[B]

Oh, wow. And afterward they all went to Adam McKay's house. Cause he's an executive producer, they went to his 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. And I think during that party, McKay said, you know, I'm really glad that we're doing this show like this is the right. The right time.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

So I found that background interesting.

[C]

Yeah, no, that's really interesting. And it's. We can maybe count succession as one of the few things that have benefited from the Trump presidency just in terms of, you know, the kind of mood that it ushered and that it then corresponded to.

[B]

Totally. So before we talk more about that mood and how it's kind of infiltrated the culture of television at large, I'm wondering if we could talk a little about the ways in which succession deals head on with politics. The Roy family, which the show is based around, is a fictional version of the Murdoch family, you know, and the show deals with sort of like a parody of the Fox News empire. And there are political candidates who seem to kind of reflect political candidates who we see in real life. But. Yeah, could you just describe the ways in which the show tries to deal with politics directly and whether you think at its core that the show is a family drama that happens to interact with politics, or whether it's a show that feels like fundamentally political to you?

[C]

Yeah, I think this is a show that is concerned first and foremost with the Roy family. And what happens outside the Roy family, outside the drama of succession and outside the drama within the family business, in some ways feels incidental. In the finale, we kind of forget about the fight for the presidency. Right. Which is something that during the fourth season, we were dealing with, the show was dealing with.

[B]

There's a whole episode about the presidential election, and things are kind of left up in the air at the end of that finale. Like, who actually won the election?

[C]

Yeah, who actually won the election? Is Mencken the Republican candidate, the sort of right wing candidate? Is he ascendant? Will he be challenged? You know, all of these things that were in a lot of ways germane to the season were left unanswered. And so in that sense, I would say that of course, the main topic of the show is the family and what happens within the family. I was discussing this with my husband, and he said something along the lines of, it doesn't really matter who wins. Right. Because this family is powerful and this empire, the Roy empire, is powerful, and they'll cut a deal with a Republican or a Democrat. And we saw this in the past when they cut a deal with Gill, you know, the sort of Bernie esque candidate. So the sense that politics are a kind of like, corrupt sphere, no matter who wins, and so it doesn't really matter also animates the show. But then, of course, on the other hand, the ability of the family to poison the well of American politics is something that the show really focused on.

[B]

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.

[C]

They don't care. They care in the sense of, oh, if Menken wins, he'll block the Matson deal, which is what Roman and Kendall want for most of the season. But certainly not in any ideological sense. You know, they could care less. Which in a sense, too, is Trumpian. You know, the ideology of Trump is power. I mean, this is a man who probably paid for, like, a lot of abortion. You know, this is not a man that has any real ideological core, except that he wants to win. And 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.

[B]

It's interesting because obviously when we think of the Murdoch family in real life, like, they have a clear politics. Like, I'm sure Rupert Murdoch has genuine conservative political beliefs, and we know about the varying political and ideological differences among his children. And that's been a part of the sort of, like, successor drama that's been taking place in real life. But in the show, as you say, it doesn't seem like there's much substance to the political ideologies of any of the characters, let alone to, like, any kind of conservative ideology that they might have. Like, you know, we see the Fox News style headlines in the opening credits. You know, there's like an ambient sense that atn, the Fox News, like company in the show, is doing bad things in the world. But we rarely actually hear from the characters directly about ideology. Yeah, I mean, do you think that the show could have benefited from more of that, or do you think that's just not really what it was trying to do?

[C]

No, I like that it's kind of abstract, and I think a lot of it comes out in humor and kind of like the way maybe especially Roman treats. Nothing is beyond making fun of.

[B]

Totally. Yeah.

[C]

You know, he's a character who hates weakness. I mean, certainly in himself and definitely in others, or pounces on weakness. So I could definitely see him expressing a kind of like, right wing ideology in the sense of, like, I just dislike Anyone who is weak, which would be women, you know, any marginalized community. Right. I could see his politics emerging on that level.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Of course he's not gonna like immigrants, you know. Of course he's not gonna like trans people. You know, it's like anything that sort of like, differs, diverges from the monolithic winnerdom of American society is something that should be made fun of. And I think to a lesser extent, that's true of the other characters as well. And so in that sense, that was political enough for me.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

You know, it's clear that their politics are about winning. And that is a right wing thing.

[B]

Yeah. When you have a politics of domination.

[C]

Interestingly, the one thing that kind of emerged at the margins for Kendall is the fact that his children, which was never completely explained but came out in the final episode in his fight with.

[B]

Roman, that his kids might be adopted.

[C]

That his kids might be adopted. Or one of them is adopted and the other one is maybe not his biologically.

[B]

Yeah. But regardless of how that came to be, I mean, you're right that they invoke this idea of bloodline.

[C]

Yeah. Shiv is the bloodline, because yours are.

[B]

She's pregnant with a child who is hers.

[C]

And, you know, it's just so smart how. I don't know if this is something that was a clear part of the backstory for the writers from the very, very beginning, or it's something that came in later and they were like, okay, we're gonna make Kendall have, like, a secret hurt, you know, that his children might not come from the Roy sperm. And that kind of adds to his insecurity about his role as successful and.

[B]

The fact that that would affect his relationship with his Murdochian father.

[C]

Yeah. And it's about whiteness as well, because we know the kids are brown. I mean, it's unclear.

[B]

They're darker.

[C]

They're darker. It's a very subtle way to get at these characters. Politics, which aren't probably even acknowledged to themselves, really, but come out in these sort of, like, violent, unmediated ways in moments of crisis. I mean, similarly, actually, when Rava, Kendall's ex wife, says that she is taking the kids upstate, she doesn't want them to come to the funeral, and Kendall loses it.

[B]

Yeah. This is right after the messy presidential election, and there are a bunch of protests, I think, on both sides, and it seems like things might get violent in New York City.

[C]

Yeah. You know, that too, might be connected to. Okay, yeah, these kids aren't really part of the family, you know.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Or he wants to make a point that they're part of the family, that.

[B]

They actually are part of it, and that they're not part of this, like, you know, sort of vulnerable, weak, marginalized group that feels like they need to, you know, flee when a conservative is.

[C]

Potentially coming to the top. And it's also so smart because it's not totally clear why they need to flee. Like, is it because they're brown and so they might be a target in that way, or might they be, class wise, a target for the other side? So it's also really interesting and shows the kind of, like, intersection of these two different discourses, totally of glass and race.

[B]

Coming up, Nomi Fry on how TV captures the ultra wealthy.

[D]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director. I'm Michael Kollori, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[B]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[D]

And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.

[C]

Right.

[D]

So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[B]

So one way that the show does deal directly with politics is through the actual politicians who we see. We mentioned Jared Menken earlier and we have a clip that I want to play. This is the CPAC episode in the third season where the Roys descend on this. They refer to it actually in the show as, you know, as a joke, like the ATN primary. Because the idea is that at this event, the Roys will basically be able to pick, you know, the next Republican presidential candidate. But yeah, this is a clip of Roman and Menken talking in a bathroom and they're talking about, you know, Menken's kind of like, ideology. I think this is his attempt to just explain where he's coming from.

[E]

Basically, people trust people who look like them. That's just a scientific fact. They will get more tax dollars to help them. Now you can integrate new elements, of course, but come on, man, slowly.

[C]

I mean, fuck.

[E]

I like this country. Yeah, let's just take a beat before we fundamentally alter its composition.

[B]

So, yeah, when I was watching that episode, I was trying to figure out, like, is this Trump? Is this Desantis, is this Josh Hawley? Is this post Trump? Because they do refer to the president before this. He's a Republican president who Logan Roy seems to have a pretty good relationship with. And they refer to him as the raisin and I don't know raisin. It just reminded me of Trump somehow. So. Yeah. Who do you think Menken is supposed to be or what is he supposed to represent?

[C]

I think it's streamlined. Trump.

[B]

Trump. Without the weird tangents.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. Because I think the thinking might be that for Trump we had to have like a completely clownish, like carnival barker, 80s, you know, older. Like a person who has been known in American culture as a kind of brand in ways different from a kind of like far right politician in order to ease in these kind of views through a kind of like more folksy, kind of fun perspective.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And I feel like with Menken, he's younger, he's more modern, he's attractive, he's like.

[B]

Is he?

[C]

I think so. He's not like an 80 year old weird, like comb over, you know.

[B]

Totally. He has real hair.

[C]

He's a politician. He is. You know, in looks, you know, one could even say he's a kind of like Kennedy esque or just like, you know, a middle aged white guy who's charismatic in a kind of recognizable pre Trump way, let's say. But his views are even more extreme, you know, I mean, it's dog whistley, but the dog whistle is pretty damn loud, you know. So I think maybe he's a candidate for a country that has already been primed and cooked in Trumpian logic and now wants it to look more normal. Like now we can sort of transition to the new normalcy of like, oh, we have a candidate that seems like, looks like a kind of great society politician, you know, a sort of like Obama esque almost, you know, just in terms of age and charisma, but is saying like stuff that's practically Nazi, you know.

[B]

Totally.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Here's a clip of the Roys. I think it's mainly Roman, Shiv and Logan talking about Menken and why they think that he would be a good person to. Yeah. Sort of throw their support behind.

[C]

Dad, I know we came to market.

[D]

To buy you a nice milk cow.

[C]

But we found ourselves a fucking T. Rex, okay?

[D]

He's box office.

[C]

The guy is fucking diesel.

[D]

He's good on camera, he's fun.

[C]

He'll fight.

[E]

Viewers will eat from his hand.

[C]

No downside. Oh yeah, let's just invade Poland, Dad. No downside.

[B]

No.

[C]

His chief of staff broke a kid's jaw to rally, bobbing it badly.

[D]

If we don't come to an accommodation, we get outflanked and we lose the ATN dollar machine when we need cash to fight tech.

[C]

Right. And by gojo. Yeah. I mean, I think that what Roman says is what we're supposed to understand about this guy, this candidate, that he's the total package. He's unashamed of his views, he knows how to play them, he's ruthless and he looks normal.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

He's post Trump in that. Yeah. We don't need all the bells and whistles and weirdnesses of Trump.

[B]

We're open about who we are now, which is the kind of country who would vote for.

[C]

Yeah. If Trump, if someone like Trump was anomalous, seemed anomalous because he was like, I'm this weird guy. I look like I sell used cars. You know, you've known me for 50 years as this like, sort of fun, corrupt, but fun developer who had shows on tv. Now we can just like put all that colorfulness aside and have like a normal guy who's also a Nazi.

[B]

Another thing that's interesting to me about those clips and also just the Menken plotline in general, is Twitter just what it says about Armstrong's idea of how the media influences politics or creates politics. Armstrong has said that one of the things that really inspired him to make the show in the first place was Brexit and Trump's election and just how Rupert Murdoch with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, contributed to both of those events. And yeah, I guess I'm wondering what you think about whether Armstrong gets it right. Basically, one thing that I've been wondering about, and I talked about this a little bit with Ingu, you know, our TV critic, is this question of Armstrong. You know, he's British, he's not American. Does he seem to really understand, like, not only the inner workings of American political power, but how the media kind of props up certain candidates or like maybe single handedly elects them? Or is he overplaying it a little bit?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I would say I think it might be an exaggeration. Just like the way business goes down on this show is probably an exaggeration in the sense of decisions being made quickly, all red tape kind of swept away or not discussed. We only see the way things happen at the top where they say, okay, let's talk to Hugo. And then it happens and then suddenly we have a merger. You know what I mean? Where of course Things in real life are more complicated. So in the same vein, I think saying they called the election and that's it, you know, what I mean, is probably kind of an over overstating or oversimplifying of the way things work. But I think, as far as I can see, the show does that. First of all, because it's a TV show.

[B]

We want stakes. We want this to feel like we want stakes.

[C]

We want things to be clear cut, we want things to have a black and white, and we want things to be simple in order to keep following. And as it was, it was hard enough to follow, you know, all the ins and outs of like, we're with who's. Who's with me, who's against me, who's like, where's the deal going? But I think also beyond the sort of simplicity of a TV show and the clear stakes and so on, I think it 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. And I think, you know, when there was the moment, this isn't strictly about politics, but there was the moment when Greg is told by Tom to fire these ATN employees. And he reads this, you know, sort of like halting script on zoom. And, you know, as we know, things really do happen that way and it seems exaggerated and yet it does happen. And there are these decisive moments and they're probably predetermined because of a lot of skirmishes up top.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

But there is a moment of before and a moment of after. And I think that's one of the things the show is trying to do, whether it's on the level of politics or business and so on, to say people at the top are plotting, you know, for their own benefit. And what ends up happening is decisions get made.

[B]

It's like we see the decision making process sometimes and we see the decision makers and we see the decisions as they're executed, but we don't necessarily see the. We don't really see the people who Greg fired.

[C]

No, we don't, because that's not the point. The point is to see how these decisions have been reached and how in the world of the show, how little care was taken. Similarly with politics, similarly with saying, okay, we need Mencken to take this state, which would mean he wins the election, because it's gonna be good for us. So of course it's overdrawn. Real life is not black and white for the most part, But I think the show is trying to make it black. And white to make a bigger point.

[B]

Yes, totally. So going back to the presidential election, which was such a big kind of moment in the show, I feel like a lot of people really liked that episode and thought that it. That it did a decent job of capturing just the political climate right now.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

I thought we could watch the clip of ATN announcing Menken's victory in his victory speech, which was well written and that it freaked me out.

[C]

Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[E]

The democracy I believe in is where a leader emerged from the people willed almost into being, brought forth by the great sweetness of the virtue of the combined wisdom of the good people of this republic. 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.

[C]

He's a guy we can do business with. Yeah.

[E]

Something proud and pure.

[C]

Play ball. Such a smart show.

[B]

He kind of reminds me of Tucker Carlson.

[C]

Yeah. Because Tucker, you know, that's actually a good comp. Because Tucker is also. He's normal, he's recognizable. Right. You know, I mean, he's like a preppy. You know, he's a Grateful Dead fan from like a prep school. And, you know, I think this speech, not in its ideological, obviously content, but in its articulateness, is kind of Obama esque. Right. Like in the sense of like, okay, this guy is intelligent and he's telling us something that is both sort of highbrow in itself. Sentiments seemingly, but also graspable by anyone listening. Universal. Which was kind of, on the face of it at least, the Obama promise of like, okay, I'm gonna elevate the discourse, but I'm gonna give you something that you can understand. You know, this will be available to everyone. But of course, the gist of the things is chilling. And listening to this, I was reminded of watching it and it was a dark moment. Like you said, it freaked you out. And I felt the same because it reminded me of what happened. You know, I mean, it's a scary moment because you're like, oh, now we're stuck with this guy. You know, many will be enthralled to him and we have to contend with this new reality.

[B]

Yeah. And by creating a new political candidate, unlike the ones that we, you know, or who isn't a perfect match for the current ones who we're dealing with, who's kind of like an amalgam of like all of the most striking qualities of like the current set of people, it seems like the show is. I've always felt like the show is just it's a better portrayal of liberal anxieties about conservatives than it is of actual conservatives. Or at least it's not a direct parody or satire the way you would imagine it would be.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, it's not a direct parody because you understand it. You can understand how it happens. Like it's recognizable. It's a satire, but it's not so exaggerated as to feel unbelievable. In fact, it seems all too believable.

[B]

Thank you so much, Nomi.

[C]

Thank you, Tyler. This was fun.

[B]

Nomi Frye is a staff writer at the New Yorker. You can read her essay about the Succession Finale on newyorker.com now this has been the political scene. I'm Tyler Foggatt. The show is produced by Michelle Moses with help from Sidney Cobb and Catherine Winter. Our executive producer is Steven Valentino. Our theme music is by Alison Layton Brown. Thank you so much for listening.

[C]

Foreign.

[D]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director. I'm Michael Colori, Wired's Director of Consumer, Tech and Culture.

[B]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[D]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech, Right? So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[C]

From PRX.