CSPI Podcast

Samuel Moyn is a professor at Yale Law School. He joins the podcast to talk about his new book Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It. Richard Hanania questions him on the book’s embrace of socialism, and the two debate the empirical evidence relevant to whether it can work in the US. The interviewer brings up the issue of entitlements, which are becoming an increasing share of the federal budget and will in the coming decades crowd out other priorities. Doesn’t a concern with gerontocracy imply that we should at the very least stop redistributing money from the young to the old? Moyn reveals that he was originally thinking about calling for means testing in the book, but was eventually convinced that this would undermine public support for Social Security and Medicare.
Near the end, the conversation focuses on philosophical questions about what makes a good life. Moyn believes that the old need to have their money and resources taken away, and be forced to rely on the state. This raises the question of whether we should try to make people as wealthy as possible so they can pursue their own ends, or rather have the government take more of a role in making sure they find creativity and meaning. Hanania brings up Jimmy Buffett-themed retirement communities as an embodiment of the kind of preference-driven lifestyle choices that would be much less likely to exist under what Moyn calls “utopian socialism.”
For more on the ideas discussed in this podcast, see also Hanania’s review of Gerontocracy in America here.


Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe

Sarah Isgur (X) is a former spokesperson at the Department of Justice and one of the hosts of the Advisory Opinions podcast. She joins this podcast to discuss her new book Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court, which is out today. The conversation covers the role of the Supreme Court, the nature of American institutions, and the future of conservatism. Sarah reflects on her experiences in the Trump administration, including touring the Lincoln Bedroom with the president himself, the dynamics of judicial decision-making, and the importance of both principles and process in governance. The discussion closes with thoughts on what has gone wrong on the American right, the Based Ritual, and the link between people’s emotional well-being and the kinds of ideas that they find appealing.


Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe

In this episode, Richard Hanania speaks with Peter Ward, a research fellow at the Sejong Institute. Ward studies North Korean foreign policy, political economy, human rights, and Korean security issues. He also writes for NK Pro (NK News) and has published in various academic journals.
This discussion explores the structure of the North Korean state, its evolving legal system, ideological shifts, and everyday life under Kim Jong Un, including stand-up comedy, sports, pornography, religion, and the ways in which the government has allowed markets to function.
The conversation spends significant time on what may be the most consequential shift ever in North Korean ideology: Kim Jong Un's abandonment of Korean reunification as a goal. For generations, reunification was the animating myth of the North Korean state. Kim has now declared South Korea a corrupted and permanently hostile country, in many ways little different from any other enemy. Ward explains why this happened and how it changes the geopolitical situation. As it turns out, there is both a more optimistic and a less benign interpretation of this change.
Ward talks about the emergence of the category of “unsocialist” behavior, a concept that is increasingly used, surprisingly, to crack down on cultural deviance. What makes this paradoxical, as Hanania points out, is that the regime has simultaneously become more tolerant of markets. He asks about BR Myers’ book The Cleanest Race, and whether it is correct to say that North Korea has moved away from Marxism-Leninism and toward a racialized view of the world.
Perhaps the sharpest edge of the regime's legal apparatus is directed not at "hostile" foreign culture generally but at South Korean culture specifically. Ward explains the legal distinctions: disseminating South Korean cultural content carries harsher penalties than disseminating content from other officially hostile countries. A North Korean caught with American media potentially faces a less stringent punishment than one found watching a K-drama. The regime understands that South Korean culture is uniquely threatening because it comes from a society that shares the same ethnocultural background.
The episode closes with the question of succession. Kim Ju Ae, Kim Jong Un’s teenage daughter, looks to be his heir apparent. Ward says that whether she is the successor or not, we know that her father wants us to think she is. This at the very least tells us something about the impression the regime is trying to create internally and for the rest of the world. Yet we can only guess whether she actually is the successor, and what exactly the North Koreans believe they are communicating.
Links
Peter Ward, “The Legal Regulation of Unsocialist Activities in North Korea: Over-criminalization, Political Control and Human Rights.”
Peter’s work at the Sejong Institute, NK Pro (NK News), and Google Scholar
Peter’s recent appearance on the NK News podcast


Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe

Jesse Arm (X, Substack) is the Vice President of External Affairs at the Manhattan Institute. He joins the podcast to talk about his recent article, “Ezra Klein’s Blindspot.” Along with Richard Hanania, he discusses whether there really is a pro-abundance future for the Democrats. The conversation involves a comparison of the two parties, and a debate over what is happening on both sides of the political spectrum. Hanania mentions self-driving cars as a perfect experiment to test which side is more likely to embrace progress, and thus far it has been red states that have been more open to the technology.
Hanania and Arm disagree strongly about JD Vance, and what he says about the future of the GOP. Recently, Rod Dreher made waves by suggesting that perhaps 30% to 40% of Republican staffers are Groypers. As Arm’s job involves dealing with this class of people, he has particular insight into that issue. Hanania is interested in not only whether they are personally fans of Nick Fuentes, but also what their views are about Ronald Reagan and how they think about political issues more generally.
Arm also explains the dynamics of the recent NYC mayoral race. How did Mamdani end up winning? And why couldn’t the Republicans field a serious challenger? The conversation provides much to consider for those who believe that embracing markets and new technology is the best way to achieve economic growth but feel alienated from both major parties right now. Arm and Hanania also handicap the 2028 Democratic race, discussing how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might rise to the top due to the moderate wing being split, in the same way that Biden had a lane open to him in 2020.
For more articles by Arm and other Manhattan Institute scholars, subscribe to the City Journal Substack.
Related Links
Jesse Arm, “Ezra Klein’s Blindspot”
Richard Hanania, “The Broad Lessons of YIMBY”
Richard Hanania, “Boomer Liberalism Must Be Overcome” (conversation with Derek Thompson)
Richard Hanania interviews State Senator Scott Weiner on the YIMBY victory in California
Timothy B. Lee and Kai Williams, “Waymo’s Next Five Cities Are All in Red States”
JD Vance on the problems of Appalachia



Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe

Laurenz Guenther (X, website) is a Research Fellow at the Toulouse School of Economics. He joins the podcast to discuss his working paper, “Political Representation Gaps and Populism.” Relying on survey data of politicians and regular citizens across the EU, he finds a simple explanation for the rise of populism across the continent. Politicians are one standard deviation to the left of the public on social issues. As Guenther points out, the gap is larger than the difference between the typical communist and conservative MP. Immigrants are more conservative on migration and assimilation issues than politicians. These are quite remarkable findings, and must be factored into any understanding of contemporary European politics.
Beginning in the 2010s, the salience of the immigration issue took off. Voters have been flocking to populist candidates as a result ever since. As much as many academics and political leaders would like to deny this fact, this provides the most straightforward explanation for recent trends.
The conversation focuses on what to make of the data. Does this mean that to defeat populism, all politicians have to do is become more restrictionist? How does this square with the rise of populism being a global phenomenon, even in countries where immigration isn’t an issue? What to make of research showing that populism is bad for the economy? Are there examples of European parties that have headed off the rise of populism in this way? Guenther discusses the well-known case of Denmark, but also brings up the surprising example of Hungary, where Orbán took the mainstream conservative party, made it more populist, and has dominated the politics of his nation ever since.
Another perhaps surprising finding is that there is much less of an elite-public gap on economic issues. If anything, politicians are more inclined to support free markets. Hanania asks whether the gap might be even greater than the paper suggests, given the way questions are framed. This helps explain why left-wing populism hasn’t been as successful as its right-wing equivalent, whether in the US or Europe.
Abortion pops up as the one social issue on which there is no notable difference between elites and the public. This is reminiscent of experiences in American red states, where politicians take abortion rights away while voters nearly everywhere support the pro-choice position in referendums. The conversation discusses why this might be.
The rise of right-wing populism is the political story of our time. By grounding the discussion in empirical data, Guenther sheds light on why mainstream parties have struggled to respond, and what strategies may or may not work to blunt the populist surge. This conversation helps provide a clear and evidence-based perspective on one of the defining issues of our era, while providing hints of possible future productive avenues of research.


Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe