How Bad Is It?: Political Violence in the U.S., and What We Can Learn from Brazil

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for the latest installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series on the health of American democracy. Their guest is the Brazilian filmmaker Petra Costa, whose documentaries explore the country’s democratic backsliding. They discuss what the United States can learn from Brazil’s struggles with political violence and the rise of authoritarianism, and they respond to the recent conviction of Jair Bolsonaro for his role in a coup attempt. Tyler and Andrew also consider the possible ramifications of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, including the Trump Administration’s threats to target liberal groups.This week’s reading: “Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson Came from the Same Warped Online Worlds,” by Kyle Chayka “What the Video of Charlie Kirk’s Murder Might Do,” by Jay Caspian King “The U.S. Government’s Extraordinary Pursuit of Kilmar Ábrego García,” by Cristian Fairas “Donald Trump’s Assault on Disability Rights,” by E. Tammy Kim “How Jessica Reed Kraus Went from Mommy Blogger to MAHA Maven,” by Clare Malone Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

For decades, the United States backed efforts to achieve a two-state solution—in which Israel would exist side by side with the Palestinian state, with both states recognizing each other’s claim to contested territory. The veteran negotiators Hussein Agha, representing Palestine, and Robert Malley, an American diplomat, played instrumental roles in that long effort, including the critical Camp David summit of 2000. But, in their new book, “Tomorrow Is Yesterday,” they conclude that they were part of a charade. There was never any way that a two-state solution could satisfy either of the parties, Agha and Malley tell David Remnick in an interview. “A waste of time is almost a charitable way to look at it,” Malley notes bitterly. “At the end of that thirty-year-or-so period, the Israelis and Palestinians are in a worse situation than before the U.S. got so heavily invested.” The process, appealing to Western leaders and liberals in Israel, was geared to “find the kind of solutions that have a technical outcome, that are measurable, and that can be portrayed by lines on maps,” Agha says. “It completely discarded the issue of emotions and history. You can’t be emotional. You have to be rational. You have to be cool. But rational and cool has nothing to do with the conflict.” “What Killed the Two-State Solution?,” an excerpt from Agha and Malley’s new book, was published in The New Yorker. New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable discusses the fatal shooting of the right-wing activist and Donald Trump ally Charlie Kirk, who was killed on Wednesday during a speech on a college campus. The panel considers whether the United States risks tumbling into a spiral of political violence, and how the Administration might use this moment to justify a crackdown on political opponents.This week’s reading: “Did Trump Just Declare War on the American Left?,” by Susan B. Glasser “MAGA Reacts to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk,” by Antonia Hitchens “Charlie Kirk’s Murder and the Crisis of Political Violence,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “The Epstein Birthday Book Is Even Worse Than You Might Realize,” by Jessica Winter Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Fergus McIntosh, the head research editor at The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how the magazine is approaching fact -checking in the second Trump era. They talk about how the spread of disinformation and deepfakes has changed the work of verifying facts; why Trump has been more aggressive, in his second term, about restricting the release of government data; and what makes his particular style of spreading falsehoods so difficult to counter.This week’s reading: “The Latest Phase in Trump’s War on Data,” by Fergus McIntosh “Inside the Chaos at the C.D.C.,” by Charles Bethea “Social Media Is Navigating Its Sectarian Phase,”by Kyle Chayka  “Brazil Braces for a Verdict on Its Ex-President—and on Its Democracy,” by Jon Lee Anderson “Does Society Have Too Many Rules?,” by Joshua Rothman Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Speculation, analysis, and commentary circulated all summer, after the announcement, in June, that Anna Wintour would step back from her role as the editor-in-chief of American Vogue. This changing of the guard is uniquely fraught, because Wintour’s name has become nearly inextricable from the magazine, to a degree almost unknown today. And, as New York Fashion Week was set to begin, Wintour spoke with David Remnick about choosing her successor, the Vogue.com editor Chloe Malle. “It felt like this was the right time,” she says. With an unusual number of new creative directors in positions at major fashion houses, “It seemed like a good moment to bring in someone with a different perspective and a different generation who could look at things in a new way.” Wintour was appointed editor-in-chief in 1988, and generations of designers have come up under her famously acute and decisive judgments. She comes from a publishing family; her brother is a well-known journalist, and her father was the editor of the London Evening Standard. She credits him with steering her into a career in fashion, even suggesting that the teen-age Anna write down “editor of Vogue” as her career aspiration on a school form. “Working my first jobs in London, there [was] no money, there’s no staff, there’s no teams, so that you have to learn how to do everything,” Wintour says. “So, when I came to the States and there was a shoe editor and an underwear editor and a fabric editor, it was all so siloed. I felt very confident because I sort of knew how to do everything.” Wintour is also known for bringing politics to Vogue; she’s a noted Democratic supporter and donor. “I’ve been impressed by Governor Newsom, I think he’s certainly making a stand, and obviously I’m sure there’ll be many other candidates that will emerge, hopefully soon.” But, in this political environment, Remnick asks, “How do you make a case that fashion is important?” Fashion, she replies, “is always important. It’s a question of self-expression and a statement about yourself. . . . And, forgive me, David, but how boring would it be if everybody was just wearing a dark suit and a white shirt all the time?”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable, hosted by the staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos, is back in season. The co-hosts reflect on the news of this summer, discussing President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on nearly every major U.S. trading partner; his deployment of the National Guard on the streets of the capital; and his purges of agencies including the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also discuss what Trump might use emergency powers to do in the near future. “You don’t acquire all this power, and go to all this effort, and then not start to use it,” Glasser says.This week’s reading: “How Many Court Cases Can Trump Lose in a Single Week?,” by Susan B. Glasser “Trump’s Department of Energy Gets Scienced,” by Bill McKibben “Texas Democrats’ Weapons of the Weak,” by Rachel Monroe “Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?,” by Peter Slevin Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributing writer Ruth Marcus joins the guest host and staff writer Clare Malone to discuss Marcus’s recent profile of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. They talk about Bondi’s political origins and her unprecedented reshaping of the Justice Department, and how she delivers on President Trump’s desire to use the legal system for revenge and retribution. They also touch on Bondi’s mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, which has drawn the ire of both Democratic politicians and core parts of the President’s base. This week’s reading: “Pam Bondi’s Power Play,” by Ruth Marcus “Texas Democrats’ Weapons of the Weak,” by Rachel Monroe “Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?,” by Peter Slevin “Why Don’t We Take Nuclear Weapons Seriously?,” by Rivka Galchen “How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,’s Anti-Vax Agenda Is Infecting America,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The term “culture wars” is most often associated with issues of sexuality, race, religion, and gender. But, as recent months have made plain, when Donald Trump refers to the culture wars, he also means the arts. He fired the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which Republicans want to rename for him. His Administration fired the national archivist and the Librarian of Congress, and pressured the director of the National Portrait Gallery to resign; it is reviewing the entire Smithsonian Institution, looking for what the President calls “improper ideology.” Some view these moves as low-hanging fruit for Trump, and a distraction from bad press about Jeffrey Epstein, the Putin meeting, and tariffs. But Adam Gopnik believes that interpretation is a misreading. The loyalty purge at institutions such as the National Portrait Gallery is a key part of his agenda. “Pluralism is the key principle of a democratic culture,” Gopnik tells David Remnick. Could we be following the path of Stalinist Russia, where a head of state dictated reviews of concerts, Remnick asks? “I pray and believe that we are not. But that is certainly the direction in which one inevitably heads when the political boss takes over key cultural institutions, and dictates who’s acceptable and who is not.” Gopnik recalls saying after the election that “Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert would be next.” “You would see them disappear,” he added. “Each time, we find a rationale for it or a rationale is offered. And it’s much easier for us to swallow the rationale than to face the reality.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Democratic strategist Lis Smith joins the guest host Clare Malone, a New Yorker staff writer, to discuss the state of the Democratic Party, and how a decade of reliance on anti-Trump rhetoric has left Democrats reactive and directionless. They consider why groups that Democrats once counted on—from young people to communities of color—are shifting rightward, and what new strategies politicians from Gavin Newsom to Zohran Mamdani are testing to prove that the Democratic Party stands for more than opposition to Trump.This week’s reading “The Trump Administration’s Efforts to Reshape America’s Past,” by Jill Lepore “How Former Biden Officials Defend Their Gaza Policy,” by Isaac Chotiner “The Endless August Recess,” by Antonia Hitchens “The Enormous Stakes of Trump’s Effort to Fire the Fed Governor Lisa Cook,” by John Cassidy “What’s Life Like in Washington, D.C., During Trump’s Takeover?,” by Margaret Talbot Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Since the end of the Cold War, most Americans have taken U.S. military supremacy for granted. We can no longer afford to do so, according to reporting by the staff writer Dexter Filkins. China has developed advanced weapons that rival or surpass America’s; and at the same time, drone warfare has fundamentally changed calculations of the battlefield. Ukraine’s ability to hold off the massive Russian Army depends largely on a startup industry that has provided millions of drones—small, highly accurate, and as cheap as five hundred dollars each—to inflict enormous casualties on invading forces. In some other conflict, could the U.S. be in the position of Russia? “The nightmare scenario” at the Pentagon, Filkins tells David Remnick, is, “we’ve got an eighteen-billion-dollar aircraft carrier steaming its way toward the western Pacific, and [an enemy could] fire drones at these things, and they’re highly, highly accurate, and they move at incredible speeds. . . . To give [Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth credit, and the people around him . . . they say, ‘O.K., we get it. We’re going to change the Pentagon procurement process,’ ” spending less on aircraft carriers and more on small technology like drones. But “the Pentagon is so slow, and people have been talking about these things for years. . . . Nobody has been able to do it.”Read Filkins’s “Is the U.S. Ready for the Next War?”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices