vox--2020-03-16--A beginner’s guide to The Ezra Klein Show

The first episode of The Ezra Klein Show aired in February 2016 .
It ’ s an episode I still like : In it , Rachel Maddow discusses her background as an HIV/AIDS activist , what she learned from skinhead rallies , how power works in politics , and the case for skipping the op-ed page .
Almost four years and 300 episodes later , the show has grown and changed , developing obsessions and themes that I never would ’ ve guessed back at the launch .
For that reason , it can be hard to figure out where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a beginner ’ s guide to The Ezra Klein Show .
The show is not formally divided into categories .
But as I thought about my favorite episodes , five themes began to emerge : • Best-of : my favorite conversations of all time , full stop • Many lenses : the episodes that have changed the way I see the world • Living better : the shows that have changed how I live my life • Living morally : the conversations that have inspired me to be a better person • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I disagreed significantly but learned from each other nonetheless • Climate change series : a series on the big questions behind our global climate crisis Let ’ s start with a few of my favorite conversations on the show , full stop .
I ’ d be lost trying to choose the actual best episodes of the show .
But these are five I love , and if you start here , you won ’ t be disappointed .
This may be the most fun I ’ ve ever had on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a delight is that it isn ’ t just a conversation .
It ’ s a demonstration .
Here , Jemisin — the only person ever to win the Hugo Award for best novel three years in a row — takes me through the way she builds fictional worlds , and in doing so , she offers a master class on how to think more rigorously , clearly , and thoroughly about our world .
Don ’ t miss it .
You will love this conversation with Jaron Lanier , but I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a VR pioneer and a digital philosopher who coined the term “ virtual reality.
” This conversation begins with the story of Lanier trip-sitting Richard Feynman , the famed physicist , when he was dying of cancer and decided to try LSD , and it only gets better from there .
An inspiring conversation about democracy with Danielle Allen I talk about democracy a lot on the show , but democracy is Harvard philosopher Danielle Allen ’ s life ’ s work .
I ’ ve tried a bunch of different descriptions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation .
At its core , this is about developing a deeper , richer understanding of what democracy means , what it asks of us , and what will be necessary if we ’ re to revive it not just as a political system , but as a way of relating to each other .
I loved this one .
This is a discussion that is , on one level , about psychedelics , but on a deeper level about how to expand your mind : It ’ s about how we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiences can have materialist consequences , what makes us afraid of death , what our minds filter out in the world around us , why travel is good for us , and much more .
Jill Lepore is the kind of history teacher everyone wishes they ’ d had .
This is a conversation about who we are as a country , and how that self-definition is always contested and constantly in flux .
Every answer she gives has something worth chewing over for weeks .
Ideology is a lens through which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular joy of the show , for me , is the episodes I feel offer a new lens — the episodes that help me see more clearly , or that give me a way of seeing that I find myself returning to over and over again .
Kate Manne will change the way you think about misogyny Politics is thick right now with arguments over misogyny , patriarchy , and gender roles .
Kate Manne ’ s definition of misogyny as obstacles women face , not hatred men feel , makes so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanations most of us have been given .
Robert Sapolsky on the toxic intersection of poverty and stress I often say on the show that politics and policy need to begin with a realistic model of human nature .
This is a show about that level of the policy conversation : It ’ s about how poverty and stress exist in a doom loop together , each amplifying the other ’ s effects on the brain and body , deepening their harms .
If I could get policymakers to listen to just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d be this one .
Daniel Markovits on how meritocracy harms everyone , including its winners What makes Daniel Markovits ’ s perspective so interesting is that he doesn ’ t just condemn meritocracy as unfair for non-elites ; he argues that it ’ s actually bad for the people benefiting from it .
The “ trap ” of meritocracy ensnares all of us , he says , in ways that make life less satisfying for everyone .
The ideology that governs the way we treat animals is strange and contradictory .
Melanie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beliefs and demands , and explores the defense mechanisms that make even discussing it so uncomfortable .
But Joy ’ s work applies to much more than how we eat : It ’ s a lens for thinking about all the systems we ’ re so deeply embedded in that we can no longer see them .
Alison Gopnik changed how I think about love There is more great stuff in this conversation than I can write in a few sentences .
Gopnik has changed my thinking on parenting , friendships , marriage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas are ones you could build a life around .
Every so often , a conversation comes along that changes not only how I understand my life , but how I live it .
These are some of those conversations .
This is a conversation about what happens when work becomes an identity , capitalism becomes a religion , and productivity becomes the way we measure human value .
The conversation exceeded even the high hopes I had for it , and lives on as a fan favorite .
Former US surgeon general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murthy ’ s explanation of how loneliness acts on the body is worth the time , all on its own .
But the broader message here is deeper : You are not alone in your loneliness .
None of us is .
And the best thing we can do is , often , helping someone else out of the very pit we ’ re in .
Lisa Feldman Barrett on how emotions are constructed For decades , Lisa Feldman Barrett has been demonstrating that emotions are not biologically hardwired into our brains but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has potentially radical implications .
If we take her theory seriously , it follows that the ways we think about our daily emotional states , diagnose illnesses , interact with friends , raise our children , and experience reality all need some serious adjusting , if not complete rethinking .
Robert Wright on what Buddhism got right about the human brain This episode is about how our minds evolved to keep us alive , not to keep us happy or satisfied — and what can be done about it .
But there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Robert Wright beautifully describes what happens when he reaches what he calls “ meditative depths , ” what it ’ s like to go on a 10-day silent meditation retreat , and why a mindful outlook doesn ’ t lead to complacency or neutrality .
Johann Hari on how society is making us depressed Johann Hari , who has struggled with depression since his youth , went on a journey to try to understand the social causes of mental illness , the ones we prefer not to talk about because changing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On one level , this conversation is about depression ; on another level , it ’ s about the ways we ’ ve screwed up modern society and created a world that leaves far too many of us alienated , anxious , despairing , and lost .
The art of attention , with Jenny Odell Jenny Odell is a visual artist who has taught digital and physical design at Stanford since 2013 , as well as done residencies at Facebook , the San Francisco Planning Department , the Dump , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say she ’ s the perfect person to talk with about creativity and attention in a world designed to flatten both .
In this conversation , we discuss the difference between productivity and creativity , how artists orchestrate attention , the ideologies we use to value our time , what it means to do nothing , lucid dreaming , and much more .
Doing the right thing isn ’ t easy .
Often it ’ s hard — and that ’ s all the more true when society is built around justifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the status quo .
These guests are uncowed , and their example is an inspiration .
Bryan Stevenson on why the opposite of poverty is justice There are only a few people I ’ d say this about , but Bryan Stevenson is a genuine American hero .
There are some people you meet who seem like they ’ re operating on a higher plane of decency , grace , and thoughtfulness .
Stevenson is one of them .
His thoughts on justice , on poverty , on racism , and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this conversation , and they ’ ll do the same for you .
This one of the most important conversations I ’ ve had on the show .
The fact that it left me feeling better about the world rather than worse — that was shocking .
Varshini Prakash is co-founder and executive director of the Sunrise Movement , a leader in the new generation of youth-led climate change movements that emerged from the failure of the global political system to address the climate crisis .
Behind these movements is the experience of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate crisis and the new approach to organizing birthed by that trauma .
This is a conversation about climate change and about political organizing , but it ’ s also about finding agency amid despair .
When doing the right thing makes you a criminal , with Wayne Hsiung Wayne Hsiung is the founder of Direct Action Everywhere , an organization best known for conducting public , open rescues of animals too sick for slaughter .
These rescues are , in many cases , illegal , and Hsiung and his fellow activists are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sacrifice is the point : Hsiung and his colleagues are trying to highlight the sickness of a society that criminalizes doing what any child would recognize as the right thing to do .
In our conversation , I wanted to understand a simple question : How did he get here ?
What leads someone with a safe , comfortable life to risk everything for a cause ?
Peter Singer on the lives you can save Imagine you ’ re walking to work .
You see a child drowning in a lake .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save her when you realize you ’ re wearing your best suit , and the rescue will end up costing hundreds in dry cleaning bills .
Should you still save the child ?
Of course you should .
But this simple thought experiment , taken seriously , has radical implications for how you live your life .
And Peter Singer , the author of that thought experiment , is perhaps the most influential public intellectual of my lifetime .
In Singer ’ s hands , the questions that motivate a moral life are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them seriously , living morally is very , very hard .
And the way most of us are living , right now — well , we ’ re letting a lot of children drown .
What happens if we force ourselves to recognize that fact ?
What does it demand of us ?
Bruce Friedrich on ending the age of animal cruelty Bruce Friedrich is one of the smartest , most informed , and most thoughtful experts I ’ ve ever found on animal suffering .
He had immersed himself in a subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included — would prefer to ignore , and he learned some surprising things , including that vegetarianism was probably worse for animal welfare than cutting out eggs but keeping beef .
Some of the episodes I ’ ve learned the most from were those where I agreed with the guest least .
One thing I love about podcasting is how conversation breaks down the illusion that discussions have binary outcomes : Someone is right and someone is wrong .
Sometimes a view is 70 percent wrong and 30 percent right — and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think of these conversations as collisions that yield a winner .
Think of them as explorations that yield insight .
David French is a senior writer for National Review and one of the conservatives I read most closely .
This is a tricky , but necessary , conversation about very sensitive territory in our politics .
It ’ s about how we talk about race and class and status and gender and sexuality and religion , how we understand and misunderstand each other , how our political identities turn conflicts about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , why groups that are objectively powerful feel so powerless , and much more .
This conversation is a window into a mindset that is increasingly powerful in politics but befuddling to those who don ’ t share its premise : How have so many white Christians come to feel like America ’ s most persecuted class ?
A lot of the points Dreher and I differ on can ’ t be settled by debate , but that doesn ’ t mean there ’ s no room for understanding .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most of which is covered in this piece .
But the ultimate debate with Sam Harris was illuminating .
Nothing has done as much to help me understand the fears that bind the “ Intellectual Dark Web , ” or the way identity politics is easier to see in others than in ourselves .
Andrew Sullivan and I work out our differences I ’ ve been arguing with Andrew Sullivan online for almost 15 years now .
It ’ s one of my oldest and most rewarding hobbies .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and identity .
It ’ s about whether the illiberalism of today is really worse than the illiberalism of yesteryear , and whether the critiques of the campus left accurately describe anyone who holds real power .
It ’ s about how much demographic change a society can absorb , and at what pace that change should occur .
It ’ s about what conservatism is versus what it says it is .
Where Jonathan Haidt thinks the American mind went wrong Psychologist Jonathan Haidt sees political correctness on campus as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but to students ’ psyches .
I often find myself a skeptic in this conversation .
The panic over campus activism seems overblown to me .
It ’ s suffused with bad-faith efforts to nationalize isolated examples of college kids behaving badly in order to discredit serious critiques of social injustice .
But that ’ s why I wanted to have Haidt on the show : If anyone could convince me I ’ m wrong about this , it ’ d be him .
I suspect I ’ m like a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change is bad .
What I struggled with before this series were questions like : how bad ?
Is it an existential threat that eclipses all else ?
Is it one of many serious problems politics must somehow address ?
What do viable solutions look like ?
And what ’ s standing in the way of those solutions being implemented ?
So , these episodes aren ’ t concerned with whether “ the science is real ” on climate change .
This is a series about what the science says — and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , and our future .
We live in The Good Place .
And we ’ re screwing it up ( with Dr. Kate Marvel ) I wanted to kick off the series with someone who knows the science cold .
Kate Marvel is a research scientist at NASA ’ s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a professor at Columbia University ’ s Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics .
But Marvel isn ’ t just a leading climate scientist .
She ’ s also unique in her focus on the stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about climate change , and how they end up structuring our decisions .
The climate crisis is an oceans crisis ( with Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson ) The more I prepared for this series , the more I realize there was a big blue gap in my understanding of climate change .
Oceans cover 70 % of the earth , absorb 93 % of the heat from the sun , and capture 30 % of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere .
As go the oceans , so goes humanity .
Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something a lot of people aren ’ t : communicate not just the science of climate change from the ocean perspective , but the role oceans play in the human story .
This is a vivid tour of the way oceans shape our lives , and the costs and consequences of reshaping them .
Saul Griffith on how to solve climate change and make life more awesome This conversation is about what it will take to solve climate change and what kind of world we can build if we succeed .
Saul Griffith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just about anyone on this planet — and he ’ s clearer than anyone else I ’ ve found on the paths to decarbonization , and how to navigate them .
Most conversations about climate change are pretty depressing .
This conversation is not .
We have the tools we need to decarbonize .
What ’ s more , decarbonizing doesn ’ t mean accepting a future of less — it can mean a more awesome , humane , technologically rich , and socially inspiring future for us all .
Most analyses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start from a single , crucial assumption : that carbon emissions and global warming are inextricably linked .
Geoengineering is a set of technologies and ideas with the potential to shatter that link .
Can we use them ?
Should we ?
Could they be used in concert with other solutions , or would simply opening the door drain support from those ideas ?
Even if we did want to deploy geoengineering , who would govern its use ?
And is mucking with the earth at this level more dangerous than climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the choice we face ?
This isn ’ t an argument for or against geoengineering .
It ’ s a way to think about it , and that turns out to be a way to think about the climate change problem as a whole .
Republicans vs. the planet ( with Dave Roberts ) Vox ’ s Dave Roberts started as his journalism career covering climate science and clean energy technology , but — for reasons we discuss here — he now writes just as much about political psychology , media ecosystems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intersect with climate change .
This conversation is about the political dimension of climate change : how the GOP went from the party of cap-and-trade to the party of climate denial , what today ’ s climate activists get right about our politics that their predecessors got wrong , why the carbon tax is a dead end , how nuclear energy became so divisive and so much more .
Subscribe to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts .

The first episode of The Ezra Klein Show aired in February 2016. It’s an episode I still like: In it, Rachel Maddow discusses her background as an HIV/AIDS activist, what she learned from skinhead rallies, how power works in politics, and the case for skipping the op-ed page.
Almost four years and 300 episodes later, the show has grown and changed, developing obsessions and themes that I never would’ve guessed back at the launch. For that reason, it can be hard to figure out where to start. This, then, is a beginner’s guide to The Ezra Klein Show.
The show is not formally divided into categories. But as I thought about my favorite episodes, five themes began to emerge:
Best-of: my favorite conversations of all time, full stop
my favorite conversations of all time, full stop Many lenses: the episodes that have changed the way I see the world
the episodes that have changed the way I see the world Living better: the shows that have changed how I live my life
the shows that have changed how I live my life Living morally: the conversations that have inspired me to be a better person
the conversations that have inspired me to be a better person Productive disagreement: conversations where my guest and I disagreed significantly but learned from each other nonetheless
conversations where my guest and I disagreed significantly but learned from each other nonetheless Climate change series: a series on the big questions behind our global climate crisis
Best-of
Let’s start with a few of my favorite conversations on the show, full stop. I’d be lost trying to choose the actual best episodes of the show. But these are five I love, and if you start here, you won’t be disappointed.
I build a world with fantasy master N.K. Jemisin
This may be the most fun I’ve ever had on a podcast. What made this episode such a delight is that it isn’t just a conversation. It’s a demonstration. Here, Jemisin — the only person ever to win the Hugo Award for best novel three years in a row — takes me through the way she builds fictional worlds, and in doing so, she offers a master class on how to think more rigorously, clearly, and thoroughly about our world. Don’t miss it.
You will love this conversation with Jaron Lanier, but I can’t describe it
Jaron Lanier is a VR pioneer and a digital philosopher who coined the term “virtual reality.” This conversation begins with the story of Lanier trip-sitting Richard Feynman, the famed physicist, when he was dying of cancer and decided to try LSD, and it only gets better from there.
An inspiring conversation about democracy with Danielle Allen
I talk about democracy a lot on the show, but democracy is Harvard philosopher Danielle Allen’s life’s work. I’ve tried a bunch of different descriptions for this one, but they fail the conversation. At its core, this is about developing a deeper, richer understanding of what democracy means, what it asks of us, and what will be necessary if we’re to revive it not just as a political system, but as a way of relating to each other. I loved this one.
A mind-expanding conversation with Michael Pollan
This is a discussion that is, on one level, about psychedelics, but on a deeper level about how to expand your mind: It’s about how we think, how we learn, whether spiritual experiences can have materialist consequences, what makes us afraid of death, what our minds filter out in the world around us, why travel is good for us, and much more.
Jill Lepore on America’s two revolutions
Jill Lepore is the kind of history teacher everyone wishes they’d had. This is a conversation about who we are as a country, and how that self-definition is always contested and constantly in flux. Every answer she gives has something worth chewing over for weeks.
Many lenses
Ideology is a lens through which we see and evaluate the world. One particular joy of the show, for me, is the episodes I feel offer a new lens — the episodes that help me see more clearly, or that give me a way of seeing that I find myself returning to over and over again.
Kate Manne will change the way you think about misogyny
Politics is thick right now with arguments over misogyny, patriarchy, and gender roles. Kate Manne’s definition of misogyny as obstacles women face, not hatred men feel, makes so much more sense of this moment than the explanations most of us have been given.
Robert Sapolsky on the toxic intersection of poverty and stress
I often say on the show that politics and policy need to begin with a realistic model of human nature. This is a show about that level of the policy conversation: It’s about how poverty and stress exist in a doom loop together, each amplifying the other’s effects on the brain and body, deepening their harms. If I could get policymakers to listen to just one episode of the podcast, it’d be this one.
Daniel Markovits on how meritocracy harms everyone, including its winners
What makes Daniel Markovits’s perspective so interesting is that he doesn’t just condemn meritocracy as unfair for non-elites; he argues that it’s actually bad for the people benefiting from it. The “trap” of meritocracy ensnares all of us, he says, in ways that make life less satisfying for everyone.
Taking the Green Pill with Melanie Joy
The ideology that governs the way we treat animals is strange and contradictory. Melanie Joy names that ideology, investigates its beliefs and demands, and explores the defense mechanisms that make even discussing it so uncomfortable. But Joy’s work applies to much more than how we eat: It’s a lens for thinking about all the systems we’re so deeply embedded in that we can no longer see them.
Alison Gopnik changed how I think about love
There is more great stuff in this conversation than I can write in a few sentences. Gopnik has changed my thinking on parenting, friendships, marriage, and schooling. Some of her ideas are ones you could build a life around.
Living better
Every so often, a conversation comes along that changes not only how I understand my life, but how I live it. These are some of those conversations.
Work as identity, burnout as lifestyle
This is a conversation about what happens when work becomes an identity, capitalism becomes a religion, and productivity becomes the way we measure human value. The conversation exceeded even the high hopes I had for it, and lives on as a fan favorite.
Former US surgeon general Vivek Murthy on the loneliness epidemic
Vivek Murthy’s explanation of how loneliness acts on the body is worth the time, all on its own. But the broader message here is deeper: You are not alone in your loneliness. None of us is. And the best thing we can do is, often, helping someone else out of the very pit we’re in.
Lisa Feldman Barrett on how emotions are constructed
For decades, Lisa Feldman Barrett has been demonstrating that emotions are not biologically hardwired into our brains but constructed by our minds. This episode has potentially radical implications. If we take her theory seriously, it follows that the ways we think about our daily emotional states, diagnose illnesses, interact with friends, raise our children, and experience reality all need some serious adjusting, if not complete rethinking.
Robert Wright on what Buddhism got right about the human brain
This episode is about how our minds evolved to keep us alive, not to keep us happy or satisfied — and what can be done about it. But there is practical advice in this podcast, too. Robert Wright beautifully describes what happens when he reaches what he calls “meditative depths,” what it’s like to go on a 10-day silent meditation retreat, and why a mindful outlook doesn’t lead to complacency or neutrality.
Johann Hari on how society is making us depressed
Johann Hari, who has struggled with depression since his youth, went on a journey to try to understand the social causes of mental illness, the ones we prefer not to talk about because changing them is harder than handing out a pill. On one level, this conversation is about depression; on another level, it’s about the ways we’ve screwed up modern society and created a world that leaves far too many of us alienated, anxious, despairing, and lost.
The art of attention, with Jenny Odell
Jenny Odell is a visual artist who has taught digital and physical design at Stanford since 2013, as well as done residencies at Facebook, the San Francisco Planning Department, the Dump, and the Internet Archive. All of which is to say she’s the perfect person to talk with about creativity and attention in a world designed to flatten both. In this conversation, we discuss the difference between productivity and creativity, how artists orchestrate attention, the ideologies we use to value our time, what it means to do nothing, lucid dreaming, and much more.
Living morally
Doing the right thing isn’t easy. Often it’s hard — and that’s all the more true when society is built around justifying the wrong thing and laughing off challenges to the status quo. These guests are uncowed, and their example is an inspiration.
Bryan Stevenson on why the opposite of poverty is justice
There are only a few people I’d say this about, but Bryan Stevenson is a genuine American hero. There are some people you meet who seem like they’re operating on a higher plane of decency, grace, and thoughtfulness. Stevenson is one of them. His thoughts on justice, on poverty, on racism, and on shame have stayed with me ever since this conversation, and they’ll do the same for you.
Varshini Prakash on generation climate change
This one of the most important conversations I’ve had on the show. The fact that it left me feeling better about the world rather than worse — that was shocking. Varshini Prakash is co-founder and executive director of the Sunrise Movement, a leader in the new generation of youth-led climate change movements that emerged from the failure of the global political system to address the climate crisis. Behind these movements is the experience of coming of age in the era of climate crisis and the new approach to organizing birthed by that trauma. This is a conversation about climate change and about political organizing, but it’s also about finding agency amid despair.
When doing the right thing makes you a criminal, with Wayne Hsiung
Wayne Hsiung is the founder of Direct Action Everywhere, an organization best known for conducting public, open rescues of animals too sick for slaughter. These rescues are, in many cases, illegal, and Hsiung and his fellow activists are risking years of imprisonment. But the sacrifice is the point: Hsiung and his colleagues are trying to highlight the sickness of a society that criminalizes doing what any child would recognize as the right thing to do. In our conversation, I wanted to understand a simple question: How did he get here? What leads someone with a safe, comfortable life to risk everything for a cause?
Peter Singer on the lives you can save
Imagine you’re walking to work. You see a child drowning in a lake. You’re about to jump in and save her when you realize you’re wearing your best suit, and the rescue will end up costing hundreds in dry cleaning bills. Should you still save the child?
Of course you should. But this simple thought experiment, taken seriously, has radical implications for how you live your life. And Peter Singer, the author of that thought experiment, is perhaps the most influential public intellectual of my lifetime. In Singer’s hands, the questions that motivate a moral life are startlingly simple. But if you take them seriously, living morally is very, very hard. And the way most of us are living, right now — well, we’re letting a lot of children drown. What happens if we force ourselves to recognize that fact? What does it demand of us?
Bruce Friedrich on ending the age of animal cruelty
Bruce Friedrich is one of the smartest, most informed, and most thoughtful experts I’ve ever found on animal suffering. He had immersed himself in a subject most of us — myself very much included — would prefer to ignore, and he learned some surprising things, including that vegetarianism was probably worse for animal welfare than cutting out eggs but keeping beef.
Productive disagreement
Some of the episodes I’ve learned the most from were those where I agreed with the guest least. One thing I love about podcasting is how conversation breaks down the illusion that discussions have binary outcomes: Someone is right and someone is wrong. Sometimes a view is 70 percent wrong and 30 percent right — and that 30 percent is important. So don’t think of these conversations as collisions that yield a winner. Think of them as explorations that yield insight.
David French on the “Great White Culture War”
David French is a senior writer for National Review and one of the conservatives I read most closely. This is a tricky, but necessary, conversation about very sensitive territory in our politics. It’s about how we talk about race and class and status and gender and sexuality and religion, how we understand and misunderstand each other, how our political identities turn conflicts about one thing into conflicts about all things, why groups that are objectively powerful feel so powerless, and much more.
Rod Dreher on America’s post-Christian culture wars
This conversation is a window into a mindset that is increasingly powerful in politics but befuddling to those who don’t share its premise: How have so many white Christians come to feel like America’s most persecuted class? A lot of the points Dreher and I differ on can’t be settled by debate, but that doesn’t mean there’s no room for understanding.
The Sam Harris Debate
There’s a lot of backstory to this debate, most of which is covered in this piece. But the ultimate debate with Sam Harris was illuminating. Nothing has done as much to help me understand the fears that bind the “Intellectual Dark Web,” or the way identity politics is easier to see in others than in ourselves.
Andrew Sullivan and I work out our differences
I’ve been arguing with Andrew Sullivan online for almost 15 years now. It’s one of my oldest and most rewarding hobbies. This is a conversation about political movements, American religiosity, and identity. It’s about whether the illiberalism of today is really worse than the illiberalism of yesteryear, and whether the critiques of the campus left accurately describe anyone who holds real power. It’s about how much demographic change a society can absorb, and at what pace that change should occur. It’s about what conservatism is versus what it says it is.
Where Jonathan Haidt thinks the American mind went wrong
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt sees political correctness on campus as a threat not just to speakers’ incomes but to students’ psyches. I often find myself a skeptic in this conversation. The panic over campus activism seems overblown to me. It’s suffused with bad-faith efforts to nationalize isolated examples of college kids behaving badly in order to discredit serious critiques of social injustice. But that’s why I wanted to have Haidt on the show: If anyone could convince me I’m wrong about this, it’d be him.
Climate change series
I suspect I’m like a lot of people in that I accept that climate change is bad. What I struggled with before this series were questions like: how bad? Is it an existential threat that eclipses all else? Is it one of many serious problems politics must somehow address? What do viable solutions look like? And what’s standing in the way of those solutions being implemented?
So, these episodes aren’t concerned with whether “the science is real” on climate change. This is a series about what the science says — and what it means for our lives, our politics, and our future.
We live in The Good Place. And we’re screwing it up (with Dr. Kate Marvel)
I wanted to kick off the series with someone who knows the science cold. Kate Marvel is a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a professor at Columbia University’s Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics. But Marvel isn’t just a leading climate scientist. She’s also unique in her focus on the stories we tell each other, and ourselves, about climate change, and how they end up structuring our decisions.
The climate crisis is an oceans crisis (with Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson)
The more I prepared for this series, the more I realize there was a big blue gap in my understanding of climate change. Oceans cover 70% of the earth, absorb 93% of the heat from the sun, and capture 30% of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As go the oceans, so goes humanity. Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson is able to do something a lot of people aren’t: communicate not just the science of climate change from the ocean perspective, but the role oceans play in the human story. This is a vivid tour of the way oceans shape our lives, and the costs and consequences of reshaping them.
Saul Griffith on how to solve climate change and make life more awesome
This conversation is about what it will take to solve climate change and what kind of world we can build if we succeed. Saul Griffith knows the US energy system better than just about anyone on this planet — and he’s clearer than anyone else I’ve found on the paths to decarbonization, and how to navigate them. Most conversations about climate change are pretty depressing. This conversation is not. We have the tools we need to decarbonize. What’s more, decarbonizing doesn’t mean accepting a future of less — it can mean a more awesome, humane, technologically rich, and socially inspiring future for us all.
The geoengineering question (with Dr. Jane Flegal)
Most analyses of how to “solve” climate change start from a single, crucial assumption: that carbon emissions and global warming are inextricably linked. Geoengineering is a set of technologies and ideas with the potential to shatter that link. Can we use them? Should we? Could they be used in concert with other solutions, or would simply opening the door drain support from those ideas? Even if we did want to deploy geoengineering, who would govern its use? And is mucking with the earth at this level more dangerous than climate change itself — which may, ultimately, be the choice we face? This isn’t an argument for or against geoengineering. It’s a way to think about it, and that turns out to be a way to think about the climate change problem as a whole.
Republicans vs. the planet (with Dave Roberts)
Vox’s Dave Roberts started as his journalism career covering climate science and clean energy technology, but — for reasons we discuss here — he now writes just as much about political psychology, media ecosystems, political institutions, and how they intersect with climate change. This conversation is about the political dimension of climate change: how the GOP went from the party of cap-and-trade to the party of climate denial, what today’s climate activists get right about our politics that their predecessors got wrong, why the carbon tax is a dead end, how nuclear energy became so divisive and so much more.
Subscribe to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.


vox--2020-03-16--Restaurants are fucked — unless they get a bailout

Across America , restaurant dining rooms are empty .
Some have locked the door , others have skeleton crews working to fulfill delivery and carry-out orders as customers hunker down in their homes , waiting to see what happens next .
The coronavirus pandemic — fast-moving , and endangering people who spend time in public spaces — is uniquely poised to take down the restaurant industry as we know it .
As if tailor-made to render restaurants unusable , the pandemic is a time bomb .
And restaurants will not be able to delivery or takeout their way out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close during the pandemic will not reopen their doors .
Diners should also brace for a restaurant landscape that will be entirely different by the time — however near or far off it may be — they can be safely encouraged to enjoy a crowded night out again .
“ We are about to see a lot of places go broke forever.
” On Saturday evening , Georgia-based restaurateur and Top Chef judge Hugh Acheson tweeted the existential dread that so many in the restaurant industry are feeling in the wake of restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; first as a choice to protect staff and community , and now , increasingly by order of local governments .
The next night , after some states started seeing mandatory closures , Acheson tweeted , “ We are so fucked.
” Just hours ago , the White House issued a recommendation that Americans avoid dining in restaurants .
Over the last few days , governors and mayors across the country have announced escalating measures to keep people away from crowds .
The on-the-ground conditions for diners and operators have changed so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from “ go out if you feel healthy ” to mayors calling for restaurants to halve their capacity to governors issuing full restaurant shut downs .
For large cities without any mandated capacity closures , it ’ s likely a matter of when , not if .
Even before the mandatory closures , some of the highest-profile restaurateurs in the country were closing their doors .
Tom Douglas shuttered 12 of his 13 Seattle restaurants .
Danny Meyer closed all Union Square Hospitality restaurants in New York and D.C. David Chang closed all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and New York .
A statement from the restaurant group called the current moment “ unquestionably the most difficult moment in Momofuku ’ s history .
The severity of the COVID-19 crisis has put our business and community in completely uncharted territory.
” A crisis of this scale and scope , so uniquely damaging to restaurants , is indeed unprecedented .
And for now , restaurants are doing their best to stay afloat , ramping up delivery , offering curbside to-go service , promoting merch , offering gift certificates , begging diners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the truth is , compared to full dining rooms night after night , these are band-aids , temporary stop gaps to stop hemorrhaging money .
Gift cards , which are effectively microloans to the restaurant owner , also do little to help workers in the short-term — or restaurants that don ’ t have the infrastructure to sell them .
Independent operators need a major infusion of cash — cash that ’ s more readily available from the government than from their stressed-out customers — to make it .
They need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax deferrals , at a minimum , to live through this body blow .
Who knows what they ’ ll end up getting .
As ordered , restaurants around the country that are staying open are attempting to do so by transitioning to takeout and delivery .
Already , some restaurants are reporting that delivery hasn ’ t kept pace with the loss of in-person customers .
And while Grubhub has suspended some of its fees , the fact remains that as of right now , delivery services take a hefty cut of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order placed .
There ’ s work involved in making the shift to delivery and takeaway — time and money that a restaurant likely does not have to spend .
In the best-case scenario , the model effectively turns restaurants into so-called “ ghost kitchens , ” eliminating the need for nearly all front of house staff .
David Chang has called the pivot to delivery “ fools gold.
” But that ’ s a problem for a potential next chapter in this pandemic .
Across the industry , workers are losing tips @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They need to eat and pay rent .
For line cooks , for servers , for bartenders — really for most people who had restaurant jobs even last week — prolonged closures means the loss of wages .
Even for workers from those restaurant groups that are continuing to pay wages and offer health care coverage for the rest of the month , those jobs and the wages and benefits that come with them are effectively over .
The restaurant industry is contracting on both ends .
Workers in need of jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gigs in other industries .
Companies that make their money servicing restaurants — equipment repair , cleaning crews — face similar prospects .
“ I just got laid off because of COVID-19 ’ s effect on the restaurants to function safely .
The irony is that we won ’ t be able to find other restaurant jobs bc more are closing everyday due to the virus , ” one restaurant industry worker tweeted over the weekend .
“ Where ’ s our relief ?
” This need for relief is compounded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 15 million workers of the restaurant industry , like small-business restaurant owners , also live precariously ; only an estimated 25 percent of restaurant workers work in localities with mandated paid sick leave .
Crowdfunding for catastrophic illnesses and injuries is all too common for restaurant workers because paid sick leave and health insurance aren ’ t guaranteed industry-wide and many live at or below the poverty line .
Restaurant workers in America have been living as precariously as the businesses that employed them .
Run on shockingly thin margins , few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let alone a bad season or a bad year .
“ It has been some tough times overall for many restaurant owners in the last few years , ” Acheson tweeted over the weekend .
“ Costs up , rents up , employees scarce , wine tariffs… sucked our bottom lines ...
I was worried a year ago , but nothing like this.
” Both the large groups that have enough cash at hand to successfully “ mothball ” and the restaurants that can run a successful delivery operation are on borrowed time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date .
There will be businesses who simply can not afford to stay furloughed or continue doing delivery .
And when those restaurants that survive do reopen , they ’ ll do so with their pocketbooks depleted , without an emergency fund to spare should some other unexpected issue hit ( and in the restaurant business , there ’ s always an unexpected expense around the corner ) .
They will also reopen their doors to a new world of challenges , not least of which is facing a dining public likely either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a global recession .
Those diners who lost income after supply chain and nationwide business closures due to social distancing will simply have less money to spend on dining .
Opening new restaurants will likely also pose unique challenges after the pandemic passes .
The groups most targeted by xenophobic , racist backlash during the crisis might face discrimination when it comes to getting loans ; restaurateurs from marginalized communities might not be able to bounce back into restaurant ownership at all .
Even the big players may find themselves struggling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors skittish .
Simply put : Don ’ t expect all , or even many , of the restaurants that close because of this to just bounce right back .
This is not to say that diners shouldn ’ t do their part immediately to help support these businesses .
Order delivery while it ’ s still widely considered safe to do so ; order more than needed to up the check average ; tip generously ; buy gift cards for future use ; buy restaurant merch online ; reschedule pre-paid reservations rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money , consider stepping up like NBA players and personally transferring wealth directly to restaurant workers .
Call your local representatives and demand that they provide relief to this industry .
Restaurants are an invaluable part of the social fabric of our towns and cities .
We rely on them to nourish us , to host us as we celebrate , to provide us community , to provide us entertainment .
It ’ s unthinkable that they will not be there to meet us when we come out of this .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who work in it — was always perched on a cliff .
The fast-moving , widespread nature of the coronavirus pandemic is poised to push both the businesses and its workers over the edge .
We don ’ t know what comes after the fall .
The restaurant industry in America ’ s cities certainly won ’ t look the way it did before .
It may never again .

Across America, restaurant dining rooms are empty. Some have locked the door; others have skeleton crews working to fulfill delivery and carry-out orders as customers hunker down in their homes, waiting to see what happens next.
The coronavirus pandemic — fast-moving, and endangering people who spend time in public spaces — is uniquely poised to take down the restaurant industry as we know it. As if tailor-made to render restaurants unusable, the pandemic is a time bomb. And restaurants will not be able to delivery or takeout their way out of it.
Many of the restaurants that close during the pandemic will not reopen their doors. Diners should also brace for a restaurant landscape that will be entirely different by the time — however near or far off it may be — they can be safely encouraged to enjoy a crowded night out again.
“We are about to see a lot of places go broke forever.”
On Saturday evening, Georgia-based restaurateur and Top Chef judge Hugh Acheson tweeted the existential dread that so many in the restaurant industry are feeling in the wake of restaurants closing to halt the spread of COVID-19, first as a choice to protect staff and community, and now, increasingly, by order of local governments. The next night, after some states started seeing mandatory closures, Acheson tweeted, “We are so fucked.”
Just hours ago, the White House issued a recommendation that Americans avoid dining in restaurants. Over the last few days, governors and mayors across the country have announced escalating measures to keep people away from crowds. The on-the-ground conditions for diners and operators have changed so much in the past few days, evolving from “go out if you feel healthy” to mayors calling for restaurants to halve their capacity to governors issuing full restaurant shutdowns. For large cities without any mandated capacity reductions or closures, it’s likely a matter of when, not if.
Even before the mandatory closures, some of the highest-profile restaurateurs in the country were closing their doors. Tom Douglas shuttered 12 of his 13 Seattle restaurants. Danny Meyer closed all Union Square Hospitality restaurants in New York and D.C. David Chang closed all Momofuku restaurants in D.C., Los Angeles, and New York. A statement from the restaurant group called the current moment “unquestionably the most difficult moment in Momofuku’s history. The severity of the COVID-19 crisis has put our business and community in completely uncharted territory.”
A crisis of this scale and scope, so uniquely damaging to restaurants, is indeed unprecedented. And for now, restaurants are doing their best to stay afloat, ramping up delivery, offering curbside to-go service, promoting merch, offering gift certificates, begging diners to reschedule rather than cancel pre-paid reservations. But the truth is, compared to full dining rooms night after night, these are Band-Aids, temporary stopgaps to stop hemorrhaging money. Gift cards, which are effectively microloans to the restaurant owner, also do little to help workers in the short-term — or restaurants that don’t have the infrastructure to sell them.
Independent operators need a major infusion of cash — cash that’s more readily available from the government than from their stressed-out customers — to make it. They need rent alleviation, eviction protection, and tax deferrals, at a minimum, to live through this body blow. Who knows what they’ll end up getting.
As ordered, restaurants around the country that are staying open are attempting to do so by transitioning to takeout and delivery. Already, some restaurants are reporting that delivery hasn’t kept pace with the loss of in-person customers. And while Grubhub has suspended some of its fees, the fact remains that as of right now, delivery services take a hefty cut of the restaurant’s share with each order placed. There’s work involved in making the shift to delivery and takeaway — time and money that a restaurant likely does not have to spend. In the best-case scenario, the model effectively turns restaurants into so-called “ghost kitchens,” eliminating the need for nearly all front-of-house staff. David Chang has called the pivot to delivery “fools gold.”
But that’s a problem for a potential next chapter in this pandemic. Across the industry, workers are losing tips, shifts, and jobs right now. They need to eat and pay rent. For line cooks, for servers, for bartenders — really for most people who had restaurant jobs even last week — prolonged closures mean the loss of wages. Even for workers from those restaurant groups that are continuing to pay wages and offer health care coverage for the rest of the month, those jobs, and the wages and benefits that come with them, are effectively over.
The restaurant industry is contracting on both ends. Workers in need of jobs will (hopefully) find their ways to gigs in other industries. Companies that make their money servicing restaurants — equipment repair, cleaning crews — face similar prospects. “I just got laid off because of COVID-19’s effect on the restaurants to function safely. The irony is that we won’t be able to find other restaurant jobs bc more are closing everyday due to the virus,” one restaurant industry worker tweeted over the weekend. “Where’s our relief?”
This need for relief is compounded by the fact that many of the more than 15 million workers of the restaurant industry, like small-business restaurant owners, also live precariously; only an estimated 25 percent of restaurant workers work in localities with mandated paid sick leave. Crowdfunding for catastrophic illnesses and injuries is all too common for restaurant workers because paid sick leave and health insurance aren’t guaranteed industry-wide and many live at or below the poverty line.
Restaurant workers in America have been living as precariously as the businesses that employed them.
Run on shockingly thin margins, few restaurants can survive a bad week, let alone a bad season or a bad year. “It has been some tough times overall for many restaurant owners in the last few years,” Acheson tweeted over the weekend. “Costs up, rents up, employees scarce, wine tariffs… sucked our bottom lines... I was worried a year ago, but nothing like this.”
Both the large groups that have enough cash at hand to “mothball” and the restaurants that can run a successful delivery operation are on borrowed time. This outbreak has no clear end date. There will be businesses that simply cannot afford to stay furloughed or continue doing delivery.
And when those restaurants that survive do reopen, they’ll do so with their pocketbooks depleted, without an emergency fund to spare should some other unexpected issue hit (and in the restaurant business, there’s always an expense around the corner). They will also reopen their doors to a new world of challenges, not least of which is facing a dining public likely either coming out of or in the midst of a global recession. Those diners who lost income after supply-chain disruption and nationwide business closures due to social distancing will simply have less money to spend on dining.
Opening new restaurants will likely also pose unique challenges after the pandemic passes. The groups most targeted by xenophobic, racist backlash during the crisis may face discrimination when it comes to getting loans; restaurateurs from marginalized communities might not be able to return to restaurant ownership at all. Even the big players may find themselves struggling to secure funding if a global recession makes investors skittish. Simply put: Don’t expect all, or even many, of the restaurants that close because of this to just bounce right back.
This is not to say that diners shouldn’t do their part immediately to help support these businesses. Order delivery while it’s still widely considered safe to do so; order more than needed to up the check average; tip generously; buy gift cards for future use; buy restaurant merch online; reschedule prepaid reservations rather than requesting refunds. If you have the money, consider stepping up like NBA players and personally transferring wealth directly to restaurant workers. Call your local representatives and demand that they provide relief to this industry.
Want to call your representatives and urge them to provide relief with a restaurant industry bailout? Here’s a script.
Restaurants are an invaluable part of the social fabric of our towns and cities. We rely on them to nourish us, to host us as we celebrate, to provide us community, to provide us entertainment. It’s unthinkable that they will not be there to meet us when we come out of this.
But the American restaurant industry — and the people who work in it — was always perched on a cliff. The fast-moving, widespread nature of the novel coronavirus pandemic is poised to push both the businesses and its workers over the edge. We don’t know what comes after the fall. The restaurant industry in America’s cities certainly won’t look the way it did before. It may never again.


vox--2020-03-16--The 2020 election calendar

The 2020 election calendar

The Democratic presidential primary has been going on for months .
But 2020 — the election year — is finally here , and it ’ s an understatement to say that it will be a busy year in US politics .
February brought the first four early-state Democratic caucuses and primaries , starting in Iowa on February 3 and continuing through New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina .
March began with Super Tuesday on March 3 : the single biggest delegate prize of the primary calendar .
As the year continues , the primary will run through June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conventions ( in July and August , respectively ) , and finally Election Day itself : November 3 .
That ’ s where this calendar comes in .
Here are the most important events of the 2020 election cycle .
Bookmark this page to refer back to , add it to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus sign on the bottom right of this page , or subscribe through a calendar app of your choice .
This page and the calendar subscriptions will be updated if dates change or new debates are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the June debates here .
Read all of our coverage from the July debates here .
Read all of our coverage of the September debate here .
• Second town hall on climate change on MSNBC Read all of our coverage from the October debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the November debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the December debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the Iowa caucuses here .
Read all of our coverage from the New Hampshire primaries here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina primary here .
Read all of our coverage from Super Tuesday here .
Read all of our coverage from the March 10 primaries here .

Share All sharing options for: The 2020 election calendar
Vox answers your biggest questions about the 2020 US presidential election .
This story is part of a group of stories called
The 2020 presidential election is ramping into high gear.
Joe Biden announced his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, and Democrats and Republicans held their first virtual conventions this summer. Biden and President Donald Trump accepted their parties’ official nominations for president, and the fall campaign season is upon us.
The presidential debates began September 29 and run through October, including the vice presidential debate on October 7. The second presidential debate, scheduled for October 15, was canceled after Trump tested positive for Covid-19, then refused to agree to debate virtually. One more debate is scheduled for October 22.
Election Day itself, of course, will fall on Tuesday, November 3.
Read on for the important events of the 2020 election cycle and bookmark this page to refer back to. You can also add it to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus sign on the bottom right of this page, or subscribe through a calendar app of your choice. This page and the calendar subscriptions will be updated as dates and information change.
And check out our guides on how to vote early and by mail.
September 2020
September 29
Presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, at the Case Western Reserve/Cleveland Clinic joint campus
October 2020
October 7
Vice presidential debate in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah
October 22
Presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, at Belmont University
November 2020
November 3
Election Day
Past 2020 election coverage
June 2019
June 26-27
Read all of our coverage from the June debates here.
July 2019
July 30-31
Read all of our coverage from the July debates here.
September 2019
September 4
September 12
Read all of our coverage of the September debate here.
September 19-20
October 2019
October 15
Read all of our coverage from the October debate here.
November 2019
November 20
Read all of our coverage from the November debate here.
December 2019
December 19
Read all of our coverage from the December debate here.
January 2020
January 14
February 2020
February 3
Iowa caucuses
Read all of our coverage from the Iowa caucuses here.
February 7
February 11
New Hampshire primaries
Read all of our coverage from the New Hampshire primaries here.
February 19
February 22
Nevada caucuses
February 25
February 29
South Carolina primary
Read all of our coverage from the South Carolina primary here.
March 2020
March 3 (Super Tuesday)
Alabama primaries (D, R)
American Samoa caucuses (D)
Arkansas primaries (D, R)
California primaries (D, R)
Colorado primaries (D, R)
Maine primaries (D, R)
Massachusetts primaries (D, R)
Minnesota primaries (D, R)
North Carolina primaries (D, R)
Oklahoma primaries (D, R)
Tennessee primaries (D, R)
Texas primaries (D, R)
Utah primaries (D, R)
Vermont primaries (D, R)
Virginia primary (D)
Democrats Abroad primary (through March 10)
Read all of our coverage from Super Tuesday here.
March 10
Idaho primaries (D, R)
Michigan primaries (D, R)
Mississippi primaries (D, R)
Missouri primaries (D, R)
North Dakota caucuses (D)
Washington primaries (D, R)
Read all of our coverage from the March 10 primaries here.
March 12
Virgin Islands caucuses
March 14
Guam caucuses (R)
Northern Marianas convention (D)
March 15
March 17
Arizona primary (D)
Florida primaries (D, R)
Illinois primaries (D, R)
Northern Marianas convention (R)
Read all of our coverage from the March 17 primaries here.
March 24
American Samoa caucuses (R)
April 2020
April 7
Wisconsin primaries (D, R; April 7 is the election date and mail-in vote postmark deadline following court rulings, as of 8 pm ET on April 6)
April 10
Alaska primary (D; vote-by-mail only; results will be available no later than 11:59 pm on April 11)
April 17
Wyoming caucuses (D; vote-by-mail only)
April 28
Ohio primaries (D, R; vote-by-mail only)
May 2020
May 2
Kansas primary (D)
Guam caucuses (D)
May 7-9
Wyoming state convention (R)
May 12
Nebraska primaries (D, R)
May 19
Oregon primaries (D, R)
June 2020
June 2
Delaware primaries (D, R)
District of Columbia primaries (D, R)
Indiana primaries (D, R)
Maryland primaries (D, R)
Montana primaries (D, R)
New Mexico primaries (D, R)
Pennsylvania primaries (D, R)
Rhode Island primaries (D, R)
South Dakota primaries (D, R)
June 6
Virgin Islands caucuses (D)
June 7
Puerto Rico primary (R)
June 9
Georgia primaries (D, R)
West Virginia primaries (D, R)
June 23
Kentucky primaries (D, R)
New York primaries (D, R)
July 2020
July 7
New Jersey primaries (D, R)
July 11
Louisiana primaries (D, R)
August 2020
August 11
Connecticut primaries (D, R)
August 17-20
Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Read our coverage of the Democratic convention here.
August 24-27
Republican National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina
Read our coverage of the Republican convention here.


vox--2020-03-16--The Mirror and the Light brings Hilary Mantel’s Cromwell trilogy to a gripping close

The historical Thomas Cromwell , chief adviser to King Henry VIII , died in 1540 .
He was executed on the king ’ s orders for treason and heresy .
But for the past 11 years , Cromwell has lived again , inside Hilary Mantel ’ s lavish and immersive Wolf Hall trilogy and its spinoff properties ( a TV show , a play ) .
And last week , the final volume of Mantel ’ s trilogy , The Mirror and the Light , arrived at last .
The book ends as it had to : with Cromwell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the end is not really a spoiler , because it happened 480 years ago , and it ’ s on his Wikipedia page .
But when you read Mantel ’ s books — 2009 ’ s Wolf Hall , 2012 ’ s Bring Up the Bodies , and now The Mirror and the Light — talking about that death feels as though it might be a spoiler , because Mantel ’ s genius as an author is to make the past feel as though it is happening right now .
Her books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as you read them , history stops seeming inevitable .
Perhaps this time , Henry VIII won ’ t end up with six wives .
Perhaps this time , he won ’ t decide to kill Cromwell .
Part of what makes the books seem so urgent and immediate is that they take place so firmly within Thomas Cromwell ’ s head .
The bulk of the three books is told in the third person , but every so often , the narration slips easily and elegantly into first or second person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your inner monologue you are yourself , sometimes you narrate your actions as though you are a separate person , and sometimes you address yourself as “ you.
” And for the narrator of these novels , Cromwell himself is never just “ Cromwell.
” He is always “ he , ” and when a clarifier is absolutely necessary , he is “ he , Cromwell ” — or , when he begins to move up in the world and he ’ s feeling extremely pleased with himself , he is “ he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the confines of Thomas Cromwell ’ s head , we have no way of knowing for sure that he is doomed .
Whatever trouble he falls into , maybe he ’ ll talk his way out of it .
He ’ s talked his way out of worse .
Mantel ’ s Wolf Hall series takes Cromwell from minor historical villain to a symbol of the rise of modernity Cromwell was once considered one of history ’ s villains .
He was King Henry VIII ’ s chief fixer , and much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts it in Mirror and the Light , finding ways to “ get the king new wives and dispose of the old.
” He was instrumental to the downfall of Anne Boleyn , which takes up most of the middle book in the trilogy , Bring Up the Bodies .
He helped bring the Reformation to England , and he helped Henry seize England ’ s monasteries and abbeys for the crown .
Under Henry ’ s orders , he tortured , executed , and ruined men and women alike .
Mantel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historian Geoffrey Elton , who sparked a reevaluation of Cromwell ’ s legacy in the 1950s .
Elton argued that it was Cromwell who worked out what England ’ s national identity could look like once it had severed itself from the pope , and he who put into place the basis for England ’ s modern parliamentary government .
Accordingly , Mantel ’ s Cromwell is a principled reformer , a man who wants to take wealth and power from the corrupt Roman Catholic Church and put it in the hands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve the people .
He just also wants wealth and power for himself .
Mantel ’ s Cromwell is in some ways an analogue to Lin-Manuel Miranda ’ s Hamilton .
He ’ s a self-made man , the son of a blacksmith who fled his abusive father as a teenager to travel through Europe .
He worked as a soldier , a merchant , and a spy , and then moved back to England to become a lawyer .
He ’ s a cosmopolitan capitalist , and although he is surrounded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true power , here at the beginning of modernity , lies with the banks .
When we first meet Cromwell at the beginning of Wolf Hall , he works for Cardinal Wolsey , then Henry ’ s chief fixer himself .
He ’ s a prosperous lawyer , married , with three children , and it ’ s this version of his life that he still thinks of , in The Mirror and the Light , as “ my real life.
” But then : disaster .
Cromwell ’ s wife dies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and his two daughters follow her the following year .
Wolsey , meanwhile , is unable to get King Henry the divorce he wants from Katherine of Aragon .
Wolsey falls from favor , the king seizes his lands and riches , and he dies of a broken heart .
Cromwell steps in where Wolsey failed .
He ’ s a natural politician , a lawyer who knows when to flatter , when to threaten , and when to start lying , and his enemies underestimate him because he has no noble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal grounding to get Henry the divorce he wants .
He arranges Henry ’ s marriage to Anne Boleyn , and when Henry begins to tire of her , too , Cromwell introduces him to Jane Seymour and gently stage-manages their affair .
Eventually , he finds the legal grounding to annul Henry ’ s marriage to Anne and have Anne beheaded for treason , so that Henry and Jane can marry .
Cromwell tells himself that all of these actions are for the best , because they keep Henry happy .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cromwell can go about his two purposes in life : to advance the cause of the Reformation in England — distancing England from the pope , publishing an English-language Bible — and to amass wealth and power for himself .
But as The Mirror and the Light begins , Anne Boleyn ’ s blood is still wet on the ground .
Cromwell finds himself haunted by her ghost , and by the ghosts of all the other people he ’ s ruined for Henry ’ s sake .
Cromwell and Henry VIII love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their intimacy is at the center of this trilogy .
Cromwell ’ s relationship to Henry is at the heart of this trilogy , and it is a relationship steeped in ambiguity .
Cromwell builds his life around Henry , around understanding Henry ’ s needs and desires without Henry ever having to say them : That is what he is good at , and that ’ s what makes him the second-most-powerful man in England .
Henry ’ s desires start to become Cromwell ’ s own , so that Cromwell subconsciously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Henry ’ s daughter Mary .
Henry and Cromwell become so close that Cromwell begins to think of them as one .
In The Mirror and the Light , “ he allows his body to confuse with that of Henry , so that their arms , lying contiguous , lose their form and become cloudy like thaw water.
” The two even start to slip together in the narrator ’ s voice .
Halfway through Bring Up the Bodies , the narrator has to clarify , “ he , Henry , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry is the only character besides Cromwell who ranks that kind of clarifier .
But Henry is also the man responsible for the death of Wolsey , Cromwell ’ s beloved mentor .
Cromwell destroyed the other men who brought down Wolsey , but he can not destroy Henry .
He , Cromwell , has to love Henry instead , and sin for him , and do both with the full knowledge that Henry will one day destroy him too .
In The Mirror and the Light , Cromwell is at the peak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully disposed of his greatest enemies at Henry ’ s court .
He ’ s married Henry off to Jane Seymour , who gives birth to a boy and gives Henry a legitimate male heir .
In gratitude , Henry promotes Cromwell and gives him a peerage .
But Cromwell can not help resenting Henry , try as he might to quash his treasonous thoughts .
He knows that Henry is the kind of person who believes the last person that he spoke to , and as his duties grow more extensive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the king ’ s side at all times to guide Henry ’ s thoughts in the right direction .
Cromwell grows weary of managing Henry ’ s ego , of always manipulating reality into a form that is most flattering to Henry .
He begins to talk to his friends about how much better the realm would be managed if he himself were king .
When Jane Seymour — who Cromwell desired for himself — dies shortly after she gives birth , Cromwell thinks , “ If Jane had married me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have managed it better.
” Henry sees Cromwell ’ s rising ambition and resentment , and he grows wary in his turn .
Theirs is a relationship of mingled hatred and love , and when Henry at last arrests Cromwell and locks him in the Tower of London , in the suite of rooms Cromwell personally had decorated for Anne Boleyn , it ’ s as though Cromwell has become Henry ’ s seventh wife .
If you have to stay inside right now , the Wolf Hall trilogy is there for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only woman ever to win two Booker Prizes , and she won them both for the first two volumes of this trilogy .
In the UK , The Mirror and the Light is considered the biggest publishing event of the year , and in the US , it ’ s not that far behind .
Expectations are high for this novel .
And it lives up to them .
The Mirror and the Light is not as taut or as immaculately structured as its predecessors were .
It ’ s a shaggy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central goal for Cromwell to devote himself to .
All three novels are built around climactic beheadings , and in the first two books , Cromwell is working to enact those beheadings on those he considers his personal enemies : Thomas More in Wolf Hall , and Anne Boleyn in Bring up the Bodies .
But in The Mirror and the Light , the beheading looming over everything is Cromwell ’ s .
And he ’ s not trying to bring it about .
He ’ s trying , with all his might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s become a reactive figure rather than an active one , and that changes the tension of the book .
But Mantel makes the past feel so immediate that it seems possible Cromwell might actually manage to save himself .
There ’ s a slow , creeping dread to this novel that worms its way in from the beginning and gradually begins to take up more space , so that by the end , I began to feel relieved at the idea of Cromwell ’ s impending death .
At least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the meantime , it ’ s always a joy to spend time with Cromwell .
He ’ s one of those characters who is so implausibly good at everything that you ’ d hate him if he weren ’ t so likable — and if he were not so satisfyingly self-interested .
Mantel gives you plenty of space to hate Cromwell , which makes it possible to love him , too .
And it makes his gradual evolution from principled lawyer to agent of the despotic state feel all the grander and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s prose is rich and vivid .
She ’ s famous for her archival work , which she uses to ground her novels in the historical truth of the past , and it shows itself here in the vividness of Cromwell ’ s world .
Cromwell ’ s air is “ sharply scented : juniper , cinnamon.
” The city of London is the color of “ dun and slate , donkey ’ s back and mouse , ” against which shine all the brighter the colors of the imperial state : gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … silver and flame and halcyon against the wash of the English sky.
” The result is immersive : You can lose yourself in these sentences .
As I write this review , the coronavirus spread has officially been declared a pandemic , and those who can are advised to remain home as much as possible .
How lucky we are , then , that Hilary Mantel has at last finished her epic , rendering us a gift for this long time alone and indoors .
The Wolf Hall trilogy is thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t leave your house , go get lost in these books instead .

Thomas Cromwell is finally dead.
The historical Thomas Cromwell, chief adviser to King Henry VIII, died in 1540. He was executed on the king’s orders for treason and heresy. But for the past 11 years, Cromwell has lived again, inside Hilary Mantel’s lavish and immersive Wolf Hall trilogy and its spinoff properties (a TV show, a play). And last week, the final volume of Mantel’s trilogy, The Mirror and the Light, arrived at last. The book ends as it had to: with Cromwell’s execution.
Saying that Cromwell dies at the end is not really a spoiler, because it happened 480 years ago, and it’s on his Wikipedia page. But when you read Mantel’s books — 2009’s Wolf Hall, 2012’s Bring Up the Bodies, and now The Mirror and the Light — talking about that death feels as though it might be a spoiler, because Mantel’s genius as an author is to make the past feel as though it is happening right now. Her books take place in the present tense, and as you read them, history stops seeming inevitable. Perhaps this time, Henry VIII won’t end up with six wives. Perhaps this time, he won’t decide to kill Cromwell.
Part of what makes the books seem so urgent and immediate is that they take place so firmly within Thomas Cromwell’s head. The bulk of the three books is told in the third person, but every so often, the narration slips easily and elegantly into first or second person, in the way that sometimes in your inner monologue you are yourself, sometimes you narrate your actions as though you are a separate person, and sometimes you address yourself as “you.” And for the narrator of these novels, Cromwell himself is never just “Cromwell.” He is always “he,” and when a clarifier is absolutely necessary, he is “he, Cromwell” — or, when he begins to move up in the world and he’s feeling extremely pleased with himself, he is “he, my Lord Privy Seal.”
And within the confines of Thomas Cromwell’s head, we have no way of knowing for sure that he is doomed. Whatever trouble he falls into, maybe he’ll talk his way out of it. He’s talked his way out of worse.
Mantel’s Wolf Hall series takes Cromwell from minor historical villain to a symbol of the rise of modernity
Cromwell was once considered one of history’s villains. He was King Henry VIII’s chief fixer, and much of that fixing involved, as Mantel puts it in Mirror and the Light, finding ways to “get the king new wives and dispose of the old.” He was instrumental to the downfall of Anne Boleyn, which takes up most of the middle book in the trilogy, Bring Up the Bodies. He helped bring the Reformation to England, and he helped Henry seize England’s monasteries and abbeys for the crown. Under Henry’s orders, he tortured, executed, and ruined men and women alike.
Rating: 5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Mantel, however, takes her cue from the historian Geoffrey Elton, who sparked a reevaluation of Cromwell’s legacy in the 1950s. Elton argued that it was Cromwell who worked out what England’s national identity could look like once it had severed itself from the pope, and he who put into place the basis for England’s modern parliamentary government.
Accordingly, Mantel’s Cromwell is a principled reformer, a man who wants to take wealth and power from the corrupt Roman Catholic Church and put it in the hands of the state so that it can better serve the people. He just also wants wealth and power for himself.
Mantel’s Cromwell is in some ways an analogue to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton. He’s a self-made man, the son of a blacksmith who fled his abusive father as a teenager to travel through Europe. He worked as a soldier, a merchant, and a spy, and then moved back to England to become a lawyer. He’s a cosmopolitan capitalist, and although he is surrounded by aristocrats and monarchists, he understands that true power, here at the beginning of modernity, lies with the banks.
When we first meet Cromwell at the beginning of Wolf Hall, he works for Cardinal Wolsey, then Henry’s chief fixer himself. He’s a prosperous lawyer, married, with three children, and it’s this version of his life that he still thinks of, in The Mirror and the Light, as “my real life.”
But then: disaster. Cromwell’s wife dies in the sweating sickness that sweeps through London, and his two daughters follow her the following year. Wolsey, meanwhile, is unable to get King Henry the divorce he wants from Katherine of Aragon. Wolsey falls from favor, the king seizes his lands and riches, and he dies of a broken heart.
Cromwell steps in where Wolsey failed. He’s a natural politician, a lawyer who knows when to flatter, when to threaten, and when to start lying, and his enemies underestimate him because he has no noble blood. Cromwell comes up with the legal grounding to get Henry the divorce he wants. He arranges Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn, and when Henry begins to tire of her, too, Cromwell introduces him to Jane Seymour and gently stage-manages their affair. Eventually, he finds the legal grounding to annul Henry’s marriage to Anne and have Anne beheaded for treason, so that Henry and Jane can marry.
Cromwell tells himself that all of these actions are for the best, because they keep Henry happy. And as long as Henry is happy, Cromwell can go about his two purposes in life: to advance the cause of the Reformation in England — distancing England from the pope, publishing an English-language Bible — and to amass wealth and power for himself.
But as The Mirror and the Light begins, Anne Boleyn’s blood is still wet on the ground. Cromwell finds himself haunted by her ghost, and by the ghosts of all the other people he’s ruined for Henry’s sake.
Cromwell and Henry VIII love each other and despise each other. Their intimacy is at the center of this trilogy.
Cromwell’s relationship to Henry is at the heart of this trilogy, and it is a relationship steeped in ambiguity. Cromwell builds his life around Henry, around understanding Henry’s needs and desires without Henry ever having to say them: That is what he is good at, and that’s what makes him the second-most-powerful man in England. Henry’s desires start to become Cromwell’s own, so that Cromwell subconsciously covets Henry’s wives and mistresses and Henry’s daughter Mary.
Henry and Cromwell become so close that Cromwell begins to think of them as one. In The Mirror and the Light, “he allows his body to confuse with that of Henry, so that their arms, lying contiguous, lose their form and become cloudy like thaw water.” The two even start to slip together in the narrator’s voice. Halfway through Bring Up the Bodies, the narrator has to clarify, “he, Henry,” rather than “he, Cromwell.” Henry is the only character besides Cromwell who ranks that kind of clarifier.
But Henry is also the man responsible for the death of Wolsey, Cromwell’s beloved mentor. Cromwell destroyed the other men who brought down Wolsey, but he cannot destroy Henry. He, Cromwell, has to love Henry instead, and sin for him, and do both with the full knowledge that Henry will one day destroy him too.
In The Mirror and the Light, Cromwell is at the peak of his power. He’s successfully disposed of his greatest enemies at Henry’s court. He’s married Henry off to Jane Seymour, who gives birth to a boy and gives Henry a legitimate male heir. In gratitude, Henry promotes Cromwell and gives him a peerage.
But Cromwell cannot help resenting Henry, try as he might to quash his treasonous thoughts. He knows that Henry is the kind of person who believes the last person that he spoke to, and as his duties grow more extensive, he’s less able to be by the king’s side at all times to guide Henry’s thoughts in the right direction. Cromwell grows weary of managing Henry’s ego, of always manipulating reality into a form that is most flattering to Henry. He begins to talk to his friends about how much better the realm would be managed if he himself were king. When Jane Seymour — who Cromwell desired for himself — dies shortly after she gives birth, Cromwell thinks, “If Jane had married me, she would be alive now; I would have managed it better.”
Henry sees Cromwell’s rising ambition and resentment, and he grows wary in his turn. Theirs is a relationship of mingled hatred and love, and when Henry at last arrests Cromwell and locks him in the Tower of London, in the suite of rooms Cromwell personally had decorated for Anne Boleyn, it’s as though Cromwell has become Henry’s seventh wife.
If you have to stay inside right now, the Wolf Hall trilogy is there for you to escape into
Hilary Mantel is the only woman ever to win two Booker Prizes, and she won them both for the first two volumes of this trilogy. In the UK, The Mirror and the Light is considered the biggest publishing event of the year, and in the US, it’s not that far behind. Expectations are high for this novel. And it lives up to them.
The Mirror and the Light is not as taut or as immaculately structured as its predecessors were. It’s a shaggy 754 pages, and it lacks a central goal for Cromwell to devote himself to. All three novels are built around climactic beheadings, and in the first two books, Cromwell is working to enact those beheadings on those he considers his personal enemies: Thomas More in Wolf Hall, and Anne Boleyn in Bring up the Bodies. But in The Mirror and the Light, the beheading looming over everything is Cromwell’s. And he’s not trying to bring it about. He’s trying, with all his might, to stop it from happening. He’s become a reactive figure rather than an active one, and that changes the tension of the book.
But Mantel makes the past feel so immediate that it seems possible Cromwell might actually manage to save himself. There’s a slow, creeping dread to this novel that worms its way in from the beginning and gradually begins to take up more space, so that by the end, I began to feel relieved at the idea of Cromwell’s impending death. At least it would end the dread.
And in the meantime, it’s always a joy to spend time with Cromwell. He’s one of those characters who is so implausibly good at everything that you’d hate him if he weren’t so likable — and if he were not so satisfyingly self-interested. Mantel gives you plenty of space to hate Cromwell, which makes it possible to love him, too. And it makes his gradual evolution from principled lawyer to agent of the despotic state feel all the grander and more Shakespearean.
Throughout, Mantel’s prose is rich and vivid. She’s famous for her archival work, which she uses to ground her novels in the historical truth of the past, and it shows itself here in the vividness of Cromwell’s world. Cromwell’s air is “sharply scented: juniper, cinnamon.” The city of London is the color of “dun and slate, donkey’s back and mouse,” against which shine all the brighter the colors of the imperial state: gold, celestial blue, “imperial purple … silver and flame and halcyon against the wash of the English sky.” The result is immersive: You can lose yourself in these sentences.
As I write this review, the coronavirus spread has officially been declared a pandemic, and those who can are advised to remain home as much as possible. How lucky we are, then, that Hilary Mantel has at last finished her epic, rendering us a gift for this long time alone and indoors. The Wolf Hall trilogy is thousands of pages long. When you can’t leave your house, go get lost in these books instead.