Coming Soon: A New Season of ‘Autocracy in America'
The former world chess champion and lifelong democracy activist Garry Kasparov guides a new series of conversations about society's complacency with liberal values and how this carelessness has fueled a democratic retreat—and a new belligerence among dictators.
New episodes launch every Friday, starting July 11.
The following is a transcript of the trailer:
Frank Luntz: I know you're gonna get into some stuff—some pretty heavy stuff—but this is Garry Kasparov. I can't believe it.
[ Music ]
Garry Kasparov: When I was young, I was lucky because, as a chess prodigy, I could travel outside of the Soviet Union to play tournaments abroad. And I experienced for myself that life felt different in a democracy. The world celebrated in 1991, when the dictatorship of the Soviet Union gave way to new democracies. And I, too, hoped freedom was on the rise.
Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen: Of course, the empire did not want to let us go easily.
Kasparov: But in the decades that followed, we've seen the steady advance of autocratic regimes, a new belligerence from dictators and autocrats worldwide, and democracies in retreat.
Masih Alinejad: For dictators, for the Islamic Republic, for Putin, for all the autocratic regime, America is first. Their first target is the destruction of American values.
Kasparov: Even America, a beacon of hope to me and for countless millions of others, has shown itself vulnerable to the virus of authoritarianism and corruption.
Anne Applebaum: If you lie or your propagandists lie nonstop, then the reaction of the public is to say, Right. You know, politics is a dirty game. I have no idea what is true and what's not true.
Gary Marcus: I mean, that's exactly what's happening in the United States right now—is techno fascism.
Alinejad: You called it hypocrisy.
Kasparov: I'm trying to be diplomatic. I'm the host of the show.
Alinejad: I call it absolutely betrayal.
Kasparov: So I'm fighting the same battle I fought in Russia.
Kasparov: In Russia, we lost the fight. Here, I like our chances, and I like them much more.
Bret Stephens: I mean, this country is big, resilient. And we've made big mistakes and recovered from those mistakes in the past.
Kasparov: But defenders of the free world can no longer take our liberties for granted.
Luntz: You, several times, have tried to get me to tell you, Here's a roadmap to restore our democracy. And you should know, I'm writing that roadmap as we speak.
Kasparov: I'm Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and lifetime activist for democracy. Join me this summer for a new season of Autocracy in America, from The Atlantic. Listen and follow the show wherever you get your podcasts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
I'm Oppenheimer's grandson. We can still go from crisis to conversation on Iran.
Dialogue alone won't solve the problem. But it's where every solution begins. It also allows us to talk about the hopeful side of nuclear science. So I'm proposing something unconventional. The war in Iran has been terrifying. It pushed the threat of nuclear weapons back to the forefront of global consciousness. And yet – somehow – we've made it through this conflict in better shape than many feared, assuming the ceasefire holds. We now have an unexpected opportunity to turn this narrow escape into something bigger: a chance to expand global peace and security. Like many, I have serious criticisms of how we got here. A nation that has never signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, Israel, used its undeclared nuclear status as leverage to launch a war against a country, Iran, that has no nuclear weapons and has submitted to international inspections. This directly sabotaged promising diplomatic efforts between Iran and America. When the United States entered the conflict with a military strike June 21, Americans braced for another endless war in the Middle East. And yet, remarkably, we've arrived at a ceasefire. That outcome wasn't inevitable. It required restraint from Tehran and surprising restraint from Washington. Credit must be given where it's due: President Donald Trump played a central role in stopping the escalation, using his signature unconventional diplomacy. That success offers a model ‒ if we're willing to learn from it. Lesson 1: Stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons fuel Since the first atomic breakthrough, one truth has remained: Safety in the nuclear age requires cooperation ‒ even with adversaries. Nuclear science is not a secret that can be kept, it's a fact of nature. From J. Robert Oppenheimer onward, scientists knew the only real safeguard was shared control of enriched uranium that can be used for bombs. We need more cooperation to prevent nuclear proliferation ‒ not just in Iran, but everywhere. Gen. Wesley Clark: This is the moment for American leadership in Middle East. We can't miss it. Lesson 2: Strengthen the institutions that have kept us alive The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is more than a piece of paper. It is the backbone of the global nuclear order. It has slowed the spread of weapons, legitimized peaceful nuclear energy and built mechanisms for trust. The International Atomic Energy Agency ‒ through science and diplomacy, not force ‒ upholds this system. We must double down on supporting countries that respect these rules and hold accountable those, like Israel and North Korea, that operate outside them. The real nuclear threat before us The dangerous gamble to start a war in order to stop a single weapon from being developed must not become the global standard. Because the far greater danger isn't Iran or any one rogue nation ‒ it's a nuclear exchange between superpowers. That remains the true and growing risk, and it could even happen by accident. A false alarm, a cyberattack or a miscommunication could trigger an unstoppable chain reaction. Once missiles fly among the United States, Russia and China, no leader or even unconventional diplomacy can stop it. There won't be time. Opinion: Our nuclear weapons are much more powerful than Oppenheimer's atomic bomb So what can we do? We build on what has worked. Trump's success in brokering a ceasefire should now be expanded ‒ first to end the Gaza conflict, and then to revive stalled denuclearization dialogue. Trump has previously called for nuclear talks among America, China and Russia. That is exactly the right idea ‒ and this could be the moment. Charles Oppenheimer: I support President Trump's pursuit of nuclear diplomacy Some will call that impossible. They'll point to rising tensions, trade wars, proxy conflicts. They'll say the moment isn't right. But history teaches the opposite: It is precisely in moments of danger that real diplomacy must begin. Waiting for peace before negotiating peace is a contradiction. This is a time for bold action – of the Nobel Peace Prize variety – if done right. We are still living under a nuclear arms strategy called mutual assured destruction. Even its acronym ‒ MAD ‒ tells us how unsustainable it is. The threat is too vast, too fast and too complex for any one nation or leader to control. Most of us, as individuals, feel powerless in the face of such a system. But we're not without agency. Some people do have real influence, and that includes the leaders of the United States, China and Russia. They cannot be expected to make unilateral concessions, but they can be expected to sit down and talk. I'm not president. But I'm doing what I can ‒ using the name and ideas of my grandfather J. Robert Oppenheimer to push for a safer future. So I'm proposing something unconventional: an 'Oppenheimer Dinner,' inviting representatives from Washington, Beijing and Moscow to a private, off-the-record dialogue about how to reduce the risk of real nuclear war ‒ and discuss the positive side of nuclear energy. Dialogue alone won't solve the problem. But it's where every solution begins. It also allows us to talk about the hopeful side of nuclear science. The same technology that could destroy civilization can also power it, giving us clean energy, medical breakthroughs and global prosperity. It's up to us to choose which future we want ‒ and there is no time like the present. 'We can have each other to dinner. We ourselves, and with each other by our converse, can create not an architecture of global scope, but an immense, intricate network of intimacy, illumination, and understanding.' — J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1958 Charles Oppenheimer is the founder and co-executive director of the Oppenheimer Project. He is the grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during the Manhattan Project.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Voters Are Losing Faith With Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Once the cornerstone of his political strength, President Donald Trump's base is showing signs of erosion. The latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted June 20-23 among 1,590 adults, shows that Trump's approval rating among those who voted for him in 2024 stands at 83 percent, while 14 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of +69 points, down from +80 last month. The poll had a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. Alex Brandon/AP Last month's poll was conducted before Trump carried out airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel was agreed to the same day, though tensions remain high. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have since accused Iran of violating the ceasefire and threatened to strike Tehran in response—an accusation Tehran denies. The rapid escalation has spotlighted the risks of deeper U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and highlighted the evolving nature of American foreign policy under Trump, who once promised to protect "America's vital interests" without engaging in "endless wars" overseas. The strikes appear to have triggered a shift in public attitudes—even among Republicans—with polls showing signs of declining support for Trump's agenda. Additional data from the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted June 21–23 among 1,139 respondents, reinforces the trend: 84 percent of Republicans said they approve of the president's job performance, down from 90 percent last month. The latest poll had a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points. Political analysts say Trump's declining approval ratings are tied to a growing disconnect between his actions and voter priorities—particularly after his recent military intervention in Iran. Thomas Gift, founding director of the University College London Centre on U.S. Politics, told Newsweek Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities has unsettled many in the MAGA movement who expected him to avoid foreign entanglements. "Trump's recent actions in Iran have done little to reassure the MAGA base that he'll steer clear of another endless war in the Middle East," Gift said, noting that even former chief strategist Steve Bannon has warned the conflict could escalate into "U.S. boots on the ground." Gift added that a core tenet of Trump's 2024 message was that "'America First' meant staying out of foreign conflicts," but now "that promise is starting to ring hollow." Peter Loge, a political communications professor at George Washington University and former Obama advisor, told Newsweek Trump's approval ratings are falling for broader reasons as well. "Trump's numbers are down because that's how public opinion works," Loge said. "He is pursuing policies people don't like, while ignoring things people care about." He pointed to "thermostatic politics"—the idea that voters often react against the party in power, even when it does what they asked for—as a key factor. "Trump started in a weak position with a lot of soft support," Loge explained. "That he is getting less popular is unsurprising." Loge added that many of Trump's headline policies—such as sending troops into American cities or escalating military conflicts abroad—don't match what most voters are asking for. "Most voters mostly want things to work," he said. "They want to be able to afford gas and groceries, pay their medical bills, and know their kids have a shot at a good future." Instead, Trump's agenda—threatening Medicaid, risking inflation with tariffs, and engaging in costly foreign conflicts—"either ignores what most voters care about, or threatens to make those things worse." "President Trump likes people to pay attention to Donald Trump," Loge said. "Voters would rather pay attention to their families." It comes as polls show that a majority of Americans do not approve of U.S. airstrikes in Iran. The YouGov/Economist poll found just 29 percent think the U.S. should be carrying the strikes, while 46 percent said it should not. The Washington Post found modestly higher support for the U.S. military bombing Iran. In a poll, 25 percent of adults supported "the U.S. military launching airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program," while 45 percent were opposed. The poll also found that 82 percent of Americans were either "somewhat" or "very" concerned about getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran. Analysis by pollster G. Elliott Morris showed that 21 percent of Americans said last week that they supported U.S. involvement in Iran, while 57 percent opposed. And it seems that Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities has exposed deep divisions within the party. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky called Trump's move unconstitutional. "This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie posted on X, formerly Twitter. Far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a Trump ally, struck a cautious tone after the bombing, posting on X: "Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East." But just 30 minutes before the announcement of the airstrikes, Greene voiced frustration: "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war... Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer." Former Trump adviser and War Room podcast host Steve Bannon was even more direct in his criticism, blasting the president for publicly thanking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the operation. "It hasn't been lost... that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank," Bannon said. Bannon, who has long opposed U.S. military involvement in Iran, questioned Trump's reliance on intelligence reportedly provided by Israel, rather than U.S. sources. "I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck," he said, and described Trump's post-strike remarks as "very open-ended," adding: "I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of MAGA wanted to hear." While Bannon insisted that "the MAGA movement will back Trump," he noted growing discomfort with the president's increasingly hawkish posture, recalling that opposition to "forever wars" was a defining issue in Trump's 2016 campaign. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars," Bannon told an audience in Washington days before the strike. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, also appeared to diverge from the president. Trump recently criticized the intelligence community's assessment that Iran had not taken the political decision to build a nuclear bomb, saying they were "wrong." Gabbard has denied any serious disagreement. Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing influencer, warned ahead of the strikes that Trump risked alienating his base. "Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war," he said. But after the strikes, Kirk appeared to soften, reposting a clip of Vice President JD Vance praising the pilots involved. "They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine... Whatever our politics, we should be proud," Vance said. Nonetheless, polls suggest that Trump's MAGA base is largely supportive of the strikes. A recent J.L. Partners poll showed that support for U.S. military action against Iran is strongest among Trump's most devoted base. Two-thirds of self-identified "MAGA Republicans" (65 percent) back U.S. strikes, far surpassing support among "Traditional Republicans" (51 percent). Most Republican voters also view Israel's war with Iran as a shared American cause, with 63 percent saying "Israel's war is America's war"—a figure that rises to 67 percent among MAGA Republicans. And a new Washington Post/George Mason University survey finds Republican support for a strike rising from 47 percent to 77 percent. For comparison, political independents moved 10 points in Trump's direction, and Democrats stayed put. For pollster G Elliott Morris, there is a simple explanation for this. "Many Republicans do not hold isolationism as a value above their partisanship," he wrote in a blog post. "When push comes to shove, party loyalty and following the leader override some abstract commitment to staying out of foreign conflicts. If Trump decides that the MAGA movement should abandon isolationism altogether and invade Iran, then a large chunk of the movement will follow suit. The speed and scale of the shift in Republican opinion after Trump's decision to bomb Iran is a textbook example of this." He continued: "Of course, partisanship is not just a Republican phenomenon, but Trump's gravitational pull on opinion is unlike the force wielded by any other politician." Aaron Evans, president of Winning Republican Strategies, summed up why Republicans support Trump's actions in Iran. "Americans know President Trump did exactly what he promised: he stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons without dragging us into another endless war," Evans told Newsweek. "While Democrats rushed to scream 'World War III,' Trump exposed their weakness and lack of seriousness on foreign policy. He showed strength, poise, and strategic discipline—doing what others only talk about: keeping nukes out of the hands of a terror regime while securing peace through strength. The media can spin, but voters see the truth. President Trump acted with precision, avoided war, and protected American lives. He's a man of action, not talk—and that's exactly why his base remains strong." However, the most recent YouGov/Economist poll found that only 47 percent of Trump 2024 voters think the U.S. should take active part in world affairs, while 37 percent disagreed and 19 percent said they are not sure.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Ranked choice voting promised more moderates. It delivered extremists instead.
Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. And voters in the middle suffer the consequences. In one of my first published columns ever, I advocated for ranked choice voting, which was at the time a lesser-known alternative way to conduct elections in which you rank several candidates in order of preference. I have since changed my view. Since then, the idea has grown in popularity, even making its way into New York City's Democratic Party primary election on Tuesday, June 24. Ranked choice made headlines as state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani won that primary. The promise of ranked choice voting producing more moderate candidates has been undermined by extreme candidates. American politics are better off under more traditional voting systems. What is ranked choice voting? Ranked choice voting seeks to solve the issue of strategic voting ‒ when voters cast their ballot not for their top choice in a crowded field, but rather their preference between one of the two candidates with a high chance of winning. One of the central arguments in favor of ranked choice is that, because people can express their true preferences, it is more likely to produce more moderate candidates. However, in practice, it rarely accomplishes this goal. Take New York's mayoral primary race, for example. The city's ranked choice system led to the election of Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as the Democratic nominee to be the next mayor, giving him the inside track at the job. Now, part of that issue is candidate quality. Mamdani's opponent was Andrew Cuomo, who is best known for resigning the New York governorship in disgrace in 2021 due to numerous sexual harassment claims and mismanagement of COVID-19. But that dilemma goes even further to the point of ranked choice voting not producing better outcomes than an ordinary ballot system. The New York election is not the sole arbiter of this system's effectiveness, however. Other municipalities that have adopted ranked choice have seen more extreme candidates prevail. Researchers have found that 'as an electorate grows more polarized, candidates located at the median are less likely to be elected under IRV (another term for ranked choice voting) because they simply are not the first choice of enough voters.' In our polarized political environment, ranked choice voting may make matters even worse by favoring more extreme candidates, thus widening the partisan divide in races. Ranked choice voting weakens political parties One fact that many in the news media are reluctant to admit (but may agree with privately) is that voters are extraordinarily bad at selecting good candidates. This is why America is better off with strong political parties. Strong political parties, with more influence over who their nominees are, limit the extent to which voters can influence a party to nominate a candidate outside of the mainstream opinion. Political parties have grown weaker in recent years as populist movements in both parties grow, and the result is a rise in extreme candidates in response to American political polarization. More extreme candidates acting outside the structure of parties is a major reason for this. Ranked choice voting reduces the amount of sway that a political party has over its nominee. Ordinarily, in a primary election, there is a uniform sequence of dropouts that build coalitions among two and three candidates by the time Election Day rolls around. This typical procession gives parties plenty of opportunities to interject their preferences into the race, and to help boost their preferred candidate. Still, the existence of a primary system in the first place entails that, from time to time, the voters will override the preferences of the internal party structure, such as Donald Trump's initial nomination in the 2016 presidential election. That problem has worsened as activists have captured the primary system to promote their candidates, rather than those of the median partisan. Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. These activists are only further likely to produce more extreme candidates, and the voters in the middle suffer the consequences. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
