This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch discuss the riots engulfing France and whether the country's increasingly unsustainable welfare state has made it ungovernable. They examine competing claims that immigration and austerity are fueling the unrest, the political gains being made by the French right, and why even modest pension reforms provoke fierce resistance.

The conversation turns to the United States, where President Donald Trump's tariffs are losing support among blue-collar voters and Republicans are struggling in traditionally conservative areas like Ohio. The panelists then discuss the abrupt departure of White House press secretary Katie Zacharia after just five days on the job. Later, they examine Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D–Mass.) opposition to a proposed $45 billion merger involving McCormick and Unilever. Finally, a listener asks why libertarians don't follow the Democratic Socialists of America's example by trying to reshape the Republican Party from within.

0:00—France's riots and the imploding welfare state
21:29—Trump's tariffs lose support among blue-collar voters.
29:41—Zacharia's tenure as White House press secretary
35:45—Listener question on libertarian influence strategy
45:52—Warren's corporate merger opposition
57:07—Weekly cultural recommendations

Upcoming Reason Events

Reason Versus - Authoritarianism Is a Right-Wing Problem, November 10

Mentioned in the Podcast:

"France Burns," by Liz Wolfe
"Protesters in France and Spain Are Angry at Government Failure—and Demanding More Government," by Reem Ibrahim
"French Tantrum," by Liz Wolfe
"Yes, Heavy Regulation Hurts the Economy. Just Look at France." by Veronique de Rugy
"Even Blue-Collar Workers Have Turned Against Trump's Unpopular Tariffs," by Eric Boehm
"Ohio's Democrat Momentum," by Liz Wolfe
"Trump Fired Kimberly Guilfoyle for Influence Peddling That Pales Next to His Presidential Profiteering," by Jacob Sullum
"Why populism leads to decline," by Nick Gillespie
"How Third Parties Die," by Jesse Walker
"How GOP Fiscal Sanity Died, in 7 Easy Steps," by Matt Welch
"Be Prepared for Elizabeth Warren's Reign of Economic Error," by Nick Gillespie
"Elizabeth Warren Wants the Government To Investigate America's 'Sandwich Shop Monopoly,'" by Christian Britschgi
"The Elizabeth Holmes Documentary You Can See Everything Is an Act of Radical Empathy," by Peter Suderman
"Thank Dutch Merchants, Not a Strong State, for Capitalism," by Edward Stringham

Today's sponsor:

Cato Innovation Project: Design your own full-time, paid role at Cato. If we fund your idea, you spend two years executing it. Apply here: cato.org/reason

The post France's Welfare State Is Finally Imploding appeared first on Reason Magazine.

We all know Elizabeth Holmes is a villain. 

She promised a radical new technology—bloodwork performed in a countertop-sized machine from a single droplet taken from your finger. She was young, photogenic, and self-possessed; she dressed like Steve Jobs. Her invention would disrupt the $60 billion bloodwork industry, bringing cheap, frictionless health monitoring to the masses. Or it would have, if it worked. Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors of nearly $500 million; she's currently serving an 11-year prison sentence. Holmes has been written about extensively, and her story was turned into an Emmy-winning Hulu series starring Amanda Seyfried. She is an avatar of Big Tech mendacity, a cautionary tale as much as a person.

Everyone knows the story. You would think there is nothing left to say. But you'd be wrong. 

Just before she entered prison, Holmes invited documentarians Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim to live with her, her boyfriend Billy Evans, and their two young children in their beachfront San Diego rental unit, promising them full access, complete transparency. The result is this year's most entrancing documentary, You Can See Everything. When the camera captures Billy in the shower, the movie delivers on its titular promise; you, uh, really can see everything. 

Yet what you cannot see is who Holmes really is. The mystery of the era's most famous fraudster is the movie's central riddle: Is she cynical, calculating, a stone-cold liar and psychopath? Or is she something stranger—a damaged and delicate person who genuinely believes her lies, or at the very least, genuinely believes the stories she tells herself to justify those lies after the fact?

Fielder and Holmes seem uncertain themselves; the movie is, in part, their own attempt to wrestle with their own ambivalence, their own inability to come to a conclusion. It's a hall of mirrors about the infinite unknowability of a person, even given unfettered access. 

The documentarians do not absolve her of her villainy; the movie is not an attempt to excuse her fraud or build a case for her innocence. But they offer something exceptionally rare in this era of simplistic hero and villain narratives: genuine and deeply felt empathy for someone on whom the culture (not to mention the legal system) has cast final judgment. In the process, they have given us one of the strangest, most unsettling, and most poignant films of the year. You Can See Everything is a small miracle of a movie. 

It's sometimes said that the most compelling villains don't believe themselves to be villains. They have an internally coherent story to tell that excuses their actions, makes them the heroes in their own minds. Fielder and Oppenheim have given Holmes, and viewers, the gift of allowing Holmes a measure of psychological complexity. You don't see into her mind, because that's impossible. But you see that the story she tells herself is different from the story the world tells us about her. It's surprisingly kind and generous; it's also tricky as hell—to the point where you, the viewer, might wonder if you're the one being tricked. 

Halfway through, the movie takes a meta-turn that I won't spoil, entering into high-concept territory in an attempt to more deeply explore what art and images can reveal about a human psyche. It's formally audacious, often funny, and actually justifies the three-hour running time. I've never seen anything quite like it.  

The exercise left me just as unsettled as the documentarians seem to be themselves; uncertain about Holmes and her motives, and nearly as uncertain about Fielder and Oppenheim, two talented filmmakers who appear to be questioning not only the nature of their chosen form, but of reality, especially psychological reality, themselves. There are times when You Can See Everything borders on magical realism, except the magic comes from the complexity of human nature and storytelling, as if Gabriel García Márquez had written a story about a man with a camera that could see into souls. It's dizzying, dazzling, a sort of postmodern Rashomon of perspective shifting.

As I left the theater, in something of a daze, I found myself thinking of a line from the great Saul Bellow novel The Adventures of Augie March, "Nobody should be a mystery intentionally. Unintentionally is mysterious enough." In the case of Holmes, it's impossible to tell which it is. All we can say is this supposedly one-note Big Tech villain, like perhaps everyone, is better understood as some kind of mystery, even to herself. 

The post The Elizabeth Holmes Documentary <i>You Can See Everything</i> Is an Act of Radical Empathy appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Social Reckoning, Aaron Sorkin's latest jab at Big Tech, is conceived as a political and social prosecution of Facebook.

The social network and its owner, Mark Zuckerberg, in the movie's view, are responsible for the spread of misinformation, the decline of journalism, the polarization of the electorate, and the radicalization of specific individuals who go on to commit heinous acts of anti-democratic violence. In its final moments, the film strongly implies that Facebook and its engagement-boosting algorithms are directly responsible for the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Donald Trump, the election-losing president whose incendiary speech and repeated falsehoods about the results of the 2020 election preceded the riot, is never named in the movie. In a movie that positions itself as bold and brave, it's an omission of stunning, and revealing, cowardice. 

To bring Trump into the picture would have complicated Sorkin's just-so story, in which Facebook's refusal to fact-check political ads and decision to boost engagement through a change in its recommendation algorithm are the central, and, at least within the movie's narrow frame, even sole cause of all that ails American democracy. Sorkin's story has no room for nuance or ambiguity, no interest in the larger political-social dynamics at work in the late 2010s and early 2020s, no time for disconfirming data that violates his narrative. He has found a pure villain in Facebook's founder, and that's the only story he wants to tell. 

Like so many of Sorkin's films, The Social Reckoning is structured around what amounts to a trial, in this case a mock congressional hearing set up for Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, in advance of an appearance on Capitol Hill. The action inside that room is informed by a larger story that revolves around Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz's (played by Jeremy Allen White) quest to understand and uncover documentation that led to his award-winning investigative series, The Facebook Files. Horwitz works with Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook engineer who has concerns about the company's practices and begins leaking information in hopes of causing internal change. She's an anxious, socially awkward recluse; he's a tech-ignorant reporter who ended up on the Big Tech beat. The pairing allows Sorkin to build scene after scene of exposition and explanation, in which Haugen details various Facebook technical decisions believed to have dire social consequences. 

Most notable among these is an algorithmic switch to something called "MSI," or "meaningful social interactions." Essentially, the network prioritized depth of engagement over simple likes, leading to a boost in usage, as well as an increase in exposure to radical groups and content. The movie poses as a sophisticated journalistic explainer, but its core argument is quite simple: Facebook changed its algorithm in a way that benefited the company but harmed society by pushing content from hate groups and other disreputable types. That, in turn, led to January 6. Case closed. 

But what if the case isn't so simple? In these pages, Elizabeth Nolan Brown has outlined the many ways in which social media algorithms, especially on Facebook, have been unjustly maligned: Instead of causing polarization by locking people into narrow political bubbles, they can offer greater exposure to opposing views and even promote democratic virtues. The supposed negative effects of tech on children are, at minimum, disputed and in most cases probably overstated; some studies suggest that tech can enhance youth mental health. It's notable that Sorkin's story uses the violent calamity of January 6—a truly dark day for America—as his climactic argument. He can't use the election of 2020, because that election was won by Joe Biden. So he falls back to the ugliness of the riot, while ignoring Donald Trump. 

The movie is framed in personal terms via the story of one woman's radicalization. The woman—rich, white, entitled, casually racist during a drunken encounter with cops that she films and posts on social media—turns out to be a friend of Haugen's, which is what drives her to go public about her employer. Sorkin uses the woman as a symbol of all that Facebook has done wrong; she's a consequence of Zuckerberg's disregard for democracy and truth.  

But in real life, Haugen's never-named radicalized friend was a man, not a woman, who became obsessed with conspiratorial notions about politics, not a racist social-media troll. Sorkin's film is fiction, a dramatic retelling of events rather than a just-the-facts journalistic account, so it doesn't quite need to be held to the same standard. But it's notable that he has to massage the details in order to make his point. Perhaps he's doing so in service of a deeper truth. But that deeper truth isn't strictly true. 

Humans are messy and complicated, and so is democracy. But Sorkin can't handle those complications. Instead, he delivers a smug, simplistic narrative that traffics in borderline misinformation while pretending to crusade for the truth. Maybe what we really need is a reckoning with Aaron Sorkin. 

The post Aaron Sorkin's New Anti-Facebook Movie Is a Stunning Act of Self-Satisfied Cowardice appeared first on Reason Magazine.

This week, editors Peter Suderman,  Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie are joined by reporter Reem Ibrahim to discuss Vice President J.D. Vance's bizarre definition of socialism. They examine whether Vance genuinely believes what he's saying or is attempting to redefine socialism to avoid acknowledging the Trump administration's own big-government policies.

Next, the panel discusses America's growing $2 trillion deficit, the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare, and the generational divide between older Americans receiving government benefits and younger workers paying for them. The editors also examine youth protests in France, where students are demanding improvements to public schools despite the country's already extensive government spending. They then discuss allegations that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle offered political access in exchange for help paying off personal credit card debt and what the controversy reveals about government corruption. Finally, a listener asks about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's plan to publicly broadcast an execution and whether turning capital punishment into a spectacle could encourage extremism.

0:00—Vance rebrands socialism.

08:48—Largest budget deficit ever

25:50—Youth protests in France

38:15—Listener question on public executions

46:25—Guilfoyle's corruption scandal

56:20—Weekly cultural recommendations

Upcoming Reason Events

The World Premiere of Escaping Venezuela, October 13

Mentioned in the podcast:

"J.D. Vance Accidentally Comes Out as a Socialist," by Billy Binion

"Trump Has Been Trampling Free Speech for More Than 40 Years—and It Keeps Getting Worse," by Jacob Sullum

"Protesters in France and Spain Are Angry at Government Failure—and Demanding More Government," by Reem Ibrahim

"The Great British Exodus: Taxes, Housing Costs, and Terrible Healthcare Are Driving Young Brits Away," by Reem Ibrahim

"The Federal Government Just Posted the Largest Annual Budget Deficit Since COVID," by Eric Boehm

"Livestreaming an Execution," by Liz Wolfe

"Kimberly Guilfoyle's Grift Is at Least as Offensive as Hunter Biden's," by Robby Soave

The post J.D. Vance Is Playing Dumb About Socialism appeared first on Reason Magazine.