Show Notes
1. The data centers that power artificial intelligence are being built at a rampant pace, and are spurring resistance all over the country. Apart from public concerns about A.I.’s impact on jobs, privacy, and other aspects of life, data centers consume vast amounts of electricity and water. New York has passed a moratorium on new data centers; fourteen other states have considered restrictions. The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is taking this fight to the national level. He and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have introduced legislation that calls for a nationwide moratorium on data centers to allow time for more research and public input on the issue. The furor, Sanders tells David Remnick, cuts across political divisions. The opponents “are conservatives, they are progressives, they are moderates,” he adds. “They’re saying, What the hell are we doing? What is this gonna contribute to? Is this gonna result in my kid not being able to have a job? Is this gonna result in my not having any privacy? Why am I aiding these large corporations owned by the wealthiest people in the world who [couldn’t] care less about me? Let’s stand up.”
2. Since a famous case against a California utility, the name Erin Brockovich has become synonymous with a fighter taking on big polluters. Earlier this year, Brockovich began receiving e-mails from people worried about the construction of A.I. data centers, which is happening at a frenetic rate all over the country. People expressed concerns about the loss of farmland and natural areas; disruptions to the water table; deleterious noise; and substantial usage of electricity and water, leading to rising utility bills. She speaks with David Remnick about her mapping project to document data-center construction and environmental complaints. “In my thirty years,” she tells Remnick, “I’ve never really seen the people show up like they are at a very local level.”
The Political Scene draws on the reporting and analysis found in The New Yorker for lively conversations about the big questions in American politics. Join the magazine’s writers and editors as they put into context the latest news—about elections, the economy, the White House, the Supreme Court, and much more. New episodes are available three times a week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
More from The Political Scene | The New Yorker
A growing portion of the electorate appears to recognize the mayhem President Donald Trump has instigated since returning to the Oval Office. That segment includes some of the people who put him back into office, including Rich Baris, who goes by the People’s Pundit on social media. Baris runs Big Data Poll, and appears regularly on “The Charlie Kirk Show” and other right-wing outlets. But he concurs with nonpartisan pollsters that MAGA is fracturing, and he talks with David Remnick about how the President lost the trust of his base; the contempt MAGA voters have for the old Republican Party; and who might take the reins after Trump.
The Washington Roundtable is joined by Alex Gibney, the Oscar-winning filmmaker, to discuss his new documentary, “Musk.” Since July, Elon Musk has poured more than a quarter of a billion dollars into Republican campaigns, more than any other donor in the midterms by a wide margin, and all in plain view. Jane Mayer, the New Yorker staff writer and the author of “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” explains how Musk is bringing political financing by the ultra-wealthy out of the shadows: “He’s the coming-out party for the billionaires.” Gibney argues that Musk’s flagrant spending is less a matter of ideology than one of self-preservation—a way to forestall investigations, protect his companies, and keep the federal contracts coming. How did a single person come to wield this kind of power over our elections, our technology, and even a war on the other side of the world? “He sold us all a dream,” Gibney says, “and we fell for it.”
The New Yorker staff writers Isaac Chotiner and Benjamin Wallace-Wells join Tyler Foggatt to discuss what Democrats might do after the midterms if they win a majority in the House or the Senate, and how Donald Trump might respond to attempts to check his power. If Trump has been willing to circumvent Congress on issues like military action and tariffs, how much difference would a Democratic majority make during the remainder of his second term? They also talk about how large a Democratic victory could be, and ask what the results might reveal about voters’ views of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
The economic punishment and threats of aggression that Donald Trump has launched against Canada are so severe that its government has looked at how to prepare for U.S. military action. David Remnick sits down with a former senior Canadian politician, Chrystia Freeland, to talk about the disintegration of a rock-solid partnership. Freeland served as the Deputy Prime Minister under Justin Trudeau, and has also held the roles of Minister of International Trade and Minister of Foreign Affairs; she helped negotiate a trade deal in Trump’s first term, which he subsequently broke. Freeland’s new book about the U.S.-Canada relationship is called “Unreliable Boyfriend,” but that title may soft-pedal it. “The vast majority of Canadians see this as a rupture” that will be permanent, she tells Remnick. “They think America is toxic and broken and can never be trusted again. . . . I actually am an outlier, because I think we shouldn’t write America off quite yet.”
The Washington Roundtable weighs in on how Donald Trump’s rampant corruption will play out at the polls. Although conventional wisdom in Washington suggests that graft doesn’t move voters, Democrats have nonetheless spent more than three hundred million dollars on ads that portray the President’s self-enrichment as a tax on everyone else. They are joined by a former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter, who discusses what, if anything, can be done about corruption in the federal government, and why criminal prosecution may not be the most effective tool to combat it. Slaughter argues that officials must find ways to make corruption costly for those who engage in it. And though few Americans expect the powerful to face consequences, Slaughter says, “the only way to change that impression . . . is to start making people pay.”