Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with "Women in Power" Author and Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow for Women and Foreign Policy Linda Robinson; Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Jia Tolentino; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Idrees Kahloon. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 06, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the Strait of Hormuz, Axios is reporting that you might open as soon as tomorrow?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Could happen. Tomorrow or the next day. A lot of progress has been made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But Iran says it still needs guarantees from the U.S. As they negotiate with Oman, where does that leave the conflict? And is a deal
actually close?
And how women can lead the fight against authoritarianism. Journalist Linda Robinson joins me on her new book spotlighting the female leaders on the
front lines of the fight for democracy.
Then, the rise of plastic surgery and why we should be worried. I speak to the New Yorker's Jia Tolentino about the beauty standards changing our
psyche.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IDREES KAHLOON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: It's not about ending capitalism as we know it, but it is about socializing the cost of
consumption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The Consumer Socialism Trap." Journalist Idrees Kahloon examines New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's affordability agenda.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Once again, confusion reigns over the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump promised again this week the vital shipping lane will open, quote, "very
soon." Take from that what you will. The problem is the U.S. is not negotiating directly with Iran. Tehran is speaking to Oman and says that a
deal on the strait is close. But that agreement would not automatically reopen the strait. First, they want the U.S. to meet certain guarantees.
Let's go to our correspondent in the region for more on this. Jeremy Diamond is joining me from Tel Aviv. So, Jeremy, Iran says that they are
close to reaching a deal with Oman. What are these guarantees that they're demanding from the White House before that happens?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, it seems like these negotiations between Iran and Oman are really going to change the pre-war
status quo as it relates to the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, so much so that you're now having maritime shipping groups warning that any potential
imposition of tolls and fees going forward, particularly if it was agreed to by not only Iran, but Oman as well, and perhaps even some international
U.N.-related organizations, then that could really create a very dangerous status quo, not only for the Strait of Hormuz, but potentially for other
shipping lanes around the world.
But the real question now is whether or not this potential deal that could emerge over the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, whether it will be
something that will be acceptable enough to the United States that President Trump can come out and proclaim that the Strait of Hormuz is open
once again, even if it is in a very different way than it was pre-war, but that that effectively allows both of these sides to go back to the
ceasefire that had previously been agreed to and then proceed with negotiations on the many other points, including obviously the nuclear
point, that ultimately needs to be negotiated between the United States and Iran.
But it's also important to note that the Iranians said even a deal with Oman over the Strait of Hormuz won't necessarily be enough to get that
shipping lane back open. Iran has said that the United States must also end its naval blockade on Iranian ports and remove sanctions that had been
reimposed after the ceasefire began to fall apart.
So, a lot of complicating factors here, including obviously the fact that it doesn't seem like the U.S. and Iran are actually speaking to each other
right now, despite some of what President Trump and other American officials have suggested, but a very complex situation, one where we're
starting to see a potential off-ramp that's presenting itself, but again, one that could really change the status quo for a long time to come.
GOLODRYGA: Regardless of where things land, Iran clearly wants to ratify control over the Strait of Hormuz, and that's something that they didn't
have control over February 27th before this war began.
Jeremy, let me ask you about another point of contention there, and that is the fragile state of talks between Israel and Lebanon. They were scheduled
to happen in Rome, but over the last 24 hours, Israel conducted an operation in Lebanon saying that they were targeting Hezbollah. The result
was that two Israeli soldiers were killed.
[13:05:00]
Where do things stand at this point? Are these talks ongoing in Rome at this point?
DIAMOND: Well, yesterday it seems like they did get derailed by events on the ground in Lebanon. Today, those negotiations appear to be back on
between Israeli and Lebanese government officials, an indication of the political will perhaps on both sides to actually move forward with these
negotiations, also, of course, of the U.S. pressure being brought to bear on the Israeli government to pursue this negotiating track.
What happened yesterday is that the Israeli military said that two of its soldiers were killed, four were seriously wounded when they entered what
the military described as a booby-trapped building, an improvised explosive device going off. Not clear when that explosive device was actually placed
in that building, but Israel called it a, quote, "blatant violation" of the ceasefire and proceeded to carry out strikes on the Lebanese city of Tyre
and several other villages in southern Lebanon. At least eight people have been wounded by those strikes, according to Lebanon's news agency.
But the talks appear to be back on track today. Again, important to note that Hezbollah is not part of these negotiations, and they have disavowed
them completely, in fact. What these negotiations have produced so far are a few pilot zones in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli military has
withdrawn from a couple of villages in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese military has then gone in, and the goal is that they would hold those areas
and prevent Hezbollah from re-entrenching themselves there.
Lebanon is trying to get additional areas to be included as part of this pilot program. Israel wants to see proof that Lebanon is actually effective
at keeping Hezbollah out of these areas. That's the primary issue being negotiated right now. No indication as of yet of whether or not there is
progress there, but certainly the talks are back on track at least.
GOLODRYGA: Somewhat reassuring. Jeremy Diamond from Tel Aviv, thank you so much.
Well, there is no denying that authoritarianism is growing, and with the rise of strongmen comes a surge in misogyny. Our next guest argues that
attacks on women and attacks on democracy are deeply intertwined. But there are leaders fighting back, from Taiwan to Eastern Europe to Barbados. In
her new book, "Women in Power," foreign policy scholar Linda Robinson profiles the female leaders fighting for democracy, and she joins me from
Washington.
A very thoughtful and interesting argument you're making in this book, Linda. Welcome to the program. And you met with, we should note in writing
this book, and profiled a number of very, very influential female world leaders.
But let's start with the central claim of this book, and that is the decline of democracy has coincided with stalling gains for women leaders
around the world. And you're saying that's not a coincidence, but rather a feature of autocratic leadership. That's quite a provocative thesis. What
led you to it?
LINDA ROBINSON, AUTHOR, "WOMEN IN POWER" AND SENIOR FELLOW FOR WOMEN AND FOREIGN POLICY, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, thank you, Bianna. I'm
delighted to be with you. And let me just explain very briefly that more countries today are authoritarian than democratic, and this trend has been
ongoing, and part of it is a decline in representation and rights. So, they are intrinsically linked.
I'll just mention what's happening to women's leadership. In parliaments around the world, their share has stalled at 27 percent. They're half of
the population, so that's far below parity. It's even worse in the case of women presidents and prime ministers, where their numbers have dropped.
There are only 25 of them in the world today. And the number of women in cabinet positions has also dropped.
So, the reason I argue these are connected is part of this authoritarian wave actually has an explicitly anti-woman narrative to it. They seek
really to embrace the idea of women going back to home, to the home, concentrating on family. There is a very strong normalization of violent
and punitive measures against women, including the denial of the right to vote for women, that it should be the male head of household. So, you see
this coming out in every region of the world, and including in the U.S.
GOLODRYGA: So, let's talk about some of these women who you profile. And let's start with Maia Sandu, not just because I was born in Moldova and
have interviewed Maia a number of times as well. She is very impressive and has overcome quite a few hurdles from next door there in Russia with
Vladimir Putin, whether it's energy blackmail, disinformation campaigns, repeated Russian violations of Moldovan airspace.
In fact, it is the Ukrainian army that's combating Russia now for five years that is also the last line of defense for Moldova. All of this as she
is trying to push through European accession into the E.U. and fight corruption at home. What is she doing that's working?
[13:10:00]
ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you so much. And this is really the flip side of the assault on women in politics. Women are fighting back and women are
fighting not only for themselves, but for democracy. And there's no better case than Maia Sandu. And I do know of your background. I'm happy that I
was able to go to Moldova, travel around, meet with ministers and, of course, spend time with her.
And she's really been, I would say, the preeminent woman leader fighting back against authoritarianism. Russian hybrid warfare, as you mentioned,
has been leveled at her for years. She's won two elections as president. And she's really solidified the defenses of the country by starting the
first cybersecurity agency, passing disinformation laws, cleaning up corruption with judicial reform. And she's also worked against Russia's
efforts to steal the vote through massive fraud and divide the population by working in the Russian-speaking minorities, using the Russian Orthodox
Church. All of these kinds of hybrid warfare tactics.
And she really has prevailed, and she's just opened talks to join the European Union. And that's the ultimate security guarantee for a tiny
country like Moldova. And I think that they're on track by the end of her term, very likely, to win accession to Europe, which she has built ties
with, reoriented trade and energy from Russia over to Europe. So, they're well on the way, though it's by no means a done deal because Russia
continues to attack them.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, a tiny landlocked country there, one of the poorest in Europe. And nonetheless, she perseveres. Another country I'd like to raise
here is Iceland. They have topped global rankings for gender equality for more than a decade. It's produced multiple women leaders across the
political spectrum there.
Earlier this year, Christiane spoke with Iceland's president, Halla Tomasdottir. And here's what she said about this phenomenon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HALLA TOMASDOTTIR, ICELANDIC PRESIDENT: I hope the next phase for us in Iceland will be about bringing boys and men to the table even more
actively. And it's still a fact in the world we live today that over 90 percent of all positions, be it head of states or CEOs or chairmen of
boards, they're still men. So, even if women have made great progress, and in Iceland we certainly have, we have not closed the gender gap anywhere in
the world, and we are very far from a gender balance in leadership the world over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What do you think of her argument that male allyship is so crucial and starting as young as possible is the best avenue?
ROBINSON: Yes. I think this is a very important recent development. And I've been to the Reykjavik Global Forum, which is a wonderful forum where
they're bringing this issue up and trying to bring men around the table because the thing about women's equality and gender equality is it's not a
zero-sum game. It's really about bringing women in rather than who loses. And this is, I think, the need to have male allies to support that goal.
And my hope is that all husbands, fathers, brothers, sons can embrace that for their family members who happen to be female.
I've written many books about war, special forces, and other national security topics. I hope the men who read those books will give this book a
read and see just how important it is to have the women and what they're contributing, not just for women but for their entire societies.
GOLODRYGA: Someone else who you profiled who has also been fighting Russian hybrid warfare, whether it's when she was the first female prime
minister of Estonia and now the E.U.'s top diplomat is Kaja Kallas. She has made a name for herself, not only pushing back against Russian aggression
but also in defense of Ukraine and democracy throughout Europe. But some member states are now proposed to stripping her of some of her foreign
policy powers and are advocating or arguing to handle it themselves directly.
Is what's happening here a case that you are highlighting about gender, I would say, priorities and men wanting to call the shots, or is this a
typical political scuffle amongst leaders?
ROBINSON: Well, I would like to mention her standout role as prime minister of Estonia, but to answer briefly what's going on in her current
role as the foreign policy chief of the European Union, I think they're trying to look for a more streamlined approach as Europe becomes clearly
the leader of the fight for democracy.
And she's been very thoughtful, I think, in her responses that the E.U. can certainly improve its processes. There is some tussle back and forth
between who should be leading on what issues.
[13:15:00]
But she has really led foremost, as you mentioned, in pushing back against Russia's aggression. She led -- when she led Estonia, they were the highest
contributor to Ukraine per GDP. And she also was defending the need for Europe from very early days to coordinate and bolster its defense and fight
for accountability for Russia's war crimes.
So, she has been unrelenting in the need to have a strong defense against aggression. And she's been very clear, partly because the Baltic countries
are on the front line. Her mother and grandmother were both deported to Siberia. And she is, I think, a leader for the next decade. She -- whatever
role she occupies. She speaks her mind.
And I have to say, as a center-right politician, and I looked at leaders across the spectrum, she was adamant when she formed her cabinet that she
would have 50 percent women in the cabinet. She also championed gender equal marriage, the second country in Eastern Europe to do so. So, it shows
that you can be strong on defense, but also for gender equality. There's no contradiction.
GOLODRYGA: What about some of the conservative female leaders that we've seen have prominent roles in foreign policy, not only in their own
countries, but on the global stage? And that's either the new prime minister of Japan, Giorgia Meloni in Italy as well. How do they rank?
ROBINSON: Yes. Well, I think Takaichi Sanae, to take the Japanese first woman prime minister first, she came out right away in defense of Taiwan
against saber-rattling from China. She's been very clear about that as a conservative to help defend the region against Chinese encroachment and
their constant aggression in the region.
Also, she's, I think, not known as a feminist, but she's standing up. She did do a joint press conference with Giorgia Meloni, talking about the need
to have European defense and aid to Ukraine. So, I think you see these leaders forming common cause.
In the case of Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, she's a very interesting character, certainly not a feminist, but she has stood up. She
was attacked by deepfake porn, these ways of delegitimizing world leaders who are women. And she has also, I think, definitively broken with Trump
and his demeaning behavior towards women leaders. So, she's evolved from being a Eurosceptic to being pro-Europe for aid to Ukraine and sanctions on
Russia. So, I think she is a leader in evolution, although you do point out there are right-wing leaders who are women.
And I certainly don't argue in my book that women are all good leaders or all Democrats, but certainly as a proportion of the population, as half of
the population, they have as much governing talent as men do. And I think in many cases they're changemakers who rise up in protest movements and
calls for defeating aggression and corruption.
Changemakers in multiple ways, whether it's having a baby while in office, as was the case with Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, and also when you look
at female leaders speaking out about being groped, something so many women around the world encounter on a daily basis, and something that even
Mexico's new female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, couldn't escape, and she spoke out against that as well.
You close your book with Mia Mottley, and she is the prime minister of Barbados, the first woman to hold that job. She really became a champion of
climate change. How big of a role has she played on that front?
ROBINSON: Thank you so much for raising both those points, because women are much more likely to speak out against unacceptable behavior now than
before, and that is absolutely critical.
Mia Mottley, I close the book with her. I think she's a powerful case of leadership from the global south, and their existential challenge really is
climate change and inadequate and inequitable financing for combating it, and she formed the Bridgetown Initiative, won significant changes in
international financial practices, and helped to reverse the current situation where, in the developing countries, they're a net exporter of
capital rather than receiving financing, and as the front line against climate change, we need to do better.
She has also been a champion of international governance reform at the U.N. and elsewhere, and I think we'll have her voice on the world stage for
quite a while to come.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: So, you cover women, Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean, Europe, a glaring omission, of course, the United States. In the
final closing seconds here, are you more optimistic about the United States electing its first female leader?
ROBINSON: Well, I did have planned a Kamala Harris president chapter, but that did not come to pass. I think that we have women governors of our
states at a higher number than before. There's a very low and dropping percentage of Republican candidates for office in the Congress. That is, I
think, the really severe weakness, and we need a new generation of leaders willing to step up and serve.
I think we'll eventually get there, but the U.S. has always been in the middle of the pack on gender equality, and we have a difficult political
system, first pass the post, win or take all elections. So, we need to look at electoral reform to make our country more representative.
GOLODRYGA: Same goes for the United Nations, we should note, which has never elected a female secretary general either.
ROBINSON: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Linda Robinson, fascinating conversation and book. Really appreciate the time. Thank you.
ROBINSON: Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: So, what does it mean to be beautiful? Well, society has always valued beauty, but in recent years, something has changed. As we gaze into
our phones and the endless scroll of social media, we're inundated with examples of augmented and artificial beauty, setting unrealistic standards.
But how does this impact self-worth? And what does it mean for how we see ourselves and one another?
In her latest essay for The New Yorker, staff writer Jia Tolentino stares into the algorithmic abyss, even as it stares right back at her. And she's
not the only one. She joins me from New York.
Jia, wow, you have written quite the talker here. And I think you speak, albeit much more eloquently in this essay, for so many men and women who
are just stunned by what not only artificial intelligence, but also Instagram and other social media apps have done in this space and how
they've evolved.
And it's important to note that it was seven years ago that you coined Instagram face and asked what would happen when the algorithm started
shaping real faces? Well, this essay is your answer. You write that today's faces are, quote, "more technically beautiful, but more spiritually
unattractive." And you say that everything is hot, but nothing is erotic.
So, what was that moment when you were looking at your phone and put it down and said, I need to write about this?
JIA TOLENTINO, WRITER, THE NEW YORKER STAFF: You know, this is something that this this sense that we have, that the world that is mediated by the
phones is disincentivizes the real and the physical, and that we are sort of surrounded on the phones with increasingly perfected faces, increasingly
perfected everything. And that somehow this feeling of dread and dissociation is rising up within us.
I just -- it was earlier this year, and I was like, this is quite obvious. I think it's something that many people speak about every time we watch a
red carpet. The fact that the most visible faces in our society are drawing away from the human, the fact that A.I. is -- you know, there's this rise
of this technological paradigm in which whatever is human is -- you know, is presented as inferior because it is imperfect.
[13:25:00]
You know, there's a real way that this is manifesting within our consciousness, within our interpersonal relationships, within people's
relationships to their own body, to the passage of time. And yes, I felt that it was at least worth writing about it.
GOLODRYGA: And facelifts and cosmetic surgery obviously have been with us for decades now. I mean, the technology has evolved as has the science, but
you argue that the face is separating from the person and the person from the soul. So, how has the facelift itself become the focus and how has that
changed?
TOLENTINO: Well, so the facelift, you know, in 2019, like you said, I wrote about this thing called Instagram face, right, which is where the,
you know, most visible faces on our phones, which tended to be white female influencers on Instagram, they started to look like each other.
And now, we can see the ramifications of that where if you ask A.I. to generate a picture of a woman, 98 percent of those images will be of a
white woman, a thin white woman, a conventionally beautiful white woman, right? Like their -- these things crop up in the realm of social media and
then have real lasting consequences because of the way the architecture of the internet works.
And so, now Instagram face, you can get injectables on Klarna in any strip mall, in any small to midsize city. And the most wealthy and beautiful,
professionally beautiful people in our culture are getting facelifts instead. And, you know, this will trickle down for the next decade. You
know, we now -- it's hard to get exact numbers on how prevalent exactly plastic surgery is in the United States because people define it
differently. But one kind of proximate thing of interest is that the Reddit subforum for r/plasticsurgery, it has almost as many weekly visitors as the
Reddit subforum for r/running, right? This is an increasingly interesting pastime that people have taken up.
And, you know, traditionally the face, we look to each other's faces for a mark of life, for a mark of temperament, for a mark of personality. It's,
you know, from ancient philosophy, it's just very obviously the portal to our humanity, the portal to the soul. And I think within the last 10 years,
it's been the face, particularly the female face, but now, of course, the male face, too, has been reconfigured as like a consumer guide and a
disciplinary manual. And, you know, and that's new, that's different. And the way that it's become generalizable with social media is different.
GOLODRYGA: And facelifts and tweaks, Botox, what have you, that had always been synonymous with just slowing down the aging process. So, you would
imagine that whether it's a celebrity or a high-profile individual, that they would undergo these procedures when they're in their 40s, 50s, 60s.
And that still happens.
But there's also a new phenomenon, a sort of preemptive anti-aging care. And more and more people in their 20s and 30s are taking drastic measures
with their face. Talk about that.
TOLENTINO: So, from 2019 to 2022, the number of people aged 20 or under who are getting Botox or other injectables increased 75 percent, right. But
Botox used to be injectables. All of this used to be the province exclusively of sort of the coastal elite, et cetera. And now, like I was
saying, you know, this -- it's kind of a generalized pastime. You can -- you know, it crosses political affiliations, rural, urban. You know, it's
kind of a generalized pastime.
And there was this idea that one could get preventative Botox, sort of this proactive thing to kind of gentle tweaks. All of these ideas were
introduced very gently. But I think we can sense that this has morphed into this idea. I mean, in my piece, I, you know, mentioned this 14-year-old who
went viral for her anti-aging skin care routine on TikTok. You know, there -- an idea has quickly supplanted the idea of kind of proactive maintenance
that aging itself in any form at any age should be treated like it's a disease, right.
It's -- the -- you know, the idea of proactivity morphed so quickly into the idea that time itself cannot be seen to manifest on a face. And any
line is aberrant and any mark of age should be proactively treated.
[13:30:00]
And I think, you know, this has -- this is -- on some level, this is a surface thing we're talking about, right. This is a superficial thing. But
there -- you know, there are real existential consequences to what this visual attitude has done. And I think that -- you know, I think especially
women, but I think all people, we can feel the effects of this becoming sort of normalized in our culture.
GOLODRYGA: And Vogue has called 2025 the year of plastic surgery transparency. So, you do have more celebrities and more influencers, I
guess, being more open about the procedures that they've had. Kylie Jenner, you note in this essay as well. Is honesty a better alternative than just
not addressing what in many of these cases are drastic changes?
TOLENTINO: Well, I -- it is funny, right, because there is this thing. So, Instagram face, it was -- you know, there were this kind of ostensibly
nonviolent procedures, these small injectable tweaks that you could get and then you could be back to your office an hour later, but you could tell
that the face had been changed. Now, with, you know, the new guard of what is happening with celebrities are, you know, these facelifts, which are
kind of extraordinarily violent, but they -- they're not obvious what's -- it's not obvious what's happening.
And to your point earlier of it going younger and younger, I was sort of -- I was Googling facelift in my 30s. Should I get a facelift? I'm 37. You
know, I searched on my phone. I searched it on my husband's phone. And I found it remarkable that, you know, I found plenty of things saying, yes,
great idea, maybe a mini facelift, even that's pretty normal for 30s. And if you don't want to do that, just do Botox and filler instead, right. Like
there was no -- if -- there is no visible argument for --
GOLODRYGA: You don't need to do this. Yes.
TOLENTINO: You know. You don't need to do this, you know. But so now, now that the actual work of the facelift, now that is less obvious, there is
this kind of countervailing desire to get people to disclose what they've done. But in my piece, I sort of kind of feels like a land acknowledgement
to me when celebrities acknowledge their plastic surgery. It's sort of like you are shouting out the oppressive system just before you are about to
commit an act that then upholds and is guided by the oppressive system.
You know, ostensibly, I guess it's better. You know, I guess I would prefer that people be honest if it's that versus dishonesty. But, you know,
there's -- it kind of is just the cycle of mutual escalation where this is normalized and the disclosure itself begins to have this moral valence
attached to it. This pro social -- you know, it's well, at least they're disclosing it. At least they're being honest. And then the actual paradigm
itself just stands unchanged.
GOLODRYGA: Well, some of this terminology is all new to me as well. I mean, what you just described about sort of this violent face look that's
meant to look more natural. That's the deep plane facelift. But something that I had no idea was a thing until recently. And it was like my teenage
son who mentioned knowing about it, or and I heard it in conversation that he was having with someone else looks maxing. What is that?
TOLENTINO: So, women have -- due to misogyny, women have been -- you know, there has been this extraordinary pressure on women to be beautiful, you
know, this -- to capitalize upon their looks to -- there's this way in which women are expected to be pretty as kind of a barrier of entry to
humanity. This is kind of -- and in the last decade, you know, this part has to do with all the culture wars of the 2010s of the rise of things like
dating apps, which allowed, you know, men and women to both openly scrutinize each other with contempt, you know, with the rise of mainstream
feminism, all of these things kind of coalesced and a reactionary core of men's rights activists, you know, kind of correlated with the incels, all
these wonderful political developments of the Internet in the 2010s.
There's this niche of them that call themselves Looksmaxers. And they -- you know, there is a the most famous one. His name is Clavicular. His real
name is Braden Peters. He got famous for, you know, this -- for starting in his teens, hitting his jaw with hammers, injecting himself with peptides,
micro dosing meth, all of these things to make himself more conventionally beautiful. It's as if -- basically, it's as if this group of kind of right
wing reactionary young men have kind of taken up the false and kind of horrific requirement on women to be beautiful. They have taken it up
themselves with maximum toxicity to themselves and others.
[13:35:00]
And, you know, they've taken up beauty work. And there's -- you know, there's this hard core of misogyny that runs through it where they kind of
celebrate men for this beauty work, this artificiality while denigrating women for being fake and doing the same.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And again, Clavicular, someone I hadn't heard of until just a few months ago as well, you mentioned that him starting to alter how
he looks at the age of 14, he said that he's likely infertile due to long- term steroid and testosterone use. And he also told The New York Times that knowing he can have sex matters more than the act itself.
So, what does all of this mean in terms of dating intimacy? I mean, they were always seen as going hand in hand, someone wanting to look good so
that they can get into a relationship and fall in love. And that doesn't seem to always be the natural goal now.
TOLENTINO: I know. It's funny to think of, you know, like the crude days of my millennial young adulthood as kind of preferable when people would
try to be more beautiful so that they could maybe have a higher chance of meeting someone at the bar that night, right.
There's -- what is -- what's happening -- that quote you read from Clavicular that sex itself would serve him nothing as opposed to the
knowledge that he could have it, you know, it's part of, you know, the overarching thing that I was writing about, which is that there is a pull
away from the human and the physical. There is, you know, both of one's actual self and the actual self of other people. There is a pull away from
imperfection when actually imperfection is the mark of humanity., right.
There's this withdrawal of our comfort and our eagerness for what is actually human and what is real and what is flawed. You know, and this is
happening in the realm of A.I. This is happening in the realm of what you see with young people and the way that they are dating, the way that they
are thinking of sex, the way that they're thinking of socializing, the way that they're thinking that straight young people are thinking of the
opposite gender, the way they're thinking of their own beauty.
I wrote that part of it seems that what's eroticized is not the unmediated attention of another, but the collective disembodied attention that one can
receive through a screen. Just overwhelming that there's this pull away.
GOLODRYGA: Well, at the end of this report, you ask in the essay, can I save myself from this? And I think that's a question that so many people
that are familiar with this phenomenon that you've just written in this essay are asking as well. Maybe we'll have you back on to get your answer
to that --
TOLENTINO: To see if I've saved myself.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you so much, Jia Tolentino. Learned so much from this as well, as always, from you. Thank you.
TOLENTINO: Thank you so much for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: And now, Democratic socialism is making gains this election cycle in the United States and nowhere is that more evident than in New
York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani has built his early agenda around rent freezes, city run grocery stores and universal child care.
In his latest essay, "The Consumer Socialism Trap," Idrees Kahloon, a staff writer at The Atlantic, examines what he calls a new form of socialism
focused on lowering the cost of living. He spoke with Michel Martin about how these ideas are resonating with voters and why he's not convinced they
can deliver on all of their promises.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Idrees Kahloon, thank you so much for talking with us.
IDREES KAHLOON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: So, if people are following politics, then they will have observed that a number of candidates, generally considered of the left, New York
City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, in Washington, D.C., the mayoral candidate, Janeese Lewis George, are running on sort of a
vaguely similar platform around, well, they would say affordability, but you have a different name for it. I guess lowering the cost of everyday
life. You're calling this consumer socialism.
So, could you just briefly describe what do you mean by that? And how is that different from the socialism that many people either love or hate, you
know, depending on their point of view?
KAHLOON: Yes. So, traditional socialism is all about seizing the means of production, ending capitalism as we know it. And consumer socialism is
something that's different. And what I mean by that is that it's not about ending capitalism as we know it, but it is about socializing the cost of
consumption, meaning that certain sets of goods that are deemed essential, housing, child care, health care, are said to be too important to be left
to the market and therefore need to be subsidized for all, really, through a state program.
And what's new about these candidates that you mentioned is that they are trying to do this now at the city level. And this is just an experiment
that I think, you know, we will see how well it goes, but it's definitely caught on.
MARTIN: And why do you think it's caught on? What do you think about is resonating?
KAHLOON: I think people are upset about affordability. That's been true for the last few years. People have been upset ever since COVID and the
inflation that it caused. We've seen that that message has gotten put in political use over the last few years, whether Republicans are the ones who
are running against candidates, Democrats are going to be doing it now.
And there is this argument that actually all we need to do is just set the rent lower. All we need to do is subsidize child care and we can fix this.
We can found government run grocery stores and we can fix this problem directly without having to resort to the market.
MARTIN: And how is this different from the, I would say, the democratic socialism that exists in parts of Europe, health care, for example, you
know?
KINKADE: So, that is definitely what people aspire to. They point to Scandinavia, they point to countries like that and they say that this is
this is just the model that we're doing. And there are a few important differences.
So, the most important that comes to mind is that in Scandinavia, taxes are very high for everyone. If you are a working-class person, you are paying
40 percent, maybe 50, depending on how much you are earning to taxes to fund these universal programs.
The way that American politicians talk about these programs is that you won't have to pay for it unless you're extremely wealthy, unless you own a
second home in Manhattan or you are a billionaire or a multimillionaire. You know, all the money that is necessary can be raised on the backs of
those people. And, you know, that's not the Scandinavian model.
And so, that is one reason that I think that the promises that are being made at the city level might not totally pan out, because you have this
kind of broad-based social program that you're going to be rolling out on a very narrow tax base, on a tax base also that's quite mobile. So, that's
one difference.
I think the second is that people tend to think of and, you know, Scandinavia is a very nice place to live. People there are very happy. But
it's certainly a market economy. It is certainly a capitalist economy. There is no -- you know, it might be a democratic socialism in the sense of
the safety net is very, very large, but, you know, these are countries that depend on the prosperity of their businesses in order to sustain the
lifestyle that they have.
MARTIN: You're being very nice now, but you're a little snarky in your piece in The Atlantic. You say consumer socialism tries to have it all
universal social provisions without universally steep taxes. It retains, like other forms of socialism, a supreme optimism and the ability of state
planners to shape markets. Where the old central planners failed, the new ones think they will succeed.
Is the key difference the fact that taxes are high and they think that they can sort of concentrate the cost of this on a small group of people, or is
it something else?
KAHLOON: Yes. No, I think I think the tax problem is specific to the Scandinavia comparison. But, you know, rent freezes are something that
almost no economist agrees is a good idea. What happens when you set prices below what the market will sustain, you cause shortages. And you see that
already in New York. There is a lot of rent control in New York. There's a lot of rent stabilization in New York that has not made prices lower. It
has encouraged people to stay in their units.
San Francisco, this was a well-studied program of rent control that was launched. That just has -- it's a bit like squeezing a balloon. You can you
can cause rents to be lower in specific units, but everywhere else rents increase. And so, the solution to the housing affordability crisis is
building more housing. It's not freezing prices.
And similarly, if you look at the interventions that are being planned with grocery stores, for example, groceries are very competitive, very low
margin business.
[13:45:00]
The problem with affordability and groceries is not that they're simply too many profits. Profit margins are 2 or 3 percent.
So, there's this kind of optimism that, you know, if only the government could intervene in these affairs and could only set things, then things
would work properly. And I don't think that that's going to be true at all.
MARTIN: Why can't they just try things, though? I mean, it seems to me that there's a really sort of a different attitude about innovation and
government than we have about innovation in in, say, technology, for example. I mean, driverless cars, right. You raised that a couple of
decades ago. People would be like, that's crazy, or that's some -- you know, like that's some sci-fi stuff. But we do it, or at least it's in the
offing. So, why can't people similarly sort of innovate with something in government or try and just try?
KAHLOON: I think that they should. I think that, like, it's really important for government to fund basic research and, you know, encourage
scientific development and innovation and all of these kinds of ideas. And one of the great things about America is that many states can try different
things and we can learn the results.
And I guess what I'm saying is that we do have some worked examples of rent control and in cities, and it hasn't worked quite as well. We do have, you
know, and it's one thing to innovate when there is a clear failure. So, for example, the military runs grocery stores in its own basis because that is
-- you know, it needs to do that. And in rural parts of America, there have been experiments with government run grocery stores to meet a market
failure.
And I guess in this case, I don't disagree with governmental innovation at all, but I do want it to run in the same direction of what we've learned
from prior experiments, as opposed to, you know, just saying, well, this time it'll be different because we have the right intentions and the right
will.
MARTIN: Housing is a big part of your argument. Housing and supply is essential to that, right. But that takes a long time. You can't just throw
up housing and people need relief now. What's so terrible about offering a short-term solution while you're developing a long-term answer?
KAHLOON: Yes. So, you know, this is an argument people make that, you know, one thing that Mamdani has promised and that Janeese Lewis George in
Washington, D.C. has promised is that, yes, there will be rent freezes now, but this is going to be an exchange, for exactly as you said, we're going
to build a lot more housing and we're going to fix things the marketized way.
What I would say is, you know, if that does happen, that will be at least half good. If this is a temporary measure only to get us to the point where
we build enough housing that prices settle on their own, that could be good. But my worry is that it is very easy to freeze the rent that has
already happened in New York. It is much harder to actually get the gears of government on unwound so that you can build more housing. And that, to
my knowledge, hasn't really started happening in New York. As you as you say, it takes time. So, that would be my worry.
These problems have built up over 30, 40 years. They are encoded in the laws of cities that make it very, very hard to build. And, you know, the
temporary measure, I worry it works as a one-way ratchet. And so, what is imposed today, you see this with New York's rent controls, right? They're
very extensive. They're very hard to dial back in the future.
MARTIN: Child care. What about that?
KAHLOON: The socialists like Mamdani, Janeese Lewis George, Democratic socialists, et cetera, they offer -- they want universal child care. And
they want it to be 7 percent is the maximum that every family would pay. And beyond that, the government would subsidize that.
I think we have to be careful with the design of the policy as well. So, Quebec, for example, implemented universal child care that was free, the
point of dollars per day. And a lot of people did immediately get child care and female labor supply. The amount of women who are working in the
labor force increased a lot.
What we also saw when economists looked at the results in the long run was that the kids who went to those programs had negative outcomes. They had
worse behavior. They were more likely to go to jail. They had worse educational outcomes. Why was that? Because the quality of the care that
they were given was not high enough to improve their life outcomes.
MARTIN: But the main argument you make is that a lot of these programs that universalize a benefit end up benefiting middle- and upper-income
families more than the people who need help or perhaps need that help the most. But the other argument there is that's how you create buy-in. I mean,
there are social programs in this country that everybody pays into and everybody benefits from, you know, like Social Security. And part of the
reason it has the kind of support that it has, it's something that everybody feels invested in because everybody participates in it, right?
So, that's the argument. The part of the problem with the argument is that this country is lacking social cohesion at the moment. What would you say
about that?
KAHLOON: So, let me answer in a slightly tangential way, which is to say that, you know, one thing that I believe America has too much of and could
ameliorate quite easily is child poverty.
[13:50:00]
So, the number of kids who live in poverty in this country is exceptionally high given how rich we are. The solution to that, that a lot of economists
like that, that I believe in is an expanded child tax credit, basically a sufficient number of cash that's given to families that enables them to
live above the poverty level.
We experimented with that during the Biden years. In 2021, we passed this expanded child tax credit, which had the effect of slashing child poverty
in half. And to my mind, that was great as public policy outcome. What I was extremely surprised by was how unpopular that program was. Throughout
its existence, it was not considered a very popular program. It was seen as too much spending. And that disappointed me because I think the outcomes
were very clear, very immediately observable. But it got trapped in the kind of partisan divide that so many things do. And I guess I wonder if
this policy would suffer the same fate.
And so, you know, for me, different families have different desires for how they want care to be done. Some want a center-based care that that allows -
- you know, that requires payment. Some would prefer a grandmother or parent to take care of this person. And my view is that if people say that
they want children to be taken care of by relatives because they have one nearby, that we shouldn't only force the subsidies into center-based care
and we should also offer at least an equivalent amount or something like that to those people who are actually using relatives to care for their
children.
MARTIN: It just seems to me that the thing about these candidates, as flawed as you may think, their sort of programmatic ideas are, at least
they're asking the questions. And why isn't that we aren't, as a society, asking those questions more broadly? Why can't they ask these bigger
questions?
KAHLOON: I think they can ask these questions and, you know, I can critique them. And I think that the answers that they are posing to these
affordability questions, I don't think will be the final solutions. And I think that they have the risk of making things worse. And that's why, you
know, their interventions in the housing market, et cetera.
You know, if you have something that is already expensive and you just impose a subsidy and you don't consider expansions of supply, what you will
do is you will increase the price that is paid both by the government and eventually by ordinary people. And so, these interventions, I think, are
attractive, but I don't think ultimately, they are the right policy solutions.
MARTIN: The other question I have is you focus on the cities because the cities, city leaders and potential city leaders are the ones posing them.
But you also raise the Biden era child tax credit increase, which suggests that if you broaden these ideas out, that you can have more successful
outcomes. Why do you think that's not happening? At least it's not happening at the moment. Is it the label like socialism is so demeaned, is
-- it's such a negative connotation in this country that people aren't willing to discuss these things? I guess what's your theory about it?
KAHLOON: So, I think that, you know, on some of these problems, you don't need a socialism label. And actually, a lot of a lot of regional compacts
will be good. So, for housing, for example, you know, New York City exists in a region, New Jersey, et cetera, you know, Westchester, all those
places. And if building only happens in one of those places, but Westchester says we're not building anymore, that's a problem, right. And
so, in that case, you do need a kind of regional compact in order to deal with the housing problems. Same with San Francisco, Marin County and the
places that surround it there.
So, I think that actually you would actually improve things a lot if you said that we are going to bind housing policy decisions and make these
counties build more housing. And that that would go a long way to fixing a lot of the problems that we're talking about here. That doesn't require you
to be a socialist or a capitalist or even to, you know, to argue about these things. But that would be an example of effective policymaking.
MARTIN: So, before we let you go, if there was one thing that you would ask policymakers to focus on, what would it be and how would you want them
to approach it?
KAHLOON: So, just generally, when they approach policy, I think that they have to always consider the unintended consequences of their actions. So,
you establish a policy goal, you say, OK, we're going to subsidize, we're going to, you know, relieve all student debt. What is the consequence of
that action? What is -- you know, in the long run, what does it mean that, you know, people who've accrued this debt no longer pay it compared to
people who did pay it? You know, what does that mean? So, I think that that is the first thing that I would argue.
And then I guess the second, just on a concrete policy matters, a lot of this dysfunction is rooted in housing and the solution to housing being
expensive is to build more of it.
[13:55:00]
And that's just an economic law of gravity. And you can try to, you know, legislate ways to fight against it, but you're not going to win. I think
that's -- you know, maybe if there's one piece of advice that I give, it's that.
MARTIN: Idrees Kahloon, thank you so much for talking with us.
KAHLOON: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, above and beyond. A 97-year-old British woman has broken her own Guinness World Record for the oldest female wing walker
strapping herself to the top of a biplane for the sixth time. Yes, six. Betty Bromage first set the record four years ago when she was a sprightly
93. Well, the flight raised money for the stroke unit at Cheltenham General Hospital, where she was treated last year. Way to go. I love this story.
All right. That is it for us for now. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
