The Anthropology of the Trump Victory

Many of my friends and I are still struggling to understand how Trump was able to win the 2024 election. The anthropologist, Alex Hinton, has written a short article in The Conversation that seeks to explain the Trumpiverse, as he calls it.

I have long admired Alex Hinton’s work on genocide (see also here and here) and a book titled It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US  (2021, which I have not yet read), so this critique is not of his work so much as an insight into a common problem with anthropological analyses.

Hinton argues that to understand Trump voters, we need to listen and understand. This, of course, is basic to the anthropological approach. Anthropologists who confront “weird and exotic” beliefs and behaviors in foreign cultures suspend judgment and try to understand the logic of what to them, initially, seems illogical.

Hinton lists “five key lines of reasoning that, in varying combinations, informed the choices of Trump voters.” They are 1) Media distortion, 2) better economy, 3) the border invasion, 4) a proven record, and 5) the MAGA bull in a china shop (he’s a fighter). The problem is, however, that each of these lines of reasoning are either mistaken or misleading. Let’s take each in turn.

1) The claim of media distortion rests on the view that journalists are unfairly critical of Trump, and criticize everything he does. Hinton mentions Trump voters’ belief in the “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” an illogical dislike of Trump. But anyone who follows the news already knows his followers believe this. The question is, why do people believe this. Hinton also says:

“About 78% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independent voters say that Trump broke the law when he allegedly tried to overturn the 2020 election results. But less than half of Republicans think he did anything wrong.”

What high school social studies class did these Republicans take? How can they not be offended by Trump’s behavior in attempting to steal the 2020 election? (I’m also wondering about that 22% of Democrats. Usually, you can assume 8% of respondents misunderstood a question, or are the fringe that believes the moon landing was faked in a Hollywood studio, but how do 22% of Democrats dismiss the Jan. 6^th insurrection and the call to the Georgia Secretary of State to “find 11,780 votes”?!) Is it really “distortion” to worry about Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election? The real question is how Trump supporters can look beyond this, and how they can excuse Trump's withholding funds for Ukraine until President Zelensky started an investigation on Biden.

2) On the economy, it is true that inflation hit during Biden’s term, but the seeds of that were also laid with money spent during the Trump administration, money well spent to assist during the pandemic. In fact, inflation was a global phenomenon, and the US handled it better than nearly every country, with The Economist noting the US economy was the envy of the world.

Joe Biden’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, AKA the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, called for approximately $1.2 trillion in spending, about $550 billion newly authorized spending on top of regular expenditures, which, as Biden noted, it was “the largest investment in our nation’s infrastructure in a generation.” As Heather Cox Richardson notes, “In the past three years, the Biden administration launched more than 66,000 projects across the country, repairing 196,000 miles of roads and 11,400 bridges, as well as replacing 367,000 lead pipes and modernizing ports and airports. … In his first term, Trump had promised a bill to address the country’s long-neglected infrastructure, but his inability to get that done made “infrastructure week” a joke. Biden got a major bill passed, but while the administration nicknamed the law the “Big Deal,” Biden got very little credit for it politically. Republicans who had voted against the measure took credit for the projects it funded, and voters seemed not to factor in the jobs and improvements it brought when they went to the polls last week.” That is what needs to be explained, not just what people are saying.

3) A border invasion. Here again, while there was a surge at the beginning of the Biden administration, border crossings now are below the level they were under Trump. The question should be, why are so many people upset over immigration (82% or Republicans said it was a “very important” issue in 2022, according to Hinton), especially given that immigrants (both documented and undocumented) do most of the work native born Americans are unwilling to do, from farm work, slaughter house work, and in nursing homes. This is especially surprising given that much research shows that immigrants do not really compete with native-born Americans for jobs. The real questions are why have Republicans been able to demonize immigrants? Hinton notes that “In 2022, a poll found 7 out of 10 Republicans worried that “open borders” were part of a Democratic plot to expand liberals’ power by replacing conservative white people with nonwhite foreigners.” Why does this ludicrous belief make sense to people? And why, as Hinton notes, was Trump able to “play[…] into some people’s mostly false concerns that immigrants living illegally in the U.S. are freeloaders and won’t assimilate, as illustrated by his untrue September 2024 allegations that immigrants were eating pets in Ohio.” Why did Christians, who read a Bible that advocates helping the poor and needy, become so angry about immigrants?

4) A better record. Trump supporters claimed there were no wars under Trump, but that ignores the fact that the US was still fighting in Afghanistan during Trump 45. It was Trump’s poorly thought out agreement with the Taliban that forced Biden to pull the US out of Afghanistan, and though the administration could have perhaps handled the exit better, it was Trump’s decision to pull out in one year that doomed the anti-Taliban forces. Hinton notes that “Trump supporters’ perception is that American taxpayers foot a large portion of the bill, even though other countries are also giving money to Ukraine, and Israel is actually buying weapons from the U.S.” The question should be, why do they have these incorrect views?

5) Bull in a China Shop: Hinton concludes by saying that some people like him because he is a fighter. “Some in the Trumpiverse even view him as savior who will rescue the U.S. from a “radical left” apocalypse. For Trump stalwarts, MAGA is not simply a slogan. It is a movement to save an America that is on the brink of failure.” Again, we know this from news reports. The real cultural question is why, when the US economy is strong and we are the most prosperous country in human history, why would people believe the country is at risk to “leftists” and on the brink of failure?

Today’s America has changed from the recent past in three ways. First, the proportion of non-whites in the country has increased. Second, other parts of the world have developed, so US dominance of the world is less complete. And third, there has been a huge growth in inequality within the US. Much of the rage of Trump voters may be aimed at this growing inequality, but it took a political entrepreneur to pin the blame on immigrants. And that does not explain why voters would support a tin-pot “billionaire,” and why they think “He gets me.” That is the cultural question that needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, how can we understand why Trump’s outrageous behavior has been excused and even glorified. How is it that Hillary Clinton’s statement that half of Trump’s supporters were “a basket of deplorables” supposedly hurt her election efforts, while Trump’s numerous “gaffes” had no effect, especially his Access Hollywood video clip where he bragged that he could grab women by the genitals?

Part of the reason is that many (most?) voters are ignorant, to use a politically incorrect term that Trump might approve. A study from Datafor Progress showed that people who paid “a great deal” of attention to political news voted for Vice President Kamala Harris +6, while those who paid “none at all” went +19 for Trump. In conversations with relatives and strangers on a trip I've been on, I realize that even professionals may not follow or understand politics as deeply as I have often assumed.

Sometimes I wonder if the Roman elites asked similar questions, like "How can they believe that?!", when they faced an increasing number of followers of an irrational cult led by a preacher supposedly born of a virgin who came back to life after being crucified. I think there is still a lot of work for anthropologists to understand the deep cultural forces that make MAGA and Trumpiverse meaningful for its followers.

Election 2024

I again served as an “election judge” (AKA poll worker) on Tuesday. We serve in pairs, one Republican and one Democrat, each needing to initial the request for a ballot on a poll pad and then to initial the ballot. The system is designed to make it difficult if not impossible to cheat. My Republican partner seemed to refute a lot of MAGA rhetoric when he told one voter that people who think there is cheating in voting have not seen how the system works.

Still, there is some oddity in the system. In Taiwan, there is a ritual of showing everyone that the ballot box is empty before they shut the box and seal it with paper seals to prove there is no tampering. In our case, we just set the scanners and ballot boxes up, and no one made a point of showing everyone that the ballot boxes were empty before they were set up. We locked the ballot box but there was no seal on the box (but the boxes were never left alone). Seals were placed on the ballot bags after the voting was done. And even though we put our initials on every poll pad request and every ballot, sometimes my initials were unrecognizable, the result of doing it over 400 times, sometimes reaching over at an odd angle.

Missouri started requiring a photo ID to vote in the 2022 mid-term elections. This election, I would estimate we turned away about 2-3% of voters because they did not have a photo ID. We still bent the rules; when people said that they had moved out of the county and into St Louis City but were still registered in St Louis County, we pretended we did not know they had moved and let them vote with the ballot from their old address. Several of them came to us frustrated because they had tried to vote in the City but, of course, they were not registered there, so were sent to the county to vote. So they came to us, sometimes with a photo ID that had their new St Louis City address, and we found them still in the county’s registration system. I was pleased to see that the two Republicans near me allowed these people to vote. They seemed to feel it was more important that people should be allowed to vote than to stick to the rule that you must vote where you currently live. And because most of these voters were Black, and so most probably Democrats, I found it significant that the Republican election judges, who were white, were not being strict and preventing people from voting, because though Republican legislators justified the photo ID requirement as a way to assure the integrity of voting, Democrats argued it was a way to suppress the vote of poor people. 

And indeed, not everyone has a driver’s license. At my polling place in Normandy, MO, we saw many people, perhaps 15%, who used a learner’s permit or nondriver identification cards as an ID. We also had to turn away people who said they were registered to vote in St Louis County but who had an out of state ID. Sometimes we were able to allow them to fill a “Provisional Ballot”, but we know most of those will not be counted. (On top of everything, the form is long and at least one person forgot to sign at the very bottom, assuring that their vote will not be counted.) Altogether, I would estimate about 4% of people we saw were not able to vote.

The strange thing is that though the requirement is for a photo ID, we are NOT required to, or instructed to, check the picture to make sure the person is indeed who they say they are. It is enough for the voter to click “accept” that the name and address is correct, and then sign on the poll pad. The system is still based on trust that the voter is who they say they are, and the picture is not used.

Among the weird cases I saw was a Vietnamese-American immigrant who came to vote, but the database showed he’d already voted by absentee ballot. We told him this, and he looked puzzled, and said, smiling, “Oh, yes, so I can’t vote now?” He was elderly (but not obviously demented), so perhaps just a bit confused, and maybe forgot he'd voted. Another case was a young man who turned 18 on October 14 and had registered, to vote, but the database said he was ineligible. He and his mother were not clear exactly when he registered to vote; apparently he registered on or after his birthday, but voters needed to be registered by October 9^th.

The only good thing about the results, from my point of view, is that the results were clear, and we did not have a close result or a Harris victory that would have resulted in attacks on the democratic process itself. Nevertheless, based on what Trump has said, I fully expect many challenges to the democratic process over the next four years, and am not sure our democratic republic will survive.

The voters have crossed the Rubicon. This phrase refers to Caesar’s crossing the river in Italy that marked the boundary between southern Gaul and Italy proper. The Roman senate had told him to disband his army and return to Rome, but he crossed the boundary with his army, which meant he was leading an insurrection. Entering Italy proper with his army was a capital offence, and Caesar’s officers also committed a capital offence by following his orders even though he did not have legal authority in Italy. Caesar won the resulting civil war with Pompey, thereby becoming dictator for life and making the charges of treason moot. Voters in 2024 may have wanted change, despite a felony conviction and many other serious charges, despite his leading an insurrection on January 6, 2021, and despite warnings from many who served in the previous Trump administration that he is unfit for the office. The voters have elected him the 47^th president and thereby wiped away all charges against him.

Let me be clear: I do not want Trump assassinated like Caesar. I want him to live so he and the public see the chaos and problems that his policies will cause.

In 2021, Trump’s insurrection failed. He has famously said he will be dictator for a day; we shall see if it lasts just one day. Especially worrying are the arguments for an “Imperial Presidency”  made by some Republicans and Project 2025. In any case, it is astonishing that a people who proudly claim to be free voted for someone promising to be dictator, even for a day. Octavian was known as “Augustus” and not dictator or emperor; he was smart enough to keep the names and appearances of a republic, even as he ruled as an emperor. Will the USA turn into a dictatorship, in fact if not in name?

There is much that is puzzling in this election. It is puzzling that while the economy is in good shape according to economists ("The Envy of the World" according to The Economist) and official figures, voters in polls said they think the economy is poor and was better under Trump. It is puzzling that voters blame Biden for the 2021 inflation, even though inflation was worldwide, is now gone, and it is the Federal Reserve not the Biden administration that was probably slow in responding to inflationary pressures. In addition, wages have risen more than inflation.

It is puzzling that despite Missouri voting overwhelmingly for Republicans (58% to 40% for Trump, and 56% to 42% for Hawley), voters approved several progressive referenda, one a proposition to raise the minimum wage and to require sick leave (58% in favor) and another a constitutional amendment (Number 3) to protect abortion rights (52% in favor).

Misleading lawn signs on Proposition 3

It is tempting to blame money for election outcomes one doesn't like, but it is not that simple. Republicans who are upset at the Missouri abortion vote blame their loss on the out-of-state money spent to support that vote, even though public opinion polls show abortion rights to enjoy majority support (one pre-election polls had shown 52% in favor and 14% undecided). In fact, Josh Hawley and the Republicans tried to muddy the issue by claiming in their ads and lawn signs (see photo) that the amendment would pay for child sex change surgery, which is a red herring. It will be interesting to see what the supermajority in the state legislature decides to do to go against the will of the voters.

The fact that Trump’s contradictory promises, violent speech, and bombastic persona managed to attract a majority of votes is very depressing. We live in such a siloed media environments that most voters believed the economy was bad (when it was not) and that the Biden administration did not do anything for them (despite his major infrastructure bills). True, part of the problem was poor messaging from the Biden administration, but our media environment, without the fairness doctrine, makes it hard for voters to understand issues with any depth or nuance.

"Politically incorrect" door in Grafton IL inspired by Trump

This election has revealed a hateful, narrowminded aspect of American society that I thought we had left behind. This is the America that massacred Native Americans, that enslaved Africans, that invaded and colonized Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, that put Japanese-Americans in internment camps, and that turned away the German ocean liner St. Louis that had sailed from Hanover in 1939 (254 of the 937 passengers ultimately died in the Holocaust). We have returned to the America hostile towards immigration, foreign trade and foreign entanglements, and as The Economist notes, “In the 1920s and 1930s that led to dark times. It could do so again.” In the context of the fracturing of the neoliberal order  (see 2022 book by Gary Gertle), this election has led voters to “throw the rascals out.” This is perhaps understandable, since neoliberal policies screwed them, but the rascals they have voted in are just venting, and not offering real solutions. As The Economist notes, Trump is not even a conservative in the old sense: “He has completely reshaped American conservatism, forcibly converting it to nativism, mercantilism, welfare-statism and isolationism.” But Trump is not new; he has simply awakened an ugly side of America.

Working with the other election judges, half Democrats and half Republicans, was actually very smooth and pleasant. There was no hateful speech, no partisan posturing or argument, no conflict. My Republican partner made every voter smile a bit when he showed each voter their name and information on the database and asked them, “Is this who you’ve always wanted to be?” or “Is this who you think you are today?” Most people smiled at this. He also commented that at least after the polls closed, we would not have to watch all the political ads, which everyone could agree with, even if it meant something different for people of different political persuasions. Face to face, there was none of the demonization that we saw on TV and at Trump rallies. All the Republican election judges at my center where white (though their Republican supervising election judge was Black), and all of them were very respectful and kind to the majority Black voters, so there was no overt racism.

I think back to my fieldwork in Taiwan in the 1980s, when some of my interlocutors told me that the Taiwanese only had conflict during elections. This was under martial law, so I was a bit skeptical of this statement that seemed to simply justify one party rule and authoritarianism. But there is some truth to it. Face to face, the Republicans and Democrats were able to get along and work together. Granted, we did not have to draft a law on abortion or set the minimum wage. But the Republicans seemed to be decent people. I just cannot understand how they, and so many others, could vote for a person like Trump.

The 2024 Election in the US

I write one week before the 2024 general election. This election seems the most consequential of my life, and makes my feeling that earlier elections were important seem naïve. I write these comments because after we know the result, it will be hard to remember the emotions, fear and foreboding that we feel today; the results will seem pre-determined.

I actually do not have anyone who will vote for Trump in my social circles. I know of some Trump supporters third hand, and I’m sure some people I know are voting for Trump, but among urban and college-educated Americans, Trump supporters are a small minority. In the university environment, it is almost shocking how strong the consensus is that Trump is a demagogue. But of course, in other social circles, people are surrounded by Trump supporters, so that they can honestly find it hard to believe that he lost the 2020 election. I just drove through Grafton, IL, and many houses had Trump signs and flags, and some had multiple signs.

Friends have different ways of coping with the stress of this election. One friend tells himself that Trump is going to win, that way he will not be surprised and depressed if this comes to pass. Another says he believes many Republicans will not actually vote, or at least not vote for Trump; I think he is deluding himself. Heather Cox Richardson writes daily letters on Substack that make the rational argument for Harris and highlight the success of Biden administration policies, but her encouraging tone does not match the news I get from the NY Times and NPR.

In this election, I find it difficult to understand how close to half of US voters will vote for Trump. Here is a short list of what I consider unforgivable Trump behaviors that disqualify him for the presidency:

• His fomenting the January 6 insurrection;
• His repeated ludicrous statements that foreign countries will pay tariffs;
• His sending Covid-19 testing machines to Putin, and then keeping it secret, at Putin’s recommendation;
• His rally at Madison Square Guarden, harking back to the American Nazi Party rally of 1939, where he rehashed his fascist lines about immigrants weakening the nation’s blood, about opponents being “enemies within” and threats to use the military against them;
• His constant lies (i.e. that Kamala Harris only recently claimed to be Black, and that he had tried to improved the Affordable Care Act, not end it);
• And his biggest lie, The Big Lie that he won in 2020, and his continuing refusal to admit that Biden won the election.

Regardless of what policies he is proposing, these factors should make him toxic to voters. It is unsettling that people can look past these offenses. Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists and 13 former Trump administration official signed letters warning against electing Trump. It is even more upsetting that many people say they don’t believe he’ll do the things he says he’ll do. (I hate to make comparisons with Hitler, but it is notable that when he published Mein Kampf in 1925, he was very explicit about what he was going to do, but people did not take him seriously, even German Jews.) And it is also worrying that newspapers like the LA Times and Washington Post seek to avoid offending him, in case he is elected. This reminds me of elite self-censoring behavior in China and Hong Kong.

While I know that voting is not entirely a rational choice, I find it disturbing that so many poor and disadvantaged people are going to vote for Trump, who is going to do very little for them. Raising tariffs will make products they buy more expensive, and lower taxes will primarily benefit the rich. Recent ads I’ve seen on TV focus on attacking migrants and transgender children, emotionally charged issues that require nuance and careful consideration to come to shared solutions. I’m trying to stand back and observe the election as if I were an outsider, but it is difficult when at stake are your values and ideals.

Recently I’ve been reading books about the history of Ancient Rome, and about Paris, and in both places we can see that bad leaders, even evil people, have occasionally risen to power and brought ruin to their people. We had thought that this was less likely to happen in a democracy, especially since the Founding Fathers had established institutions precisely to prevent a demagogue from taking power. 

In any case, damage has already been done. The Republican Party, an important conservative perspective and counterweight, has been replaced with a personality cult. Courts have become politicized and have lost the prestige they once had. And it is sad and dangerous that both Trumpers and Democrats say their country is being stolen by the other side.

The election is, according to polls, too close to call. As Nate Silver notes in a recent column, the problem is that the response rates for polls are in single digits, so polls need to find other ways to try to weigh their results to fit the population of voters. It is not clear that they can do that accurately. Even asking people who they voted for in the last election can be inaccurate, as people tend to "remember" that they voted for whoever won--some voters listed as "2020 Biden 2024 will-vote-for-Trump" voters may actually be "2020 Trump" voters. Plus, a lot will depend on who turns out to vote. 

It all depends on who comes out to vote.

France, Arrogance, and Civility

The French have a reputation among English-speakers for being prickly about people speaking French. Forty years ago, I myself was once upbraided by a tobacconist for pronouncing my French Rs “in German,” as she put it, which was probably true since I had just spent a year studying German in Austria. Picky, picky, picky. But in my two months in Paris so far, I have never had a bad experience on this score. Both in Paris and on a recent trip to Normandy, everyone has been very kind. My wife, who is still learning French, has never had anyone be unkind, and as a result, she is increasingly willing to try speaking. Perhaps times have changed, or maybe this notion that the French are surly and critical of other people speaking French was never really true, just an exaggeration, a stereotype. And nowadays, especially in Paris, many people speak English quite well, at least well enough to offer service in restaurants and shops. Often, people will break into English when we speak in French.

Sign urging politeness

On the other hand, it is now Americans who are sometimes obnoxious. In a restaurant two days ago in Bayeux, the American lady at the table next to ours became impatient with the slower pace of service that is typical in French restaurants. She had ordered a cheese plate as her appetizer but did not finish all the cheeses, and had moved the platter to the side to try to indicate she was done. She then started calling out to the harried waitress to get her to clear the table. Calling out like that is not done in France, at least not in restaurants with white tablecloths. She made matters worse when started calling out “Scusi!,” which is the Italian word for “Excuse me” and means nothing in French. Ugly American, Exhibit A.

I just got back from the barber, and while I was in the chair getting my hair cut, I heard the door open and a lady speaking in American English with a young boy. She then said “Bonjour” in American-accented French, but to my surprise continued in English saying, “I need a haircut for my son.” The other barber, who was free at the moment, happened to know English and offered her an appointment for 4:00 or 6:30, and the exchange went off fine. After she left, I asked my barber, “Does it happen often that people come in and just start speaking in English like that?” He laughed, and said, “Oui! On est pas en Amérique, hein ? [Yes! (But) we’re not in America, right?]” Note that he’s not a French ethnonationalist; his name is Mohammed and he has just come back from Morocco. There is something arrogant and disrespectful about assuming that others speak your foreign language—even if English is now the world’s lingua franca. Mohammed said that his English is very poor, so it is a good thing his colleague was there to handle the situation.

Commuter train, with poster

Paris is a very civilized city. They work at it, with very good public services (even though the French complain about them all the time) and campaigns encouraging civil behavior (The poster above says "There are those who remain polite, even if they are irritated... and then there are the others."). When out walking or in museums and restaurants, it is common for me to hear American English spoken more loudly than French. I hear it in part because it’s my native language, so it pierces through the noise, but also because Americans do speak loudly, at least more loudly than the French. On subways and trains in Paris, there is no loud talking. So civilized.

The Demise of The China Project: The Erosion of the Middle

Today I learned that The China Project is shutting down. A post entitled "Some sad news" on their website explains why, as does a thread of tweets from Kaiser Kuo. 

The China Project was a media company that tried to provide balanced coverage of China for global English-speaking audiences. It was formerly known as SupChina, and began as a newsletter in 2016, expanding to include podcasts and events, and becoming a "news and business intelligence company focused on helping a global audience understand China." 

They reported on abuses in China, including on the horrible treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang, but also called out China-bashing in the US. As a result, as Goldkorn put it, "We have been accused many times in both countries of working for nefarious purposes for the government of the other."

There may have been many reasons for its closure. The "Some sad news" post refers to legal issues; apparently they were being sued by people or companies on both sides of the Pacific, though there are no specifics. I would like to know some examples because it seems bizarre, but this is a classic example of a "strategic secret": neither The China Project nor those who sue them have any interest in publicizing the suit, as it draws additional negative publicity to both of them.

It is clear that the main reason they are closing is that it is becoming dangerous to try to stand in the middle between the US and China. People both in China and in the US who understand both sides and try to explain the other side to their people are accused of being biased, or partial to the other side. In fact, despite the excellent work of The China Project/SupChina writers, when my wife was invited to speak at a one of their events last year, she was advised by her company's outside PR firm that she should not go because the organization was viewed as too pro-China, but she went anyway since she felt SupChina was quite balanced. One can see what effect this would have if everyone coming in contact with The China Project got similar advice.

Indeed, the trigger for the closing was a sponsorship not coming through as expected. Most companies are very cautious about associating with controversial groups. Nowadays, anything in the US having to do with China is controversial. And the reverse is also true.

The early colonists in 17th century Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts, were able to cooperate with the Native Americans by exchanging 10-year old boys who lived with a family of the other culture and would thus learn the other group's language and culture. These interpreters understood both cultures intimately. But in the lead-up to King Philip's War (1675-76), which is often considered the deadliest war in colonial America, these interpreters were distrusted by both sides, and were unable to prevent the conflagration. It is worrisome to see a similar pattern with The China Project. A voice of reason that understands and can explain both sides has been lost. Gradually, only shrill nationalistic voices will remain.

SBF and the Missing $8 Billion

I have been listening to Michael Lewis on Sam Bankman-Fried (AKA SBF) on his podcast Against the Rules, but he has left a lot of threads hanging, perhaps because he has a new book coming out on Oct 3 (tomorrow, as I write this), to coincide with the opening of SBF's trial for embezzlement and other crimes. Lewis was writing a book about SBF and FTX when the exchange collapsed in November 2022.

But I also listen to another podcast, called Search Engine with PJ Vogt, and this week's episode asks, where did the missing $8 billion go. First, I thought that was a dumb question, because when something collapses in value, the money doesn't actually go anywhere, value just disappears. But I was wrong, and learned I was wrong from this podcast. 

Second, this podcast does a great job of explaining what SBF did wrong; even The New Yorker article "Inside Sam Bankman-Fried’s Family Bubble" by Sheelah Kolhatkar (in the Oct. 2nd issue, and the only article to include interviews with SBF's parents, who are Stanford law professors) does a poor job of describing what happened and what crimes he's accused of committing. PJ Vogt had a previous podcast in 2022 called Crypto Island and so has covered some of the crypto hype. In this episode of Search Engine, PJ Vogt interviews Zeke Faux who had been covering SBF for a while for Bloomberg, and the episode makes very clear where the money went and what crimes he's accused of.

Third, this is interesting because Zeke Faux (and let me just note as an aside, that this is his real name, even though it means "fake" in French) noted that when Michael Lewis interviewed SBF at a crypto conference in the Bahamas, Lewis just lobbed softball questions and seemed star-struck. Zeke has tweeted:

"I’d heard that Bankman-Fried was going to be the subject of Lewis’s next book. But the author’s questions were so fawning they seemed inappropriate for a journalist."

He raises the question of how gullible Michael Lewis was at the time that SBF and FTX were riding high, and Lewis does come across as giddy and a believer in the clips cited in the podcast. I'm looking forward to reading his book. But I feel I should read Zeke Faux' book first.

Since we are going to be hearing about the SBF trial for a while, it is worth listening to this Search Engine podcast to get a sense of what happened and what the issues are.

Get on Apple podcasts here 

Link from Podcastaddict here

Link to the episode on the Search Engine with PJ Voght website.

Three Observations on My Trip to Asia

I have a few observations on a very pleasant and productive trip to Hong Kong, with a brief visit to friends in Tokyo (that's in Japan, BTW; Hong Kong is not in Japan, for the Americans reading this who may not know 😉). 

First, the level of English in the Mainland Chinese students I taught at a workshop was surprisingly high, noticeably higher than four years ago when I last taught this workshop. I asked several of them how they learned their English, and some have spent time in the US or UK, but not all. One said she has been attending English tutorial classes since she was in nursery school. The look on her face suggested she did not enjoy these classes, much like American-born Chinese hate going to Chinese school. But her English was very good, whereas most ABCs don't learn much Chinese. One young lady sticks out in my mind; she said her mother regretted that her own English was not good, and so sent her to a boarding school in New Jersey for a year when she was 14. The daughter then came back to China for high school and university, and now, 10 years later at 24 years of age, she is bilingual and will be a top candidate at any graduate program she applies to. Sadly, her mother passed away, so cannot see how successful her strategy has been. This young lady represents, for me, a new generation of cosmopolitan Chinese who were exposed to English in the early 2010s and now, a decade later, are comfortable in both English and Chinese.

Secondly, I attended a small conference where young mainland and Hong Kong Chinese students presented their research to each other. I was struck by how the students spoke openly about the limits of what can be said. No one made doctrinaire statements or argued politics, but I was struck by how, in an intellectual context, everyone could assume that everyone knew we were subject to authoritarian rulers. People were not being cautious; they were matter-of-fact. It reminded me of how in the US, in university settings I have been in, there is an open contempt for Trump and matter-of-fact criticism of his boorish ways, in a way that is different from pre-Trump days. On the one hand, the heavy hand of the state and CCP is obvious (Chinese University still requires a University ID to enter the campus, though no ID is required at HKU). On the other hand, I'm told that it is now harder to get into Chinese University because high school graduates are choosing Chinese University over HKU because it is viewed as more politically liberal. I was told that many people are leaving, but that while in the 1990s, before the 1997 Handover, people held "going away parties" before they left, now people are leaving quietly. Often, I'm told, people find out someone has emigrated only once they see their friends' pictures set in the UK. I met one student who is accommodating to the new pro-Beijing rule, but it seems most people who are staying are waiting for the winds to change. As one friend put it, even Xi Jinping will not live forever, and his successors will have to respond to the problems and frustrations his policies are causing. From the US, it is easy to think of "the Chinese" and focus mainly on the nationalistic extremists and authoritarian ruling class, but the reality is much more diverse. And the problems of extreme nationalism and authoritarian thinking are unfortunately plaguing the US too. 

Pedal-assist bike with children aboard

My third observation is about how Hong Kong and Japan "work." Americans (at least some of them) spend much time criticizing the government, so it surprising that anyone is actually willing to work for the common good. Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk is a paean to the dedicated civil servant, because it is surprising anyone accepts the call of public service given current criticism of government. One cannot spend time in Hong Kong or Japan without being impressed by how their infrastructure works. Hong Kong has built an impressive and efficient subway system over the past 40 years. The new subway line connecting Shatin to Admiralty makes the trip to Central, which my wife took daily, spending 45 minutes with two transfers, now takes only 31 minutes with one transfer. 

Vulgar Texas traveler

And Japan is so orderly and civil, in so many ways. Service workers are very polite (using a series of stock phrases that probably carry little literal meaning because they are used so much, but do have the effect of making interactions smooth and polite.) Customers in restaurants and cafes speak in hushed tones; the noise level is noticeably lower than in Chinese or American restaurants. (Contrast that civility with the "gentleman" in the photo to the right, at the STL airport, waiting for his latte, wearing sloppy clothes with a vulgar statement on the back). Sidewalks and roads are well maintained and clean. The birth rate may be low in Japan, but we saw many parents taking their kids out on pedal-assist bikes, on bike lanes that are narrow, but everywhere. And in contrast to much of the world, where people can park cars on public space for free (see Henry Grabar, Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World [Fresh Air interview here]), in Tokyo one can only buy a car with proof of a parking space. This makes neighborhoods more tidy and easy to maneuver in (not to mention that people don't drive around in circles looking for a free space.) 

The flight attendants on my JAL flight bowed to the passengers in the waiting area before they boarded the plane (many passengers would not have noticed it, because it was not announced, but I saw it). It reminded me of how Thai rugby players bow to the audience before a Sevens match. My flight on JAL (which I choose because it was the cheapest ticket) included two meals and a snack. The meals were good, and I was charmed by the miso soup they served in paper cups, as an additional drink. The plane was an American-made Boeing 787, but it was the first time I have seen windows that do not have shades that you pull down, but have a button that you push that makes the window go dark, like the sunglasses that go dark in bright light. Very cool. 

When I got to Chicago, I had to transfer to an American Airlines flight for my last leg home. Once in the airplane, the flight attendant announced that the toilet in the front of the plane was broken, so everyone would have to use the toilet at the back of the plane. Oh, and there is no WiFi, because the system is broken. To make matters worse, the flight attendants spent much of our 46 minute flight haranguing us with a sales pitch about the "great deal" we could get on an American Airlines credit card, for which they would give us 50,000 miles, which she said enough for a one-way ticket to Asia. The male flight attendant then had to go down the aisle holding brochures for the credit card to hand one out to anyone who wanted one (I did not see anyone take one), and the female flight attendant stood at the front of the plane as we deplaned, holding brochures fanned out in her hands. How humiliating. It's bad enough that flight attendants who are there primarily for safety in an emergency have to also serve food and drinks, but now they have to hawk credit cards. At the same time, their planes don't work properly.

Finally, people in Missouri complain about the humidity here. But they don't know humidity. Here are my glasses after I exited a subway station in Hong Kong, where we have real humidity.

Real humidity