Not Another Politics Podcast

More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and Donald Trump in the United States. Based on these findings, populism is at an all-time high, and taking a significant economic toll, according to a recent paper by Christoph Trebesch and his co-authors. Trebesch is Professor of Economics at Kiel University. He and his co-authors find that populism leads to slower economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, and can leave the country more vulnerable to future populist governments.

For decades, free trade was treated as an unquestioned good—an engine of prosperity and cooperation. But today, leaders from Washington to Beijing are rethinking trade as something very different: a tool of power. In this episode, we dive into new research with Harvard’s David Yang that asks: how do trade relationships actually give countries leverage over one another? Why might exports matter more than imports when it comes to power? And how do tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy reshape not just economies, but the global order itself? We explore what this means for U.S.–China rivalry, Trump’s tariffs, Germany’s dependence on Russian oil, and why trade power may sometimes matter as much as military power.

Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete? In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”. We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?

When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing? In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself? The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?

Before we get into today’s episode, we wanted to let you know this is a re-release as we take some time to regroup over the summer. But we’re not just dusting it off for no reason. If anything, this episode feels even more relevant now than when we first aired it.It raises a big question: Are voters really thinking for themselves? Or are they just reflexively rejecting anything the other side says? In this episode, we dig into that question with new experimental research that challenges the conventional wisdom. Are Americans hopelessly divided? Or are they actually more open-minded than we give them credit for—if we present information in the right way? We’re re-releasing this one because it gives us a more hopeful, evidence-based look at polarization—and how the way we talk about politics might be part of the problem. And if you’re exhausted by the headlines, this episode just might change how you see American voters.

What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn’t start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama’s Title IX enforcement to Trump’s Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America? Papers discussed: “The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143 “The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652

Hello listeners, we're taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good? There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?