And Now For Something Completely Different...
Dr. Pippa Malmgren's Perspective on what just happened - Article #92
In this 14-minute article, The X Project will answer these questions:
I. Why this article now?
II. What was one of the most significant factors in the election?
III. What became a central political issue during the campaign?
IV. How has the media’s role shifted?
V. If it’s not left vs. right or red vs. blue, what is it?
VI. How can we expect governance to evolve?
VII. How can the current political climate be characterized?
VIII. What are the international perceptions and geopolitical implications?
IX. What does The X Project Guy have to say?
X. Why should you care?
Reminder for readers and listeners: nothing The X Project writes or says should be considered investment advice or recommendations to buy or sell securities or investment products. Everything written and said is for informational purposes only, and you should do your own research and due diligence. It would be best to discuss with an investment advisor before making any investments or changes to your investments based on any information provided by The X Project.
I. Why this article now?
What just happened? Well, it was the election, of course.
First, let me point out that “politics” is not one of The X Project's ten subjects of interest. This is my 92nd article and marks exactly one year since The X Project was launched, and this is the first time I am even mentioning politics. Why?
I’m not too fond of politics and consider myself politically agnostic. I consider it noisy, messy, and usually irrelevant. I have traditionally thought politics follows and does not lead to what is happening economically, financially, and geopolitically. But now I think that might change.
Second, I know politics can be emotionally triggering and highly charged for many. So, I ask that you take a lot of deep breaths, try to set aside your feelings, and consider this perspective with an open mind.
So, who is Dr. Pippa Malmgren? This is what her LinkedIn profile says:
“With over 30 years of experience as a keynote speaker, economist, and author, I help audiences understand the complex and dynamic world economy. I link what's happening in markets, geopolitics, tech, and economics as a story rather than just relying on charts and numbers. I give audiences ah-ha moments so they can allocate capital and time with greater conviction.
I have advised the President of the United States, the British Cabinet, and several Asian nations on economic policy. I have also briefed NATO Generals, lectured at Sandhurst and Duke, and founded and supported tech ventures in various sectors. I am a Senior Advisor to The Monaco Foundry, a startup incubator, and a Board Member at Premios Verdes, a sustainability platform. I have written four books, including The Leadership Lab and The Infinite Leader, which won multiple awards. I am passionate about connecting the dots and empowering leaders to navigate through the turbulence in the world economy to the treasures tomorrow's economy will bring.”
I subscribe to her substack, and her views summarized in this article are based on her two latest articles and her interview on MacroVoices:
II. What was one of the most significant factors in the election?
The Kennedy Factor and Youth Movement. Bobby Kennedy’s influence in the recent presidential election extends beyond traditional political dynamics, marking a generational shift. His movement has attracted the youth, mirroring Obama’s past support, but it has also reached a broader demographic, including boomer parents. This support base has played a pivotal role in shaping the political landscape, notably as Kennedy’s alignment shifted from Democratic to Republican support due to political barriers. Kennedy’s appeal among young people, who increasingly distrust mainstream media, signals a cultural divide that’s reoriented political alliances and expectations.
Kennedy’s outreach was not solely a grassroots phenomenon; his adept use of podcasts and alternative media contrasted sharply with mainstream political strategies. While Democratic leaders attempted to engage through traditional media, Kennedy capitalized on long-form, conversational platforms like podcasts, allowing his ideas to resonate unfiltered with a demographic increasingly skeptical of conventional news outlets. The Democrats’ miscalculation in underestimating this platform’s influence reveals a deeper issue with political adaptability, where traditional approaches fail to engage a media-literate, digitally-native audience.
Beyond media tactics, Kennedy’s influence lies in his proposals for a “unity government.” Initially dismissed as idealistic, his concept gained traction, influencing significant figures on both sides. Kennedy brought unexpected allies into the fold by advocating a bipartisan government representing American unity rather than division. Figures like Dick Cheney and Kamala Harris, as well as Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, became unlikely partners, further underscoring that his call for unity resonated widely. The success of this approach highlights how Kennedy’s unconventional strategies have catalyzed political cohesion across otherwise polarized figures and parties.
III. What became a central political issue during the campaign?
Kennedy introduced health as a dominant campaign issue under his slogan, “Make America Healthy Again.” This focus on health not only tapped into public sentiment but also challenged existing systems that allow unhealthy substances in consumer products. The support for this message highlighted a disconnect between governmental and corporate interests versus public health. His stance resonated deeply with the public, particularly in critiquing U.S. regulatory practices that permit harmful ingredients in food products, contrasting with stricter European standards.
Kennedy’s stance on health policy transcended dietary issues, extending into his critique of pharmaceutical advertising. His proposal to end direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, unique to the U.S. and New Zealand, poses a direct challenge to corporate influence on public health policy. This call for reform in pharmaceutical advertising touched a nerve in a public wary of corporate motives, especially in light of recent controversies over medical mandates and transparency in drug development. Kennedy’s health-centric campaign questioned long-standing practices, positioning him as a reformist voice amid growing public demand for accountability.
Moreover, Kennedy’s partnership with figures like Nicole Shanahan to use technology in scrutinizing government health data reflects his commitment to transparency. By promising to examine health policies through a technologically advanced and independent lens, Kennedy appeals to a population tired of corporate influence over health narratives. His emphasis on AI’s role in government accountability suggests a shift towards a more transparent, data-driven health policy. This approach aligns with his broader campaign of independence and reinforces his support among the youth and health-conscious voters.
IV. How has the media’s role shifted?
The role of media has been under intense scrutiny, as the mainstream outlets failed to anticipate and report the significance of Kennedy’s movement. Dr. Pippa Malmgren emphasizes that tech moguls like Jeff Bezos have recognized the media’s disconnect from reality, taking steps to adapt. For example, The Washington Post’s decision not to endorse candidates served to create a more neutral platform. This change led to internal resignations, symbolizing a shift in media culture from politically biased to potentially more neutral reporting.
Malmgren discusses how mainstream media’s dismissive coverage of Kennedy’s platform, primarily influenced by their advertising dependencies, has led many voters to seek alternative news sources. This rise in distrust reflects a fundamental change in the public’s relationship with media, where citizens turn increasingly to platforms like podcasts and independent press. This movement indicates a clear rejection of corporate-influenced reporting, where media outlets previously served as gatekeepers of public information.
Furthermore, this paradigm shift suggests a broader realignment of the media landscape. Bezos and other tech industry leaders have demonstrated an awareness of these changes, positioning media for a post-bias era. The tension between traditional and alternative media reflects the public’s frustration with information control. If independent media fills this gap, mainstream outlets may undergo significant reform to regain trust. This shift represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of American media, underscoring the changing nature of public discourse and the rise of non-traditional media as influential in shaping political narratives.
V. If it’s not left vs. right or red vs. blue, what is it?
It is the fundamental shift from a left-right political paradigm to an establishment vs. anti-establishment dynamic. This change represents a rebellion against traditional structures, with tech leaders and younger voices leading the charge. The old establishment, characterized by rigid bureaucratic structures, now faces pressure from an anti-establishment movement that demands transparency and efficiency, particularly in government operations.
Malmgren’s perspective underscores that this is less about party lines than dismantling ineffective systems. For instance, Kennedy’s call for bipartisanship under a “unity government” resonates with this new paradigm. Leaders like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and other tech figures who align with the anti-establishment approach seek a government that operates transparently and efficiently, often leveraging technology to achieve these goals. Their influence signals a realignment of power away from traditional political channels toward private-sector leaders who can facilitate systemic change.
The “New Establishment” advocates for a government less influenced by hidden agendas and more by clear, measurable outcomes. This shift is profound, aligning with broader public discontent over inefficiencies and perceived corruption in traditional government structures. By championing transparency and data-driven governance, figures like Kennedy challenged the old establishment’s control, laying the groundwork for a tech-influenced political landscape.
VI. How can we expect governance to evolve?
Technology’s role in reshaping governance emerges as a powerful theme, highlighted by Kennedy and Shanahan’s advocacy for utilizing AI to audit government processes. This proposal challenges the secrecy associated with governmental operations, advocating instead for transparency and accountability. The “Tech Bro” involvement in Trump’s administration indicates a government open to data analysis and efficiency rather than traditional secrecy.
Kennedy’s promise to make government data more accessible aligns with public demand for openness. Malmgren describes this tech-focused vision as revolutionary, suggesting that AI could fundamentally alter government operations. This approach appeals especially to younger voters, who value data-driven insights and solutions. By enabling greater transparency, Kennedy’s proposal of AI in governance signals a shift towards a government that can operate with higher levels of public scrutiny.
The incorporation of technology in governance also signals a cultural shift. As the tech community increasingly intersects with politics, there is potential for more innovative policy solutions and problem-solving strategies. Malmgren’s insights suggest that a technologically savvy government could operate more efficiently, prioritize transparency, and engage the public in meaningful ways, offering a counter-narrative to the opaque and bureaucratic government structures of the past.
____________________________________________________________________________
That concludes Section VI. I have hit a new paid subscriber threshold, so you must now be a paid subscriber to view the last four sections:
VII. How can the current political climate be characterized?
VIII. What are the international perceptions and geopolitical implications?
IX. What does The X Project Guy have to say?
X. Why should you care?
If you haven’t done so already, use your free, single-use “unlock” feature to view the rest of this article.
The X Project’s articles always have ten sections. Soon, after a few more articles, the paywall will move up again within the article so that only paid subscribers will see the last five sections, or rather, free subscribers will only see the first Five sections. Please consider a paid subscription.
All paid subscriptions come with a free 14-day trial; you can cancel anytime. Every month, for just the cost of two cups of coffee, The X Project will deliver a weekly article every Sunday, helping you know in a couple of hours of your time per month what you need to know about our changing world at the interseXion of commodities, demographics, economics, energy, geopolitics, government debt & deficits, interest rates, markets, and money.
You can also earn free paid subscription months by referring your friends. If your referrals sign up for a FREE subscription, you get one month of free paid subscription for one referral, six months of free paid subscription for three referrals, and twelve months of free paid subscription for five referrals. Please refer your friends!