Advertise on podcast: Good Authority

The second Trump administration has aggressively disrupted climate policy and politics, both domestically and internationally. Trump has prioritized domestic oil and coal interests, gutting  the Biden administration’s main climate policy and withdrawing permits for major wind and solar projects. In recent weeks, he has withdrawn the United States from several major international climate institutions –  and some argue that he has used oil as an explicit motivation for using force in Venezuela.   To discuss what all of this means for the ongoing global effort to combat climate change, I spoke with two experts who have written extensively about energy and climate politics. Jeff D. Colgan is the Richard Holbrooke Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Watson School at Brown University. He is also the founding director of the Climate Solutions Lab. He recently contributed a piece on Venezuela for Good Authority. Federica Genovese is professor of political science and international relations at the University of Oxford and a recent winner of the prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize.    Our conversation was based in part on a short open access article that Jeff and Federica wrote for International Organization on “Global Climate Politics after the Return of Trump.” We talked about both the domestic and international implications of the Trump administration’s actions for climate change. You can also subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts.

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, students sit down with Professors Eduardo Moncada, Sarah Daly, and Elizabeth Saunders to unpack how concepts like narco-terrorism, criminal governance, and credible commitment have, and continue to, shape U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Drawing on the legacy of the War on Drugs, the conversation challenges the argument that militarized intervention or leadership removal can dismantle illicit economies. Instead, our guests explore the relevance and role of patronage systems, the “balloon effect,” and the political incentives behind spectacular uses of force, while asking what all of this means for Venezuelan citizens, democracy, and regional sovereignty, and whether the Trump administration can actually get what it wants. Episode’s Main Themes and Concepts:  1. Narco-terrorism as a political label How the term emerged, why it is analytically imprecise when applied to Venezuela, and how it shapes the range of policy responses. Key terms: narco-terrorism; political labeling; securitization 2. Criminal governance vs. terrorism Why most cartels and illicit networks lack ideology, and how illicit economies function through governance, corruption, and regime survival rather than political violence. Key terms: illicit economy; criminal governance; patronage politics 3. Why military intervention is likely to fail  Why military intervention is unlikely to stop drug flows or democratize Venezuela, and how repression often displaces rather than eliminates illicit activity. Key terms: balloon effect; militarization; credible commitment, principal-agent problem References and Suggested Reading:  References: Andreas, Peter. 2022. Border Games: The Politics of Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Berman, Eli, and David A. Lake, eds. 2019. Proxy Wars: Suppressing Violence through Local Agents. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Further Reading:  Andreas, Peter. 2025: The Illicit Global Economy: What Everyone Needs To Know. New York: Oxford University Press. Daly, Sarah Zukerman. Organized Violence after Civil War: The Geography of Recruitment in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Daly, Sarah Zukerman. Violent Victors: Why Blood-Stained Parties Win Postwar Elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022. Daly, Sarah Zukerman, and Elena Barham. “A Bargaining Theory of Criminal War.” International Studies Quarterly68, no. 3 (2024): sqae083. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae083. Moncada, Eduardo. Cities, Business, and the Politics of Urban Violence in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016. Moncada, Eduardo. Resisting Extortion: Victims, Criminals, and States in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast:  This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky. Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team:  If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at [email protected].

How will artificial intelligence reshape global power? And what can past technological revolutions tell us about today’s U.S.-China rivalry? In this episode of Good Authority, I spoke with Jeffrey Ding, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University and a leading scholar at the intersection of technology and international politics. Ding’s award-winning book, Technology and the Rise of Great Powers, argues that technological leadership depends less on breakthrough inventions and more on a country’s ability to diffuse new technologies widely across its economy and society. Drawing on historical cases from Britain, the United States, Germany, and Japan, he shows how diffusion capacity helps determine which countries translate innovations into lasting geopolitical advantage.  The book has drawn a lot of attention, including from leading AI companies like Microsoft, and from politicians, including former British prime minister Rishi Sunak. Our conversation explores what this diffusion-centered perspective means for the current race over AI, how China and the United States compare in their technological ecosystems, and what historical analogies can – and cannot – reveal about the future of global politics. And we tackle the big questions about the real constraints facing governments attempting to harness emerging technologies for national power.

Stacie Goddard and Abe Newman explain how cliques are ruling the world The journal International Organization has just published a new online open access edition with short accessible essays written by prominent scholars about the future of international order. One of the more provocative essays is by Good Authority editor and Wellesley College professor Stacie Goddard together with Georgetown professor Abe Newman.  In this new article, Goddard and Newman argue that we may be witnessing the emergence of a neo-royalist world order—one that looks less like the liberal, rules-based system many of us grew up studying, and more like a world dominated by powerful patrons, loyal clients, and informal hierarchies and cliques. We talk about what they mean by “neo-royalism,” how it connects to debates about U.S. power, China’s rise, and the politics of global interdependence. We also discuss some examples of how this new order works, such as the authorization of the sale of large quantities of advanced Nvidia chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other cases where the interests of the cliques appear to prevail over national security interests. We also discuss royal wannabes, like FIFA President Gianni Infantino, how this new order competes with other orders and whether it is likely to survive beyond Donald Trump’s Presidency.

The Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid puts the lifesaving program PEPFAR at risk, halting the distribution of essential HIV/AIDS medications in over 50 countries. Despite an emergency humanitarian waiver, the executive order dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has created both confusion and life-and-death consequences. Good Authority Editor-in-Chief Kim Yi Dionne reads her February 2025 article, "PEPFAR has saved 25 million lives. Without it, millions will die."

Barbara Walter spoke with Good Authority a year ago about the war in Gaza, drawing from her New York Times bestselling research on how civil wars almost always fight until the end – unless an outside power steps in to guarantee a peace agreement. Now that a ceasefire is in place, she revisits her initial analysis and how domestic political factors are likely to shape what happens next.

Pundits and scholars were quick to propose reasons for the 2024 presidential election outcome, from the economy to foreign affairs to campaign strategy—but what does the evidence actually say? Good Authority publisher John Sides and political scientist Danny Hayes, both experts on U.S. elections, explore what factors were likely the most decisive. While some questions remain unanswered, they find key points of consensus on what truly shaped the results.

After declaring martial law in December, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has faced impeachment, arrest, and detention on charges of inciting insurrection. Jean Hong, a professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in the political economy of authoritarianism in East Asia, analyzes the implications for democratic consolidation. She discusses public opinion and the emergence of the far right, along with how legal proceedings are likely to evolve.

Is America ready for a second act of Trump's foreign policy—this time, no restraints? In a recent blog post, Columbia University political scientist and Good Authority senior editor Elizabeth Saunders wrote about what happens when the 'madman' in U.S. politics suddenly becomes predictable. Kim Yi Dionne, editor in chief of Good Authority, reads out the article in this bonus content shared ahead of Tuesday's U.S. elections. Photo of Donald Trump at an Arizona campaign rally in 2024 courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

Despite promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 2015 Paris Agreement, many governments maintain low gasoline taxes or even allow citizens to buy gasoline below market prices. UCLA professor Michael Ross explains why it has proven to be so hard to move away from gasoline subsidies and, more generally, why price-based fossil fuel policies are often politically unsustainable.

Why have Elon Musk’s politics hurt Tesla? In a recent blog post, UC Irvine political scientist and Good Authority contributor Michael Tesler wrote about how Elon Musk is alienating the consumers who are most likely to buy electric vehicles. Kim Yi Dionne, editor in chief of Good Authority, reads out the article in this episode.

Martha Finnemore, recent winner of the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science, discusses the critical role of norms in international affairs. She explains how norms develop, what they are and are not, and how they shape international relations. She also highlights how norms influence current issues such as cybersecurity and artificial intelligence.

University of Minnesota professor Tanisha Fazal discusses her new book, "Military Medicine and the Hidden Costs of War." In the book, she highlights how modern advancements in military medicine reduce American fatalities but lead to underestimations of war costs, which have long-lasting impacts on veterans, their families, and the U.S. Treasury. Dr. Fazal joins Good Authority to discuss the shifting ratio of wounded to killed, unforeseen expenses such as Civil War pensions, and how the U.S. can more effectively estimate the financial costs of wars.

The first presidential debate takes place tonight. As you probably know by now, Biden and Trump agreed to this June 27 debate and a second one on September 10. They are not going to do the usual three debates overseen by the Commission on Presidential Debates in late September and early October. Of course, the big question is: In a year of remarkably stable polling, could this debate actually change the state of the race? This is a more complicated question to answer than usual – and we can blame this new debate schedule.   What the previous research says In August 2012, I wrote a piece summarizing the political science literature on the presidential debates from 1960-2008. Here’s a one-sentence summary: Debates have moved the polls but they have rarely decided the election. There are two big reasons why. First, the debates took place later in the election season and there weren’t many undecided voters at that point. Second, it has proven tough to “run the table” and win all the debates so convincingly that the winner received a durable benefit. Typically, the candidates have fought to a draw. By contrast, the party conventions have had larger effects, on average. They have typically occurred earlier than the debates. And because the conventions no longer experience much drama about who’ll be the nominee, they have become infomercials for that candidate. By design, no debate tends to be that one-sided. Not much about the 2012 debates changed those conclusions, I argued after that election. Mitt Romney did gain a few points after the first debate, but Barack Obama did better in the last two and the end result was basically a wash. There weren’t big debate effects in 2016 or 2020 either, or so we found in our books on those elections.   What’s unusual in 2024 But this year’s schedule creates the potential for something different. For one, the first debate will take place quite early. There should be more undecided voters than there will be in October. And we know that Joe Biden has work to do rallying Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters. If Biden “wins” the debate – I use scare quotes because these judgments are always subjective – it could boost his standing within the party even before the Democratic convention. Then there is the Republican convention from July 15-18 and the Democratic convention from August 19-22. This will allow us to observe the potential impact of each. In some years, like 2020, the party conventions are so close together that you can barely see any impact of the first before the second one kicks in. But note also that party conventions have had smaller effects in recent elections. The second debate on September 10 will also take place earlier than the first debate typically has. So, once again, there could be potential for the polls to move. Moreover, convention bumps sometimes decay and either candidate could benefit from a highly publicized victory in the September debate. But then… there will be almost 2 months until Election Day. That’s plenty of time for any impact of the final debate to disappear, or another late-breaking event to override the debate’s impact. It’s also worth noting that Biden has already reserved more time for televised advertising in the fall than Trump has. If those ads have an effect – and there is evidence that advertising can have a small effect – then that could be the ultimate deciding factor in a very close election, not a debate that occurred weeks or months earlier. In sum, for a long time the presidential campaign calendar followed a pattern: summer party conventions followed by fall debates. That’s what the political science research has studied. In 2024, we’ll get to study something different – with less predictable consequences.  For further discussion on the 2024 debates, listen to my conversation with Good Authority Editor Erik Voeten. 

In the last few years, militaries have carried out coups in numerous African countries, including Gabon, Niger, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Guinea, Chad and Mali. Does this signify the beginning of a much broader continent wide “coup epidemic?” Or are these coups mostly affecting especially weak states that face specific challenges? Where is democratic resilience strong and where is there a risk of continued democratic backsliding?   A Good Chat on Africa Good Authority’s Africa experts Ken Opalo and our editor-in-chief Kim Yi Dionne joined me to discuss these issues. Ken is an associate professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and the author of the substack An Africanist Perspective. Kim is an associate professor at UC Riverside and the co-host of the podcast Ufahamu Africa. Both Ken and Kim contributed to a recent issue of the Journal of Democracy on Africa. Ken’s essay highlights that Africa’s coups were concentrated in countries with weak state capacity and that were facing security threats and/or political dysfunction. Therefore, he believes these coups are unlikely to spread across the continent. Kim’s essay explores a democratic success story – Malawi – highlighting the importance of domestic checks and balances for democratic resilience. Our conversation delves deeper into the themes and content of these essays. We discussed the role of security threats, economic distress, African regional organizations, and outside assistance from the United States and China. We also talked about the upcoming South African elections and the rise of economic populism on the continent.