If our recent election and the past four years have shown us anything, it is that there is a strong level of popular discontent with the way things are, particularly with respect to our system of politics and economics in 21st century America.
Our guest on this week’s WhoWhatWhy podcast, professor and activist Victor Wallis, thinks that the answer is to take advantage of the anti-capitalist forces that have grown more vocal of late. Wallis is a professor in the Liberal Arts Department at the Berklee College of Music, and was for twenty years the managing editor of Socialism and Democracy.
He wants nothing less than to inspire a popular movement toward what he sees as the virtues of socialism. Not the Democratic Socialism of Bernie Sanders, or the ecosocialism of those passionate about the environment, but a more revolutionary and historical theory of socialism.
He lays out his case that socialism has been historically misunderstood and his belief that we need do away with any kind of class distinction. He argues further that our current Constitution and political system fail to reflect the true will of the American people and therefore must be radically altered rather than reformed around the edges.
He maintains that, contrary to some arguments, the no-holds-barred competition of 21st century capitalism is not inherent in human nature; in fact, it gets in the way of popular desires. Only a thorough restructuring to eliminate a self-perpetuating privileged class can allow a fair society to emerge. He eschews charismatic leadership and dreams of a grassroots revolution.
It’s a conversation that is socialism 101 for those looking to understand socialism beyond the hot button soundbites that surround the word.
Click HERE to Download Mp3
Full Text Transcript:
As a service to our readers, we provide transcripts with our podcasts. We try to ensure that these transcripts do not include errors. However, due to time constraints, we are not always able to proofread them as closely as we would like. Should you spot any errors, we’d be grateful if you would notify us.
|Jeff Schechtman:||Welcome to the WhoWhatWhy podcast. I’m your host, Jeff Schechtman. Victor Wallis is a professor of Liberal Arts at the Berklee College of Music where he teaches contemporary history and modern political thought. For 20 years, he was the managing editor of Socialism and Democracy, and about a year ago, he joined me to talk about his broad alternative framework of America, which he laid out in his work, Democracy Denied.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||In this week’s WhoWhatWhy podcast, we’re going to talk about what he sees as the level of popular discontent in the US and elsewhere, how it has shown a dramatic increase in recent years, how COVID-19 has contributed to it and how he’d like to see it crystallize into a cohesive anticapitalist political force. At a time when socialism has become a word one doesn’t use in polite company, Wallis aims to contribute to a popular movement for socialism. In his newest book, Socialist Practices, Histories and Theories, he seeks a new discussion of issues surrounding socialism. It is my pleasure to welcome Victor Wallis here to the WhoWhatWhy Podcast. Victor, thanks so much for joining us.|
|Victor Wallis:||Thank you, Jeff. It’s a pleasure to join you.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||What is the biggest misconception you think people have when they hear the word socialism today?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, probably it’s the idea that it’s the all-powerful government, that’s the image they have that dates back to Cold War days, it’s all-powerful government. I think that the main thing that this leaves out of the account is that the real essence of socialism is to eliminate the division of society into a class of highly concentrated wealth owners and everyone else. I mean, you eliminate that class of it. That’s the essence of the socialist striving. So the misunderstanding, on the part of those who hate that idea, is based on just identifying exclusively with the division of an all-powerful government, all interfering, and so on.|
|Victor Wallis:||But there’s also a misconception on the part of people who are not so hostile, who interpret socialism as meaning just having some liberal reforms and social services and that sort of thing. This is the Bernie Sanders model, the New Deal model, that’s not socialism either. Obviously, it’s a much better thing than what we have now. However, the problem with it, as we know from the experience with the New Deal, is that if you merely introduce these progressive measures, social security, healthcare for all, and so on, if you merely introduce them without altering the class composition of the society, the capitalist class will simply bit by bit undo them, will take them back, like in Britain where they rendered the National Health Service less capable of doing its work by defunding it.|
|Victor Wallis:||And in this country where there have been all the attacks on welfare, and there’s a continuum even now, and even with Biden, the prospect of trying to undermine social security and all the other counter-reforms, notably also during the Clinton period, the undoing of the regulations against speculative activity, all the things get undone. So socialism has to be, on the one hand, more than what Bernie Sanders calls democratic socialism, which is just the New Deal, but on the other hand, it isn’t a division of an all-powerful government.|
|Victor Wallis:||The idea of socialism is basically you do away with the class division of capitalist society, and you have a society in which there are no class differences between people. That doesn’t mean that everybody’s exactly identical, obviously not, but there’s no class of large property owners set over against everybody else. So then you can really have a democratic process because people are on an equal footing with one another.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Isn’t there something though in human nature that is antithetical to that idea?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, human nature has a history that goes back thousands of years, and so it’s taken different forms. The particular form of ‘human nature’ that we see under capitalism is one that has evolved in connection with capitalism. That is to say, the idea that humans are naturally competitive, aggressive, and need to dominate, and so on. So human societies existed for thousands of years. You still see some trace of this in Indigenous societies today where people are not into that psychology, and even where in the earlier primitive societies, you didn’t have ideas of male supremacy and so on.|
|Victor Wallis:||So human nature is malleable, it’s flexible, it can change. I think we can see this change even in ourselves, each of us, how we act in different situations that in certain situations we act in a cooperative way and in others we act in a competitive way. And the idea would be to create structures that enable us to act in a cooperative way, and our action, it’s a dialectic, you create the structures in which we can cooperate, then the cooperative practice ensues and it maintains the new approach. But I mean, if we’re forced into a scramble of all against all, especially as an increasing condition of scarcity, that brings out the most negative, aggressive, competitive dimensions of human nature.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Those aspects of human nature evolved over literally, as you alluded to, over thousands of years. To think that they can devolve in a shorter period of time, isn’t that unrealistic?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, the capitalist approach, that was introduced rather suddenly and dramatically in a quick period of time. I mean, it was a terrific joke that the, let’s say that the more cooperative approach for the majority of humanity was still in existence at the time capitalism was introduced, and it produced a great joke. I mean, I remember reading accounts about how people initially reacted against the whole idea of assembly-line factory work, and the whole idea of needing to get paid more in order to buy more stuff, as opposed to getting enough to get by and live comfortably and be satisfied with that. There was nothing natural about the imposition of it.|
|Victor Wallis:||So it wasn’t a natural evolution, it was a sudden imposition. I mean, suddenly it came at different times, in different countries, and in different regions of countries over a period of 100 to 200 years, which is not a huge span of time in the course of human history. But I mean, the generalization of the capitalist mentality was something that was imposed rather speedily in historical terms.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Do you think that there is something inherent in the democratic system we have in the Republican, the Madisonian Republic that we have, that is supportive of the capitalist idea?|
|Victor Wallis:||Yes. Well, let’s say that the capitalist idea was an underlying assumption when the system was set up, and it maintains it in place. And the way it maintains it in place, the conscious aspect of it, was the fear on the part of the Founding Fathers of giving too much power to popular bodies. Whether the population as a whole or a direct representative body, everything, all their calculations were how to keep that in check. So let’s say, that’s in support of a class society, and of course, the specific form of the class society was and remains capitalist.|
|Victor Wallis:||So the system we have is designed in so many ways to block the expression of popular will. And I mean, the most obvious element in the constitution that we’re frothing with now is the Electoral College itself. The whole idea that the people would not directly choose the president, but it would be through the Electoral College, all that. So not to say that merely having everybody have the vote directly would be enough, there are many other things that intervene in between the popular interest and will and the actual outcomes of government, but that’s the most obvious one, just the intervention of the Electoral College in between the people’s vote and the selection of the person who’s going to be in charge.|
|Victor Wallis:||But I mean, the political parties themselves, the corporations injecting huge amounts of money, controlling the parties, basically through their financial influence, that’s another element that we all know very well, which interferes with it. So, but I mean, in terms of just the constitution, the Electoral College is the most obvious thing, but I think you can say also the complex mix of central or national on the one hand and state governments, on the other hand, that play back and forth between them, how the confusion of the whole process gets in the way of implementing any alternative popular agenda that might be arrived at.|
|Victor Wallis:||Even the idea of the Senate, the idea that only one-third of it is renewed every two years, was certainly designed to prevent any succumbing to popular impulses. So there are all kinds of things in the beginning, it is stated quite explicitly in the Federalist Paper Number 10, where Madison expressed the fear of the popular majority feeling a sense of its common purpose and being capable of acting in unison. And now we have all kinds of divisions. So in addition to the constitutional divisions, of course, there’s a racial division, but that, in turn, has been reinforced and maintained in effect by all kinds of legal mechanisms, both constitutional and in terms of legislation.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||So why should we assume today that a system based on popular will, a system that is counter to what the founders set up, would be arguably better?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, it’s hard to imagine a more catastrophic situation than what we’re in and we face now. I mean, it’s a real emergency situation in which the indefinite economic expansion is leading us headlong into a crisis of existence for the whole species. So better than that is one where the decisions are made, not in terms of perpetual growth and accumulation and profit maximization, but in terms of the real interest of the population that says, that’s almost by definition, it would be better. And I guess the question that naturally arises is what about the actual disposition of the population now? And of course, that’s a huge problem because if you merely —and this is why I said, it’s not enough just to eliminate the Electoral College — because if you still have the level of information, the level of understanding, the level of socialization that you have now, you’ll get similar results to what you have now, it won’t be any better.|
|Victor Wallis:||So we’re obviously talking about a huge process of consciousness-raising education, coming to an awareness of these things, but there’s a tremendous pressure to undertake this quickly because of the nature of the emergency, which we see expressed in so many ways. I mean, not only the obvious environmental disasters that are taking place — the enormous forest fires increasing in intensity and hurricanes and so on and so forth — but also the social discontent, the tens of millions of people increasing numbers, especially now with COVID-19, who are in poverty. And so, the need to organize against all that is enormous. It can’t be understated.|
|Victor Wallis:||So the people who are suffering from all this, if they could be brought together on their own terms and not under the sponsorship of one of the corporate dominant parties, they would necessarily produce something that corresponded more to what they need than otherwise. So there’s a tremendous, in other words, a tremendous discrepancy between even what people are aware that they want and what they actually choose in the form of candidates. And I found this expressed very concretely this past spring when we had the Democrat primaries on Super Tuesday when Biden won the Super Tuesday vote. They had these surveys conducted of people leaving the voting asking what they wanted in terms of healthcare, and the overwhelming majority wanted healthcare for all, which is exactly what Biden was opposing. So there’s a structure in place that gets in the way of the actual expression of the popular interest and desire.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||You talk about the need within the context of an emergency, or even in any context for that matter, of education and information. Do you think that that kind of education and information can be scaled up to 250 million people in a way that is effective? When we look at simply how tremendous numbers of people have reacted to the pandemic, how people have reacted to guns and shootings, there is a real question as to whether that kind of education and information can be scaled up.|
|Victor Wallis:||I agree that that’s a huge question. I’m not saying that it’s easy. I’m just saying that it needs to be done. And what I would add to that though, is that as more and more people become aware of this need, they will organize more and more. There is more of a sense of the urgency of the situation. There is more receptivity specifically, even to the idea of socialism however it’s understood among people. And this, despite all the years of socialization, among young people, a majority are more disposed towards socialism than towards capitalism.|
|Victor Wallis:||That’s also the case in the African American population. So it’s a question of organizing and it has to be done. Obviously, it’s a matter of great urgency, but this doesn’t mean that it’s easy, but the means are there. And I suppose there’s a little bit more means of expression outside just the huge corporate-owned news media, and so on. Although of course there’s still a problem because the other platforms that people use for communicating indirectly, like Facebook and Google, they’re still also corporate-owned, and they, as we know, can exercise censorship in various forms. So there’s still a need to establish more ways of communicating among people that will be able to bypass any possible repressive activity on the part of such institutions. But yeah, I’m not saying it’s easy, but it has to be done.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||In many ways, the whole idea behind things like Facebook and Twitter and social media, in general, was to democratize information.|
|Victor Wallis:||Yes, absolutely. But, the thing is that at the limits, the corporations that set up these platforms can exercise a veto power and have done so, and they’ve limited the reach of certain outfits. There was actually a congressional hearing, I think, in which they brought up the cases, the World Socialist Web Site that suddenly saw its hits dropping by about 90 percent or something like that because of the way that Google search operated on them. So, yeah, in principle, the mechanism is there, it’s available, but it’s controlled by interests that may at certain points and that do at certain points intervene when they feel that their status is threatened.|
|Victor Wallis:||The latest thing I was looking at is this old film from 1968 called The Year of the Pig, on YouTube, but it comes with warnings: This may be undesirable, do you want to go ahead? It came up twice. And of course, that’s the least bad. In other cases, they’ll just drop it altogether. But so, it’s content that people need to find ways to communicate that are independent of that and it will involve, of course, ultimately going back to direct face-to-face stuff, or even though that’s a bit hard to imagine at the time of the pandemic.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Does socialism as a concept, as you’ve been talking about it and defining it, does it need a rebranding? Does the idea have to be reconceived and resold as opposed to selling it as socialism?|
|Victor Wallis:||Yeah. Well, I don’t see any point in changing the name because it still comes back to the same thing, because if it’s not capitalism, what is it? In other words, if the society is not run, if you don’t have a dominant capitalist class in the society, that leaves the society as a whole, and that’s what socialism is. I think it’s not so much certainly renaming or rebranding, but more, a better understanding of what the idea itself is, and to disassociate it from instances of extreme repressive dictatorship to explain those past instances by historical analysis, but also to present examples of a different form of operation.|
|Victor Wallis:||And I think we’re constantly getting new instances. I think that one of the things about the examples of socialism is we should look not only at whole countries but also at instances where particular institutions are run in a socialist manner so that a productive enterprise that’s run democratically by its workers is in accordance with socialist principle. So the point is that the idea has to be, as I said at the beginning, to get away from identifying socialism with the all omniscient government and rather point at the idea of eliminating the existence of a privileged class, which thereby opens the door to democracy. So it’s definitely a democratic notion.|
|Victor Wallis:||The only reason I find a problem with Sanders’s definition of democratic socialism, is that he understands democratic in a different way. In his concept, the way he actually defines it, he’s talking about the New Deal model, which means socialism without eliminating the capitalist class. But for me, socialism is eliminating, or let’s say dissolving is a better way to put it because it’s not a matter of the people disappearing, it’s a matter of the structure through which they govern disappearing. So you dissolve the capitalist class, and then you have the social preconditions for democratic interaction among all the members of the population. So, that’s the part of the education that needs to take place.|
|Victor Wallis:||One person who’s actually doing a lot of educational work in this direction is the economist Richard Wolff, who has a program called Democracy at Work, which you may know, and he emphasized the whole cooperative aspect of it. And he has a very powerful critique of capitalism, but he brings out that the alternative is not to create the all-powerful state, but rather to have a society with institutions that are run on democratic principles. And that’s the essence of socialism, but you can’t have it as long as there’s a concentrated privilege class.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||What becomes the object then of that society? How are innovation and progress incentivized?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, there’s so much of a need for certain things that I don’t think that’s a question. In other words, you don’t have to depend on financial rewards to innovate or to make progress or to be creative. There can be objective needs, whether it’s a physical problem with the environment or the problem of dealing with an illness, and there are people who are committed to this type of thing, and who do it out of their professional and even human and citizen commitment and they don’t depend on financial incentives. And I think we do have an example of this today, which I think is an extremely important one for this, which is the case of Cuba, which has an incredibly powerful, arguably the most powerful healthcare system in the world, the highest proportion of healthcare workers per capita in the country and even an excess so that they send them overseas.|
|Victor Wallis:||And despite the badmouthing of them to carry on systematically by the United States, the United States government is afraid of a positive example that runs on principles counter to their own. These are very dedicated people, and they reflect an ethic of service that has arisen as a result of the Cuban revolution, and they’re enormously motivated. And they’re also very innovative in terms of research in the scientific fields with particular attention to health issues, immunizations, and cancer treatment, and so on.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Talk a little bit about the fact that the US, even if you could wave your magic wand and make all of this happen here in the United States, that there is still a whole world out there, many places of which are driven by this capitalist model.|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, actually the US is the one where the drive is the strongest. So if the US changes, that would have an enormous impact on everything else. If the US is strong enough, is independent enough, it would have nothing to fear. So that’s where the magic wand thing becomes a bit problematic. I think the way things actually go, the initiative seems to be taking place more outside of the US but it has to come back and be felt in the US so that the initiatives elsewhere can flourish. So the US government spends its energies preventing that initiative from developing as it has, especially in Latin America in the last few decades, it’s doing everything to prevent those kinds of changes from taking root.|
|Victor Wallis:||But I think, if the United States had a leadership that was inspired by these principles, it could encourage, instead of thwarting, the developments that are taking place in other countries and it could be in a more cooperative relationship with other parties including, in particular, the Chinese. I’m not saying the Chinese are not an entirely positive model because they have tremendous inequalities in the society, but on the other hand, the government has shown a capacity to make quick changes of a type that a capitalist government isn’t really in a position to do in the direction of changing the forms of energy that they’ll put an emphasis on and that type of thing.|
|Victor Wallis:||And so, if there could be a cooperative relationship if we got away. I think the biggest change it would make in terms of the rest of the world, is that it would remove the justification for the military-industrial complex that huge amounts of resources could be diverted away from military pursuits to betterment both within this society and in other parts of the world. It would facilitate changes in other parts of the world as well.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||You talk about eliminating things like the Electoral College and talking more about direct democracy, a direct participation, suppose that would happen and what the people wanted was more capitalism?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, you see, the thing is, as I said right away, it’s not enough to eliminate the Electoral College. The understanding needs to be changed. But the thing is, people don’t want more capitalism. That’s the misconception. I mean, even if that’s what they think they want, and if you break it down into specific things that they actually need in terms of their livelihoods, what they want is a decent society. They want a society at peace. They want a society where they have a short education and healthcare and so on and so forth. What has to be understood is that those things provided to everybody is something that capitalism is not going to facilitate.|
|Victor Wallis:||In fact, now it has the whole additional development of these massive mega thousands of dollars of student debt for so many individuals. Retaining capitalism stands in the way of getting the concrete things that people want, so they wouldn’t … The reason now that they seem to be voting for capitalism is that the only two available powerful parties are both capitalist parties, and they have this neat symbiotic relationship with each other, where one of them attacks the other justifiably as being racist, misogynist, xenophobic and so on, and the other falsely, the Republicans falsely attack the Democrats as being socialist. And so, you end up having this dance where everybody votes for one of the other, but in so doing the majority are voting against their own interests.|
|Victor Wallis:||So part of the educational process and the organizational process is for people to understand the connection between the things they need like universal health care and education and peace, and a dissolution of racist tendencies, end to war, why all those things put together cannot be achieved within a capitalist framework is the capitalist framework does exactly the opposite. It perpetuates all those ills.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||What has the pandemic taught you about all of this?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, it’s a kind of extreme example. It’s dramatized all the difficulties. I mean, the first difficulty being the absence of a universal healthcare system in this country, the idea that you have a free at the point of service healthcare, but many other things too, because in order to combat this crisis, in order to combat the illness, you’re not going to need to have all the hospitals and the protective equipment and so on, but people have to have homes. You can’t have homeless people. And there has to be no discrimination against people who are not citizens because there has to be no situation of millions of people in prison where they can’t distance themselves.|
|Victor Wallis:||All these things clash with a proper response to the pandemic. Then, of course, you also have the underlying economic compulsion to disregard human health in favor of maintaining a continuation of the economy. And so, there’s been this catastrophic outcome in the United States as a result of that. And even prior to the actual onset of the pandemic, the capitalist approach to running hospitals, of limiting their capacity and having a quick turnover, and partly also as a result of the pressures of the insurance industry that doesn’t want to pay out hospital costs and so on. And so you had actually a decline in the number of hospital beds prior to the pandemic instead of having a surplus of beds, so as to allow for any possible emergency. So every aspect of the capitalist practice has gotten in the way of a proper response to the pandemic.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Do you suspect that when the pandemic is behind us, that there will be any lasting impact in terms of people’s views of the kinds of things you’re talking about?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, it’s possible. Again, that depends on how good the work is, how effective the educational work is that’s done on the basis of it. Certainly, there’ll be a lot of lessons to be drawn from it. And I think, I mean, I imagine these situations where people, I read in the Dakotas, they’re going to their deaths from COVID swearing that it’s a hoax. And I mean that somehow something will have hit home as a result of it. But I don’t know how soon the pandemic is going to end, but it’s certainly a teaching moment. And I think, yes, the unemployment that has resulted from it, the increased misery of all kinds has created a tremendous situation of discontent, which is not yet, I would say properly focused.|
|Victor Wallis:||I mean, it’s not focused so much on the system, but there’s a discontent, which does create the situation for a rapid coming to awareness on the part of many people. How fast it will happen and how it will happen, that’s for us to determine. But I think that the more work that’s done by especially alternative media, media that are outside of an independent of the corporate influence, it’s going to be of vital importance in this process.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Is there leadership that you see anywhere with respect to the things you’re talking about, political leadership?|
|Victor Wallis:||Yeah. Well, I would say that what’s missing is let’s say a single organization to which everyone who understands the urgency can gravitate, that would actually constitute a coherent political force. There’s lots of leadership, I would say, leaderships in the plural, many different organizations including political organizations, all the interest organizations of various kinds that are doing good work in connection with this whole issue. Whether it’s Food & Water Watch or the Organic Consumers Organization, or Greenpeace or environmental organizations, anti-racist organizations, any number of organizations.|
|Victor Wallis:||And in terms of political parties, it’s more difficult. There’s been … I think one thing that has to be understood, it’s tremendously repressive. It’s very difficult. I mean, for example, the Green Party now has been struggling for decades and is constantly fighting against the processes of repression against it in the form of state laws disqualifying it from the ballot, lawsuits against it trying to prevent it, and even the Commission on Presidential Debates, which keeps it out — it’s a commission that’s run by the two dominant parties themselves. It’s a tremendously repressive situation, so it’s difficult. And I think that’s one of the big challenges.|
|Victor Wallis:||And so, in a way, you will have to have an enormous social movement before you can get a political party that can break through all that repressive apparatus, and who knows what kinds of changes will have to take place in order to bring it about. So as it now stands, the kind of leadership that has some focus on some of the necessary steps is found among certain elected officials within the Democratic party, but say some of the younger members of Congress and so on, but they are limited by the organizations that they’re in also so that they can provide some good ideas and help popularize some of the things that have to be done, but they don’t constitute by themselves the unifying force that will be needed, that’ll have to arise.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Is it a unifying force or is what’s really needed charismatic leadership?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, again, I would prefer to put that in the plural. I’m very wary of relying, especially on single individuals, which is what’s usually understood when you speak of charismatic leadership. Also, because in this country, we have a terrible tradition that’s part of all the rest of it, of charismatic leaders being assassinated. And this is a systemic problem, it’s not the product of low nuts, so to speak, it’s systemic that we can’t depend on overwhelmingly important individual leaders. Obviously, they’ll have to be leadership, but what there needs to be is there has to be a collective leadership. There have to be many individuals with leadership capacities and who do, as a result of doing their work, develop charismatic qualities. But in terms of relying on a symbolic or even real leadership vested in an individual, that’s a very dangerous course.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Isn’t that though inherent in the culture that we live in today?|
|Victor Wallis:||Well, yeah, I mean, the culture, the celebrity culture tends to promote that. It looks for leaders. But that’s an aspect of the culture that also has to be called into question. I think one of the aspects of the culture that’s most dangerous is this comparison among people, rating, ranking, the whole emphasis about being the top, being the best, that everybody can strive for excellence and it’s not a question of being better than someone else. And so, the idea that someone who’s conspicuous is therefore what you should look up to, that’s not the point. I think it’s a question of developing, actually, what I would say is a more democratic culture. Democratic culture is one that sees value in everyone.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Victor Wallis, his latest book is Socialist Practices, Histories and Theories. Victor, it is always a pleasure. Thank you so much for spending time with us.|
|Victor Wallis:||Thank you very much, Jeff. It’s been a pleasure.|
|Jeff Schechtman:||Thank you. And thank you for listening and for joining us here on Radio WhoWhatWhy. I hope you join us next week for another Radio WhoWhatWhy podcast, I’m Jeff Schechtman. If you liked this podcast, please feel free to share and help others find it by rating and reviewing it on iTunes. You can also support this podcast and all the work we do by going to whowhatwhy.org/donate.|
Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from James Vaughan / Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).
Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?
Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.
Our Comment Policy
Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.