Peter Banks sat down with Richard Hanania for a wide-ranging conversation at the start of Boyd’s new sprint on America’s problem-solving capacity.
Rather than offering a single diagnosis, the discussion moved across institutions, information, culture wars, immigration, China, and AI — circling one recurring question: whether modern societies still have the ability to identify real problems and coordinate durable solutions in a fractured political and media environment.
(00:00–06:30) What does “problem-solving capacity” even mean?
The conversation opens with skepticism about the premise itself. Hanania argues that outcomes are mixed: some problems improve (crime, overdoses), others persist, and it’s hard to separate policy success from social cycles. Both discuss whether America often creates problems first and then congratulates itself for partially fixing them.
(06:30–14:30) Trump as a stress test for institutions
Peter and Hanania debate whether Trump shows institutional decay or institutional resilience. Hanania sketches both an optimistic story (markets, courts, and incentives still constrain bad leadership) and a pessimistic one (Trump may be the least irrational node in a much worse populist information ecosystem).
(14:30–21:30) America vs. Europe: dynamism, stagnation, and tail risk
They compare U.S. volatility with European consensus politics. Europe appears better at avoiding extreme outcomes but worse at reform and growth; America looks more innovative but with higher risk of political breakdown. Energy and nuclear policy become a focal example of frozen priors versus adaptive systems.
(21:30–27:30) China and state capacity: solving problems at scale — and solving the wrong ones
China is discussed as the high-capacity counter-model: strong at executing infrastructure and pandemic policy, but potentially brittle on deeper social problems like fertility decline. They debate whether AI and automation could offset demographic collapse, or whether population still fundamentally matters.
(27:30–33:30) Why culture war dominates: disgust, status, and movement momentum
Hanania explains the right’s obsession with trans issues as a deep, historically rooted disgust response around sex and gender. The puzzle is the left’s persistence: after gay marriage succeeded, advocacy energy, organizations, and status incentives carried forward into a new cause.
(33:30–38:30) Institutional overhang and reform movements that never die
Peter raises the idea that reform institutions linger after solving their original problems, expanding into mission creep (tenant protections, civil rights enforcement, environmental regulation). Both discuss safetyism and diminishing returns as pathologies of mature democracies.
(38:30–42:30) Immigration as an unsolvable political equilibrium
Hanania argues comprehensive immigration reform is effectively blocked. The right has become absolutist against any compromise; the left has more flexibility but little incentive to push legislation. The likely future is continued executive toggling rather than statutory reform.
(42:30–46:30) Media, curation, and the collapse of gatekeeping
They turn to the information environment: social media rewards the loudest and least responsible voices, while legacy media curation has collapsed. Hanania predicts a split future — “smart discourse” in curated spaces like Substack, and increasingly chaotic mass discourse on platforms like TikTok.
(46:30–51:00) AI as a partial fix for information and productivity
The conversation closes on AI as a cognitive tool. Hanania describes using AI for writing, summarizing news, and running data analysis, arguing that non-use by writers and analysts is becoming irrational. Both note the promise and risks of outsourcing first-pass judgment to machines.
