The Cold War era was, to be sure, serious in nature, but it has also become an increasingly hazy historical period for many. We forget the central role it played in international politics, as well as its constant presence as a series of threats hanging over all means of domestic politics. The Cold War was the stuff of many an action-packed spy thriller, while also fueling our post-apocalyptic speculations around the threat of nuclear war.

To take these recent warnings seriously, we at Angry & Verklemmt think it’s worth reminiscing a bit on the original Cold War. We want to highlight what this battle of superpower rivalries was, and why it might still matter today. But there’s also the matter of its nefarious use—invoking the Cold War inevitably serves political purposes, and we do well to keep this in mind.

So, join us on Angry and Verklemmt, as we consider the potential impacts of a now bygone era. And we try to make sense of the present in that light…

Add to this the ongoing claim, since at least the 1980s, that this cradle-to-grave existence, consolidated in the post-war era has run its course. It’s irresponsible, and we can’t sustain it fiscally. America needs to fashion market-based alternatives to these supposedly dying systems, rather than propping them up until their inevitable collapse.

There are, of course, counterarguments to both of these claims, but in an individualized and market-heavy political culture, these are regularly brushed away. And not just with the help of Republicans. Still, the social state in the US—for all its faults—has continued to grow, albeit on an incremental, piecemeal basis. In this episode, we want to ask the question whether the current administration marks a break in that trend. We ask whether the administration—in its flurry of activity—also intends to dismantle cherished social programs and to what end. What could this possibly achieve politically, and if it brings only negative political returns, why do it?

So join us, on Angry and Verklemmt, as we consider the assault on democracy as an assault on the social…

In today’s episode, we’re asking another pretty simple question: why do Republicans just keep going along with it all? Politics has always been an activity with a less-than-stellar track record in honesty and integrity. But the seemingly complete willingness of Republican figures to stand policy positions on their head, throw out previously held values, or even submit themselves to public ridicule has been noteworthy, to say the least. And this is not just party figureheads – across the party, there is now mostly uniform adherence to whatever direction the administration wants to pursue, no matter how bombastic, offensive, or even un-Republican it may be.

So, join us, on Angry & Verklemmt, as we move a little beyond Trump and Trumpism, and try to make sense of why and how he seems to have such a stranglehold on the Republican Party.

And yet, all the while, we hear demands to find commonground. It's still frequently suggested that there's more that unites America than divides it. Above all, there's been a non-stop questioning around the source of this anger. Where does it come from? Why now? Can it be addressed? And who is addressing it better? So to think about this, we want to ask asimple question. Is it okay to be angry? And if it is, how is it okay? And what should it mean for politics in the US?

There's a prevailing sentiment that anger and outrage are kind of exclusively the domain of Republicans and that Democratsjust fare better when they stay above the fray. But the current environment is almost certainly challenging that orthodoxy because a wider cross current of people are experiencing misgiving and anger at the flurry of events instigated by the present administration. It also seems to be awakening a new fight mentality among Democrats. The lingering question is whether Democrats can utilize and manage this anger effectively and whether this will have a lasting impact on the future of the party and American politics going forward.