The response from all of y’all was overwhelming. You didn’t just agree (or disagree, for that matter) with the advice. You told us what it actually feels like out there right now.

The playing field was never level

One of the most-liked comments in the thread came from Kelsey, who grew up in a blue collar family and eventually became a lawyer. She pushed back on the networking advice that feels so natural to some.

“In my experience, the culture in blue collar communities views interpersonal relationships as relationships. Either you enjoy another person's company or you don't and avoid them! You don't think about how someone can help you. (But you sure as hell offer help, whether labor or money, when you have a relationship with someone who is struggling but not asking for help.)”

Beth replied that Kelsey had given her words for her own experience. Dozens of you agreed. The thread that followed was a masterclass in how class shapes career — from not understanding internships (”I didn’t understand working for free”), to missing the unspoken social codes that some people absorb from birth.

If you’ve ever felt like everyone else got a manual you didn’t receive, you’re not imagining it. The manual exists. It just wasn’t distributed equally.

This week’s newsletter is sponsored by Babbel

Learn a new Language and get up to 60% off your subscription at Babbel.com/PANTSUITNEWSLETTER

The “safe” paths aren’t safe anymore

If the networking conversation revealed old inequities, the job search stories revealed new ones. And they weren’t just about entry-level workers.

One person shared that a family member with a “safe” degree cannot get an interview. Another wrote that their spouse’s position was eliminated and they have applied across completely different fields. Most applications, she said, feel like they disappear into a hole.

A member described her son graduating with a master’s in data science from a prestigious university — someone who, by any traditional measure, “did everything right” — who can’t get past an AI screening call.

Which brings us to the robots.

Multiple members flagged what might be the most disorienting development in an already disorienting market: AI is now the first gatekeeper for most applications, and it doesn’t reward qualifications. It rewards keywords. One member shared a study showing that AI screeners actually show a preference for resumes written with the same large language model the employer is using — but applicants have no way of knowing which one that is.

But here’s what Kim wants you to know

When Kim Miller — our guest — saw the thread filling up with these stories, she showed up in the comments.

“I just don’t think we need more fear right now,” she wrote. “I teach undergraduate students, and so many of them have already secured jobs. It is possible.”

Kim’s point throughout the episode — and in the thread — wasn’t that the market is fine. It’s that the skills which have always mattered most are the ones hardest to automate and hardest to screen out: genuine relationships, broad problem-solving ability, a track record of showing up and contributing. The students she sees succeeding aren’t necessarily the ones with the most prestigious degrees. They’re the ones who collected experiences, built real relationships with professors and mentors, and learned how to communicate their value to another human being.

That’s cold comfort if you’re currently staring at a rejection folder, or if you’re a kid who just got turned down for a summer job that used to go to anyone with a pulse. We hear you. The market is strange right now in ways that don’t show up in the unemployment rate..

We’re going to keep this conversation flowing, because - whatever the next job report might show - this issue isn’t going anywhere.

…if you ever need administrative help, I’m your girl. I know sorting through email may not be the aspect of your work you want to delegate, but I’m sure there are other things that would be nice to pass off as the Pantsuit Politics world continues to grow. You may not be ready to take on help (volunteer or paid) at the moment, but I’m putting the offer out there for either.

sent us an email on February 23, 2018, telling us that she loved Pantsuit Politics and would be happy to help us if we needed it. More than six years later, she has decidedly outgrown the charter of “administrative help.” Her project management skills have grown and deepened. Every person she interacts with outside Pantsuit Politics tells us she’s the best in the business, and we know it’s true.

We first met by email on August 29, 2016, when she reached out a discussion we had on perceived abuses of the social safety net. Fast forward to September of 2021, when we sent her a note on Voxer in a panic because both Alise and Megan Hart, who managed our book club at the time, were going to be on parental leaves as our first book was launching. Maggie joined our business as if she’d always been part of it because, in so many ways, she had been. Maggie’s heart is present in everything she touches, and we know that’s why so many of you call her a friend-in-your-phone.

Alise and Maggie are both leaving Pantsuit Politics after a long, great run. They each leave a legacy in our community and our business. We are cheering for them and have no doubt that they’ll find happiness and success in the next chapters of their careers.

We wanted to open space here as their virtual going away celebration. We know they’d love to read your notes in the comments. We will miss them, and we are in good shape for our next chapter because of the thoughtful work they’ve done with us.

With gratitude,

Sarah and Beth

We’re not going to lie and say it isn’t a complicated celebration. America has always been full of possibility, and that possibility has often come at too high and too uneven a price. It is a nation of principles and a nation of contradictions. How do we settle into flag-waving and fireworks when we vigorously disagree with our current government? How do we celebrate democracy if we feel democracy is letting us down?

We’ve kept those questions top of mind, all the time. And we made some things for you.

Read more

Pushback from Ruth

“I wanted to respond to Sarah’s comment that motherhood has taught her everything and if she hadn’t had kids she’d be the same as she was in her early 20s. This might not have been the main point of the conversation, but I think it represents a pretty common way of thinking, especially from people who married pretty young. In that scenario, your only experience of not being married or having kids is your early 20s self — so of course you’d imagine being stuck there. People who’ve been single for a long time, or who don’t have kids, also grow and change. Life teaches all of us.”

— Ruth

Ruth is right and I knew that wasn’t quite right when I said it. (Happens all the time!) I do think I had some real hard edges that needed wearing off. Y’all didn’t know me in my twenties, but you’re just going to have to trust me. I’m sure life would have found a way, but toddlers were particularly efficient at it. - Sarah

The pandemic and reproductive windows

“In my own situation, I have one child, born when I was 31. I would have liked to have more, but the pandemic happened when my son had just turned 2…Now I’m turning 40 and looking at the baby time window closing. I think I’m not alone in wishing the pandemic wasn’t part of that very narrow span of childbearing years. But you know, life happens”

— SMay

“Life happens” is exactly the thing I meant when I kept referring to my Grandmother Joy’s advice that you just do your best and know you’ll get through. There were already tough choices, all involving serious risks and trade-offs. Then we layered on a pandemic that upended e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.

After we released this episode, I was texting with a friend about why neither of us have 3 kids: we hated being pregnant. That’s a hard thing to say when you know that it will reach and wound women who desperately want to be pregnant. It’s hard because I feel some guilt around it. What has my unwillingness to be pregnant again cost Chad, Jane, and Ellen (and our parents, and in some sense, the world)? And then I type that sentence and it’s way too much pressure to put on myself and my life. And of course my physical experience of pregnancy is a valid factor (maybe the dispositive factor) in having another child. There are ands forever, and I think that’s why “life happens” is the most conclusive thing to be said about where we end up in our own families. - Beth

A question from Renee

“Sarah, do you think your desire for multiple children was influenced by you having been an only child?”

— Renee

Abso-fucking-lutely. I grew up in big families. My parents are both one of four, and I felt that lack my whole life. The older I’ve gotten the harder it feels. I tell people all the time. Being an only child as a kid is great, but it sucks as an adult. As my parents age, I feel the increased pressure of being the only one to care for them constantly, and they are all in good health! I wish I had someone who understood my childhood, who I didn’t feel was a relationship I had to earn. I know I inevitably romanticize sibling relationships. My husband is one of five. I get it’s not all closeness and easy connection, but I still really wish I had close siblings I’d grown up in the same household with. - Sarah

Being a burden — the hospice angle

“I tell patients that life is made up of different seasons. Some seasons are mostly about giving and others are times for taking. I talk about all they’ve given to their families/communities and how it’s their time to take again. The life cycle as a circle — that message of interdependence throughout life seems to resonate deeply with your dying patients.”

— Janice Elliott, hospice worker

I’ve known for years that when I reach the end of my life, I’d want Janice Elliott or someone exactly like her by my side. This comment is a representation of what I’ve learned is Janice’s deep commitment to honesty, kindness, and dignity. It’s this kind of comment that has helped me go from an unhealthy, self-sacrificial-even-when-it-helps-no-one, people-pleaser to a person who deeply believes that I am here to burden others as much as I am here to be burdened by others. That if I take on others’ troubles without ever giving them mine, I am undermining their dignity as well as my own. That interdependence is how we keep our human ecosystem in balance. - Beth

Comments are only available to our paid members. If you want to see this kind of wisdom and insight around every episode, subscribe today!

Subscribe now

What question should we be asking instead?

“I also believe that the answer to changing population isn’t ‘how do we get women to have more kids,’ it’s ‘how do we adapt?’”

— Ashley Peterson

Two things jump out at me:

1) I would revise “how do we get women to have more kids?” to “how do we make having kids feel more accessible to more people?” I’m not a natalist. I think the objective of just having more people is…not great. It might be a partial solution to some challenges. It certainly creates others. My concern (and concern isn’t even the right word! Maybe it’s more like “my sadness”) is that so many people look at the world and think “I can’t afford it” or “I can’t manage it” or “I’d be doing it alone.” I’m interested in supporting pregnancy better (even with a loving, involved husband, I found it so lonely). I’m interested in building villages so that whatever life hands a family, they know that other people will be meaningfully in it with them.

2) “How do we adapt?” is a great question, and one that we will have to answer. The first step, to me, is finding some level of political stability. I’m not seeing a lot of hopeful, adaptive visions right now because we’re so hunkered down in defense of a status quo that was broken but preferable to *this.* - Beth

The technology/loneliness angle

“I cannot believe no one has mentioned technology in relation to this phenomenon. The way that Sarah talks about feeling the Indiana Jones boulder rolling right behind her in terms of education? Yeah that’s how I feel in terms of dating. We are so addicted to our phones/games/TVs and we are having this loneliness epidemic and it seems like the only way to actually meet people now is through apps.”

— Emily Chapdelaine (who is giving birth in the next 2.5 weeks!)

A friend who studies behavioral patterns texted me this right after the episode! Technology is changing what relationships mean and what we’re capable of within them. I did not dream of scrolling in bed next to my husband while he does DuoLingo exercises and plays a game on his phone, but here we are. I don’t know that the clock gets rolled back on this, and I don’t quite know what that means for any of us, and especially for people who are dating. - Beth

Modern parenting expectations are killing the vibe

“I think we’ve got to shift the vibe around parenting here in the US if we want people to have more kids. The expectations on parents feel so overwhelming — the activities, birthday parties, time spent on betterment, the guilt. I opt out on a ton of the modern parenting expectations — but my kids do notice.”

— Zo

“Every single mom stayed for the entire hour Daisy Scout event. In my day, Girl Scouts was a way busy parents kept children occupied so they could get things done. What happened?”

— Yvette

I would like to start an entire podcast in which I roll into other people’s homes Supernanny style and just go from one thing to the next and say, “Stop doing that!” BUTTTT it would need to involve a bit of magic so that when I stop one family it magically stops all families, because otherwise the pressure will still be there! In other words, I agree! -Sarah

Resources mentioned in the comments

“The Ghost Ship That Didn’t Carry Us” by Dear Sugar (Cheryl Strayed)

Kid Gloves: Nine Months of Careful Chaos by Lucy Knisley

Motherland: A Feminist History of Modern Russia by Julia Ioffe

My Notorious Life by Kate Manning

The Secret History of Wonder Woman by Jill Lepore

NYT Interactive: Human Population Growth & Decline

Wikipedia: List of Countries by Net Reproduction Rate

This Newsworthy podcast episode

Guardian: Women home-buyers and dating dynamics

We want you to take us the rest of the way! Take a look at our two finalists and cast your vote for the winner at the bottom of this post.

Sarah will announce the winner next Monday on the news brief, so make sure you’re subscribed to hear the news there first!

Finalist A:

Amelia’s Neighborliness for All quilt design

Finalist B:

Bethany’s Be Good Neighbors pendant design

Now it’s your turn! Cast your vote to help us choose the winning design.

Results will be combined with voting from Instagram Stories.

I have a question about the Supreme Court’s ruling about districting and the Voting Rights Act. I’m disappointed that they seem bent on disenfranchising people. Can you please speak to why we have districts at all now? Why can’t all citizens place votes in an election and then the state as a whole tally the votes for an elected official? Seems like that would allow for a true majority election? And the districting now seems so vulnerable to cheating. - J.

I love this question. It cuts right to the heart of how our system is designed and how it’s functioning.

Share

Article I of the Constitution creates Congress with its two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. These chambers are designed to be different from each other:

• The Senate is very small-r republican (focused on the rule of law, civic virtue, and guarding against tyranny, either from a monarchy or from a majority) in its design: every state, no matter its population, gets two senators to serve six-year terms.

• The House of Representatives is very small-d democratic in its design (focused on the power of the people expressed through majority rule): every state gets at least one Representative with additional representatives apportioned based on population. Article I says that we’re supposed to have one representative for no more than 30,000 people. Each Representative serves a two-year term.

From these differences, we imagine Representatives being more connected to the people they speak for than Senators. This was a brand new idea, and the Constitution didn’t tell the states how to run with it.

This week’s newsletter is sponsored by Babbel

Learn a new Language and get up to 60% off your subscription at Babbel.com/PANTSUITNEWSLETTER

J., four states did exactly what you’re suggesting! Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania elected their Representatives on state-wide general tickets. Georgia and Maryland had general tickets, but also decided Representatives had to live in the areas they’d represent. And the rest of the states drew geographic districts to elect their Reps.

We put this idea into practice for the first time in 1788. In the states that drew districts, there was partisan maneuvering from the get-go. In Virginia, for example, anti-Federalists drew lines so that James Madison would be up against James Monroe, hoping to keep Madison out of Congress. Nothing about the way we live creates an obvious system for drawing boundaries (just think about the shapes of the states), so people brought their personal priorities to the table immediately.

Legislatures across the country made choices that favored their parties, and we soon had a name for this: “gerrymander.” The term dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s party drew a district that looked like a salamander to increase their power in the state senate.

From the beginning, we’ve known that drawing districts is a messy business prone to partisan shenanigans. But, the state-wide tickets weren’t faring much better. In Pennsylvania, the Federalists were hugely popular in populous Philadelphia and were cleaning up on the statewide ticket. Folks in western Pennsylvania were not feeling represented at all, so for years, Pennsylvania and other states switched back and forth. Some years they’d have state-wide elections; in other years, they’d draw districts. It all depended on who won and what they thought would serve them the next time.

Eventually, Congress passed laws (the Apportionment Act of 1842 and the Uniform Congressional Districting Act of 1967) to stop the back-and-forth and require states to draw single-member districts: divide the state up into sections; each section gets one representative; that representative is supposed to live there and understand and genuinely represent that section’s concerns. Those laws also had partisan motivations. Human selfishness, group affiliation, and competitiveness have been baked into this system from the beginning.

Since we’ve tried it, we know that state-wide tickets for Representatives create the same problems for the House that we see in Senate races: population centers have outsized control. We see even redder or bluer results. State-wide races are expensive to run, so we have even less diversity among candidates for office. I wish the state-wide ticket could be our solution, but I don’t think it is.

I also don’t think there’s a world in which we’ll draw “fair” districts. I think we can draw fairer districts. I am enthusiastically supportive of independent commissions trying to do this. But drawing lines across people and space is hard. My friend Maggie just attended election-official training and came back with so many stories from the county clerk about homes that are in one city for elections and a different city’s zip code and a different district for school. I think constantly about Switzerland and Italy having to adjust the border under the Matterhorn because of melting glaciers. We just don’t live in neat blocks.

Even more fundamentally, we are gerrymandering ourselves by moving to areas where people share our views. Partisanship has impacted our thoughts about where to live and where to visit. And this has ripple effects for daysssss. As states, counties, districts, and cities get redder or bluer, it’s easier for voters who aren’t in the local majority to opt out of the process, believing their votes won’t matter. Some of our most intense negative partisan sentiment comes from people who are red or blue “dots” in opposite districts.

The Supreme Court has taken a hard pass on gerrymandering disputes in federal court, and we know that partisan line-drawing is as old as the country, so…is all lost?

No! There are lots of good ideas about making our union more perfect.

*Cue Sarah*

In 1929, Congress set the number of Representatives at 435, when about 122 million people lived in the United States. I’m not great at math, but even I know that puts us way out of the original 30,000:1 ratio.

In 2026, we still have 435 members of the House for about 343 million people. The average representative now has more than 750,000 constituents. Delaware’s representative has just under 1 million constituents. Wyoming’s representative has the smallest number of constituents, at around 577,000. Still, over half a million people is so many people! If this is the people’s House and we have a lot more people, maybe we need more people in the House.

When we put all these pieces together—geographic sorting by partisanship, partisan gerrymandering, districts that are too large—I think a useful step forward is to make our primary elections more competitive by opening primaries in all states.

According to Ballotpedia:

• 14 states require open primaries (you don’t have to be registered with a political party to vote in its primary)

• 13 require closed primaries (you can only vote in the primary of a party if you are registered with that party)

• 10 require semi-closed primaries (independents can participate in primaries)

• 5 require top-two style primaries (voters choose among candidates of all parties)

• 11 give the political parties discretion to decide (*buries my head in my hands*)

There are nuances state-by-state, but let’s stay with the big picture: the fastest-growing bloc of voters is independents. Both major parties are underwater with voters. Any system built on closing ranks around the Republican and Democratic parties as they exist today needs a fresh look. We need more pluralism in everything/everywhere/all the time.

Subscribe now

There are other paths forward!

• Congress could pass a law banning mid-cycle redistricting, requiring states to wait for a new census before changing the lines. Short of that, Congress could pass a law prohibiting changes to districts in election years.

• Congress could pass a law banning partisan gerrymandering and defining the characteristics of acceptable districts for purposes of federal elections.

• We could take ranked-choice voting out for a nationwide spin!

• State legislatures could pass laws that hold themselves to higher standards on districting.

• Voters could advocate for changes to state constitutions that define characteristics of acceptable districts.

• There are ideas floating around about using algorithms to facilitate bipartisan negotiations around maps.

We’ve had issues from the beginning, and no system will be perfect. Also? No system has to stay stuck. I don’t think anyone likes where we are (I very much do not). We have options, and there’s nothing more American than continuing to experiment. - Beth

Do you have questions for Sarah and Beth? Let us know in the comments or send them our way at hello@pantsuitpoliticsshow.com

Leave a comment

But the race I’m most invested in on this ballot is our county judge-executive. In Kentucky, judge-executives touch almost every aspect of managing the places we live: snow removal, road construction, property taxes, business development, housing, water and sewer. You name it; the judge-executive has responsibility for it.

The last time our judge-executive was on the ballot, just over 10,000 people (in my county of around 140,000 people) voted in that race.

And I get it. Our brains fill up with our daily to-dos, insurance renewals, pet illness, the water heater leaking. Then we pour in national news, and we start to overflow. It takes energy and capacity to care about local races, and many of us simply don’t have it. I understand.

But I have that capacity, so I want to see how I can use it.

Enter Ballot Club.

Share

Several years ago, my neighbor Bethanie and I invited friends to my house right before election day. We made a simple slideshow listing the races that would be on our ballots. We described what the offices do (Kentucky elects constables! It’s bewildering!) and listed the candidates. We had some snacks, and we talked through the slides with the room. Does anyone know this person running for school board? How about this city council candidate? Have you ever tried to call our rep? What happened?

It was a lively, educational, fruitful, zero pressure conversation among lots of people from different corners of my life and their friends. We had one objective: everyone leaves a little more prepared to vote.

I’m planning to do it again for our upcoming primaries. Here’s my slideshow, which I’ll post on all the socials. I’ll invite my people and their people to come to my house if they want. I’ll assure them that I’m not fundraising or stumping for anyone. And we’ll see what happens.

Here’s a link to the slideshow with working links, in case some of these elections affect you!

This feels very low-stakes to me. If no one shows up, some people will still look at the slides and click some links. Purpose served!

If I have a house full, I’ve only promised something that I’ve already done (and some snacks).

A quick note before the how-to:

Local engagement runs on context — and context is what we build on our premium shows. More to Say is where I take 15–20 minutes most evenings to unpack the structure behind a single story so the rest of the news makes more sense. Paid subscribers also get our weekday News Brief with Sarah, Spicy Live on Thursdays, and the subscriber threads where folks already swap ballot guides, county clerk recommendations, and “wait, what does a constable actually do” research from their own districts.

If this post made you think “I should be doing this in my town” — the people doing exactly that are on the other side of the paywall.

Subscribe now

It takes an investment of time to put the information together, and if you, too, have that capacity, here are some ways to get started:

• Your state’s Secretary of State runs elections. Look at the Secretary of State website for important deadlines, a link to check on your voter registration status, and any other election headquarters-type information.

• Often, your Secretary of State’s office can point you to the right county official for more detailed information. In Kentucky, our county clerks run elections, and my county’s clerk does a fantastic job sharing election information. In other states, you might be looking for a county election supervisor or a similar title. If you’re not finding anything, trying Google-ing “who is the top election official in __ County, [state]?”

• Here’s the tricky part: information for each candidate. If you know of a local or regional news outlet, start there. See if they have an election guide or candidate round-up. Sometimes a local television station will have good links and resources. I resorted for one candidate to a Reddit thread because it was the best I can do. That’s ok! This isn’t a test (for you…you can divine what you will about the candidates from what they’ve shared about themselves).

In the general everything-overwhelm, we say to plug in locally so often that it sounds trite. Maybe it is. But I like seeing what I can do and doing it. - Beth

Leave a comment

We landed on two words: Good Neighbors.

We want to make a shirt that says something true about who we’re trying to be.

Here’s Where You Come In

We’re opening a design contest to the Pantsuit Politics community. We want to see what “Good Neighbors” looks like through your eyes. The winning design becomes our special edition t-shirt, released just in time for you to wear it all summer and (if you’re joining us) to the Spice Conference and live show in Minneapolis at the end of August.

We can’t wait to see a room full of these shirts in Minneapolis. But this isn’t just a live show shirt. It’s a shirt for wherever you are, doing whatever you do, being a good neighbor in your own community.

The Brief

Here’s what we’re looking for:

The required element: The theme of “Good Neighbors.”

Context to inspire you: This shirt celebrates three things at once: our community, America’s 250th birthday, and our Minneapolis event this August. Your design doesn’t need to reference all three. Just knowing the context might spark something.

What to avoid: Partisan imagery, political slogans, clip art, or AI-generated elements. We’re not looking for merch-for-a-brand-or-campaign.

Print constraints: Your design should work in one or two colors on a neutral-colored shirt (think navy, heather gray, or soft white).

The Pantsuit Politics logo will be added to the final shirt by our team (likely on a sleeve or back), so you don’t need to include it in your design.

How to Submit

You’ll need to provide:

• Your name and email

• Your design file (high-resolution PNG, or a vector file: SVG, AI, or EPS)

• A short description of your concept — just 2 or 3 sentences about what you were going for

• A confirmation that the design is your original work and that you’re granting Pantsuit Politics the right to use it for this shirt

One submission per person. The deadline is April 30 at midnight Eastern.

Submit your design here!

What the Winner Gets

• Recognition on the show and in our launch announcement

• Five free shirts to keep and share

• Two tickets to the live show in Minneapolis (or, if you can’t make it, a free year of Spice Cabinet membership)

We can’t wait to see what Good Neighbors means to you!

Here’s a question from Victoria that we wanted to share with everyone:

I have a serious and a less serious question:

1) how to put context around the war for kids? My 12 year old is very anxious. I remember how I felt during 9/11 when I was 12 but also the odd reality of how ‘normal’ everyday life felt.

2) I’m going back to formal workforce after working from home for myself for a decade …. HALP!!! Encouragement? How do I interact with coworkers? How do I pace myself during a traditional work day? How can I set myself up for success?

Leave a comment

Talking to Your 12-Year-Old About War

I see and honor your 12-year-old’s feelings. That’s the place to begin. War is scary. It makes all of us anxious. It’s mature and caring to be worried for the world and people all over it. It’s a sign of a tender heart to experience the dissonance of knowing that while you took an algebra test, a school across the ocean was destroyed by bombs. Being mature, caring, and tender-hearted sucks sometimes. I think it’s good to be honest with our kids about this truth.

War is scary even when we clearly understand why it’s happening. It’s even scarier this time because we really don’t. This seems to be a war in search of a why. It’s hard knowing that sometimes adults, even the adults in the most powerful positions on earth, make catastrophic mistakes.

To me, that’s the most important context. Sometimes we make catastrophic mistakes, and then we have to figure out what happens next. We always do, in some form.

If I were sitting with you and your 12-year-old, I would do my best to answer any questions. I would be honest about all that I don’t know. I would say clearly that I don’t know much because we are somewhere in the middle of this mess. Maybe we’d talk about living through 9/11, which is a reminder that every person who has ever lived has seen some very scary events unfold. I think we’d talk about how all of us have moments in our lives that we think we can’t survive.

We get through those moments together. We adapt. We learn. We make our own mistakes, and we hope our mistakes are better ones than the people who came before us. We keep loving each other. That’s how we have a good life in a chaotic world.

Share

Re-entering the Workforce

Victoria, I’m going to answer all of your questions with one sentiment: Value your experience. I’m your personal hype-woman right now. See everything that feels out of place in your new workplace as a strength, and set your intention to make it so.

You worked for yourself for a decade that was extremely tumultuous in the world?

You must have great adaptability, foresight, and problem-solving skills.

You worked from home during this time?

That takes real focus and discipline.

Sounds like you’re also raising a family during this time?

I bet you can prioritize with the best.

You’re also arriving in this new role without the baggage of how the old company did it, or what the old office felt like, or what the current dynamics are in this place. You’re bringing in a fresh perspective. When a person is able to combine a fresh perspective with genuine curiosity about the new environment, that’s hugely valuable.

I want you to go in with confidence that you know exactly how to pace your day because you’ve been pacing your days in a much harder, more ambiguous environment. You’ll be able to meet whatever challenges this workplace throws at you because you’ve been solving problems in your business for ten years.

If a voice in your head is undercutting you, make a list of the specific things you’re good at. Remember that workplaces of all kinds struggle to find people who can stay calm in a crisis, who give and take feedback graciously, who know how to speak to another human being on the phone, and who listen to colleagues without distraction. There are so many things that I bet you do without thinking about them that your new employer is over the moon to find in you.

I will not read them for a million billion trillion dollars. Not from a reputable company. Not from the lens of actually this is just about health/hormones/fill-in-the-blank. Not in a car; not on a train; etc. I will not.

Advertising is a necessary evil of trying to make a thing consistently and well for a long period of time that you’d like to offer people for free. Because of that, I read the ads for all kinds of products, most of which I do actually like.

But I will not read weight loss ads of any kind for any reason because I think of Pantsuit Politics listeners as people I’ve invited into my living room. We might talk about all kinds of random shit in my living room: You got a presidential candidate for 2028 you like? How about a lip gloss/multi-vitamin/pair of socks? It’s fine. I would never, in my living room, say, “so how’re you feeling about your weight? How’re you feeling about mine? In fact, how about we take a pause right here just to remind us both that we carry around pounds? I bet you don’t already do that 900 times in the course of an afternoon.”

Women are currently encouraged to talk about our weight but only if that talk is prefaced, informed, and constrained by personal disclosure. If I am to write an essay about the size of my body, I am to include a full and detailed journey, complete with measurements, sizes, what I’ve tried to lose weight and what’s worked for how long and what hasn’t worked and how I feel about all of that working and not-working and what I’m currently trying, because I am of a size where I’d better be currently trying.

If I don’t include those details, it must be that I’m too ashamed. And really I should disclose the precise nature and source of my shame and what I’m doing to alleviate it, all while reassuring the audience that I definitely feel an adequate supply of it.

It must be that I’m ashamed. It couldn’t possibly be that somewhere along the way, I let the statistics and dates and point systems and disgusting Jenny Craig-wrapped “desserts” sail away in the breeze. It couldn’t be that I’ve decided my attention is better spent elsewhere.

The body positivity movement was important to me because it showed me pictures of bodies like mine living in the world. It showed me bodies like mine in bikinis, in evening gowns, on basketball courts, in clothes that perhaps I’d like to buy. For what felt like five minutes, some brands were actually marketing to me. That was nice.

This is how weird it is to have a large body. You actually feel excluded from capitalism.

I appreciated the concept of health-at-any-size. It, again, felt like I was finally invited to spend money in places where everyone else has been spending lots and lots of money.

As with all things, the “body positivity movement” got interneted. Now it’s fodder for a thousand essays attacking it, defending it, musing on just as I am right now. Rest in the cache, body positivity movement. I knew you when.

I do not want to talk about GLP-1s in my living room because I am in a body of a certain size. How on earth could I talk about GLP-1s without explaining whether I’m on one currently, and, if not, why not?

That question is rhetorical. The answer is that what I am and am not doing in my body is exactly no one else’s business. Same for you and you and you.

I could just talk about GLP-1s. I could.

But of course, I talk in public, on the internet, where someone will see a clip of me saying literally anything I could possibly say about these drugs, and that person will immediately raise an eyebrow and then search for additional photos of me to see if I’m in an approved container to be able to discuss this issue.

I’m sure this happens about everything I discuss, including and especially sex, which I do talk about on tomorrow’s episode of Pantsuit Politics. I can handle it on some topics, especially topics about which I know I have something to contribute, something that makes these mental calculations and risks worth it.

For a discussion about a medication that I feel nothing and everything about all at once, so much feeling that I can’t even put words around the feelings? Pass.

My daughter and I watched an Instagram reel over ice cream this week. The reel suggested replacing “what do you do for a living?” with “who’s the villain in your life?” as a get-to-know-you question. I didn’t have to think twice about who the villain in my life is. It’s a person who used my body to punish me.

(Pausing here to ask whether I really want to share that I had ice cream this week. That’s what this whole conversation does to us.)

I will not read weight loss ads, and this post is likely the first and last time I will type the letters G-L-P together on any keyboard. It is likely the first and last time I will say anything about my weight or anyone else’s online. No one needs to be reminded to think about this. We have nothing but reminders. For many of us, maybe most of us, the whole world reads as a series of post-it notes reminding us of our physical inadequacies.

I have been tempted at the beginning of every paragraph to do some form of disclosure, to tell you about my diet and exercise and lifestyle and conversations with my physician and my overall health, perhaps to throw in my resting heart rate and cholesterol numbers. I have been tempted to use these data points to try to earn your approval and maybe even your affirmation, although of course your approval and affirmation in this context are completely uncomfortable for you and for me. You’d probably agonize over what you could say that doesn’t sound any-kind-of-way that makes me or anyone else feel something because we all feel so much about our bodies.

THE HOURS OF OUR LIVES WE HAVE SPENT LIKE THIS.

It is nonsense. It is wasteful. It is reinforcing all of this tremendously toxic shit that makes us entirely too obsessed with ourselves.

So this is my one and only disclosure: I’m doing my best in this very body that I have to let some of this self-obsession die with me.

P.S. If you wonder where on earth this is coming from, I don’t blame you! This post is a follow-up to a conversation that Sarah and I stumbled into at the end of our regular Thursday Live conversation.

Here’s what she asked:

I am a Democrat in San Antonio, Texas — specifically TX-23, currently represented by the suddenly infamous Tony Gonzalez. I have never volunteered for a political campaign. I have donated occasionally. But the stakes are so high in this moment. So as I think about “What is my work to do?” — where do I put my limited time and money this year? Toward supporting Katy Padilla Stout, the mostly unknown Democrat running for TX-23? Or toward James Talarico’s Senate campaign? Who is going to have more impact in the long run if they win? What’s really the most effective thing to do in a campaign? Is volunteering more beneficial than getting back on Facebook and posting about these candidates? Are monthly donations more beneficial than occasional “we’re facing a deadline” donations?

Leave a comment

Bethany, I love this question, and I want to give you an honest answer: it depends — and the only way to find out is to reach out and ask.

I know that might feel unsatisfying, but nuanced answers always are!

Every campaign is different. Some are well-organized, have a volunteer coordinator who will put you to work immediately, and have a clear answer for exactly what they need most. Others are scrappy and still figuring it out. The best thing you can do — whether you’re drawn to Katy Padilla Stout’s race or James Talarico’s — is contact both campaigns directly and ask: What do you need most right now? Their answer will tell you a lot, both about where your effort will have the most impact and about how prepared they are to actually use you well.

On the question of where your dollars go furthest: monthly donations are genuinely more valuable to campaigns than one-time gifts, even if the total amount is the same. It’s not just a fundraising talking point — recurring revenue lets campaigns plan and hire and spend strategically rather than scrambling from deadline to deadline. If you can commit to even a small monthly amount, that is worth more than a bigger check you write in October.

As to volunteering versus social media: volunteering wins. Posting on Facebook feels like doing something, and it can matter at the margins, but the research on what actually moves voters keeps coming back to real human contact — door-knocking, phone banking, and conversations. It’s harder, sure. But it’s also SO rewarding. I always tell people door-knocking has the essential components of mental health: getting outside, moving your body, and connecting with other people!

As for which race — I’m not going to tell you where to put your energy because I genuinely think that’s yours to decide, and it may come down to which campaign actually has the infrastructure to use a first-time volunteer well.

You asked what your work is to do, and - guess what? - By asking this question, you’re already doing it! Now, go reach out and take the next step.

We’re rooting for you.

Tickets are officially on sale to everyone for our live show and afterparty in Minneapolis on August 29! You can get them at this link:

Buy live show tickets now!

If you are a member of the Spice Cabinet, we want to thank you for that! Check out this post for your coupon code.

If you want to supercharge your live show experience, consider joining us for the first-ever Spice Conference, which kicks off Friday night, August 28, and features special sessions and activities leading up to the live show all day on Saturday. Tickets for that are already on sale:

Get Spice Conference Tickets

Important Note: If you purchase a ticket to the Spice Conference, it includes a ticket to the live show and afterparty, both at the Hyatt Centric in Minneapolis. Do not buy additional live show tickets!

As part of the fun, we’ve booked the entirety of the Hyatt Centric for YOU! Staying there will be the best place to be surrounded by this wonderful community — and to have a short trip to bed once the afterparty winds down. You can book your room there through this link.

We can’t wait to be with you in August! It’s going to be a wonderful time!

So, I reached out to Hala Furst to discuss violence prevention. Hala has a wealth of experience and insight to share. We decided to share this conversation in the form of a transcript (many thanks to Alise for her time working on this project). I hope you find it as valuable as I have.

This conversation has been transcribed from audio and, in the process, has been edited and condensed for readability.

Beth Silvers: We last talked about DOGE and the experience of being an employee at the Department of Homeland Security. We’re gonna move on from that even though there’s a lot to say about the Department of Homeland Security right now because you are still working in violence prevention and I want to draw that expertise out today.

First, I wanna talk to you about how you assess the current environment. I remember in our chat talking about the difference between being radicalized and being radicalized to violence. That’s on my mind a lot right now watching everything that’s unfolding, particularly in Minnesota. Help me think through, from the perspective of a violence prevention expert, what the environment looks like right now.

Hala Furst: I wanna be clear that my expertise is on targeted violence and terrorism prevention. Targeted violence is in a larger bucket of violence that can include terrorism but is targeted against a person, a place, a group of people – sometimes ideologically motivated, but not always ideologically motivated.

It’s this category of violence that we’ve all seen, but we don’t always know how to talk about. And it is not unique, but it is written about in a really exotic way. It includes things like school shootings. It includes things like the shooting in Las Vegas years ago. It includes politically motivated violence. It includes premeditated hate crime. It’s a large category.

It gets at something that is not necessarily new in our country. Terrorism has this ideological, interrupting-political-process-or-society component. Sometimes things are less than that, but there’s still a form of violence that is not just street crime or heat-of-the-moment or something interpersonal.

We’re trying to get at this idea that people can become radicalized by either what they’re encountering in their everyday lives or what they’re seeing online. They can stay in that steady state for a while, but once they adopt the belief that violence is the way to further their aims, which is what radicalization is, and start to move towards that, that’s when we get into this difficult place of ideas versus action, which is always in play when you’re in a constitutional democracy. We have to have a way of addressing the very real issue of somebody radicalizing and then thinking that they need to move to violence that does not infringe on their civil rights and civil liberties.

We’re in a really, really tough place right now. Part of it is because of the amount of information that we’re encountering online and the communities that are operating in that space. The switch from radicalizing to mobilizing can happen very, very quickly. So, does it make the most sense to catch them in that moment or does it make more sense to move the full conversation upstream to where we’re talking about what the underlying protective and risk factors are that make a person more likely to radicalize and then mobilize the violence?

That’s where we are right now. I know that’s sort of like a long walk away from your question, but I think it’s important to put context around how we think about these issues.

It’s a very difficult moment in terms of polarization. I work at the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University. What we’re seeing more and more is people polarizing and radicalizing against one another. The belief that the other side, whatever that might be, is an existential threat.

So, we are in a position where folks are moving further into this belief that the other side is an existential threat. When that happens – when you believe that other people or another ideology or another group is an existential threat – it gets tied up in identity. It gets tied up in all these other issues that are very, very difficult to disentangle.

It’s also a lot harder to deradicalize someone than to prevent them from walking down that road in the first place. So, we’re working against a lot of factors big and small.

The same risk factors that could lead a person to radicalize to targeted violence could also lead them to domestic violence, suicidality, or a whole host of potential harms. What we find is just like people choose – and choose is a harsh, harsh word – to self-medicate with alcohol or drugs or domestic violence, they’ll also self-medicate with violent ideology. That becomes the thing that helps them feel better.

So, what could help that instead? That’s the question that we have to answer. What are the protective factors that we can bolster and what are the risk factors that we can reduce to make this particular type of self-medication less attractive? Then, simultaneously, how do we communicate so that the polarization doesn’t teach us that other people or other groups are an existential threat?

Beth Silvers: I wanna try to put a container around this to get more specific and concrete in my own mind about what violence prevention work looks like.

I just read this article about a bunch of podcasters and influencers live-streaming themselves for like 12 hours in Miami. They have an unbelievably large audience and a pretty profound influence over that audience. They live-streamed themselves out partying in Miami and went to a club. They requested the DJ play a song about Hitler that has been banned from most streaming platforms. They did the Nazi salute repeatedly. I didn’t watch, so I’m taking someone else’s word for it, but it read like a clear demonstration of their antisemitism.

Then, they got in a little spat afterward because a couple of them were blaming it on someone else and walking their own part in it back. Others were like, “I can’t believe you’re apologizing for antisemitism. What is wrong with you?”

Let’s say I’m the mom of a young man who really watches these guys closely. Where are the lines around this? Where should I be concerned that he is consuming content that I think is hateful?

I’m unsure whether that hate will translate to behavior or if it is an experimentation or, as you said, a self-medication. How should I be thinking about this?

Hala Furst: It’s a really tough spot. I have a 15-year-old stepson and this is something that I’m constantly on guard for. It doesn’t make it any easier because turns out, even as a prevention expert or someone who works with prevention experts, you still live the same life that everyone else does.

In those instances, the instinct is for parents to just take the phones, right? And there are a lot of phone bans happening right now. The problem is that kids are less likely to talk to you about what they’re seeing and what they’re experiencing. If your instinct is to just take away the phone or take away their access to their friends, to information, to all of this stuff, they’re not going to be open with you.

The hardest thing about this work is to come at it from a place of curiosity and empathy. Now, I’m not saying to be empathetic towards Andrew Tate or virulent antisemites. That’s not at all what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, if your kid is looking at this content, the hardest, but most necessary thing to do is sit beside them and talk to them about what they’re seeing. What do they like about it? What do they not like about it? Just start to ask questions.

We find that often it’s easiest if you’re sitting in a car because you’re both looking forward. It’s not confrontational. We have resources on the PERIL website that are specific for parents and caregivers to talk through some of these questions and how to address this.

Access PERIL's caregiver resources

What you have to do is get curious and sit in this place of empathy and trying to understand what is the underlying need or desire that this content is supporting in your kid. Is it just that their friends are looking at it, so they are looking at it? Is it that these men seem to have power or prestige or something else that they also want? Are they role models?

Looking at the why and getting curious about the why is the majority of the battle. Then, going back to this idea of risk factors and protective factors, you can start to understand what the underlying needs are that could be met with other things.

Let me give you a very simplistic example. Your kid is watching this and he’s seen the camaraderie amongst these men, That’s what we see time and again; it’s not always the specific ideology that attracts people. You will see folks go ideology shopping because what they’re actually looking for is community and belonging and mission and purpose.

Which, is why the years of counterterrorism work that have been done is necessary, but not sufficient to address this problem. Folks are, generally speaking, not always attracted to the ideology. Some are, but most are attracted to the community, the belonging, the sense of self, the sense of purpose, and then the ideology comes alongside of it.

If that’s what they’re looking for, then great. There are so many other routes that a kid can go to get those needs met. But, if your immediate instinct is to just shut it off, end it, don’t look at this, you’re not gonna learn what the underlying need is. Part of what prevention asks of us is to take that step back, to start at an earlier point.

A protective factor could be parental involvement. You’re already asking these questions before you start seeing your kid even going online. Then, when they see this content – maybe for the first time or the 10th time – they have that built-in sort of antibody against it.

Obviously, if you see imminent danger where your kid is writing something about wanting to commit acts of violence, there are other things we can do at that point. But, if it’s just that you don’t like your kids seeing specific content, you have to get to that underlying issue.

Beth Silvers: I have to believe that we are in a Ruby Ridge type moment right now with the government’s actions through ICE and Border Patrol, where there will be people radicalized to violence by this. In the moment, a lot of us in a position to see that and get upstream of it share the rage and frustration. So what does PERIL’s work look like in this context?

Hala Furst: PERIL’s work is predominantly with youth and people who support youth: parents, caregivers, educators. However, the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) where I used to work at Department of Homeland Security before I moved to PERIL did work across all, all age groups.

I absolutely agree that the events that are happening right now could have the effect of radicalizing people. I didn’t talk about Minnesota at the beginning when I was kind of laying out the moment that we’re in and the way that prevention could operate because it has felt to me, and those of us who’ve done this work, that this escalation has been happening for a while. It could be that Minnesota was going to radicalize people, or Gaza was gonna radicalize people, or any of the violent incidents that have happened along this timeline. The concern is ongoing. The same thing that works for kids can work for adults.

When you’re asking about people who are showing sympathy for violence against ICE or CDP, the same things that work when you’re talking to your kid about violent content they might be seeing online and why it resonates with them and what their underlying grievances are works on adults, too. We often see that when we do training for parents or caregivers. They also get quite a bit of training for themselves. It’s still about understanding the underlying grievance, the underlying issue that is upsetting here.

I think it’s pretty obvious that what is upsetting people here is the injustice, the extrajudicial killing. I will caveat that we don’t know everything yet, but that’s what it seems like. The feeling that people are powerless, the feeling that people are being taken from their homes, and that the laws are not being abided by, and that they have no control.

Those are pretty obvious concerns. So, I don’t know that you need to ask the questions about why people are feeling activated or potentially radicalizing. I think we know that. The question is, where do we channel that energy instead?

I actually think Minnesota’s an incredible example of where we’re channeling that energy instead. It’s back into community; it’s back towards each other. It’s leaning on one another. Again, if the reason that these violent ideologies, these violent movements are attractive is in part because of need for community belonging, mission, purpose, et cetera, then finding another container for that in your actual lived community is essential.

I think Minnesota’s doing a really, really beautiful job with that. They have training and organizing. They’ve got mutual aid networks. I went to college in Minneapolis and have many friends there. This also comes from the Scandinavian stoic work ethic that operates in Minnesota and has for years. Turning that rage and that effort back to the community is part of how you prevent violence.

I’ve definitely seen posts or heard comments from people who believe peaceful protest isn’t gonna work or who think we need a violent overthrow of the government or of ICE. I think anyone can understand why someone might feel that way. But the Minneapolis community is doing a really good job of wrapping their arms around those folks and bringing them back in. That is an intervention in and of itself. It usually takes feeling like you’re been heard to channel that energy right.

Beth Silvers: I think that the online component is so daunting because in some ways the proximity to the thing also makes it so real to people. They can see that what’s needed right now is that community and that kindness and that sense of looking out for each other and looking after each other. I worry less about people in Minnesota being radicalized honestly, than people who have taken all this in on their screens and aren’t in the middle of efforts to actively, but peacefully resist it, you know?

Hala Furst: It’s such a good point. Look, the internet is a tool and there is community on the internet. I will not say it’s not worthwhile community. It absolutely is. The Pantsuit Politics community is a perfect example. But, when you are ingesting all of this content in a constant barrage without context…

If you see an incident in real life, you have the ability to literally touch grass. You’re out. Let’s say you’re at a protest or something like that. You’re outside. There are other people. There are senses; it’s cold there.

Beth Silvers: And connection. Someone else saw this, too.

Hala Furst: Right. But if you’re just scrolling. You are alone with this little box of horrors. If your instinct after you see something, is to reach out on your phone to your community, okay great. I would argue that’s not sufficient, but it’s a great start. But, if you’re just sitting there ingesting horror after horror after horror, then that is your whole universe.

I had norovirus over the weekend and we were snowed in and this horrific shooting happened in Minneapolis. So even I, as somebody who works in the field, was just sitting there doomscrolling on my phone for hours.

You can feel the despair build up in your body. You can feel this feeling of despair and inevitability and it is really hard to fight that. It takes some amount of conscious effort to step away and take breaks. Again, choose to channel that despair into action. That could be in your local community, donating to mutual aid, or reaching out to other people to think about what you could be doing.

I don’t mean to keep beating the drumbeat of community and belonging, but that’s really at the core of what is necessary. I can’t say from a research perspective what the likelihood of people radicalizing the violence based on these incidents because they’re sitting alone with their phones is, but it’s absolutely a possibility.

I think as we come back to the concept of prevention, again. If you’re getting upstream of this, there’s several layers of prevention: primordial (which is society, legislation, things like that), primary (which is at the community level and where PERIL mostly operates), secondary (which is immediate intervention when someone might already be down the road of radicalization to violence or starting to make effort towards that), and tertiary (which is where someone has commited an act of violence or tried to and we work on bringing them back into the fold).

PERIL operates mostly at that primary level. At the primary level is where you do community training, community awareness raising, and community support. If you’re thinking about a person who’s doing doom scrolling, what resilience has already been built into them to know they need to put the phone down and walk away, or need to take that broken-hearted feeling and channel it into something good for their family or the community? How do we build in those support structures, those protective factors at that community level so that folks have resilience to draw on in these moments? That’s really the question that prevention is trying to ask.

It’s based on the same science that has been working on other forms of violence prevention for years. It’s based on a public health model that the CDC had worked on for 30 years, had been working on for 30 years before all of those people at the Injury and Violence Prevention Center got fired. There’s a ton of research into the efficacy here.

This is not a one-to-one correlation, but I think it works. If you want someone when presented with drugs to not take the drugs, what have you had to do prior to that moment of encountering the drugs to teach them that they shouldn’t? You have to build in the resilience against it and to give them all of the capacity to say no.

Again, it’s not a perfect one-to-one, but it is similar in terms of violence prevention. This goes back to your question about your when your son is presented with Andrew Tate content or whatever. When you are presented with these events, when you are encountering these things, what has already been built up inside of you? Do you have the resilience to not go down a road?

Beth Silvers: I think that’s all really helpful. It’s nice to know that the instincts we have to say, “Hey, you are doing your work by building your community” are backed up by a lot of research. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and your expertise with us. I really appreciate it.

Hala Furst: Thank you for giving us this opportunity to share it.

One final note: several states had state-wide targeted violence prevention strategies either in place or in the process of being developed when the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships was disbanded. Because of the funding and programing vaccuum left by the federal government, states (supported by research and intervention organizations like PERIL) are really taking the lead on violence prevention now, which means constituents are even closer to the levers of power over this issue. If preventing targeted violence in your community is important to you, please call your governor or your state legislators and ask what prevention strategies they are considering. Ask what funding is available to support community programs that bolster protective factors and reduce risk factors. I want folks to know that this violence is not inevitable; it is preventable, and everyone has a role to play- whether that be through policy, direct support of individuals, sharing information, or something in between. A public health approach to violence prevention empowers rather than panics, and right now that is what we most need.

I hope that folks will go to the website and look at our resources. They’re all free on there: our resources for parents, caregivers, educators, administrators, leaders, a whole panel of folks. So, please, if you’re struggling with these issues, take a look, reach out. We want to help.

Further Listening:

• When the Pitchforks Come for You (Pantsuit Politics conversation with Abby Cox and Joanna Lydgate)

• More to Say About DOGE & Violence Prevention (More to Say)

  ---

If you haven’t listened to our episode on the SAVE (Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility) Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, here’s what Natalie is reacting to:

I said, “I think it’s a bad strategy politically to go to the American public and say, ‘this thing that polls really high, this idea that you need to show proof of citizenship to vote is wrong.’ I think that’s not a good strategy. I think it’s a particularly bad strategy to talk about it as like the new Jim Crow. I think it’s disrespectful to what voters have experienced in the past, and I think it’s just not going to meet a lot of people where they are today.”

I went on to talk about my preferred strategy, which is to say, “if the government wants us to prove we’re citizens to vote, the government should make it easier to prove we’re citizens.” Right now, getting your paperwork together, especially if you’ve ever changed your name for any reason, is a pain. Ordering official documents can be expensive and time-consuming. If you live in a rural area, it might require a long drive to a government office and crossing your fingers that you went to the correct one. We could do a lot about that instead of burdening citizens with new requirements under the dated, inefficient, fragmented status quo.

To get back to Natalie’s points, let’s do a little historical review.

Is it historically accurate to compare the SAVE America Act to Jim Crow?

Between 1877 and the mid-1960s, there was an entire cultural and legal effort to relegate Black people to an inferior status. Laws excluded Black people from public transportation and facilities. Black people could not serve on juries. They could not live in certain neighborhoods. They could not be hired for certain jobs.

Voting restrictions were one piece of these laws. Here’s how the Jim Crow Museum explains it: “Black people were denied the right to vote by poll taxes (fees charged to poor black people), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, only white people could be Democrats), and literacy tests (‘Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America’s history’).

But Jim Crow laws and so-called “etiquette” touched every part of living in some states. In that sense, I think comparing the SAVE America Act to these laws is reductive.

Additionally, Jim Crow was specifically about degrading Black people. It was inarguably racist, inarguably intended to cement racism as fundamental to American culture. I do not think that every person who believes you should have to show proof of citizenship to vote is racist, nor do I believe the SAVE America Act, as written, is a racist law. I think it’s unnecessary, unwise, irresponsible, and overall bad policy (I’m with Nonprofit Vote: “The SAVE Act is the Wrong Solution for a Non-Problem), but not inherently racist.

If the SAVE America Act passed, would it represent a poll tax?

Most of our laws have origins in English history, and a poll tax is no exception. In English history, a poll tax is “a tax of uniform amount levied on each individual.” The most famous was levied in 1380, which led to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. In the late 1800s, Democrats were competing for power with the Populists, a party for poor farmers. When Democrats won, they amended state constitutions to impose poll taxes as prerequisites to voting, which excluded impoverished Black and some poor white Americans (although some states granted exemptions for poor white men). The 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act made poll taxes illegal in all states. Federal law now says explicitly that the requirement of the payment of a poll tax as a precondition to voting denies or abridges the rights of citizens to vote.

A number of organizations and politician are describing the SAVE America Act as a poll tax because so many Americans do not have documents proving their citizenship. Here’s Representative Jennifer McClellan’s (D-Va.) argument: “Every document this bill demands cost money—and whether it’s the $2.12 poll tax my father paid in 1947, a $130 passport, or a $1,385 certificate of citizenship, even a cent is too much. The SAVE America Act is a modern-day poll tax that exploits that reality by requiring voters to navigate a costly and time-consuming process just to exercise their constitutional right.”

I respect that argument. I’m not sure how a federal court would receive it. My instinct is that the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court would look to that English definition and disagree.

Are these arguments persuasive to people who are persuadable?

Reasonable people can disagree about everything I’ve written, and especially this part. From where I sit, people who pay less attention to politics than probably everyone who reads this note do hear “you have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote,” and think “that sounds like common sense.” It is very, very hard to talk people out of what they believe to be common sense. It is especially hard to open someone’s perspective if you counter, “it’s not common sense; it’s racist.”

There are actors in this administration who I believe are genuinely racist, and there are policies that I believe have been enacted and enforced in genuinely racist ways. It’s possible that there are states or officials in states who would implement the SAVE America Act in racist ways. I’m not trying to avoid talking about race and racism. I’m trying to be precise about it when I do.

The best arguments against the SAVE America Act are universal. All Americans have experience with government bureaucracy. Just about everyone can relate to the experience of showing up at a government office for a license or permit or to pay something and not having exactly what is required to take care of that already-annoying task. If you’ve changed your name (for any of MANY reasons), written your name inconsistently on government forms, or entered your name into a government form with a typo, you know what a pain it can be to straighten that out. If you’ve ever waited for something “in the mail” from a government, you know that when it will come, how it will come, and if it will come can feel like a gamble. Maybe it’s common sense to show proof of citizenship. Common sense also says it should be easy to show proof of citizenship, and it’s not today. Fix that first, members of Congress, then we’ll talk about the burden on citizens when we elect you.

I don’t think it will pass. I think the votes are not there in the Senate. Here’s Fox News: “The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has earned the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, including Thune, which is enough to break through a key procedural hurdle. Whether it can pass from the Senate to President Donald Trump’s desk is, for now, an unlikely scenario if lawmakers take the traditional path in the upper chamber.” If Fox News is setting this expectation, I think it’s very unlikely to pass.

At the same time, I think it’s very unlikely to go away. There are members of Congress who have convinced themselves that this law is good, necessary, and popular. They’ll keep trying, so I think it’s really important to talk about this precisely and persuasively.

Jennifer wrote to point out that, in most states, Real IDs do not qualify as proof of citizenship. Social security cards also do not qualify as proof of citizenship. She said, correctly, “For most people, only a passport or a birth certificate will qualify—and as you discussed, there are a lot of issues with birth certificates as the act also doesn’t specify a remedy for a mismatch of names between a birth certificate and other identification, instead leaving it up to the states to resolve.”

That’s correct. In describing this requirement, I spoke imprecisely, drawing on my personal experience of getting a Real ID, when I presented a driver’s license, passport, birth certificate, social security card, and marriage license and still had to make a trip to a social security office to get a new social security card that used my married name before Kentucky would issue a Real ID to me. All to say again: this law will cause so much hassle and prevent so little fraud — it’s a bad idea.

We plan to answer more listener questions in posts like this one. Email hello@pantsuitpoliticsshow.com to share a question or prompt.

Leave a comment

Further Listening:

• The SAVE Act and National Voter ID: A Quick Explainer (Crash Course with Casey Burgat)

Dear Pantsuit Politics,

As a starting point, this isn’t normal. The government (whether it’s the federal government or state or local authorities) investigates a potential violation of law and then acts (charges a person with a crime, starts a civil lawsuit, etc.) or doesn’t based on its conclusion. It doesn’t announce to the world that it investigated and what it collected in the process. That’s good! We don’t want the government using its enormous powers to collect information and share it with the public outside of official processes managed by a court of law.

We are only talking about releasing the Epstein files because the public at large reasonably believes the government has failed in its responsibilities.

To understand why, here’s a very quick review:

At least as early as 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein. He was first charged with crimes by a grand jury in July 2006. The police who investigated this case believed the county prosecutor gave Epstein special treatment by charging a lesser offense than they felt they could prove. At this point, the federal government, through the FBI, began investigating Epstein.

Sometime in 2007, Epstein’s lawyers worked with a federal prosecutor, Alex Acosta, on a deal that would allow Epstein to avoid being charged with federal crimes in exchange for pleading guilty to two counts of soliciting prostitution in the state of Florida. Epstein again received unusual treatment in a variety of ways:

1. He made this secret deal with federal prosecutors, the details of which we still don’t know

2. He was charged with lesser offenses than the evidence might have warranted

3. He served most of that sentence out of jail. That sentence ended in July 2009.

Meanwhile, some of Epstein’s victims began to speak out about the extent of his crimes. In November 2018, the Miami Herald published Julie K. Brown’s reporting about how Epstein’s case was handled. Her reporting was especially salient at the time because Alex Acosta was serving in the cabinet as President Trump’s Secretary of Labor. The reporting prompted federal prosecutors in New York to open a new investigation into Epstein.

Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019. Alex Acosta resigned. Epstein died in jail in New York in August 2019.

There’s obviously a lot more to this story than those facts. And that’s why “the Epstein files” as a phrase contains so much. There are multiple Epstein stories: each individual victim’s story, the story of Ghislaine Maxwell, the story of wealthy and powerful people in Epstein’s orbit, the story of all of the people who facilitated his crimes, and the story of crimes that he facilitated. In my view, all of those stories are important, but none of them justify the extraordinary step of the government releasing documents it collected in the course of an investigation.

The justification for that extraordinary step is the government’s failures and potential complicity in the Epstein crimes. The government has lost the public’s trust around Jeffrey Epstein, and that means the government needs to act differently in order to make amends and regain its footing as a suitable entity to investigate and prosecute crimes. The government’s power comes from the people, and the people are saying, in a variety of ways, that its handling of this matter has been unacceptable. The most potent way is through Congress’s passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act championed by Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie.

Right now, the government is doing the opposite of making amends and regaining trust. Just this week, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to candidly answer questions from members of Congress about the Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein matter (that is the most neutral way I can write that sentence; my opinion is that Bondi’s behavior was disgraceful at best). Just this week, members of Congress gained access to view the Epstein files in their entirety, and those members are raising more questions than answers about the government’s handling of this matter. Some members also report that the Department of Justice is monitoring their document review. They essentially feel tracked and spied on by the Department of Justice as they’re conducting oversight. The latest release of files remains inadequate under the terms of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and violated the law by improperly redacting some information and improperly failing to redact information about Epstein’s victims. It’s one failure after another, and all of these failures add to the public’s reasonable frustration and lack of trust.

I’m trying to write all of this without color or hyperbole. I worry that the depravity of details related to Epstein obscures the main thing: the government has a duty to the public, and it failed in that duty. It failed to prevent a known sexual predator from harming more victims. Its ongoing failures are deepening victims’ pain. It has caused people to fill in gaps with their assumptions and imaginations. These are all wild understatements.

I was late to understanding the enormity of governmental failure in this story, and I am deeply sorry about that. I’m so grateful for Julie K. Brown’s essential journalism, fearlessness, and integrity in upholding the dignity of the very real people who are part of these stories. I can’t recommend her reporting enough, and I watch her posts on X closely to see what she makes of ongoing developments.

Thank you, Lacey, for the question.

We plan to answer more listener questions in posts like this one. Email hello@pantsuitpoliticsshow.com to share a question or prompt.

Leave a comment

Further Listening:

• More to Say About Jeffrey Epstein (More to Say by Pantsuit Politics)

• 1,000 Victims and No Accountability: Julie K. Brown on the Epstein Files (Pantsuit Politics)

• Rep Ro Khanna joined us to talk about the Epstein Files in this episode

Unusually, almost every comment on that episode conveyed the same sentiment: “I had no idea this is happening.” Billions of dollars are flowing through prediction markets with no signs of abating. The main players in the industry, Kalshi and Polymarket, are signing deals with major news organizations, giving away groceries to New Yorkers, and blanketing the subway with ads (as the one and only Norma Stary documented and sent our way).

It’s all very weird. Take these headlines, which came up this morning in a quick Google news search.

“The prediction market is partnering with an AI engine that tracks social media data to create markets about cultural relevance” is a sentence that makes me want to join a nice off-the-grid commune.

As much as I don’t like any of this, and I very much do not, it’s important to understand it. So, here’s a short overview of prediction markets and what you need to know as they gobble up ever more money and attention.

Prediction markets are gambling but without all the regulation

Prediction markets involve placing bets, but in a different format from traditional gambling. There’s no house setting odds. In a prediction market, buyers and sellers enter into contracts where they bet on the outcome of events. If lots of people believe an event will happen, “yes” gets more expensive and “no” gets cheaper. Bet correctly, and you win $1 for each contract you bought. Bet incorrectly and lose the money.

That’s gambling, and it has similar outcomes. As Kyla Scanlon writes in the New York Times, “Cheap contracts betting on unlikely events lose money at catastrophic rates, often 60% or more, while expensive contracts betting on likely events earn small positive returns.” Because these contracts are structured like financial derivatives, they’re regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent federal agency that regulates futures contracts. This agency was built to regulate agricultural futures markets. Now, it’s charged with regulating entities that pose questions like “will Cardi B. perform at the Super Bowl?”

States and casinos are frustrated

Because the CFTC regulates prediction markets, they are not subject to state regulation in the way that traditional casinos and sports betting are. States that reluctantly permitted sports betting in exchange for a new public revenue source aren’t getting a cut of the action on Kalshi and Polymarket, and they’re watching sports betting migrate from the sources they can regulate to the Wild West of the prediction markets. A number of gaming associations are pushing for greater regulation of prediction markets, and I imagine their pressure on legislators to do something about prediction markets will intensify. It’s a rare moment when I find myself rooting for casinos.

You can bet on absolutely anything

Prediction markets currently have no real guardrails around them. You can bet on an event occurring—yes, a sex toy will be thrown onto the court during a women’s basketball game—then go to the game, throw a sex toy on the floor, and collect your earnings. My interest in this topic tripled when I learned that an anonymous trader opened a brand new Polymarket account to bet that Nicolas Maduro would be out of power by January 31 and made over $400,000. There was a minor internet controversy about Karoline Leavitt abruptly ending a press briefing 30 seconds before an event contract said she might. When you can place a bet on anything, it’s easy for the internet to believe that every single action—however large or small—is financially motivated.

It’s not hard to imagine these markets leading us to dark places. Alex Goldenberg has written a chilling piece about the national security implications for War on the Rocks. Saahil Desai has written an equally chilling piece about how prediction markets could impact our elections for The Atlantic. If we want to avoid these outcomes, Congress will have to act. The markets won’t regulate themselves. Kalshi’s co-founder has explained the company’s long-term vision as “financializing everything—creating a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion.”

Rep. Ritchie Torres has proposed legislation that would place some limits on government officials using inside information to place bets on prediction markets. It’s a good first step, but I think much more is needed. As listener Liz said in a comment on a recent Pantsuit Politics episode, “we’re all pretty in agreement that some things shouldn’t be for sale.” If we mean that, we need to act because right now, it sure looks like everything is up for sale.

Prediction markets are now news, and news is now prediction markets

A key aspect of the prediction market business is selling data. Both Polymarket and Kalshi are “partnering” with all sorts of companies to offer access to the market’s thoughts as expressed through bets. There are deals to allow New York Stock Exchange customers access to Polymarket data to inform their trading strategies. The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and CNBC all have partnerships with prediction markets. As Scanlon put it, “The news is now read alongside people betting on the news.”

In a world awash in AI-generated slop, it’s hard enough to know what’s real. I don’t think taking in “the market’s thoughts” about what might happen alongside actual reporting is helping.

The Trump family is interested

I’m not holding my breath for the current administration to act. The CFTC slashed its enforcement office to non-existence, and its last remaining attorney just resigned. Its chair has signaled that this administration will look to minimize regulations and maximize innovation.

And why not? The Trump family sees prediction markets as yet another business opportunity. Donald Trump, Jr.’s venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, heavily invested in Polymarket, and he is an advisor to both Polymarket and Kalshi. Trump Media and Technology Group has announced plans to launch its own market: Truth Predict.

The President himself is Trump Media and Technology Group’s majority shareholder.

We’ve met Rebekah. We’ve seen her voting photos. We’ve read and thought long and hard about her comments. She is a part of us, and we will miss her.

Please join us in lighting a candle for Rebekah. Her family and friends have told us that the best way we can honor her is to continue the work of community and justice that she believed in and work for until her very last days. Call your representatives because that’s what she would have done. Serve your community because that’s what she did. Love your friends’ kids and littles because it takes a village.

Her husband, Ben, shared "Rebekah would never want things to be all about her, but if her story and passion can help ignite others, she would accept that"

Let us light a candle and ignite our passions.

Many thanks to Ben, Heather, and Denise, and those of your who made sure we knew this sad news and letting us hold them in our hearts this week as they say goodbye to their wife, sister, mom, and friend, so that we can commemorate Rebekah’s life together here. We are blessed by the many ways you all create and keep building a loving community here. Rebekah was an architect of that, too, and we will always be grateful to her. -Beth

In our age of AI, I (Maggie, Director of Community Engagement here at Pantsuit Politics) thought about getting something to summarize our survey responses. But then I thought, “you are real people, and I want to be as human as I can this year.” So, I’ve read through your comments with my actual human eyes.

And what a treat it was:

Sometimes I tap out of political news sources because of how stressful it all is. When I return to Pantsuit Politics, I’m always reminded how your content lessens my stress rather than increasing it. I need this tattooed on my forearm.

When my kids were in HS and we’d drive to school they would say “can we listen to that indignant lady!”

I really like that you all give action-oriented solutions and make me believe that there will be another day that the news cycle isn’t the only thing to pay attention to. Even when everything is going wrong, I still feel hopeful when I listen to you all, not because you sugarcoat anything, but because you take a broader perspective than what is happening in the moment.

It’s rare to have a podcast that forces you to think, take in multiple perspectives, and follows you on your journey of forming your opinion.

Your voices are a reminder that thoughtfulness is not weakness, that empathy is not naïveté, and that democratic values are sustained through care and persistence, not just outrage. You remind me that it’s still possible to be thoughtful when everyone around us is shouting, to care deeply without hardening, and to stay connected to our values without losing our humanity. That’s no small thing, especially right now.

I promise that it’s not all an amen chorus, as one of you said, “If I’m only hear for the echo chamber - I got other places for that.”

Also, some of you asked for help, and I wanted to share a few resources that you may have missed and that we’re working on for you:

Using Substack:

• We’re working on building out a customized help document for Pantsuit Politics for our community. The Substack help center is pretty helpful, but we wanted to create a resource for our Pantsuit Politics specific needs. This is a work in progress, but please know that we are here to help you navigate this platform.

• I really am willing to hang in with you and help through any issues at maggie@pantsuitpoliticsshow.com

• If you’re an elder millennial1: You may have better luck navigating and finding what you’re looking for (especially Good Morning and More to Say) on the desktop/web version of Substack. You can visit us at www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com. If you’re already subscribed, you can choose to ‘read without subscribing’ and then log in to your account, and the site is a little easier to navigate.

Content Archive: We have a library of almost everything we’ve ever made at Pantsuit Politics (free episodes, premium episodes, and many many issues of our newsletter) using a spreadsheet software called Airtable. You can search by topic, access transcripts, and links to episodes in our archive. It’s a great place to search “have Sarah and Beth talked about this?”

Episode Transcripts: If you prefer to read through a transcript of our episodes, we post them by noon most days on our episode page. You can find all of our episodes on this page of our website. You can also access auto-generated transcripts of Good Morning and More to Say on the desktop version of Substack.

Listening to Premium Episodes in Your Podcast Feed: If you’d like to listen to Good Morning, More to Say, and our Spicy Bonus episodes in a podcast player, there are instructions on how to do that here (specifically: you can listen to Premium Content on Spotify)

• p.s. Sarah started recording Good Morning in her podcast studio late last year and the audio is SO MUCH BETTER than it used to be.

Merch: We use a print-on-demand service most of the time for our merchandise shop. That means if something is missing that you like need (I get it), please feel free to ask and we’ll work on getting a design up for you.

Plus - we also just added a collection of designs from our listener Lauren that you might love as much as we do.

Talking to People Who Disagree with You: We’ll definitely talk about this more throughout this year, but Sarah and Beth have written two books about talking through political disagreement generally and specifically in the context of our relationships. (Shameless plug: the audio books are like an extra-long podcast with Sarah and Beth).

• I Think You’re Wrong (But I’m Listening): A Guide to Grace-Filled Political Conversations

• Now What?! How To Move Forward When We’re Divided (About Basically Everything)

Leave a comment

What We’re Reading This Week

• Sarah: Lessons from My Me Too (Brooke Nevils | The Cut)

• Beth: I just finished Nicole Baart’s novel Where He Left Me, which I really enjoyed. And she has written the account of a young man who was detained by ICE that is a must-read.

This Stays Here

Because I'm Black

Another US citizen was murdered by ICE on Saturday…

Read more

5 months ago · 161 likes · 59 comments · Nicole Baart

• Alise: Bruno, Chief of Police by Martin Walker

• Maggie: Astronauts Are Going Back to the Moon For the First Time in Half a Century (Time)

Next Week on Pantsuit Politics: while we’re on retreat next week, we’ll share Sarah and Beth’s recent conversation with Jane Perlez, a long-time reporter about the relationship between the US and China. She joined us for a conversation last year, and we’re excited to share the follow up with you next week.

I’ve been listening and processing. I’m naturally inclined to change my mind when I get new information. I’ve pivoted so often and apologized so frequently that it’s almost comfortable. Being human and fallible costs me nothing and sets me free. If I feel I’ve made a mistake, I want to say so with my entire voice.

This time, I don’t feel it.

With everything going on, who cares?

This is hardly the most important topic to unpack. But I feel compelled to share my reflections because it’s an election year. I don’t think anyone is genuinely arguing that, if only more commentators signed on to #TheResistance, we’d live in a fundamentally different world right now. The argument is over how to effectively oppose the darkest excesses of Trumpism. That question couldn’t be more relevant or urgent.

Help, I’m thinking about Joe Rogan again

For the past year, things have been tense here at Pantsuit Politics. We’ve been counter-cultural. The podcasting world, such as it is, is currently dominated by pleasant celebrity chats. Drop in on the most popular podcasts, especially for women, and you’ll hear a version of:

Host: You’re amazing!

Guest: Not as amazing as you!

Host: Ok, now tell me about your favorite dental floss, because this is such a funny story…

Of course, I’m being flippant, but this isn’t really criticism. I get it. It’s fun to listen to people having fun! The deep moments that really grab people in these celebrity shows go down smoothly because they are couched so gently. They are wrapped in a warm blanket of easy relationship.

This is also why Joe Rogan is such a juggernaut. He likes people, and he’s having a good time. He sits down with a wide range of guests he thinks are interesting and simply…expresses his interest in them. Sometimes they trash other people, but that’s just man-gossip, which is also fun. I don’t make the rules; we are wired for this kind of human connection.

Our show, meanwhile, has been tense because we’ve been soul-searching, for ourselves and for the Democratic Party. The driving question in most of our shows last year could best be expressed in a visceral and prolonged scream: Trump again? How? Why? What do we do to prevent this from continuing? Trying to answer those questions has created conflict within us, between us, among us, and with our audience. Sustained conflict is tough to experience. It’s tough to listen to, especially while you’re driving to work, folding laundry, or hitting the elliptical. I appreciate that you have stayed with us through it.

Help, I’m also still thinking about Gavin Newsom

A significant source of conflict for me over the past year arose as I took in punditry and analysis that advocated for the Democratic Party to moderate its positions. You’d think that would be speaking my language. Instead, it has hit me wrong at every turn.

It was wild to watch Governor Gavin Newsom pondering the musings of Steve Bannon. Sarah admired Governor Newsom’s quest. I’ve found it completely off-putting. That’s just one example of a tension I struggled to put words around all year. We’ve built this podcast around the value of listening to contrary views, making room at the table for everyone, having a sense of civic grace toward each other. Why has it felt so awful to me to hear leading Democrats say a version of, “but maybe those guys have a point?”

It’s hitting me in January 2026 (I’m not always a quick study, friends!). It felt awful because it’s the same thing in a new package. It is still a desire for one right answer to every question. It’s “we had the wrong answer for the electorate about trans athletes! Let’s get the right answer and repeat it everywhere!” and “we had the wrong answer about inflation! Let’s get the right answer and hammer away at it!”

This is a worldview that says, pragmatically and with mostly good intentions: politics has become campaigning, and campaigning has become straight-up advertising, and advertising requires a simple message repeated constantly.

But politics is how we live in community, and believing that you have one right answer for everything is not very communal.

Which brings me (at last!) to the “resistance libs.” In principle, I’ve had few substantive disagreements with people who’ve predicted the absolute worst about a Trump presidency. I’ve never said or believed that members of Congress should acquiesce to President Trump. The risks of authoritarianism, fascism, and patrimonialism have been clear and obvious since he announced his first candidacy.

I’ve disagreed with the posture, with the sense of inevitability: “if America elects Trump, all is lost.” The risks were clear and obvious, but the outcomes are not predetermined. We are living a version of the resistance libs’ predictions, not through fate, but through a series of choices.

Our courts have constrained the President, but not enough. Federalism is a massive brake on executive power, but too many Republican legislatures and governors decided to cast their electoral lot with MAGA. Our Constitution was up for the job. Impeachment, removal, and prohibition on seeking office again are right there in the text. Congress hasn’t lived up to its responsibilities, and the American public at large haven’t persistently demanded that the first branch of government wake up.

I use words carefully because I believe in our ongoing power to choose otherwise.

People who disagree with my posture urge me to use my platform. They think it’s been irresponsible to exercise any amount of patience or restraint in calling him out. Here again is the theory: “If more people had said that Trump is a fascist from the beginning, he wouldn’t be in office having his personal paramilitary force occupy American cities.”

Respectfully, I disagree. The world has not been lacking for strong, authoritative voices pronouncing Donald Trump a dictator and laying out the worst-case scenarios for his tenure. Those voices are important. They are, in many ways, effective. They are genuine, and I respect them.

It’s also effective for some of us to hold our powder. Being careful influences another set of people. This week, I’ve heard a lot of versions of “okay, if you are saying it’s this bad, then I know it’s this bad.” That’s a different form of effectiveness. There’s room for both and more. One is not more moral than the other. One is not more serious than the other. We need everyone in every lane doing what they can authentically do.

What’s moderate anyway?

The kind of moderation I value isn’t actually centrism. It’s plurality. Keep it nuanced, because it always is.

My views about President Trump are not actually centrist. I would never trade democratic norms for a stronger economy. I don’t tolerate his lies because I think an orderly southern border is important. I hate the self-interested foreign policy, even when it leads to a positive short-term outcome.

Like most Americans, I’m a walking pluralist, a set of inherent contradictions and policy mixtures. My views on criminal justice are interpreted as “extreme left.” The more complete story is that those views are born both of my bleeding heart and my libertarian sensibilities about government power. The same is true about my immigration views. I believe in a very welcoming immigration policy because of my compassion for others and my sense that moving around this earth is a fundamental human right that governments should restrain with restraint.

I’m a moderate because it’s ok with me if you disagree. If I were a member of Congress and so were you, I’d be willing to compromise on most of my views. This is a big country with a lot of diverging philosophies. Purity accomplishes little and often leads to tyranny.

I would like the Democratic Party to moderate. I don’t mean: become more centrist on certain policies in order to appeal to a fictional median voter in a particular Wisconsin district. I mean be more pluralistic in its ethos. Democrats in Congress have done this pretty well during my lifetime. The “brand” has failed because it’s worked so hard to be a brand.

Help, I’m back to Joe Rogan

Politicians who captivate the public are pluralists. They are often surprising. People wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush in large part because of that “compassionate conservatism” he touted. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama talked surprisingly tough on a range of issues. These presidents were both genuine leaders of their parties and genuine disruptors of the public conception of those parties, at least for a moment, for long enough to win, twice. Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican party succeeded by abandoning most Republican orthodoxy. People like variety because, as we say all the time, they contain multitudes.

This brings me back to Joe Rogan’s appeal. He’s a pluralist. He’s surprising. He’s malleable. He’s listening. He makes room for everyone from MAHA influencers to James Talarico.

Please don’t misunderstand me -- I don’t think Rogan is the hero our times need. I think there are things to learn from his popularity for a party that badly needs to be more popular in order to effectively oppose the darkest excesses of Trumpism.

The Democratic Party, broadly, comes across as scolding, the HR department, fill in your preferred insult, because it is searching for one correct answer. Because too many Democratic leaders show up for every conversation with a hard thesis then spend the conversation hammering away at that thesis. They give no ground. They don’t seem curious or humble or willing to rethink a point

It pisses Democrats off to hear this given the fealty of Republicans to Donald Trump. I get that. Still, I have to honestly acknowledge that there’s real pluralism in the MAGA tent. Every disagreement is tolerable as long as you ultimately think Trump is awesome and worth compromising for. It’s a low bar for belonging. As Maggie says, all you need is a red hat. The bar on the other side of the aisle has been exceptionally high.

I hate where we are as a country right now. For most of January, I’ve felt physically ill. If marching in lockstep with anyone who feels the same way would help, I’d do it. But I think that’s exactly the wrong prescription for this moment.

I believe Democrats winning in November is imperative--not because I think Democrats are all great or have all the answers, and not because I think all Republicans are terrible. I think a Democratic wave in the midterms is the only language this administration will understand. To win, I think some Democrats should remain resistance libs because that’s who they are. Others should focus on completely local issues. I love that Mary Peltola talks about fish as her first priority. That’s who she is and what her state needs. Other Democrats should be centrists because that’s who they are. Still others should hammer away at the billionaire class because that’s who they are. The message from the party should be as pluralist as possible because America is all of it.

And because it needs to be appealing, popular, sticky, they and we and everyone should have as much fun as possible Gossip a little. Sandwich in some “oh my God, you’re amazing, no, you are.” God knows we need to wrap ourselves in some easy relationships.

Subscribe now

Me: Who loves you more than me?

Them: Nobody!

Occasionally, the littlest (who is what one would call a rascal) would answer with my mother’s name but overall my indoctrination was successful.

So, seeing a son very publicly come out and say that his mother is the worst and his wife is the only one he loves (paraphrasing) sends me into a mild panic that is hard to describe.

In case you do not follow celebrity gossip (and to that I say WHY!?!), Brooklyn Beckham, the eldest son of Victoria and David Beckham, released a statement explaining he doesn’t want to reconcile with his family after many months of rumors of a riff. He also accused them of trying to control him all the while spreading rumors that it was wife billionaire heiress Nicola Peltz who was the controlling one.

Confused? It’s ok. You’re not the only one. Lots of unanswered questions after Brooklyn’s statement that hilariously ends in a call for privacy. Questions like “What do you mean your mother danced on you at your wedding?” “Why does your account of the wedding dress debacle here differ from the one you told Vogue?” “How could you sign away control of your name!?!”

The specifics are a fun distraction from the deluge of horribles happening in Davos and across the globe, but I don’t think that’s the only reason this story has gone viral. Celebrity gossip is always about us. So, if you have a mother or a son or a mother-in-law or a controlling family member or a daughter-in-law, then this is going to hit, and it’s going to give you an opportunity to express how you really feel about that situation.

And Brooklyn and his billionairess can take it? So, get it off your chest. I would like to express my deep and abiding fear that my sons will fall in love with a woman who convinces them to go no contact with me.

WHICH brings me to my next point. Some of this (i.e., the conflict between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law) has a ring of the eternal to it, and some of this has a distinctly modern relevance. The percentage of young people who have gone no contact with their families continues to rise, and it would be foolish not to see at least some of this as a cultural trend. #ToxicFamily has 1.9 billion views on TikTok, and I don’t even remember hearing the term “no contact” until three years ago. It has become such a cultural situation that some of the families have started to fight back using the same algorithmic media they blame for the problem.

So, we’ve got a fundamentally human issue and an algorithmically fueled social trend. What else could we add?

How about a dash of nepo baby!?

After all, we’re talking about the 26-year-old son of two of the most famous people in the entire world who has hopped from project to project since adolescence. Much has been made of his hilariously awful photography book, which he was amazingly able to publish at the ripe old age of 18.

But I would also like to add Brooklyn’s hot sauce, which, attendees of our live show can attest, I’ve been obsessed with for a while. Not only is it named after his father’s jersey number, BUT it has the weirdest bottles for hot sauce I’ve ever seen. They look like Victorian shampoo and conditioner.

I’m not saying it hasn’t been hard being their kid. I’m sure they are incredibly controlling of their brand, but not so controlling that they didn’t let a teenager use it to launch a photography book AND hot sauce company.

There are trade-offs in the life of nepobaby is what I’m saying.

There are also trade-offs in a marriage and in a family and in life.

Mainly, all I see here is a really young guy with limited life experience and an unearned platform trying to solve a complicated family dynamic with a post … when what it most likely will take is a whole lot of time.

Now, if you don’t mind, I need to go ask my sons a simple question.

Leave a comment

What We’re Reading This Week

• Sarah: America250 Book Club (By Plane or By Page)

• Beth: How Prediction Markets Turned the World Into a Casino (Bloomberg)

• Alise: One and Only: The Freedom of Having an Only Child, and the Joy of Being One by Lauren Sandler

• Maggie: The Daily Stoic by Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman

p.s. We’re getting ready for our 2026 Team Retreat and would love your feedback before we go. Please take just a minute and take our survey

Take Our Survey Here