I am a little late to reading this but when you mentioned "freaky Friday" I would LOVE for you to do an episode where Beth tries to take what she thinks would be Sarah's position and vice versa. That would be so fun! Maybe in honor of the Freaky Friday reboot coming out some day soon?
I so appreciate the humanity, the honesty, and the heart you bring to this, Beth. In a time where most metaphorically shove each other with their words, you invite the whole robust conversation with dignity and grace. That is a rare gift and I’m glad to be a part of it. Also, intramural resentment is a fascinating concept and I will be pondering it for a while.
Thank you for concretely saying the thing about predominantly white communities. It's tiring to always hear "the underlying thing is racism" when, generally speaking (there are exceptions to every rule), those of us who grew up in not-wealthy white communities literally DON'T associate government benefits with people of color. We just don't! The welfare queen is only a trope people tell me about, it's never been a conversation in my home or community. (And I'm not speaking to the systems here. I'm pretty much of the mindset that racism undergirds nearly all of our government policies and practices. I'm talking hearts and minds right now.)
I am honestly really sad at the thought of anyone feeling like they’re either too much or not enough.. and I hope no one on this team is feeling that way 💔
I thought the conversation, and the controversy it created, was indicative of what the real problem is! People don’t like gray! It makes the uncomfortable and scared. Sarah is passionate, she will always be. Beth is measured, and she will always be. I believe that people who were offended want to be offended, want to be mad, want to be right! As a person who is living with a societal issue that is anything BUT black or white (I have a trans young adult child) my tolerance for black and white answers is zero. Humans aren’t one thing or another, therefore, solutions can’t be all one way or another.
I think people respond really well to someone who sounds like they have simple, clear answers about things. I've been participating in a climate group recently, and one person of national reputation was brought in to speak to us. He said everything in a very clear, simple, and convincing way. Trouble is, several of the things he said I know from my own work to be false. I think the way to get a national reputation is to sound like him, but it's also a great way to misdiagnose the problem and confidently pursue the wrong solution.
I consumed all parts of this within the last 24 hours. I was late listening to Tuesday’s ep and then of course I had to listen to the More to Say follow-up, and now this lovely essay. (The Frankenstein tie-in is so on point!) I was feeling pretty riled up listening to the original conversation, so it was good to hear a detailed and thoughtful expression of where both Sarah and Beth were coming from and how it made them feel.
A couple of things that I noticed: First, maybe it’s because I’m from California, but I don’t see anything like the pervasiveness of sweetened drinks that Sarah described. The stats about average quantities consumed were mind boggling! And it’s not just my age group. For most of my daughter’s life very few of her friends were drinking soda or energy drinks. Not never, just not nearly as much as Big Beverage would hope.
Also, on the subject of judgment/shame, I thought it was interesting that the concept of someone who “cheats” on their SNAP benefits (buying lobster) was outrageous (not picking on Sarah, more the hypothetical Everyman who suspects this benefit doesn’t work properly), but no one was talking about the little cheats many people make on their income taxes (was that dinner receipt actually a client meal?). And never mind the ginormous cheats the big boys participate in! The inherent problem with a program like SNAP, or a food pantry, or a gofundme, is that once we put money on the line we think we “earn” the right to go over it with a fine tooth comb, but most of us would be furious if someone applied the same scrutiny to our own actions.
My beef with demonizing soda as an agenda item is that it lives squarely in the area of things outsiders can judge others for. If the goal is better health for our society this is a lousy tool to achieve it.
Oh, one little anecdote about passing judgment on behavior: I participate in a drive-through Infant Pantry that distributes diapers and baby goods. It has been a huge success and there’s strong evidence that it’s really needed. But as the program has gone on, members of our group have gotten suspicious of what our guests report as their needs. If the driver tells us they have twins at home, and they get twice the allocation, do they REALLY have twins? If they tell us they are picking up for another family that couldn’t make it this month do we question the story? Now there’s no doubt in my mind that a few people are probably working the system, but I take the position that if a parent is concerned enough about their ability to provide that they will wait in line with their kids on a Saturday morning for diapers and formula then who am I to question their needs or their choices as parents?
First off, the easy debate: I’m a midwesterner and we grew up calling it Sodie Pop, then just pop as we got older. When I moved to the south in high school, I quickly realized that, out of the two acceptable choices that I was willing to utter in Cokeland (soda and pop), soda attracted less criticism. So I adopted it and that’s what I’ve called it ever since. 🤣
I had a very busy week and have not had time to comment on Sodagate, but I keep returning to it in my thoughts. I left that episode feeling more activated than I normally do. I bristled at Sarah’s strong language, and I knew it would be a topic of conversation. But I also thought about how Sarah is coming at this from her lived experience as the parent of a child of diabetes, and the fact that she has openly been trying to change her knee jerk response to MAGA bullshit, to try something new, since the old routine clearly isn’t working. I really appreciated that, even though I probably fall closer to Beth’s position on this. I also loved hearing a more heated debate than normal - I think it’s more realistic to how most of us might disagree, rather than the practiced (but lovely) way they usually disagree. I knew they walked away fine with each other, and I knew they chose to put this into to the world for all of us to listen. I definitely don’t think Sarah is too much or that Beth is not enough. I appreciate how you guys are so willing to engage with the audience and have the conversation after the conversation, and I think you’ve built the trust with your community to receive pushback as well as positive feedback. Thank you for being willing to sit with the discomfort of putting yourselves out there - I can’t speak for everyone, but I know being in this community has made me a better person.
I'm just here to say that I feel about a crispy Dr. Pepper as you feel about your crispy Diet Coke, and I'm so happy for us to have these small joys in our lives
To me, the biggest takeaway from the episode was having Beth and Sarah MODEL an interesting, curious, passionate discussion from different perspectives and contrasting priorities with RESPECT for each other. Politics these days are so extreme, you two agree on more than not, and it brought me back to your older episodes that had included more debate between the “right and the left”. We so rarely see people being able to listen to other’s differing perspectives these days without the “us vs them” mentality and if we want to ever get out of this mess as a country we need to relearn how to do that! Thanks for being real people who are willing to put yourselves out there to stimulate rich discussions and give us examples of how to care for others when we may disagree or have different ideas.
I enjoyed the SNAP episode and as usual, it made me bristle at times but also forced me to think more deeply. Echoing others who had expressed appreciation for the term intramural resentment. It helped me realize why I don’t want to have certain conversations with my conservative family members. Even when the administration does something heinous, I don’t want to ask for their thoughts because I’m afraid of what the answer will be. The discomfort of not knowing is preferable to how gutted and resentful I would feel if they confirmed my worst suspicions.
One way you can tell I'm a Southern gal -- I will ask you what kind of coke you want. (And my answer to that question will almost always be Dr. Pepper.)
I’m from the Deep South and have truly never understood this “all soda is coke” argument. If you went to a diner and the waitress asked, “do you want a coke” and you said yes and they brought you a sprite, you wouldn’t be happy, right? (Or God forbid, A PEPSI!!). Coke is soda but all soda is not coke.
On the pickle of "it depends" policy conversations vs "clear, direct, right-the-hell now" policy experiments -- I would love more podcasts picking apart that very challenging dynamic!
One worry that I felt as Sarah was trying to channel her hypothetical middle of the road common sense audience, as that I don't want us to go down the path of a million think pieces about a Trump voter in a rural bar that we had in Trump round 1. I don't want to get stuck in the mire of "real Americans" or "heartland voters" that inevitably describes people living on the coasts as out of touch and fake.
I would challenge us (the audience and the PP team) to consider how we might find ways to be more direct and clear and common sense without embracing the terms of the debate as presented by MAGA and MAHA. How do we pivot from their framing and assert a truer one? How can be weave together values and evidence into a better conversation that steers us toward the agenda we believe government SHOULD be tackling?
I agreed with Beth heartily that getting micromanage-y about what items in grocery stores SNAP benefits can and cannot be used on is a terrible use of government, on many fronts. Budget-wise, nutrition-wise, economy-wise, poverty-wise, just a poor tool for the job.
So if we were advising someone running in those states on what stance to take when asked to comment on the SNAP provisions, what would we say? My first draft thinking, "We have bigger problems in this state than what goes into the shopping cart of someone down on their luck. The amount of money it takes to try to address that is more than the size of the problem itself. Let's work on getting more people better paying jobs instead. Let's work on making healthy food more affordable instead."
I am also grateful for the term "intramural resentment." It's such a valuable thing to name, and I see it everywhere. Especially on the political Left, simply because I have more of a vantage point into friction between factions over there than I do on the Right.
It shows up in how there are protesters advocating for Gaza showing up at Kamala's book tour. Or in how Dems criticized Biden with such ire. There's a sense of grading on a curve. Being more pissed at person A for X mediocre act than B for Y worse thing, because I thought A was on my side and never expected B to do anything moral to begin with. And, perhaps taking my criticism to person A while not engaging with person B because I know (or at least assume) that person B won't listen to me anyway.
It shows up in how identity groups criticize the ones adjacent to them more than the ones three steps removed (tension coming from women of color toward white women, from trans folk toward cis-LGB folk). There's an understandable pain that comes when someone we thought was an ally or team member says something that makes us think our own trust in them may have been mislaid. Meanwhile many would think of critiquing cis-white-hetero-men as wasting their breath be cause that category has already been mentally written off. (Not saying it's right! Just describing a dynamic I've observed.)
This was an excellent newsletter, and I love getting to read even a smidge of your thoughts on Frankenstein. It was my book club book for October…I hadn’t read it since college and was blown away anew by 19yo Mary Shelley’s genius.
I am a little late to reading this but when you mentioned "freaky Friday" I would LOVE for you to do an episode where Beth tries to take what she thinks would be Sarah's position and vice versa. That would be so fun! Maybe in honor of the Freaky Friday reboot coming out some day soon?
I so appreciate the humanity, the honesty, and the heart you bring to this, Beth. In a time where most metaphorically shove each other with their words, you invite the whole robust conversation with dignity and grace. That is a rare gift and I’m glad to be a part of it. Also, intramural resentment is a fascinating concept and I will be pondering it for a while.
Thank you for concretely saying the thing about predominantly white communities. It's tiring to always hear "the underlying thing is racism" when, generally speaking (there are exceptions to every rule), those of us who grew up in not-wealthy white communities literally DON'T associate government benefits with people of color. We just don't! The welfare queen is only a trope people tell me about, it's never been a conversation in my home or community. (And I'm not speaking to the systems here. I'm pretty much of the mindset that racism undergirds nearly all of our government policies and practices. I'm talking hearts and minds right now.)
I am honestly really sad at the thought of anyone feeling like they’re either too much or not enough.. and I hope no one on this team is feeling that way 💔
I thought the conversation, and the controversy it created, was indicative of what the real problem is! People don’t like gray! It makes the uncomfortable and scared. Sarah is passionate, she will always be. Beth is measured, and she will always be. I believe that people who were offended want to be offended, want to be mad, want to be right! As a person who is living with a societal issue that is anything BUT black or white (I have a trans young adult child) my tolerance for black and white answers is zero. Humans aren’t one thing or another, therefore, solutions can’t be all one way or another.
I think people respond really well to someone who sounds like they have simple, clear answers about things. I've been participating in a climate group recently, and one person of national reputation was brought in to speak to us. He said everything in a very clear, simple, and convincing way. Trouble is, several of the things he said I know from my own work to be false. I think the way to get a national reputation is to sound like him, but it's also a great way to misdiagnose the problem and confidently pursue the wrong solution.
This is evident in so many spaces. What’s unnerving is how pervasive and unshakeable that misinformation can be.
I consumed all parts of this within the last 24 hours. I was late listening to Tuesday’s ep and then of course I had to listen to the More to Say follow-up, and now this lovely essay. (The Frankenstein tie-in is so on point!) I was feeling pretty riled up listening to the original conversation, so it was good to hear a detailed and thoughtful expression of where both Sarah and Beth were coming from and how it made them feel.
A couple of things that I noticed: First, maybe it’s because I’m from California, but I don’t see anything like the pervasiveness of sweetened drinks that Sarah described. The stats about average quantities consumed were mind boggling! And it’s not just my age group. For most of my daughter’s life very few of her friends were drinking soda or energy drinks. Not never, just not nearly as much as Big Beverage would hope.
Also, on the subject of judgment/shame, I thought it was interesting that the concept of someone who “cheats” on their SNAP benefits (buying lobster) was outrageous (not picking on Sarah, more the hypothetical Everyman who suspects this benefit doesn’t work properly), but no one was talking about the little cheats many people make on their income taxes (was that dinner receipt actually a client meal?). And never mind the ginormous cheats the big boys participate in! The inherent problem with a program like SNAP, or a food pantry, or a gofundme, is that once we put money on the line we think we “earn” the right to go over it with a fine tooth comb, but most of us would be furious if someone applied the same scrutiny to our own actions.
My beef with demonizing soda as an agenda item is that it lives squarely in the area of things outsiders can judge others for. If the goal is better health for our society this is a lousy tool to achieve it.
Oh, one little anecdote about passing judgment on behavior: I participate in a drive-through Infant Pantry that distributes diapers and baby goods. It has been a huge success and there’s strong evidence that it’s really needed. But as the program has gone on, members of our group have gotten suspicious of what our guests report as their needs. If the driver tells us they have twins at home, and they get twice the allocation, do they REALLY have twins? If they tell us they are picking up for another family that couldn’t make it this month do we question the story? Now there’s no doubt in my mind that a few people are probably working the system, but I take the position that if a parent is concerned enough about their ability to provide that they will wait in line with their kids on a Saturday morning for diapers and formula then who am I to question their needs or their choices as parents?
First off, the easy debate: I’m a midwesterner and we grew up calling it Sodie Pop, then just pop as we got older. When I moved to the south in high school, I quickly realized that, out of the two acceptable choices that I was willing to utter in Cokeland (soda and pop), soda attracted less criticism. So I adopted it and that’s what I’ve called it ever since. 🤣
I had a very busy week and have not had time to comment on Sodagate, but I keep returning to it in my thoughts. I left that episode feeling more activated than I normally do. I bristled at Sarah’s strong language, and I knew it would be a topic of conversation. But I also thought about how Sarah is coming at this from her lived experience as the parent of a child of diabetes, and the fact that she has openly been trying to change her knee jerk response to MAGA bullshit, to try something new, since the old routine clearly isn’t working. I really appreciated that, even though I probably fall closer to Beth’s position on this. I also loved hearing a more heated debate than normal - I think it’s more realistic to how most of us might disagree, rather than the practiced (but lovely) way they usually disagree. I knew they walked away fine with each other, and I knew they chose to put this into to the world for all of us to listen. I definitely don’t think Sarah is too much or that Beth is not enough. I appreciate how you guys are so willing to engage with the audience and have the conversation after the conversation, and I think you’ve built the trust with your community to receive pushback as well as positive feedback. Thank you for being willing to sit with the discomfort of putting yourselves out there - I can’t speak for everyone, but I know being in this community has made me a better person.
I'm just here to say that I feel about a crispy Dr. Pepper as you feel about your crispy Diet Coke, and I'm so happy for us to have these small joys in our lives
To me, the biggest takeaway from the episode was having Beth and Sarah MODEL an interesting, curious, passionate discussion from different perspectives and contrasting priorities with RESPECT for each other. Politics these days are so extreme, you two agree on more than not, and it brought me back to your older episodes that had included more debate between the “right and the left”. We so rarely see people being able to listen to other’s differing perspectives these days without the “us vs them” mentality and if we want to ever get out of this mess as a country we need to relearn how to do that! Thanks for being real people who are willing to put yourselves out there to stimulate rich discussions and give us examples of how to care for others when we may disagree or have different ideas.
I enjoyed the SNAP episode and as usual, it made me bristle at times but also forced me to think more deeply. Echoing others who had expressed appreciation for the term intramural resentment. It helped me realize why I don’t want to have certain conversations with my conservative family members. Even when the administration does something heinous, I don’t want to ask for their thoughts because I’m afraid of what the answer will be. The discomfort of not knowing is preferable to how gutted and resentful I would feel if they confirmed my worst suspicions.
One way you can tell I'm a Southern gal -- I will ask you what kind of coke you want. (And my answer to that question will almost always be Dr. Pepper.)
I’m from the Deep South and have truly never understood this “all soda is coke” argument. If you went to a diner and the waitress asked, “do you want a coke” and you said yes and they brought you a sprite, you wouldn’t be happy, right? (Or God forbid, A PEPSI!!). Coke is soda but all soda is not coke.
I hear what you're saying, but it does work. It's not “do you want a coke?” it's “what kind of coke?” (because, obviously, you want one)
Similarly all tea in the South is sweet tea, so it's very confusing when you go other places and ask for tea and they give you tea.
On the pickle of "it depends" policy conversations vs "clear, direct, right-the-hell now" policy experiments -- I would love more podcasts picking apart that very challenging dynamic!
One worry that I felt as Sarah was trying to channel her hypothetical middle of the road common sense audience, as that I don't want us to go down the path of a million think pieces about a Trump voter in a rural bar that we had in Trump round 1. I don't want to get stuck in the mire of "real Americans" or "heartland voters" that inevitably describes people living on the coasts as out of touch and fake.
I would challenge us (the audience and the PP team) to consider how we might find ways to be more direct and clear and common sense without embracing the terms of the debate as presented by MAGA and MAHA. How do we pivot from their framing and assert a truer one? How can be weave together values and evidence into a better conversation that steers us toward the agenda we believe government SHOULD be tackling?
I agreed with Beth heartily that getting micromanage-y about what items in grocery stores SNAP benefits can and cannot be used on is a terrible use of government, on many fronts. Budget-wise, nutrition-wise, economy-wise, poverty-wise, just a poor tool for the job.
So if we were advising someone running in those states on what stance to take when asked to comment on the SNAP provisions, what would we say? My first draft thinking, "We have bigger problems in this state than what goes into the shopping cart of someone down on their luck. The amount of money it takes to try to address that is more than the size of the problem itself. Let's work on getting more people better paying jobs instead. Let's work on making healthy food more affordable instead."
As a connoisseur of fridge cigarettes myself, may I recommend the special edition Diet Coke with Lime that's out right now.
I am also grateful for the term "intramural resentment." It's such a valuable thing to name, and I see it everywhere. Especially on the political Left, simply because I have more of a vantage point into friction between factions over there than I do on the Right.
It shows up in how there are protesters advocating for Gaza showing up at Kamala's book tour. Or in how Dems criticized Biden with such ire. There's a sense of grading on a curve. Being more pissed at person A for X mediocre act than B for Y worse thing, because I thought A was on my side and never expected B to do anything moral to begin with. And, perhaps taking my criticism to person A while not engaging with person B because I know (or at least assume) that person B won't listen to me anyway.
It shows up in how identity groups criticize the ones adjacent to them more than the ones three steps removed (tension coming from women of color toward white women, from trans folk toward cis-LGB folk). There's an understandable pain that comes when someone we thought was an ally or team member says something that makes us think our own trust in them may have been mislaid. Meanwhile many would think of critiquing cis-white-hetero-men as wasting their breath be cause that category has already been mentally written off. (Not saying it's right! Just describing a dynamic I've observed.)
So true. It’s eating us alive, and I hope we can find the big tent framework that brings back a real (not MAGA-coded) idea of American
This was an excellent newsletter, and I love getting to read even a smidge of your thoughts on Frankenstein. It was my book club book for October…I hadn’t read it since college and was blown away anew by 19yo Mary Shelley’s genius.