Beyond Left and Right

The war in Iran scrambles the usual political map, so we explore the nine types that actually make up America

While I was taking the Pew Research Center’s political typology quiz, I kept wishing for the ability to write footnotes. Do I want a bigger or smaller government? Smaller with these caveats! Do I believe in marriage equality? Obviously, but can we talk about how legal marriage gives rise to legal divorce, which is a brutal process for everyone involved? That feeling of needing a footnote shows up over and over again in this episode.

We start with the Iran “deal” that isn’t and the strange place I’ve reached with this war: I think I know enough, and I don’t believe anything “new.” Then we discussed the Pew Research framework that sorts Americans into nine political groups instead of the two parties. Sarah and I landed in different groups, obviously, and it was helpful to have some language about why. - Beth

Topics Discussed

- The Iran "deal" that's really a memorandum of understanding
- Why JD Vance looks set up to take the fall if it collapses
- What we actually know (and don't) about who's in charge in Tehran
- Pew Research's nine political "types" and the death of simple red vs. blue
- Taking the typology quiz live — and Sarah's and Beth's results
- The progressive litmus test and the voters Democrats leave on the table
- A rule for bedtime: don't stay up for anything you wouldn't wake at 5 a.m. to do

Want more Pantsuit Politics? Subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode and get access to our premium shows and community.

Episode Resources

• On whether a U.S.–Iran deal is within reach (Council on Foreign Relations)

• Eli Lake, “Trump gives Iran a lifeline and calls it peace” (The Free Press)

• The Atlantic’s read on how the Iran war ends (Apple News)

• The political typology — nine groups beyond red vs. blue (Pew Research Center)

• Survey on Americans’ fears for democratic freedoms (PRRI)

• The Ezra Klein Show on the shape of the 2026 midterms (New York Times)

• On harm, fairness, and having to make the call (The Argument)

Episode Transcript

[00:00:29] Sarah: This is Sarah Stewart Holland.

[00:00:31] Beth: This is Beth Silvers. You’re listening to Pantsuit Politics. On his 80th birthday. In addition to hosting a UFC fight on the White House South Lawn that promoted his cryptocurrency businesses, the president announced a capital D deal with Iran, told ships of the world to start their engines, and said, “Let the oil flow.” We will discuss. And then we’re going to talk about political parties because the war in Iran, like a lot of other things, really scrambles traditional left versus right thinking. There are Democratic and Republican supporters and opponents of that war. Pew Research has taken a look and says we are really not divided into two parties now. There are at least nine distinct political types in American politics. So we’re going to talk about those types. There’s a fun quiz that you can take, and we’ll tell you our results. And I’m really looking forward to hearing about your results, Sarah. And then Outside of Politics, we’re going to talk about one of my favorite topics, which is sleep and bedtime, and what we’re willing to stay up late for.

[00:01:28] Sarah: We’re going to revisit making the beds. No, I’m just kidding. We’re not. We’re not revisiting the bed making issue.

[00:01:32] Beth: We’re definitely not going to do that.

[00:01:34] Sarah: One of our most controversial topics over the last 10 years. We have been telling you that we’re all in on America 250, and we have two very special guests for the week leading into July 4th, 2026. The first one we’re ready to tell you about is Rick Atkinson. He is a very famous historian. He was a war correspondent for the Washington Post for 25 years. He has three Pulitzers, and he’s in the middle of a Revolutionary War trilogy. I’m currently reading the first one, The British Are Coming. The second one is out. He’s working on the third. Each one takes him six years to write. And we had him on to talk about the founding of the country and America’s first 250 years and his perspective as a historian, and it was a fantastic conversation. Not to brag. And we can’t wait for you to hear it, so get excited about Rick Atkinson coming on to help us talk about America 250 in the week leading up to July 4th.

[00:02:33] Beth: Next up, let’s talk about the deal. Sarah, I’m not sure that we have a deal in capital D.

[00:02:48] Sarah: We don’t have no deal. There’s no deal here. Give me a break.

[00:02:52] Beth: We have a memorandum of understanding.

[00:02:54] Sarah: I think that’s the dumbest, just generally. I think memorandums of understanding are the stupidest. I really do. They’re such nothing burgers, but whatever.

[00:03:02] Beth: I feel like from my days practicing law, you wrote a memorandum of understanding when you didn’t have one. And you were trying so hard to clarify what you did not have and what you might be willing to keep talking about. And that seems to be what this is. So this was announced on the president’s birthday, which I think is the most important thing we can tell you.

[00:03:19] Sarah: I thought it was really interesting. I don’t know what they thought was going to happen in the media cycle. I think they thought, “We’ll get these two wins.” But because journalists are professionals and they have to do a professional job, immediately people started asking all these questions. So one, he didn’t get the big win because people were like doesn’t seem to be a lot of there. And two, it actually distracted from the UFC fight. So I think this was a mismanaged media cycle, if nothing else.

[00:03:50] Beth: Mismanaged, thematic about the Iran war. We are recording on Wednesday, June 17th. I want to timestamp that because this is where I am with all Iran war coverage. It’s a place I don’t think I’ve ever been before. I have decided I know enough about this in terms of the players and the stakes in the situation. And I believe so little of what our government says about it, of what the Iranian government says about it, of what the Israeli government says about it, that I am just taking a huge step back. I cannot tell if that’s maturity and wisdom or something like depression. I cannot ride this every day, though. I gloss through a lot of the coverage because I think, sure, and what will tomorrow look like? And i’m out on it in a lot of ways.

[00:04:46] Sarah: Okay, so I think with regards to the negotiations-- and I am using that term very loosely. I think that’s probably the right instinct. They’re not changing anything. They will say, “We’re going to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” and then Iran will be like, “Yeah, but we might still charge tolls. Just stay tuned, everybody.” They will say, “Oh, this is so much better than the JCPOA through the Obama administration,” except it seems like the Iranians are getting way more out of this deal. They’re getting paid more money. They’re getting the relief from more sanctions. Where they will say, “The whole reason we’re doing this is to prevent nuclear weapons. Oh, but by the way, we’re just going to keep negotiating that part.” This memorandum of understanding has no actual agreement with regards to their nuclear capacity. So to the specifics of this “ deal” I think that’s the right instinct. Now, I think there are broader things that are worth paying attention to. I think whatever is happening in Iran is still very much an open question. I do not believe the regime is about to topple, which was the actual stated goal. Remember that one? That was before we settled on making sure they didn’t get a nuclear weapon. We were going to topple the regime. That didn’t happen, but it does seem like the Ayatollah is coming back online. From the reporting I’ve read that he is exerting more of a presence, which is I think while we’re making something that seems like progress, is I think they’re getting a little clearer on who’s negotiating and who actually has the power to agree to something. So I think that’s worth paying attention to because I think that’s ever-shifting and changing over there.

[00:06:20] Beth: It’s still weird to see press quoting the deputy foreign minister. You just think, “Who is at the table here, and who’s for real, and who can we believe?”

[00:06:28] Sarah: Who’s in charge? Yeah. So I think that’s an ever-shifting reality. On our side, yeah, I think it’s not worth listening to anything. They’re trying to push as a narrative. Except for I do think it’s interesting that JD is clearly being set up to be the fall guy for this if it doesn’t turn out the way everybody wants. That I’m paying attention to. I don’t know why I guess both him and Marco couldn’t fade into the background, that somebody had to step up and take the lead. But his name is all over this. If the Strait closes down again, if the global pressure increases, fighting increases between Israel and Lebanon, which is supposedly a part of this agreement, but not really because neither Israel nor Lebanon have agreed to that, then he’s going to take the heat for this. It’s giving Kamala and the border. I’m just going to be honest.

[00:07:14] Beth: If he wanted this because he thought it was a way to say to people, “I was always against this conflict and I’m going to get us out of it,” he is a fool. Another reason that I just put almost no stock in what either Iran or the United States says about this right now is that they are not the only players.

[00:07:32] Sarah: Right.

[00:07:34] Beth: Israel says it was not a party to this negotiating agreement whatsoever. Trump’s support in Israel is falling dramatically as people realize that he is not with them till the end here. What Israel is doing in Lebanon I think is going to disrupt any meaningful agreement that the United States and Iran can reach. Then you have all these proxies for Iran that it’s always been so cagey about. Why today would we believe the Iranian government that it’s going to tell all of those proxies to stand down? Which hasn’t even said it’s going to. But if they did, why would we believe that? That’s never been the arrangement.

[00:08:08] Sarah:  Even if they did, why would it matter? Why would these proxies listen at this point?

[00:08:14] Beth: Those proxies are going to do what they want to do. There are too many different interest groups living in too close proximity, too heavily armed. The other thing that really stood out to me as I was reading about the current state this morning, Council on Foreign Relations says Iran still has 70% of its pre-war missile stockpile, and roughly 70% of its mobile missile launchers. The idea that we went in and reduced Iran’s capabilities to nothing is false. And Iran demonstrates it over and over again, and the message that we’ve sent to Iran and to the rest of the world with this war is, “You should arm up. You should be ready for anything. Everybody should be nuclear. Everybody should have missiles. Everybody should have drones. Everybody should be ready to fight to the death every single day.” And that’s just a loss, no matter how this turns out. And I don’t think JD Vance has the political skills to sell something that is that stark of a reality.

[00:09:15] Sarah: Yeah. Now our capacities have been reduced. Our stockpiles are down not just with weapons, but also with oil. The stockpiles around the world, including the United States, are decreasing because this has been incredibly difficult when it comes to the energy sector. Now it has, bonus, lit a fire under everybody’s butt to get into green energy, so it’s going to be hilarious if Donald Trump’s ultimate legacy is we’re dramatically accelerating the green energy future and the electrification of our economy. I’m going to live for that outcome. But, no I agree. I think there are so many players. The most important of which Iran is in, I think best case scenario, an in-between, right? And at worst case scenario is very fragile as far as just an internal collapse altogether. But I really think the most likely situation is that they’ve come out stronger. They were weak. They were on their heels. That’s why everybody thought this was the moment. But now they have the Strait of Hormuz as the ultimate weapon. They have not had their capacity-- yeah, sure, we took out their navy. They didn’t have one to begin with. And so the nuclear capacity is still there. Their strength in the region, their ability to assert itself and become a player with some power beyond just the proxies now on their own, I think is dramatically different. I feel like the real victim is the word ceasefire because we’ve all decided that didn’t mean anything because that’s all this is another sixty days of “ceasefire,” even though during this previous ceasefire there’s been exchange of fire, so I don’t even know what that means anymore. It’s just a mess. It’s going to continue to be a mess. I don’t think his ability to just proclaim a success and move on is what it once was, if it ever was as powerful as he assumed it would be. And this has not only weakened the administration and weakened his ability to command the Republican Party, but it has opened up all these fissures, all these debates. There are hawks around Iran that are displeased with this. There are people who are displeased we went from the beginning. And it’s just exposed those tensions even more.

[00:11:36] Beth: If I try to make the strongest counterargument I can, if I say this was successful from the Trumpian perspective, it still feels dangerous to me. So you could say Iran is stronger because of the Strait of Hormuz. You could also point, though, to the enormous damage to infrastructure that we’ve done there. We have. There’s a lot that needs to be rebuilt, including schools. I think it’s important to remember that we have destroyed schools with school children in them. And Iran has terrible inflation. Iran doesn’t really know who’s in charge. So you could make a case that we’ve really weakened Iran, but that case feels extremely dangerous for America to me, too, because when we destabilize countries in the Middle East famously, we often don’t like what emerges on the other side of that destabilization. When we go in and bomb the bejesus out of a country, we end up radicalizing new people against the United States. I don’t know how you look at this from any lens and think this is better for America than the status quo as it existed before this operation. There are a lot of interesting arguments about that, though, within both parties, and so we want to take a step back and look at where the parties are right now and the groups that sit within those parties. And I think it’s a really helpful rubric that the Pew Research Center has put together as we head into the midterm elections. All right, Sarah, I read two things this morning that seemed in direct opposition to each other, so I want to talk about that. One is a survey from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute that says we are retreating into our ideological camps, and that we view the opposing side not as a political rival, but as a threat to democracy itself. And then there’s Pew Research saying, actually we are such a complicated mix of ideas that many of us don’t fit well into either major party. Can you harmonize those thoughts for me or do you read them as inconsistent, too?

[00:13:49] Sarah: I think they’re inconsistent, and I definitely think Pew’s framework is more accurate to my anecdotal experience both on the internet and in real life. I think the internet skews it dramatically, and I would be interested to understand the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, how they did that polling. Was it primarily online? Because I don’t feel or experience that retreat. What I feel and experience is an exhaustion with the ideological camps. Now I still think they are powering a lot of the political economy right now because we’re in primary season, and for better or for worse, so many of our primaries around the country, we just had some this week in Alabama and Georgia, are first past the post. So they reward those ideological camps. And so that perpetuates. That’s what the advertising’s around. And so I think that can skew the perspective when you’re soaked in the primary environment as we are right now.

[00:14:52] Beth: The primaries also reward attention on people who are highly engaged in politics, and what this Pew framework does is really separate out who’s highly engaged versus who is less engaged. I think it does the best job you can do using 24 survey questions trying to get to what are your priorities here? So in the primaries, you’re really looking at the right anchors and the left anchors in this framework. I was interested in the percentages of the population that represents. So Pew has categorized two groups as right anchors. The no apologies right at about 9% of the population, and the faith first conservatives at 12%. Both of those groups are majority Christian, they are largely male, they are largely white. And then on the left, you have the leftward progressives at 7% and the loyal liberals at 11%. Again, largely white, highly educated. Leftward progressives are the youngest group. But that means that your sort of base right is about 21% of the population, and your base left is about 17% of the population. And I just found those numbers surprising.

[00:16:03] Sarah: It doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve always visualized the hardcore ideological edges of both parties at about 20% of the population. Maybe I would have put a bigger mix of the parties in the 20%. Yeah, I might have said the hardcore party people were maybe 25 to 30% on each side. I don’t know. Because I think people who identify with both parties, which is now about 30% on each side, is not all the hardcore people. That 30% is not composed solely of the ideological hardcore people. There are people who are partisan but are not consumed by politics or the sort of party faithful in a way. They’re like party regulars, but maybe not party faithful. But I don’t know if you’d said, “Okay if 30% is Democrat and 30% is Republican and they’re full partisan, how much of those people are hardcore?” I think I maybe would have put a little bit smaller percentage of that.

[00:17:02] Beth: I think so, too. The other thing that jumped out at me is that there is a perception, I think, among left-leaning people that every electoral advantage that Republicans have is built on geography and unfairness. The idea that land doesn’t vote, people do. But if you look at these numbers, there is a small but true percentage, a true advantage in terms of raw population leaning rightward. So the more mixed categories are where it gets more interesting. Pew called out the unconventional right, people who are more moderate on abortion and the social safety net. This tends to be a younger group, a less politically engaged group. The pragmatic and polite right, who tilt Republican, but only modestly. These people are the oldest group of the bunch and tend to put a premium on civility. The order and opportunity left, a ethnically and racially diverse group, the largest group of all of them, economically liberal, but more concerned about crime and immigration than others. The left out left, people who are very financially stressed with a real mixed bag of views who are deeply skeptical of politics. And the tuned out middle, just not here for any of it, pretty politically divided. So there’s a quiz with questions in a mix of categories, and let’s not bury the lead. Sarah, what were your quiz results for the Pew Research Project?

[00:18:23] Sarah: I feel so good about this. I’m the biggest, most ethnically and racially diverse group. I’m the order and opportunity left.

[00:18:30] Beth: So how did that square for you?

[00:18:32] Sarah: No, it sounds about right. Like, when I was filling out the questions, I’m like, I’m not as progressive as I used to be. I’ve moderated a lot in my views. I’m not as reflexively negative toward the military or law enforcement as I used to be. That’s another part of my overall views that have moderated over time. But the progressive stuff that I still feel very strongly about is largely economic. It is corporate power. It is a lack of government regulation. It is consolidation. And so I wasn’t really surprised by these results. I was surprised that I was the largest group. I felt really good about that. I felt really “Okay, look at that. I sometimes feel a little left out, but here I am with the biggest group of Americans.”

[00:19:21] Beth: I was in the oldest group, the pragmatic and polite right. Which did make sense to me the more I read about it and thinking about my mix of responses. I had a hard time with a lot of the questions, and this is why I think I struggle to find my place even in conversations because there is that pragmatic leaning for me. It’s what’s going on right now? So there was a question about marriage equality. Of course, I support access to marriage for two unrelated consenting adults, yes, please get married. But if I were starting from a blank sheet of paper, would we have legal marriage? Probably not. I’ve got a lot of questions about legal marriage, and specifically about divorce as related to legal marriage. So kind of all the questions I thought, “I need a bunch of footnotes.” So when I came out in this place of pragmatism and being polite as the things that jump out most, that felt right.

[00:20:14] Sarah: I’m just excited that we’re back to being Sarah from the left and Beth from the right. Look at that.

[00:20:18] Beth: That is a very upsetting framework for me. I just don’t want to hear it anymore.

[00:20:23] Sarah:  That’s what it says. I’m on the left, and you’re on the pragmatic and polite right. Just saying.

[00:20:30] Beth: But I think that is what this rubric illustrates, too. The MAGA version of Republicanism is Those two hardcore categories. It’s confusing to me that so many people in the more mixed categories still voted for Donald Trump because I think that it’s just totally out of alignment with how you would answer a lot of the questions that get you to being somewhere on the right.

[00:20:59] Sarah: It doesn’t really surprise me the way they’ve broken these out. For example, look at the unconventional right, less politically engaged. So they’re going to be able to hear what they want to hear that gets them to yes on him, right? So they’re going to be able to say I don’t want partial birth abortion, so I’m not going to vote for the Democrat, because I’m more moderate on abortion and the social safety net.” I see how they get there. To the pragmatic and polite, I bet they don’t get there. I bet they’re like you, and I bet I think that they’ve probably... Or like my stepdad they’re not voting for Donald Trump. They might be voting for other Republicans, but they’re not voting for Donald Trump. But they’re still not Democrats. So I actually can see how those two groups get to yes on him pretty easily. What I was pleasantly surprised about is that the tuned out middle was small. I was afraid that was going to be a much larger percentage. So I’m encouraged that they classify that as only 9% of the population. Although, when you talk about this tiny sliver of the population everybody’s fighting over when it comes to swing voters, I guess that makes a certain amount of sense.

[00:22:07] Beth: It does. I think another reason that Sarah from the left, Beth from the right is just unlivable for me, is that there is an expectation when you say right now that what you mean is MAGA.

[00:22:20] Sarah: Yeah.

[00:22:20] Beth: Even before MAGA was a thing, I wasn’t hard right enough for people who tuned in with that expectation of constant friction and disagreement. So when I worked through these questions, I kept finding myself thinking about context.

[00:22:36] Sarah: I also want to add that this frustration or this sort of categorization is a problem on the left too. They call them the left-out left. I think there is a sense that if you are a Republican, you’re the MAGA right, and there is a sense that if you are a Democrat, then you should be motivated by one thing and one thing only, which is an all-encompassing fury about Donald Trump.

[00:23:08] Beth: Yeah.

[00:23:08] Sarah: And we leave so many potential Democratic voters on the table from this left-out left, and I would say from the order and opportunity left, the largest group, when we do things like live in this world where you should be pissed off all the time. I think that’s how we lost so many Latino voters in 2024. We weren’t speaking to what people are actually concerned about. We were speaking to what people should be, like what good people are really concerned about. I was just listening to the Ezra Klein Show, and they were talking about Jared Golden should have been the candidate to take out Susan Collins, but he’s been harassed out of the arena by the progressive left. Was about to be primaried because he wasn’t left enough. He wasn’t mad enough. He wasn’t fighting enough. And I think this is a really important reminder that It’s not just the MAGA people leaving people out, but when you operate over this progressive litmus test so you say one critical thing about Graham Platner, and they come for your head, like poor Derrick Thompson’s experience this week, even though he said he would vote for him, then you are leaving out a lot of voters in the order and opportunity left, the left-out left, and the tuned-out middle.

[00:24:22] Beth: Yes, 7% leftward progressive is the smallest group in this rubric. Yeah. And that is where  all the energy is, all the attention is. Yes.

[00:24:33] Sarah: Yeah. They’re only the loudest.

[00:24:35] Beth: And I think that is worthy of so much conversation, and I feel like whenever you try to raise it, that group in particular shouts you down and insists that 90% of the country shares those views.

[00:24:50] Sarah: It’s how you get people telling Sarah McBride she doesn’t support trans rights.

[00:24:54] Beth: Right.

[00:24:55] Sarah: And there’s a way to navigate it. I do think Zoran Mamdani is doing a good job. I think he is progressive in a way people like, but he is also getting shit done in a way you just have to if you’re going to be in charge. And these people steer so much of the attention online that they end up steering a lot of the conversation, and it is bad. It’s bad and they were just leaving a lot of people on the table.

[00:25:17] Beth: It’s okay to be there. None of these categories are wrong on their own. You just have to ask hard questions about what results you want. I think I end up in the pragmatic and polite right because my life philosophy is that I’d rather be married than right on most issues. I would rather live with other Americans and have some policies that I think are unwise than be mad and fighting all the time. It’s just not how I want to exist in the world. And I wonder how much when you relitigate the last election, how much of that drift to the right was about the actual substance, like you are ignoring issues that I care about in favor of issues that are less important to me, and how much was about style and kind of the sense of they seem to be having more fun over here. I don’t want to hear that in order to be a caring human being I need to be in a state of despair constantly. I don’t know the answer to that, and I know people have parsed it ad nauseam, but I still don’t know.

[00:26:18] Sarah: I think there’s also a weakness in style on the right, and they get to that in some of the questions. I hated the one that was like, “If someone’s opposed to you, should you fight them all the time?” Or it was very just “Do you like how Trump insults his opponents?” Basically.

[00:26:32] Beth: Pulled that language. “When politicians you agree with humiliate their political opponents, do you like it?”

[00:26:39] Sarah: Yeah. I don’t. I said I don’t like it. And so it’s not that there are only stylistic approaches coming from the progressive left that, that alienate voters. I think that sort of constant fighting, my fellow citizens are my enemies... I guess I take the beginning poll from the Public Religion Institute seriously, but that is just not what I’m hearing in my life, that people are just like, “You know what, I really want to just double down on this. I hate my fellow Americans situation. It’s super fun. I’d like to do more of it.” I think people are exhausted with that, and I think they want fight. I think there’s a difference. I think they want politicians willing to take risks, willing to try new things, willing to say, “This isn’t working, and it’s not working for anybody, and we need to change it.” That doesn’t mean you want somebody who’s just calling people names and humiliating them all the time. Those are two different things.

[00:27:41] Beth: I also wonder how much of this is changing in real time and maybe not captured yet in the ad maker strategist class. I talked through these questions with my daughters who are 15 and 11 as of today, and they also said, “I really hate it when someone humiliates someone else, whether I agree with them or not.” And that was one of the strongest reactions to any question they had, because they understand that question completely.

[00:28:10] Sarah: Yeah.

[00:28:10] Beth: A lot of questions we had to discuss, and they were like, “I don’t really know enough to know.” That one, they were like, “No, I do not like that.” And I think that we’re behind that in the way campaigns are being run right now.

[00:28:22] Sarah: I think it is about the shift from traditional media to social media and an algorithm that awards conflict and negative emotions. And so you have a system of attention that awards that, even if the participants in the system of the attention articulate a different set of priorities and values, and that’s where we’re caught in the crosshairs right now.

[00:28:51] Beth: You want to do a couple of these questions as examples from the survey?

[00:28:55] Sarah: Sure.

[00:28:56] Beth: If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?

[00:29:03] Sarah: This is how I got in my group, because I answered a bigger government.

[00:29:07] Beth: And I answered a smaller government. And it it probably is one of the most important questions in sorting you as an initial matter. Economically, how important is it for the US to have an economic system based on capitalism? I think I said a spectrum here, extremely to not at all.

[00:29:20] Sarah: Yeah, I hate the very important, somewhat important, a little important. I’m like, nobody thinks like this. But I said important for sure.

[00:29:28] Beth: I said very important. We had a lot of discussion with my daughters about this, because they don’t really understand what capitalism is, and I thought, “I think a lot of people don’t understand what capitalism is.”

[00:29:37] Sarah: I think a lot of people don’t understand what democracy is. People are like there’s polling out this week that they say that’s less important to being an American. I’m like, “Everybody go back to history class.” That’s the whole point.

[00:29:49] Beth: I thought it was interesting because Jane is on Instagram now, so she is in the zeitgeist enough to know that every other reel will tell you that the problem with X, Y, or Z is capitalism. And so we had a discussion about what capitalism means and what the alternatives are, and they were both like, “Oh yeah, that seems important. That seems like where we want to stay.”

[00:30:10] Sarah:  People Mean capitalism, they say capitalism, and what they really mean is the gap between the rich and the poor. They mean wealth inequality.

[00:30:18] Beth: Right.

[00:30:18] Sarah: And there’s a sense that a very reductive narrative that the way we got here is capitalism. Capitalism is the villain that made Elon Musk. And to a certain extent, yeah, that’s true. But to a certain extent, there are also fabulously wealthy oligarchs where there is no capitalism. So I don’t know if that’s the bugaboo people quite make it out to be, and I think capitalism and a democratic system built around it, or vice versa, offer the best tools. That’s why I lean towards big government because I think if you’re going to get to big corporations through regulation, you’re going to need a big, powerful government to get there.

[00:30:58] Beth: Yeah, and I have never leaned toward a big, powerful government, and especially after two terms of Donald Trump, do not lean toward a big, powerful government. But I was talking to my girls about how much of the discussion about capitalism leaves out the millions of small businesses that live their lives however they want to. Some of them work extremely hard and accumulate lots of wealth, or don’t, but feel a real sense of purpose about what they contribute to their communities. Some people make really different choices about quality of life and we have that freedom in this system. There is an opening for you to pursue your values in that open field, and that’s what I think is worth holding onto. Okay, foreign policy. In the future, how important is it for the US to be the only military superpower in the world?

[00:31:46] Sarah: I don’t care about that. I said not that at all.

[00:31:48] Beth:  I do not Care about that either.

[00:31:50] Sarah: No. Yeah. I was like, whatever, who cares?

[00:31:53] Beth: It just is unrealistic to me. I just don’t see a future where we’re the only military superpower in the world. I also don’t see a future where military might is where the real fault lines are drawn in international conflict.

[00:32:07] Sarah: Especially, like, where the influence comes from. I agree.

[00:32:10] Beth: Okay, one more. In the other issues bucket, how comfortable are you with people openly carrying guns in public places? I thought this was such a smart question.

[00:32:20] Sarah: Yeah. I said not at all.

[00:32:22] Beth: Me too.

[00:32:24] Sarah: I thought the really interesting ones were the people being too easily offended by things others say is a major or minor problem, and people saying things that are very offensive to others is a major or minor problem. I thought those two were very interesting.

[00:32:35] Beth: I did too. My daughter said that both are major problems. And I said that people being too easily offended is a major problem, and people being offensive is a minor problem.

[00:32:46] Sarah: Interesting. I think I a little bit split the difference. I definitely think I loved the piece from The Argument this week that was basically like, people are going to get hurt. You have to make a call, and people are not going to be happy with every call. They started off with the concert where you couldn’t bring your cell phones, and then accusations of ableist, which I don’t even buy, and my child literally uses his cell phone to treat his disability, thank you very much. But he would still treat himself in a Yondr packet in his pocket for the record. And so I just think, yeah, we’ve gotten to a place where any harm... I thought your conversation around the idea of fairness, what’s fair, what’s not, in More to Say got to this too. We’ve decided if there’s any harm under a rubric of harm reduction, then we can’t do it. If there’s any unfairness, and in a country this big, there is inevitably going to be unfairness. And this, to me, gets to the individualization of our experiences that I think is very hard on our systems and institutions. I thought they were scratching at that a little bit with those questions.

[00:33:55] Beth: I think we might be aligned on this then, because for me, people being too easily offended is a major problem for the reason that we have translated that into policy. We’ve translated it into business policy. We try to translate it into public policy, and I think that’s at odds with the freedom of speech that is an integral part of what we should be built on as a nation. It’s not that I think people aren’t saying very offensive things. We are awash in offensive things being said, and I don’t like it. I’m in the category about politeness. I do value treating each other with respect, but I think it is a minor problem in terms of politics because I want to keep those doors open. I would fight for the opportunity to offend others with speech, not the opportunity to shut down speech.

[00:34:43] Sarah: Agreed.

[00:34:44] Beth: So I would love for everyone to take this quiz and tell me where you fall.

[00:34:47] Sarah: I know. I want to hear.

[00:34:49] Beth: I have a guess about where our audience might map onto this, but I would love to validate that. So let us know in the comments, please. Next up, we’re going to talk about sleep and bedtime. My husband’s best friend, Jeremy, stayed with us for a couple days over the weekend, and just like offhandedly he said, “I read this thing that said you shouldn’t stay up late for anything that you wouldn’t get up at 5:00 AM to do.” I thought that was so interesting, and so I wanted to talk with you about it. What’s your initial reaction to that advice?

[00:35:29] Sarah: My initial reaction is like it makes sense, and then I’m like, no, I don’t think it does. I’m a walking example right now. I’m yawning because I stayed up until 11:30 finishing Maggie O’Farrell’s Land. Glad I did it. Don’t regret it. Would I have set an alarm at 5:00 AM to wake up and finish the book? No. I think there’s just something fundamentally different about being already awake and wanting to continue something as opposed to wanting to wake up and do the thing. You already have the energy. You don’t want the day to end. You’re trying to play something out as opposed to disrupting sleep and waking up. Does that make sense?

[00:36:09] Beth: It does. I think this advice is so rock solid for work and totally off for pleasure.

[00:36:15] Sarah: Okay, there we go. There you fixed it

[00:36:19] Beth: And work broadly. I think this is right about chores. If I need the floor to be mopped so badly that I’m staying up late, maybe I’m better off setting my alarm and getting that done in the morning. There are a lot of things around the house that keep me up sometimes and I probably would be better off in the morning. I’m always better off in the morning if I get up early for work than staying up late in the evening. But for pleasure, I think you’re right that sometimes pleasure has a momentum. And also, if you aren’t willing to stay up late for your friends, you’re really limiting your friendships. We lived that phase when we had young kids who needed a really rigid bedtime, and you just end up in that phase of life having to pass on a lot of fun. And it was worth it to me then, but as an adult and with older kids, it’s worth it to stay up now sometimes for fun.

[00:37:09] Sarah: Yeah, I had some friends that stayed with me a few months ago from high school, and they’re night owls, and so I stayed up with them several nights in a row, and I didn’t regret it. Always travel disrupts my sleep score, my Oura Ring, worth it. I think that there is a lot of pleasurable pursuits. Now, there are some like I don’t think drinking’s ever worth it for me. Like payoff is not there and it’s disruptive for too long. But I think if you are generally a person who gets a good amount of sleep, every so once in a while, like last night, staying up and finishing a book, like it’s not going to mess with me that bad. I can go to bed a little bit earlier tonight and I’ll be fine.

[00:37:46] Beth: It changes for me year to year. I think what I’m really appreciating about this stage of life, even though things like drinking and staying up late affect me way more than they used to, is that I do have space to think about that. When you’re out of how is this going to affect my kids, it just really lets you decide for yourself in ways that I just couldn’t decide for myself for so many years. And I don’t stay up super late ever. On the whole, I am a very early to bed, early to rise kind of person. Ellen had a bunch of girls here until 9:30 last night, which meant I was cleaning up until 10:30 or so, and that’s fine.

[00:38:27] Sarah: Yeah.

[00:38:27] Beth: I would love to retire earlier than that, but it was fine.

[00:38:29] Sarah: Yeah. I’ve tried to hold my bedtime a little loosely. Especially when you first get an Oura Ring, it can feel very prescriptive and you’re like, “I gotta do it.” But the Oura Ring ultimately was good for me because sometimes I think I’ve slept terribly. I got to bed too late. I had to get up early, and the ring will be like, “You slept fine. You got plenty of REM sleep. Be cool.” So it’s been helpful to me to sometimes be like, “Oh, no, it’s not as bad as I thought it was.” But I think once you have good sleep hygiene and you are committed to it, than as opposed to, I think, locking you in, which is what a lot of people think happens, it just builds a foundation so you have a little more freedom during those edge case experiences.

[00:39:08] Beth: I think that’s right. And when you are measuring some of that stuff, if you’ll hold the measurement as a tool, not a report card you realize, “I’ll come out of this. It may take a couple days, but I’ll come out of it. My body’s very adaptable. It’ll be fine.”

[00:39:22] Sarah: The Oura will give you a little tech talk. It’ll be like, “It’s okay, this happens.” I love it when it gives me that little “It’s hard sometimes. You’ll get over it.” I’m like, “Thanks, man. Helpful.”

[00:39:30] Beth: Would you like to work a little harder today or not? You should listen to yourself on that.

[00:39:34] Sarah: Yeah. I love those little pep talks. This is not a commercial for Oura Ring. It just turned out that way.

[00:39:39] Beth: But I am really going to hold onto that advice that I’m not going to work late if I wouldn’t set my alarm for 5:00 AM. I think that’s extremely helpful.

[00:39:47] Sarah: That’s good. I like putting it within the work framework. Good work.

[00:39:51] Beth: Thank you so much to everyone for joining us today. Make sure to follow the show so that you do not miss any of our upcoming July celebrations, including our conversation with Rick Atkinson. We’ll be back with you next week. Until then, have the best weekend available to you.

Show Credits

Pantsuit Politics is hosted by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The show is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.

Our theme music was composed by Xander Singh with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.

Our show is listener-supported. The community of paid subscribers here on Substack makes everything we do possible. Special thanks to our Executive Producers, some of whose names you hear at the end of each show. To join our community of supporters, become a paid subscriber here on Substack.

To search past episodes of the main show or our premium content, check out our content archive.

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.