Stalemate Is Not An Option

Beth talks to No Labels co-founder Holly Page about getting things done in D.C.

Beth sits down with Holly Page, who co-founded No Labels, to talk about why they aren't giving up on bipartisan work in Washington D.C., even in this period of intense partisan entrenchment.

Plus, outside of politics, they talk networking tips.

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

Episode Resources

• No Labels

• If you knew me in my early thirties, I'm sorry. (Your Attention, Please)

Show Credits

Pantsuit Politics is hosted by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The show is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our Managing Director and Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.

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.

Episode Transcript

Beth [00:00:07] This is Beth Silvers. You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Sarah is off today and will be back next week, but the soul searching must go on. We've been looking for political leaders with different perspectives on how to move America forward. And today, Holly Page joins me to continue that conversation. Before she does, just a quick reminder that our special edition merch that we made at the request of approximately everyone who listens is only available through the end of next week. So this is the time to check out Pantsuitpoliticsshow.com As I take in the news from the executive branch this week, I feel myself in a rut, in a very familiar pattern. President Trump says something like the United States is going to take over Gaza. And I say, "What are you talking about?" And my kids come home from school talking about wars, and people in my life start texting me from a very anxious place. And the response to all of that from Trump's team, (and I mean White House press secretary, to local elected Republican officials, to people I run into at Kroger) the response is something like, well, you just can't handle that he doesn't sound like a politician. He talks like a regular person, but he's not regular at all. He's a genius and a business titan. And he says what he means and means what he says. Except he doesn't mean it like that, not like what you're saying. You just don't get how he works.

[00:01:34] But of course he absolutely means it and it's brilliant. The best idea anyone has ever had. It's creative and it's bold and visionary, but it's also normal. Absolutely perfectly within the authority every president has ever had in the history of ever. And he's going to do it. He's going to make it happen no matter what because he's that kind of guy. But, of course, if it doesn't happen, it's definitely not his fault. It's because of the deep state which he's gutting, by the way. So also maybe it's the media's fault which so unfairly writes down exactly what he says and shares it so that people like you will freak out. And we just go on and on like this on a merry go round into infinity, or at least until we get dizzy and second step off. Which increasingly feels like the whole point. I'm just looking for people to get me out of that cycle. I'm especially looking for people in Congress or people who really know people in Congress. I want to understand how and when and why the people in Congress use their power.

[00:02:32] Holly Page really knows people in Congress, and she has a deep understanding of how and when and why members use their power, especially to do things that are going to be controversial. She goes way back in Washington to the Bill Clinton campaign, after which she spent 14 years as executive vice president of the Democratic Leadership Council. She co-founded No Labels, which in turn co-founded the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus. You might have heard of No Labels because it worked for ballot access for an undefined presidential ticket in 2024. That effort was massively criticized, including on this podcast. I personally understood the idea and I struggled with the math that would make it work. No Labels dropped that effort ultimately, but it continues its legislative work, and that legislative work is behind some of Congress's signature achievements. Most recently, the bipartisan infrastructure bill resulted from work supported and facilitated by No Labels and its congressional allies. I've been watching No Labels for a long time, and in my view, their biggest contributions to our democracy happened slowly and quietly. They encouraged people to get to know each other, to work together when it's hard, and their members support people who take really tough votes in the primaries that follow those tough votes.

[00:03:51] If you've listened to Pantsuit Politics for any length of time, you know something called the Problem Solvers Caucus is going to get my attention and affection. So I wanted to talk to Holly about how members associated with the Problem Solvers Caucus are feeling right now. I also wanted to draw on her experience as a longtime leader in the Democratic Party and her observations as someone who's seen a lot of political trends rise and fall. I found many of her insights very valuable, and I hope that you will, too. Holly, I'm so glad that you're here. Thank you for joining me. I wanted to talk to you for a couple of reasons. Now, we don't know each other super well, but we've had a couple of discussions. And whenever I talk to you, I just feel relieved. I think you're such a straight shooter and I always feel invited to be a straight shooter with you, which I really appreciate. I also feel like you have this very distinctive combination of pragmatism and optimism, especially distinctive for someone who lives and works in Washington, D.C., with members of Congress. So welcome. Thanks for being here.

Holly Page [00:04:51] Thank you. And I appreciate that. That is how I think of myself. Very optimistic, but pragmatic.

Beth [00:04:57] So I came to the No Labels conference in early December with a totally open mind. I listened really carefully. I took pages of notes. I was interested in how as an organization No Labels was going to move forward after some criticism about fielding a presidential ticket. It felt to me like a strong message that No Labels has deep, extensive experience in being a legislative player and that that experience is going to be really important in meeting the moment of a new Trump administration. Tell me how that impression does or doesn't align with where you are as an organization?

Holly Page [00:05:37] No, I think that's absolutely true. I think No Labels there's no other organization that is truly analogous to it. So I understand why people have filled in the blanks and have drawn their own conclusions. And that's why we were so grateful that you and about 800 other people took the time to come and be there in person because I think it really showcased exactly who we are and what we do. And we have a long track record of convening people from different points of view and encouraging, rewarding, supporting their ability to talk honestly with each other and then try to come up with common ground to solve the problem. That's really, at the end of the day, what No Labels facilitates. And we believe it is what a majority of American voters want.

Beth [00:06:30] So I keep going back to my notes because I thought the conversations were really interesting. There was a lot of richness in the discussions facilitated that day. And as I stare at my notes from the No Labels conference while I'm getting my feet under me with the new administration, I keep circling around how I felt a spirit of optimism among the members of Congress that because the Trump team is so willing to break stuff, that gives them a lane to build things, too. It's a little bit hard for me to tap into that optimism today, but I wonder if you still think that's how people are feeling or if the landscape has changed in the weeks since the conference.

Holly Page [00:07:16] I think it's changed somewhat, but we have no choice but to accept the reality of the situation we're living through so we can resist, fight against it, be outraged every single day, or we can try to find the points of entry with people aligned with this administration and find common ground. But at the end of the day, I don't think that this is about ideology as much as it's about math. And I think that the reality of the actions of the Trump administration will meet the way that legislation works and that they're going to have to have some Democrats on their key legislative priorities. And we have been convening and again rewarding, supporting, encouraging Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate to come one night a month, have some dinner, have a little wine, always helps the situation, just get to know each other and develop the trust. So that when those issues do arise and we do have to sort our way through some intense challenges, that they know each other, they trust each other, and they can pick up the phone.

Beth [00:08:33] Sarah has been talking since we started the podcast about how detrimental she found the Contract for America in pushing members to CDC is like this really inconvenient, awful place they have to hang out in for a few days before they go back home. And I do hear every time I listen to members talk about significant legislative accomplishments, the sense that we went to someone's house, we ordered food, we spent hours and hours and hours together over a period of weeks to get this done. What do you think is the right balance of members being in DC and being back in their districts and figuring out how to both be in touch with the people they represent, but also have those relationships that are necessary to getting anything done?

Holly Page [00:09:17] I don't know what the right balance is, but I will tell you this. When No Labels first started through our Democratic and Republican House leaders, first started to invite other members from both sides of the aisle to a coffee; a social coffee, no agenda. You're not committing to endorse or support anything specific. Members who joined that coffee would not even put their names on a piece of paper having indicated they were in the room because the retribution for talking to anybody on the other side, to treating them civilly, really, to honoring that there's truth in everybody's perspective, gets punished in Washington. And this is the big message that I would like to really deliver today, and that No Labels is working on.

[00:10:08] Those of us who are in what we call the common sense majority, center right, center left and everybody in between, we have to understand that the reason our politics is the way that it is it's because in Washington all the incentives reward and encourage the wrong things. You're punished if you solve the problem as Senator Lankford on that border security bill. You are punished if you talk to people on the other side. You're threatened with primaries. The party will pull your funding. The only counterbalance to that is that those of us, again, in this common sense majority engage and challenge those incentives and incentivize what we want to see.

Beth [00:10:52] Yeah.

Holly Page [00:10:53] Problem solving, respecting that people come at issues legitimately from different points of view. And yet we have to find a way to govern ourselves. The way the structure of our government was created and the political parties on both sides have done everything they can to dismantle that because it's not convenient for them. But again, we, the citizens, have to engage and make our voice heard that that's what we want to see.

Beth [00:11:23] I'm really interested in your observation that it's a lot about math because something else that I noticed listening to lots of different kinds of people on stage at this conference, is that the labels are pretty entrenched. And I didn't hear as much centrism as I heard people saying, look, it's just the reality that if we want to do anything we do have to work together. And also that if we want to do anything lasting, we have to work together. I was heartened to hear this defense of governing by legislative act instead of through executive order. Now, again, I'm feeling very disjointed today thinking about that. But I wonder if it's been a natural evolution that the group is less about members like Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski, who I think of as pretty true centrists and more like a collection of some very conservative people and some very progressive people who just want to get in and do things done. Has that been an intentional evolution or just, again, math? That's who's getting sent to Congress and so we figure it out.

Holly Page [00:12:36] From the beginning No Labels has really tried to stay away from the label of centrism, moderate. None of those words really accurately represent what it is we're trying to do. We've always called this the politics of problem solving. It's the politics of problem solving. And we don't care where you are on the ideological spectrum. If you come with good intentions to honor that people have different points of view, then we want you to be a part of this. But I will say I personally am a centrist and I was the number two at the Democratic Leadership Council the last time the Democratic Party was in the desert and worked with the rebels there to put the party on a path that could actually lead the country. And I've always felt that one of the reasons why centrism isn't more prevalent is there isn't really the accurate name to define it. There isn't the word. Because I'm not just about splitting the difference, but I always thought the DLC is how do we take traditional values of the Democratic Party and find new ways to advance them? That's truly [inaudible]. And that honors what I'm in the center. I'm in between the people who think government is the only solution and the people who think government is never the solution. To honor those values. But I recognize those of us who've been at this work, have done a terrible job articulating that and giving a point of entry for a lot of American voters to be a part of it.

Beth [00:14:18] It's hard. I don't feel even critical of it because I shift constantly. The landscape shifts. What is salient shifts? It's hard to know in a particular moment what do people want. I'm interested in the postmortem for Democrats of this election where you hear a lot of them saying, hey, we've got to get more digitally savvy. There's almost this sense that if every Democrat had their communication effectiveness of AOC-- not that they all have her policies, but that they have her ability to connect with people digitally, prolifically-- that everything would be fine. And I don't think that's it. And Sarah definitely she's been talking a lot about the phones are the problem. We need somebody to come out with a vision to say, hey, put your phone down. Be in the real world. So I think figuring out what could get some momentum and what would feel new and fresh is hard. And that's always the problem solving task, isn't it? To just meet the moment instead of doubling and tripling down on what you've always been doing.

Holly Page [00:15:24] This is exactly what the Democratic Party has gone through before. And they were convinced that they were right and righteous in the 1980s, despite losing three presidential elections in a row, and that they just needed to do a better job connecting with their voters. And my mentor, Al From who started the DLC, basically said it's not the voters that's the problem, it's what we're trying to sell them. And I would say it's exactly the same problem, different solutions though. We need different ideas now than we did 30 years ago. But no doubt about it. And I was very disheartened to watch the chairman's race for the DNC where the chair who won and many others basically said nothing is wrong with our message. I was disheartened because Donald Trump and what I like to call EL-MAGA, Elon and MAGA have completely changed the playing field 100%. And instead of recognizing that and meeting the moment and leading a worthy opposition, I see the trajectory of the Democrats to be more of the same. And it's not going to be what the nation needs right now.

Beth [00:16:42] I want to hear more about EL-MAGA. I'm having a hard time with how to talk about this. Because on the one hand, I definitely feel what you're saying, that Elon Musk has changed everything. He's changed everything in terms of Donald Trump's relationship with his own constituencies. He's changed how members of Congress are thinking about government and what they need to do. I was really struck by Susan Collins saying at the conference," I spent like an hour explaining mandatory and discretionary spending to Elon Musk." So on the one hand, I get it and I see it. On the other, it makes me mad that Trump has gotten to introduce a new character to escape from owning a lot of what Elon is doing. So how are you thinking about that?

Holly Page [00:17:26] I'm sympathetic to change makers. Let me just say that. And especially after everything that we have just recently been through, No Labels, but my whole career has been about making change really in Washington. And it's not a comfortable place to be. And [inaudible] broken. And the need for the federal government of the United States to be functioning in the 21st century is critical. And I don't think that there's a nice, polite, easy everybody is happy way to do that. On the other hand, of course, I too am watching the news and trying to sort out what's true and what's not and what's really a threat to the Constitution, essentially, and what's not. And which is why not having the voice of the worthy opposition, that should be the Democrats, I don't feel like we can really trust that at this moment in terms of its criticism of what's happening because everything is through the lens of their own political power. And we've been let down by our media, to be honest about it, the national traditional media, which is why it's so important that you and Sarah and others like you are bringing these conversations to the American people. It's a really interesting, critical time. There's a fascinating new book I don't know if you've read from Chris Hayes called The Siren's Call.

Beth [00:18:50] I haven't read it. It's on my list.

Holly Page [00:18:52] I think we really have to understand his argument in that book to begin to figure out how to deal with EL-MAGA. And his argument is it's not the information economy because information is endless. It's the attention economy. And I've heard you and Sarah speak about attention- your own and in the marketplace. But if you think about it, the biggest companies in the entire world have gotten that way vying for our attention. And Donald Trump, for whatever reason, is a master at it, an absolute master. And he knows exactly what he's doing by flooding the zone, as they say. And I feel like the rest of us are feeding into his plan by reacting the way that we are. We're setting the trap and we're falling right in it every single time.

Beth [00:19:45] I struggle with this, Holly. I really do.

Holly Page [00:19:48] I know.

Beth [00:19:48] Because you want to be responsible and pay attention and impose a sense of accountability. It's just hard to separate when you're falling into the trap from when you are standing up and mounting a strong defense that feels necessary or helpful.

Holly Page [00:20:09] I agree. But I think whatever we've been doing hasn't worked. That we have to acknowledge. And what I'm advocating for-- and this is not my No Labels hat. Because No Labels we're not partisan, we recognize people from different ideological perspectives. But from the heart of having worked at the Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton, all that stuff, my counsel is less lecturing, more amazing. Less shock, more awe. And I'll give you an example when the highway collapsed in Philadelphia and Governor Shapiro said, "I'm going to have this fixed in three weeks where everybody is going all hands on deck." And he did it in 12 days actually. The whole nation was amazed. And I think the Democratic Party should look for more opportunities like that. And Los Angeles, by the way, is a wide open invitation for more awe and amazement.

Beth [00:21:18] I love that. So one kind of master of attention that hung over the conference to me that I keep thinking about is Joe Manchin. And the observation that came through while I was there that, hey, if you want a high profile, take risks. Be willing to vote in unpredictable ways. We know Lisa Murkowski's name not because the senator from Alaska always has a high profile, but because she takes risks. So I wonder if you see a disincentive to take that lesson. Like why aren't more people going, yeah, (especially on the Republican side of the aisle) I want to be in this camp of folks who you have to cater to a little bit, who can swing majorities.

Holly Page [00:22:11] I thought about it a lot because in the Senate almost every senator looks in the mirror, as is the saying, and sees a potential president. So I've often wondered why they don't see the benefit of conflict really, and independent thinking and think I want more of that. But I think that is essentially overshadowed by fear. By fear of not having the fundamental resources to be able to get your message out, to campaign, to connect with your constituents that come as a result of that. And you look both Manchin and Senator Cinema were chased out of their party for their position basically on the filibuster, which now all the Democrats are espousing. Okay?

Beth [00:23:02] Right.

Holly Page [00:23:02] Why did the Democratic senators two years ago couldn't see beyond a single election cycle is beyond me. But that's exactly what No Labels is in the business to do- organize citizens, donors, press media to reward, support and encourage independent thinking and leadership. That doesn't mean registered independents. We want Democrats and Republicans to be allowed to do what they think is in the best interests of the country, at least some of the time, in the House and Senate. But it goes to show how intense EL-MAGA has tripled this, if not more. How intense the pressure to conform is, that even people who would like to see themselves singled out amongst their colleagues and rise to higher office are basically forced to comply because they're afraid of the retribution.

Beth [00:24:06] I want to hear more about that because when I was listening to Senator Murkowski at the conference, she expressed I thought a very vulnerable level of frustration with how you are treated, how shitty people are when you vote your conscience, when you do the right thing. And I was thinking about how our audience might respond to that and how there would probably be a sense from a lot of people that like you're a senator; nobody said this was going to be easy. You have a massive responsibility, an incredible opportunity. This is such an honor. Stand up and do the right thing even though people hurt your feelings. And Senator Murkowski does. That's what I would say back. And she does do it anyway. And she's still saying it's hard. And I think about that and the Mitt Romney sitting alone in the cafeteria stories, and I want to understand as specifically as I can what that pressure is like for people. Because I think that's important to understanding how we can create better pressure.

Holly Page [00:25:11] Exactly. Yes. First of all, I think it's important to begin a really honest conversation with the commonsense majority about money. No one likes to talk about it. It's distasteful. There's all these preconceived notions. But the truth is that I've often thought the problem with money in politics isn't that there's too much. It's that not enough people give. And let me explain that because I know that sounds outrageous. But there's something called hard dollars and then there's soft dollars in American politics. For federal candidates and elected officials, there are many things in their campaign that they have to have hard dollars to pay for. Hard dollars are limited by the FEC. They just raise the limit, so it's $7,000 total. Thirty five hundred dollars in the primary; $3500 in the general. And this is the money that is the most valuable to every single federal elected official and anybody who wants to be one. If you go to Opensecrets.com, you will see that less than 1% of all eligible Americans give $200 or more in hard dollars in any given election cycle. No one gives our dollars.

[00:26:36] Soft dollars are super PACs. It's the million dollars that Elon Musk likes to throw around. It's all those ads that you see that are not paid for by the candidate. There's a lot of that money, and candidates don't love that because they cannot, by law, have any involvement in the message that gets developed in those soft dollar media spend. So everybody wants their hard dollars. Now, if you've got every federal elected official and every potential candidate basically vying for the same, say, 650,000 people, give or take, you can understand why elected officials are incentivized to be outrageous, break through online and have people give them $5 a month. It's very compelling to do it that way because the process as it has been is terrible. So I think the commonsense majority has to mature. We have to get to a different understanding of what it means to engage in politics. And even if you can only give $5, the reason why it's important is not because of the need of the candidate or the campaign; it's because with that money, you send a message about the type of politics you want. All right?

[00:28:01] Marjorie Taylor Greene raised $12 million in this last cycle. I don't know her total number, but last time I checked it was 12 million. Seventy percent of her donors did not give her a total of more than $200. So these are people giving $10, $25 or whatever. And most of them come from outside of her district. They're encouraging and rewarding the politics she is espousing. And then all the other federal elected officials look at that and say, well, that looks good. I'd rather wear a crazy outfit that is offensive to somebody or say crazy things about hanging the former president's family members, whatever, and go to sleep at night, wake up in the morning, and $500,000 is in my account. And by the way, the left does the exact same thing. AOC, Ilhan Omar, they've all perfected it. I call it the Kardashian-ization of Congress. Being famous as part of their strategy that pays off. This is the one thing I remember from my political science classes in college; Plato said, "Engage in politics or be governed by those who do." And we are being governed by people who give $5 to Ilhan Omar and Marjorie Taylor Greene. That is the truth of the matter. I'm not disparaging and saying that that means all members of Congress are bought and sold. I'm saying there are good members there and you saw many of them on our stage. There are some real standouts, but they are forced to operate in a system that is broken, that rewards all the wrong things. And we have to get honest about that if we want to bring about change.

Beth [00:29:50] So if I'm listening and I have $200 this year that I'm willing to spend on hard dollar political contributions, what's the smartest way for me to do that?

Holly Page [00:30:01] Well, I would say become a member of No Labels. We will help you, connect you with the 28 members, Democrat and Republican of the House and Senate, who have shown courage at some point and a willingness to engage in problem solving. You have complete discretion about who you want to give to, how much and when. But that's been our answer. I want to add to this. Listen, EMILY's List that really came of age as I was just getting into politics has done an amazing job of educating and engaging women politically. But single issue advocacy is one of the things that has put us in this position because it values the emphasis on a single issue to the expense of problem solving and compromise and being willing. If you are pro-choice, you better not be caught in a meeting with somebody who's diametrically opposed to you because it will be used against you. I think what EMILY's List has done is amazing. And I respect people who have strong opinions about any of these issues. But I'm here to tell you, if we do not start rewarding and encouraging problem solving compromise that was/is the structure of our government and encouraged to take an independent stand against parties, we are in for much more of the same and worse.

Beth [00:31:39] So I want to continue on this money and incentive track, because another thing I keep thinking about from the conference is how different many of the members seemed in this atmosphere to me versus when I watched them in any other context: on the House floor, in a Meet the Press interview, on their social media channels. They seemed very different in the room to me. And I think because I love problem solving and working with people of difference, my bias is to go, well, this is the real them. They get to be their genuine and authentic selves here. And I'm trying to take a step back and say or is the constituency of No Labels, which tends to be pretty educated, older, well-resourced, just creating a pressure that they're responding to. And I don't think one is superior to the other. Again, I just want to understand because I want to create more incentives toward this type of action. So how do you think about it when you see a member behave completely differently in your context than everywhere else?

Holly Page [00:32:47] First of all, let me say any member of the House or Senate that aligns themselves with No Labels one way or the other, anybody who came to our states, that is an act of courage. Because that'd be used against them. In their primary they'll be called a rhino or a dino or whatever, and it will be used against them. So I don't think anybody does it out of convenience. The interesting thing about our coalition is we have very conservative members. We have very liberal members. There's no political reason for them to be a part of No Labels. Dusty Johnson, the at-large member from South Dakota, is a great example. He politically to be aligned with anything but the staunch Republican conservative activists is dangerous for him really in some ways. But he's an engineer. And he also has been a chief of staff for I believe as governor. He understands what it takes to solve problems. And so he's engaged in the process. And I think that's a great example. So, no, I don't think they're just coming. It's like they know what we want to hear because it takes a lot of courage to get there. But that is apropos of the problem because No Labels doesn't have a litmus test. We are not a single issue focus organization. And so it's not as though when they come they know exactly what we would expect them to say or do. We just want to provide basically a safe space for leadership.

Beth [00:34:24] So you feel like maybe my bias is correct, that this is who they really want to be?

Holly Page [00:34:29] Yes.

Beth [00:34:30] Yeah.

Holly Page [00:34:30] I absolutely do. I think it is who they want to be because and by the way, it's how people have to operate in their real lives. You cannot be in any relationship with anybody and say you have to think exactly like I do or I cannot be your friend, your spouse, your whatever. It isn't the way the world works. And I think that also most of them who are attracted to us aren't arrogant enough to think they alone have the answers to all the world's problems, that there's benefit in understanding different points of view and perspectives.

Beth [00:35:05] I love that point.

Holly Page [00:35:06] The founding Fathers didn't want any one source of power to dominate and they wanted to cause conflict and force compromise. That is the way our government is structured. And we, the commonsense majority, have to protect that and reward it and encourage it because right now it's the exact opposite.

Beth [00:35:28] Yeah, I'm thinking about this just beautifully raw piece I read today from a woman who was apologizing to people who knew her in her early 30s. She was saying that she went through this phase of replacing her evangelical identity with a what she called a tortured feminist identity during the first Trump administration. And how a perspective-based identity has not served her well in her life. And she's trying to step away from that. And it just reminds me of what you say about it doesn't work well in the world when you are so defined as a political brand that you can't step out of that now and then. But that is so hard to put beside your point about the hard dollars and about people knowing what they're investing in when they invest in a member of Congress. So what are you looking for? Who are you excited about as people who are willing to demonstrate this kind of leadership that's flexible and adaptable, but there's still a core there that you feel supportive of and good about?

Holly Page [00:36:38] I would like to know your answer to that question of who you saw on our stage. But before we get to that, in addition to maturing about how we think and talk about money and politics-- and by maturing I mean get more information, have more insight into the complicated layers and be willing to talk about it in public. Because I certainly grew up in a house where no one would have raised money in politics in any way, shape, or form around the dinner table. And I think we're seeing the outcome of that, which is the folks with very strong what I would call extremist points of view. They've got no problem with it. But I think we also have to grow up about what our expectations about elected officials are. They're human. They are in a very public high pressure environment. They do not want to lose. I think we have to stop expecting that Winston Churchill, JFK, Ronald Reagan, take your pick, is going to ride into this scenario and save us. The truth is, even though there are very good people in the House and Senate, courageous, good people, they are not going to save us. We have to save them. We have to save them.

[00:37:57] And if you think about how big social change has happened in this country, it's always the way that it's been. The progressive movement, women's suffrage, civil rights, the anti-war movement, the conservatives, the new Democrat, small group of people get together who are not inside government and not elected, decide that the country needs to go a different way and come together, put together the intellectual framework for it and then the political viability for it, and then the politicians come to it. So I say all the time my mentor always said to me do not set your North Star by any politician because they'll always disappoint you at some point. Which is true. And I think it's better that we just acknowledge that and build that into how we're thinking about this. Otherwise, we're going to set ourselves up for more disappointment and failure. And that's why at No Labels there isn't a single litmus test. What we look for is have you shown the willingness to at some point on some vote, on some positions, somewhere along the line, put the interests of the nation or your district or state above what your party wants you to do. Have you at any point separated yourself? And then we say to our entire network, any way you can, support these people because we're going to reward and encourage that good behavior and we're going to get more of it just like the folks with single issues or what I would say extreme views do for their elected officials that they're aligned with. The more you reward and encourage, the more they do it.

[00:39:40] Marjorie and AOC and Ilhan Omar, that's one thing. Now, personally, I thought almost everybody who came to the conference I have tremendous respect for and it lets me sleep a little more peacefully at night having seen them. Senator Bill Cassidy, who I know is in the crosshairs right now because of the RFK vote. But he is a former doctor, one of the most thoughtful, smart guys that I've met in politics. He and Josh Gottheimer were really responsible for articulating the consensus of our problem solvers in the House and Senate. And they wrote the framework for the bipartisan infrastructure bill. And they did that because they knew that the offering that the Democrats-- this is back in the last administration with the Democratic House, they knew that that was going to fail in the Senate. And the built back better. And they wanted investment in the country and they even identified the offsets. He did that. And he's been working for years now on some options about how to reform our entitlements. We have to deal with that. So a special shout out to Senator Cassidy. On the Democratic side, Josh Gottheimer. I think he understands this politics instinctively. He also worked for Bill Clinton. So that might be why. Super courageous. When the border funding bill that we needed to give aid to Ukraine and Israel was in doubt, Senator Markwayne Mullin-- who was also at our conference, who you would not expect to see at a meeting with Democrats, by the way.

Beth [00:41:27] I was very surprised.

Holly Page [00:41:28] I know. Markwayne had formed a friendship with Josh at the House gym when he was in the House. He called Josh and he said I'll translate and work with Mar-A-Lago. This is before President Trump was reelected. And you work with the Biden White House. And they did it and they got it done. I really appreciate Josh Gottheimer, who's running for governor of New Jersey, by the way. His commitment to solving the problems, even if working with one of the most pro Donald Trump senators is required to do so. And Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, she's a rock star. No doubt about it. She's amazing. I thought Richie Torres was the standout. Senator Collins I know she also gets a lot of mixed media. But again I think she feels like she's really representing the people of Maine and she will do what she thinks is in their best interest regardless. And we can either be angry at her because she did not vote for the nominees that we wanted her to not vote for or realize she's one of the very few people who is willing to go against the party. And we have to honor that.

Beth [00:42:54] How do you think about the confirmation process sitting alongside the legislative process? Are those really compartmentalized or does the momentum that I feel as an observer have some reality to it? I worry that Congress is kind of giving away the store right now.

Holly Page [00:43:13] Definitely. I think that if you would talk to any of the Republican senators, they would tell you they have to decide what hill to die on. Is this the hill they're going to die on? And I think collectively, they decided there was momentum, especially with the honeymoon phase and with EL-MAGA riding high, this probably was not the hill to die on. And so, again, I wish that weren't so because there are some nominees that I personally have questions about, but I respect that that was their judgment. And I have faith that the No Labels community at least will keep circling the wagons around those independent thinkers or people who have shown that they have the ability to be and support them and reward them. And I believe that that will become very important at some part in the next four years. And I also want to say it's the same with House Democrats. There are going to be things that this administration puts forward that are in the best interests of the country, and their political structure is going to basically not want to give any wins to President Trump. And that is wrong. As a nation, we cannot just be in stalemate for four years while the world, technology, everything is so rapidly moving forward. We have to engage in modernizing and bringing our country along. So we want to support and reward and encourage that as well. And it really is for both sides.

Beth [00:45:01] This isn't the hill to die on. I struggle with because I feel like one of the lessons from Donald Trump that's valuable and worth paying attention to is that power multiplies when it's spent. He doesn't sit around and think this battle isn't worth it very often, as far as I can tell. He backs off occasionally, but I wonder if there isn't an argument that leaning back on these confirmation fights is reducing the capital that people have to spend down the road instead of saving it for another day.

Holly Page [00:45:34] I don't know. It's a fascinating question. And we've never quite been in this exact situation. But I do know that there will come a time, something will happen that believe will try to threaten the boundaries of the Constitution or the way the military is used or the 14th Amendment or whatever it is. And we can either go to war with these senators who didn't do exactly what we want them to do, or we can try to engage them in conversation and honor the fact that they have shown courage in the past and be in conversation with that. Do you know what I mean? If we just say that's it; you voted the wrong way on the nominees, well, what's that going to do? It's going to push them closer to the more extreme aspects of their party. And that is not going to be good.

Beth [00:46:31] I definitely agree that I don't want to just write people off. I don't want to fight with reality. I want to live in reality and meet it. So in that vein, you mentioned media failures. I'm curious what's your advice for us? How can we be contributive? What do you want to see more of from independent media?

Holly Page [00:46:52] I think it's fascinating actually, that there is such energy in independent media. Substack, in the podcast structures that you guys saw early, early on is so important. And really being so prominent just in the nick of time, from where I sit, really with my hat as a being a former member of the Democratic Party and wanting it to be a worthy opposition, your encouragement of the Democrats to have an honest conversation about what's at the root of their vision for the country and how they can articulate that new ways, I think is really helpful. Because clearly if you watched any part of the party's chairman race, they're not willing to do that on their own. And in my estimation, the fundamental thesis of the Democratic Party has been defined by Bernie Sanders, which is the income inequality is why people are so angry and upset. And it's the billionaires and corporations who are to blame. Now, I don't like paying more in taxes than Warren Buffett. I don't like that at all. But I don't think that's a correct analysis of the situation. And I think what happened in the last election is a proof point of that. That the billionaire and the richest man in the entire world got a clear majority of working class votes from Hispanics and other kind of groups that the Democratic Party always assumed would be with them.

[00:48:30] I think that should require a real reality therapy, as we called it at the DLC, about where's the disconnect? And really encouraging that more deep pull out by the root. I would like to suggest to the Democratic Party that they for Lent give up something. And I think they should give up Donald Trump's name. I think they should stop giving him the attention that he is so genius at creating and instead focus on the people in their communities, in their states and in this country who need their attention. And I understand Donald Trump somebody has to hold him accountable if he does X, Y and Z. There'll be plenty of people who won't do what I'm suggesting and who will continue their outrage and sometimes for good reason. But really energy goes where you give attention. And I think that part of the message that the American voter sent to Democrats was you're not giving us enough energy. People who are working hard and playing by the rules and all the doubling down on the daily recounting of Donald Trump's, whatever, lawsuits, all that stuff, it didn't work. It did not work. And I have a love hate relationship with Morning Joe. I still tune in and I'm like, who are you talking to? Everybody who is watching this understands what you're saying.

Beth [00:50:06] Well, in that vein, I personally here also want to talk to more Republicans. And that has been difficult for us. We make some outreach; it doesn't go anywhere. I want to do that. There is a funny moment on stage at your conference when Ritchie Torres gave this very passionate, insightful, specific critique of where Democratic priorities have gone wrong. It was excellent. It felt right on to me, very aligned with what Ezra Klein has been writing about. It's hard to build things anymore. He said, "I'm sick of being a member of Congress from a blue state working tirelessly to pass legislation that then overwhelmingly benefits red states because we can't build anything in New York." And that's why his political future seems to be more centered on the state of New York. It was great. And Markwayne Mullin says to him, like, man, that was awesome. I am here for any Democrat that can do this kind of reflection. And Ritchie Torres, I can't remember exactly what he said, but he was like, I would encourage some introspection on your part as well. And I want that. And so I wonder how you think we can engage with Republicans. Are there openings to do that? Is that just a lost cause for a while because of the honeymoon? But the second part of my question, which I know is a big one, is when we have members on from either party, do you think there are better ways to get them to say something real?

Holly Page [00:51:45] It's a very good question. I'm not familiar if you do this or not, but I know you have members. Do you have [inaudible] together?

Beth [00:51:55] We haven't done it, but we would do it.

Holly Page [00:51:57] Yeah, I think that may be something to consider because I know that it's very hard for them in pairs to get attention from conventional media. They only want to give them a platform if they're fighting.

Beth [00:52:15] That makes sense to me.

Holly Page [00:52:16] But one of the best comedy routines you'll ever hear is representative from New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer with Republican senator from Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin who literally had a Trump bus and drove around Oklahoma getting the three people who weren't going to vote for Donald Trump to vote for him. So having them together and showcasing that if you build connection and relationship, a lot of things are possible from that for sure.

Beth [00:52:46] I love that idea.

Holly Page [00:52:48] Whenever any of our folks go in pairs to traditional television, it is what are you going to fight about? Because that's what breaks through.

Beth [00:52:57] Yeah, that's the cable formula for sure.

Holly Page [00:52:59] Yes, exactly. And by the way, it works. To our point earlier about money and all of that stuff. So to begin to reward the opposite is hugely important. To begin to socialize, give permission to your listeners and other people that you can be in relation with people who do not see the world like you do, it's okay.

Beth [00:53:35] We always end with something Outside of Politics. So I wanted to confess something to you and ask you for advice.

Holly Page [00:53:40] Okay.

Beth [00:53:42] If there is a hell and it is personalized, mine is a networking event that never ends. I love people and I enjoy people and I feel like I'm pretty good at relationships once I'm in them. But the kind of work that you have to do, reaching lots of people quickly and making connections with them, it's a struggle for me. And so I would love your top tips. What makes it fun for you to engage new people? Do you have like a signature question that draws someone out? What can you tell us about networking better?

Holly Page [00:54:19] Well, I'm sure that you're better at it than I am, but I have come to appreciate for myself more clothes that make a statement. Because it gives a neutral way to begin talking to somebody and I found that actually to be really impactful and effective, to wear clothes that stand out. But I also say at No Labels this is our methodology for almost everything. We try to begin every conversation asking a lot of questions. We want to hear from the other person especially because we don't know who we're dealing with at any given moment, where they come from politically. We don't ask. We don't want them to tell us. So we have to get them talking about what they're thinking about their politics in general, their community, why they're taking time out of their day to even have this conversation. That's always fascinating. To get them to talk first. But listen, connection is the antidote to almost everything that helps us. And I taught Sunday school when my kids were little for a very brief moment in time. But the one thing that I remember my religious adviser telling me is that hell is actually the absence of relationships. Okay? You're isolated in hell. That is the point. And when you think about the trajectory of our politics, of our usage of phones and technology, to be disconnected from other people, that is truly what the biblical sense of hell was.

Beth [00:56:02] I love that. Well, in the spirit of asking questions and being connected, is there anything that I have not brought up? Is there anything unsatisfying in this conversation to you as we wrap it up?

Holly Page [00:56:13] No. I'm so grateful that you came and saw with your own eyes what we work on every day because it's very hard to articulate. People don't believe it when we say, no, really, you've got this unique combination of different political ideologies. So I'm very grateful to you for giving us that chance and helping spread the word that there are people working on a different path. And I really appreciate the tone and commitment with which you both come to this work every day. I think it's really important. And I'm just grateful. So thank you.

Beth [00:56:48] Well, thank you. Let's stay in touch. I appreciate what you do and how you do it. And thanks for spending so much time with me.

Holly Page [00:56:53] Okay. Thank you.

Beth [00:56:55] Thanks so much to Holly Page for being generous and open with her time and thoughts. Thanks to all of you for spending time with us. We keep talking about the importance of attention here; we never take yours for granted. We'll be back next week here and on Substack. And until then, have the best weekend available to you.