I really appreciated this episode. It’s not easy to navigate challenging new ideas but I’m always glad to follow your lead as you guide us, Beth. I’ve heard the echoing lack of ideas in some recent interviews with Dems here and this one sounded more like something new, some different to try. To be clear I often agreed with and appreciated what those Dems are saying because it’s nice to still hear about liberty and American values I hold dear. But there weren’t new and we need new and different to move the ball down the field. I empathize with Dems tough job of pushing back on these daily horrors while trying to brainstorm something new but they must. We must.
I have decided to support No Labels so that my hard dollars can help incentivize collaboration among those willing to find some common ground to work from. As this episode title says Stalemate is Not an Option.
A line from Holly (that I won’t get right here) that I’ll be thinking about: Our electeds can’t save us, they need us to save them.
I loved this episode! I am somewhat familiar with No Labels, but it was helpful to hear about their mission from someone in the organization. I want our elected leaders to act with integrity and to work with each other across political lines, but what is the point where someone's beliefs are so harmful that they shouldn't be worked with? I think this is the question I have about working with Trump supporters and hardcore MAGA politicians - hypothetically, I would advocate for working with anyone who is willing to work with you on individual pieces of legislation, and because nominally supporting Trump is pretty much a prerequisite for being in the Republican Party, I understand that you probably have to work with people who have supported Trump if you want to get much done. But what about people who are clearly transphobic or racist? Someone below mentioned a senator who voted to confirm Kavanaugh - what if this person truly does think Kavanaugh was innocent? Should they automatically be considered untrustworthy on every issue because we so dislike their perspective on one issue, or is it worth trying to work with them on issues where they show a willingness to compromise?
I don't have an answer to these questions, but I think it's an important topic to wrestle with, because the more gridlocked and partisan we become, the harder it is to get anything done.
This conversation challenged me to do a lot of critical thinking, questioning, pondering, and processing. That is exactly what I’m here for and why I value the work of PP so much.
An experiment I’m trying as I’m new to PP but not to Substack, and sociology and culture and people are my passion. I’ve read all these comments and now I will listen to the podcast! I’m curious how my perceptions reading comments first, impact what I hear. Will uodate if any ‘ahas’.
On a related but separate comment, Heather Cox Richardson’s Substack Newsletter Feb 7 has a wonderful lengthy quote from Senator Angus King (ME indep 2013) on the ‘why’ of a U.S. government that our forefathers designed with 3 branches, of decentralized authority, as well with fed,state decentralized structures ….designed to be a rather slow, chaotic, not highly productive, bureaucracy… INTENTIONALLY designed that way and why.. He contrasts with typical corporate structures intentionally designed for the opposite outcomes…efficient, fast, highly productive, with minority benefits, if doing it “right”. A weekend civics aha for me, why protection of this slow bureaucratic structure must remain the top priority across the spectrum, for all our resources.
My ahas after listening to podcast. 1) I READ the transcript while also listening, and understood a lot more. Visual and auditory combo helped me understand the campaign funding portion of the podcast …..makes more sense why hard $ work.
Tho if I hadn’t read the comments first, I might have zipped by it. 😉
2) The daily workout friendship between the two senators from NJ and Oklahoma (across party lines) is one of those best kept secrets, to start talking about. Face to face connections seem to make a huge difference. That may just be why so many are invited to Mar-a-largo…
I would love a MTS diving deeper into the hard & soft fundraising dollars. I understood the main points, and I'm interested to learn more about the limits ($7500 to any one candidate or total to all candidates?) and whether all donations are public. I work with a lot of municipal organizations and I've always hesitated to get too involved with politics as I need to work with elected officials of all stripes.
I really liked this episode even if I didn't fully understand some of the detailed points on fundraising. I am always about looking for ways to hear all of the voices when solving problems and I think we would accomplish so much more if our representatives weren't afraid of voting their conscious. That being said, I think it is really important that we start highlighting everytime things are accomplished, because it does happen, but it isn't good theater. I loved the suggestion of hosting two different parties at the same time. Keep up the great work, the diverse comments prove that your work is valuable and people are thinking. It really is our only way forward.
This was definitely a challenging episode, but I love that you had this conversation regardless. Even when I disagree with what a guest says, it makes me think, and that feels productive. Like both Beth and Sarah, I’m dying to hear some new ideas and calls to action - and unfortunately this time, it didn’t feel like we quite got there. Thanks to you both for digging in a lot of places to find and encourage the actual whiteboarding.
I thought there were some good points in the conversation. I do want to see people get along better and reach across the aisle to get stuff down. I think one of the points I disagree on is around income equality. Maybe the problem isn’t that Democrats are talking about it too much, it’s that Republicans have been more effective in using it to their advantage in their messaging (i.e. scapegoating immigrants).
Thank you for this episode. I’m definitely not the target audience here, and that’s what I love about PP—sometimes the episodes are there to make me wrestle with my own thinking. I, too, felt the comparisons between MTG and AOC to be a bit unfair. I understand the sentiment, but over the last several weeks, I’ve seen AOC rise to the occasion, particularly in the messaging game, that few others have been able to do, so I felt the comparison to Kim K. was dismissive.
After listening, I’m still a bit puzzled about what No Labels is actually trying to do. The money conversation went completely over my head, and it didn’t seem like she was offering any solutions outside of Congress (e.g., pushing for more contested races, open primaries, more voting access and pushing against suppression). I guess I left the conversation feeling dissatisfied in the solutions offered. And as someone else here said, 28 people does not a majority make, so I guess I’m still confused about the end goal. I’m definitely interested in any innovations in how we think about making progress, but I’m just not quite understanding what the vision is here. Other than calling on the Problem Solvers to pass legislation when it’s needed.
Sometimes 26 does make the majority, though, and that's the point of the group. Especially in the Senate, a group of 10 or 11 people willing to work together across party lines is necessary to get across the 60 vote threshold. That's where No Labels slow, deliberate work to get and keep members talking to each other really matters and why I've always been interested in them.
Thanks for replying, Beth. That *does* make sense re: Congress and particularly the Senate. I think I’m just still struggling to understand the larger goal outside of Congress, though maybe that *is* the primary focus.
When Holly mentioned that, perhaps, PSP could add in episodes that have both a Democrat and a Republican in conversation, it made me think back to where you and Sarah started. I do miss the conversations from both Right & Left with both of you working towards a center.
I really found the conversation with Holly interesting and informative.
Thanks for everything you, Sarah, and your guests bring to the table.
It’s so interesting reading through the comments. I found the convo with Holly so refreshing and I hopped on here expecting to find mutual appreciation. And I’m really surprised.
But also so grateful to be in conversation with you all!
God I loved this episode. I have skimmed the comments here and see that some are struggling with it, but it met me right where I am. Yes, I know he's doing all of the executive orders and things that I find repugnant. At the same time, I just refuse to give up on what I consider to be the American ideal, which is everybody comes together from all walks of life, from all points of view. Some of what Holly Page said was hard on me. Her praise of Sen Cassidy was hard. Talking about we can't ask for purity in a vote on cabinet appointees is hard. But I agree with her. This is where we need to be.
The thing is it’s gotta be everybody and the prerequisite for that IS everybody. Quickly as we are seeing, that may not be so. Data and speed are now the weapons of choice unfortunately. Measure twice cut once didn’t get in the playbook.
Beth, I absolutely loved this conversation. I’ll be honest, your interview episodes are usually my least favorite ones. I really just like hearing you and Sarah talk to each other. But I found this conversation very meaningful, and honest, and hopeful! Thank you.
I just want to say how very much I appreciate how you guys are meeting this moment. It means so much that you guys have done this immediate turn into problem solving conversations at this really sensational time. I want to keep my feet on the floor and you always deliver.
I think the best thing Holly said in the episode was her point about the Dems doing work that leads to "awesome". Like Gov. Shapiro and the road collapse. Or the Baltimore Mayor when the bridge collapsed. We need leadership! Yes! Dems and Dem policies for years have this stigma that they hold people back, add red tape, make things more complicated. And while the Dems are busy arguing about the need for that, ElMaga is going in and wiping everything out and their supporters are like "thank goodness things are out of the way!". I know this might be hard to hear, but on top of the chaos happening because of ElMaga right now (and there is a lot of fallout that will be coming), there will also be good things that can be built, established, ways the government can get out of the way of American citizens. Dems need to start doing SOMETHING, things that are awesome, that get good press because they are just good! To where Trump has to say, yeah thats pretty good! and even if he doesn't, the people around those projects, and the people that use those projects can look at him and say "no, this is good for us" and Trump will back off.
Solid points…yet challenging to create messaging for “information/ data overwhelmed distracted citizens” like many of us….ok, me. Eg can I recite the top 4 “awesomes” imo from prior administration that I easily articulated, 6 months ago? Not without a Siri or google assist. The slow book read will be eye opening I think for all of us.
I struggle with this too. I forget so quickly. I want to find a way to remember, or at least to collect information in a way that will make it easy to refresh my memory when I inevitably forget.
I really appreciated this episode. It’s not easy to navigate challenging new ideas but I’m always glad to follow your lead as you guide us, Beth. I’ve heard the echoing lack of ideas in some recent interviews with Dems here and this one sounded more like something new, some different to try. To be clear I often agreed with and appreciated what those Dems are saying because it’s nice to still hear about liberty and American values I hold dear. But there weren’t new and we need new and different to move the ball down the field. I empathize with Dems tough job of pushing back on these daily horrors while trying to brainstorm something new but they must. We must.
I have decided to support No Labels so that my hard dollars can help incentivize collaboration among those willing to find some common ground to work from. As this episode title says Stalemate is Not an Option.
A line from Holly (that I won’t get right here) that I’ll be thinking about: Our electeds can’t save us, they need us to save them.
All we have is together.
Thanks Beth and team 🫶🏼
I loved this episode! I am somewhat familiar with No Labels, but it was helpful to hear about their mission from someone in the organization. I want our elected leaders to act with integrity and to work with each other across political lines, but what is the point where someone's beliefs are so harmful that they shouldn't be worked with? I think this is the question I have about working with Trump supporters and hardcore MAGA politicians - hypothetically, I would advocate for working with anyone who is willing to work with you on individual pieces of legislation, and because nominally supporting Trump is pretty much a prerequisite for being in the Republican Party, I understand that you probably have to work with people who have supported Trump if you want to get much done. But what about people who are clearly transphobic or racist? Someone below mentioned a senator who voted to confirm Kavanaugh - what if this person truly does think Kavanaugh was innocent? Should they automatically be considered untrustworthy on every issue because we so dislike their perspective on one issue, or is it worth trying to work with them on issues where they show a willingness to compromise?
I don't have an answer to these questions, but I think it's an important topic to wrestle with, because the more gridlocked and partisan we become, the harder it is to get anything done.
This conversation challenged me to do a lot of critical thinking, questioning, pondering, and processing. That is exactly what I’m here for and why I value the work of PP so much.
This is what I came to say!
An experiment I’m trying as I’m new to PP but not to Substack, and sociology and culture and people are my passion. I’ve read all these comments and now I will listen to the podcast! I’m curious how my perceptions reading comments first, impact what I hear. Will uodate if any ‘ahas’.
On a related but separate comment, Heather Cox Richardson’s Substack Newsletter Feb 7 has a wonderful lengthy quote from Senator Angus King (ME indep 2013) on the ‘why’ of a U.S. government that our forefathers designed with 3 branches, of decentralized authority, as well with fed,state decentralized structures ….designed to be a rather slow, chaotic, not highly productive, bureaucracy… INTENTIONALLY designed that way and why.. He contrasts with typical corporate structures intentionally designed for the opposite outcomes…efficient, fast, highly productive, with minority benefits, if doing it “right”. A weekend civics aha for me, why protection of this slow bureaucratic structure must remain the top priority across the spectrum, for all our resources.
My ahas after listening to podcast. 1) I READ the transcript while also listening, and understood a lot more. Visual and auditory combo helped me understand the campaign funding portion of the podcast …..makes more sense why hard $ work.
Tho if I hadn’t read the comments first, I might have zipped by it. 😉
2) The daily workout friendship between the two senators from NJ and Oklahoma (across party lines) is one of those best kept secrets, to start talking about. Face to face connections seem to make a huge difference. That may just be why so many are invited to Mar-a-largo…
Less lecturing, more amazing! Yes please!!
I would love a MTS diving deeper into the hard & soft fundraising dollars. I understood the main points, and I'm interested to learn more about the limits ($7500 to any one candidate or total to all candidates?) and whether all donations are public. I work with a lot of municipal organizations and I've always hesitated to get too involved with politics as I need to work with elected officials of all stripes.
I really liked this episode even if I didn't fully understand some of the detailed points on fundraising. I am always about looking for ways to hear all of the voices when solving problems and I think we would accomplish so much more if our representatives weren't afraid of voting their conscious. That being said, I think it is really important that we start highlighting everytime things are accomplished, because it does happen, but it isn't good theater. I loved the suggestion of hosting two different parties at the same time. Keep up the great work, the diverse comments prove that your work is valuable and people are thinking. It really is our only way forward.
This was definitely a challenging episode, but I love that you had this conversation regardless. Even when I disagree with what a guest says, it makes me think, and that feels productive. Like both Beth and Sarah, I’m dying to hear some new ideas and calls to action - and unfortunately this time, it didn’t feel like we quite got there. Thanks to you both for digging in a lot of places to find and encourage the actual whiteboarding.
I thought there were some good points in the conversation. I do want to see people get along better and reach across the aisle to get stuff down. I think one of the points I disagree on is around income equality. Maybe the problem isn’t that Democrats are talking about it too much, it’s that Republicans have been more effective in using it to their advantage in their messaging (i.e. scapegoating immigrants).
Thank you for this episode. I’m definitely not the target audience here, and that’s what I love about PP—sometimes the episodes are there to make me wrestle with my own thinking. I, too, felt the comparisons between MTG and AOC to be a bit unfair. I understand the sentiment, but over the last several weeks, I’ve seen AOC rise to the occasion, particularly in the messaging game, that few others have been able to do, so I felt the comparison to Kim K. was dismissive.
After listening, I’m still a bit puzzled about what No Labels is actually trying to do. The money conversation went completely over my head, and it didn’t seem like she was offering any solutions outside of Congress (e.g., pushing for more contested races, open primaries, more voting access and pushing against suppression). I guess I left the conversation feeling dissatisfied in the solutions offered. And as someone else here said, 28 people does not a majority make, so I guess I’m still confused about the end goal. I’m definitely interested in any innovations in how we think about making progress, but I’m just not quite understanding what the vision is here. Other than calling on the Problem Solvers to pass legislation when it’s needed.
Sometimes 26 does make the majority, though, and that's the point of the group. Especially in the Senate, a group of 10 or 11 people willing to work together across party lines is necessary to get across the 60 vote threshold. That's where No Labels slow, deliberate work to get and keep members talking to each other really matters and why I've always been interested in them.
Thanks for replying, Beth. That *does* make sense re: Congress and particularly the Senate. I think I’m just still struggling to understand the larger goal outside of Congress, though maybe that *is* the primary focus.
For No Labels, Congress has always been the focus and specifically those majority making moments.
Ok got it. That was not clear to me, but makes way more sense in context!
When Holly mentioned that, perhaps, PSP could add in episodes that have both a Democrat and a Republican in conversation, it made me think back to where you and Sarah started. I do miss the conversations from both Right & Left with both of you working towards a center.
I really found the conversation with Holly interesting and informative.
Thanks for everything you, Sarah, and your guests bring to the table.
It’s so interesting reading through the comments. I found the convo with Holly so refreshing and I hopped on here expecting to find mutual appreciation. And I’m really surprised.
But also so grateful to be in conversation with you all!
God I loved this episode. I have skimmed the comments here and see that some are struggling with it, but it met me right where I am. Yes, I know he's doing all of the executive orders and things that I find repugnant. At the same time, I just refuse to give up on what I consider to be the American ideal, which is everybody comes together from all walks of life, from all points of view. Some of what Holly Page said was hard on me. Her praise of Sen Cassidy was hard. Talking about we can't ask for purity in a vote on cabinet appointees is hard. But I agree with her. This is where we need to be.
The thing is it’s gotta be everybody and the prerequisite for that IS everybody. Quickly as we are seeing, that may not be so. Data and speed are now the weapons of choice unfortunately. Measure twice cut once didn’t get in the playbook.
Beth, I absolutely loved this conversation. I’ll be honest, your interview episodes are usually my least favorite ones. I really just like hearing you and Sarah talk to each other. But I found this conversation very meaningful, and honest, and hopeful! Thank you.
I just want to say how very much I appreciate how you guys are meeting this moment. It means so much that you guys have done this immediate turn into problem solving conversations at this really sensational time. I want to keep my feet on the floor and you always deliver.
I think the best thing Holly said in the episode was her point about the Dems doing work that leads to "awesome". Like Gov. Shapiro and the road collapse. Or the Baltimore Mayor when the bridge collapsed. We need leadership! Yes! Dems and Dem policies for years have this stigma that they hold people back, add red tape, make things more complicated. And while the Dems are busy arguing about the need for that, ElMaga is going in and wiping everything out and their supporters are like "thank goodness things are out of the way!". I know this might be hard to hear, but on top of the chaos happening because of ElMaga right now (and there is a lot of fallout that will be coming), there will also be good things that can be built, established, ways the government can get out of the way of American citizens. Dems need to start doing SOMETHING, things that are awesome, that get good press because they are just good! To where Trump has to say, yeah thats pretty good! and even if he doesn't, the people around those projects, and the people that use those projects can look at him and say "no, this is good for us" and Trump will back off.
Solid points…yet challenging to create messaging for “information/ data overwhelmed distracted citizens” like many of us….ok, me. Eg can I recite the top 4 “awesomes” imo from prior administration that I easily articulated, 6 months ago? Not without a Siri or google assist. The slow book read will be eye opening I think for all of us.
I struggle with this too. I forget so quickly. I want to find a way to remember, or at least to collect information in a way that will make it easy to refresh my memory when I inevitably forget.
I loved that, too. Less shock and more awe will stay with me.