This is a powerful episode. You captured exactly how I've been feeling. Thank you for being honest and open about your feelings and for starting this conversation
I appreciate how much this episode had to be an emotional rollercoaster during its production, AND, also: Bravo!. Bravo for saying all the things that I have been trying to articulate for the last 3 years, and failing at it.
The gaslighting that Democrats have been doing is just really fucking old at this point. I'm done with it. I'm done with being placating. We have to have the hard discussion about the ideas and values that we want to define the future of this country. We need fresh perspectives and bigger, better ideas. I'm sorry, but if the end of you life is within the 20 year mark, it's time to go. Stop running for office and others big up the mantle.
I would LOVE some episodes where you take a short detour into Taboo Corner or whatever you want to call it. Say the thing that you feel you can't say. You can handle it and so can your audience.
For me, the RBG and Biden stuff boils down to simple power. We want our party to have it so the other party doesn't. We don't care which individuals are holding the power, so long as they vote or govern the right way. I think people are far too uncomfortable admitting that politics is about power.
The other uncomfortable thing to say is this: an election where voters choose Trump over Kamala Harris is an indication that our society is not built for robust self-governance. Our institutions are brittle and ill-equipped. Our populace is stupid, selfish and unserious. Democrats need to adjust their tactics in how they campaign, how they grab attention, how they build their brand and who they nominate. This is going to piss a lot of people off, but that's better than losing.
Sarah, I'm 100% with you on graduations. It's one of my long-held pet peeves. Graduations are for high school only. And i don't remember extra graduations when i was growing up.
I am so disappointed in the timing and subject of this discussion. At a time when Congress is threatening to cut the healthcare and food for thousands of Americans, you are still focused backward on an elderly man who just received a devastating diagnosis and a dead judge. I’m sorry, but I feel like you are becoming part of the chattering (and out of touch) class that Naomi Biden wrote about. I’m really starting to question my support of this program.
Andrea, the Democratic party can hardly move forward and accomplish anything when the divisions with in itself are at war with each other. As long as the Biden-era establishment Democrats are still at the wheel, nothing is going to happen. This is why the party can't mount an adequate defense of the Trump Administration, much less a strategic counter-attack. There is a huge surge of younger democratics filing to run in political races all over the country. This is amazing to me, and we need to help these eager young people by at least trying to break stranglehold that The Really Old Democrats are fighting to hang onto. Breaking the myth of the Biden Presidency as being The Best Thing Ever is really, really important.
Thank you for your response. While I agree that the state of the Democratic Party is something important to talk about, piling on Joe Biden, especially at this point in time, is not necessary. And, at some point we are going to have to move forward, all this navel gazing is only so helpful. The navel gazing has been fairly consistent throughout your show since the election loss. Lots of chattering, no action. Honestly, it’s not just your show, it seems to be everyone who has an issue with the current administration. I get that it is your job, and perhaps I just need to take a break from it all, but that doesn’t change the fact that the timing of your episode was poor, and some acknowledgment of that could go a long way. Instead, you chose to double down.
Tomorrow we're having two up and coming democrats running for office on the show, and we're really excited about that conversation.
I feel like, the state of the Democratic Party is relevant to our discourse, government and future and one episode in the course of a month is not too much to spend on it as a topic.
So I want to start a hard Dems want a response. You're personally very closer friends or family is MAGA or MAGA curious. The answer is not to talk to talk people. This is very hard and painful if you love these peope but also f not doesn't seem to work. Who has an altertive that also might big these pele into the tent>?
I found the first 50-75% of this episode to be really tough and kind of a slog. I almost stopped listening but am glad I stuck it out because the last part was much more enjoyable to me.
I wasn't offended by Sarah's take on RBG or James. And I do understand why talking about the revelations about Biden are important. But...I found it really frustrating to keep hearing "we need to talk about the issues" but then not really any discussion of issues. You have a podcast, for goodness sakes. I think to me this felt like when Beth says that's she tired of people in power acting like they don't have power. If Sarah wants Democrats to talk about issues instead of people...than do it on your podcast!
In all fairness, I do appreciate that you all do talk about issues more than many (really looking forward to the education discussion) but the balance of really good deep meaty discussions on issues vs. discussion of why the Democrats are failing has been leaning too far in one direction in my mind for the last few months.
I also wondered (and I'm kind of thinking outloud here so this isn't fully formed as a thought) if some of the feeling of shame at being on the "wrong" side of an issue is generational and has to do with relationships to living more online. I'm about 10 years older than you all (I think...graduated high school in 1989) and so came of age much after the Internet and social media. You all are in that kind of middle generation where you would have had the Internet to some extent at a younger age and at least by your 20's and then started having social media of some kinds (blogs...etc) when you were in college, grad school and as young career people. It also could be being public figures. I don't post much online, not out of fear of shame or being judged but just because it was never something that was part of establishing myself in a career or as a person. I do express opinions in real life in settings where I know the other person may find disagree and I don't really worry most of the time about being judged as racist or sexist or transphobic or whatever. I find that in person it's often much more easy to have a nuanced conversation about something than online.
Finally, I was valedictorian. We only had one, weighted grades. I wasn't super stressed in high school so I don't really look back on it with regret. I did find it annoying because the person who was salutatorian knew our grade point averages exactly and had would always want to know how I did on whatever test or something. He was waiting for me to get an A- so he could surge ahead. My school was not small but we had very few AP/advanced classes so we were all kind of in the same classes together and it was easy for him to compare things to. I have absolutely told my own kids that grades don't matter as far as self worth and that there are many kinds of intelligence.
I do think some of the grade stress is internal. I have three kids. I homeschooled my oldest (now in college) all the way through 12th grade. He was a fairly traditionally good student. He did well in school but didn't stress that much. He tried hard but was probably more motivated by goals than grades. My middle child I homeschooled through 9th grade and then he went to public school. He is probably the most creative thinker and is very smart but hates any kind of box-checking so rebels against a lot of what is traditional school work. He's actually also done well in public school as far as grades but he really does not care if he does badly on an assignment if he doesn't think it's worthwhile. He is the most independent learner- reads a lot on his own, teaches himself stuff but won't do anything just because he's supposed to. My youngest homeschooled through 8th grade and then started public high school. She started asking me to grade her papers when she was in 1st and 2nd grade. I didn't typically give grades in homeschool at that age....we learned to mastery. They learned a concept, great, we moved on, no need for a grade. But she really really wanted grades. Honestly, I don't even know how she knew about grades. But if I put an A on something she had written she would ask me why it wasn't an A+. I feel like public school has been harder on her in some ways than her brother because she absolutely cares about every assignment, even when we tell her we don't care and it's fine.
As a former public school teacher and current curriculum developer, I am waiting for your public education episode with bated breath! I resonate deeply with Sarah's statement that education is wasted on the young, and also as the mother to a toddler, I am so concerned about what that landscape will look like for him. I will say that in my (deeply anecdotal) experience, the #1 differentiator when it comes to academic success is in parental involvement. I am curious how that will play into your conversation. On the other side of the issue now, we are dealing with larger issues like chronic absenteeism, multilingual learners, the wide swath of political influence from state to state on education policy, but I wonder to what the problem solvers fix might be for families in which parents are not able to invest in their childrens' education in the way they might want to. Fantastic episode, as usual. Odd as it is to say in these times, I am feeling quite hopeful about the way forward. To borrow a phrase from Beth, sometimes shit needs to get shaken up. I regret that it looks the way it does, but I'm hopeful that the right lessons are being learned at every level.
I used to ride motorcycles and bicycles with my dad a lot growing up (still ride bikes a lot). He used to always tell me, “Look where you want to go, not at what you want to avoid. Look at that and you’ll drive straight into it.” Kept thinking of that while listening to this episode. Maybe the Dems should try it.
Loved this conversation. Thanks for being courageous enough to say quiet parts of what it means to be a “good liberal” or a “good progressive” out loud. More of this please!! 👏🏻💗💪🏻💗
I loved this whole episode for many reasons, but mostly wading into the public school conversation. I can't wait for the next episode on education. I have three daughters all of whom are dyslexic and have a collection of additional language disabilities. This fact has truly changed the course of my life - placing literacy as one of the most important strands in my life. When you are the mother of struggling readers in a world that requires you to read, you learn the system as quickly as you can to ensure that they don’t fall behind. Even still, I’ve spend thousands of dollars on evaluations (that the schools are supposed to provide) and tutoring (intervention that the schools are supposed to provide) to get my kids reading at grade level. I started advocating at the district level in 2017 and the state level in 2019, and I’ve learned a lot about education - and the politics involved - that I know most people don’t fully understand. It’s not pretty. Democrats are losing the education conversation because they are not saying what needs to be said! Kids are not reading and doing math proficiently; there is chronic absenteeism and higher graduation rates; ACT scores are at an all-time low and grades are higher than ever before - this is what we need to be talking about as a party. (Rahm Emmanuel wrote this in an op-ed in March/April - finally - one Democrat talking about it!) Here in CO these conversations won’t happen because the Democratic Party is entrenched with the teacher’s union and education associations. Three years ago, I started trying to engage the Democratic Party in Colorado in this conversation - I have been met with blank stares and zero responses over the years. I have very liberal friends who have changed their party affiliation over education issues alone. This is a major issue that the party needs to address.
And Colorado is actually relatively good - as a state - in terms of reading/literacy curriculum requirements and intervention. It’s definitely ahead of the other states I have practiced in! But yes, the lack of good reading instruction and dyslexia intervention in our schools drives me mad. We have known exactly how to intervene to teach dyslexic children to read for nearly 100 years. WHY AREN’T WE DOING IT IN OUR SCHOOLS? (Bless you for your efforts. I know how much work it is to both advocate personally for your children and also at the systems level!)
1. I’m still mad about Brexit, I was working at Edinburgh University when the vote happened and the sadness when we all came into the office the next day was awful, it was a very similar feeling to when Trump was voted in..both times (so you hit the nail on the head with the similarities!).
The UK Media did not take Brexit seriously just like the US Media didn’t take Trump seriously in 2016. They gave a lot of airtime in the UK to politicians that were making all these promises if we left the EU, BUT were not actually in power so didn’t have to deal with any consequences about the lies they told (so mad at the BBC about this). Maybe this wouldn't have changed anything as people were angry with the politicians and wanted any sort of change....
2. Agree about RBG and she should have retired earlier but also wonder do you think McConnell would have held that up too? We’ll never know.
I just don't see a solution outside of Term Limits. Even on the Supreme Court appointees. No one person should be appointed a job "for life" in 2025. In 1789 the average life span of an American was 37 and now it's 78. There are reasons the founding dudes didn't write that language in. They never fathomed we'd have a society to live to be 70, 80, 90... When I heard Norm from Cheers died this morning I thought, "Oh he was relatively young." He was 76.
We allow our admiration of some politicians to tarnish what is blatantly clear. They are ALL in it for the power. Maybe it's not where they all start, but it's where they all end. And who knows, if I got into major politics, maybe the kool-aid is honestly too good not to drink.
I worked for a company a few years back and it had several employees that had been there since the doors opened. So they would say things like I've been here for 25, 30, 35 years. As impressive as it was to hear of their tenure at the company, and they had a lot of knowledge, they were terrible problem solvers. All of them. Because they were so "stuck" in the "this is how we do it" they were incapable or combative at new solutions when their method was clearly not working. I see this in politics too. This notion that our elected leaders will understand they are just not the person for the moment is not something they are willing to do and/or capable of (age aside). As impressive as it for the Mitch McConnell's of the world to say he has served Congress for 40 years or Sen. Ron Wyden for 44 years - it should be a phrase they are incapable of uttering.
I'm tired of hearing how difficult it is to ratify the constitution - or it will open a Pandora's box of ratifications, etc. etc. In a country SO divided you want to know what 80+% of Republicans, Democrats, Independents agree on? Term limits. We need to start demanding them.
While I agree on term limits I just want to add an issue with using “average lifespan” when discussing any period before the 1950s. Keep in mind that that “average” includes horrifically high baby and child deaths which is why it’s so low. The average person did not die at 37 in the 1700s. Plenty of people lived to their 70s if not later.
Fair point for sure. George W lived to 67 but no one in their time wanted to be a politician until death. It was a hard job that many a time they had to beg people to stay in the job. The $$$$$ and power in politics is obscene and now demands term limits. Proof common sense cannot or will not avail.
I honestly didn’t realize high schools still did valedictorians. I graduated over 15 years ago and my high school and none in the area had valedictorians. We didn’t do weighted grades but no one was competing for valedictorian so I never thought much about it. I don’t recall ever talking to anyone in college about if they had valedictorians or anything. Genuinely just never really thought about it except when watching Gilmore Girls..
Lots of places have dropped it because the separation in GPAs of students is often like .01 points. Most colleges are concerned with what percentile you are in re grades among your graduating class and the difficulty of the courses you took.
Interesting! What area are you from? I have never heard of a school NOT having a valedictorian. I'm 40 but my kiddo just graduated and they had one - well 3 actually lol.
I find community differences so fun/interesting/sometimes stupid. The town I live in now, they do something called a Grad Walk. It's where the seniors of the year go back to their elementary school and walk through - quickly say hi to any teachers at that are still there. The little kids act like celebrities are in their school LOL Two of our elementary schools are closing and parents are up in arms over "What about the grad walk!" I'm over here thinking, I have literally never heard of this until living here you're kids will be FINE. This does ZERO long-term damage.
When Sarah says, “You can’t say this or that,” I want her to be clear about what she really means. If she just doesn’t want negative feedback on social media that’s one thing. If she’s worried about losing executive producers or advertisers, that’s another. I just want her to be clear and honest instead of ranting in vast generalizations. I want her to have the courage to say what she feels is true and right and the confidence to back it up with evidence and reason. If she doesn’t like contradictory comments, then refute them or ignore them, the former being my preference. It’s hard to sympathize with a podcaster who is so whiny and angry about being the victim of some sort of oppression against her ideas and speech. Please show more courage, confidence, evidence, and reason. I’ve been a Patreon then Substack supporter but won’t continue to be if I hear too many more victimization rants.
I want to think out loud about this for a second, without attempting to speak for Sarah. We’ve been making the show for ten years, and in that time, we’ve both said a bunch of super controversial things. We don’t publish a single episode thinking, “well, everyone is going to love this.” There is always a risk involved, and we absolutely lose financial support and opportunities because of things we say on the show. That comes with the territory. I changed my party registration in a way that contradicted our branding. So, I don’t feel like we fear negative feedback in terms of people’s words or dollars or anything else. Two things really strike me. One: I think many people feel considerably more restrained than we do for lots of reasons. We both have a high risk tolerance (we couldn’t do this otherwise). We both have the luxury of a working and supportive partner. We both have good social support. Even people who are somewhat similarly situated seem to me to feel they’re walking a tightrope in their communities in a way that strains their political and civic participation. There’s plenty of blame to pass around for this, and whether that pressure comes more from “left” or “right” depends on where you live. But I do think it’s bad overall. I agree with you that we’re all free to speak—we just have to deal with the consequences of our speech. I do think social pressure is ramped up to the point right now where the risk assessment tips too many really curious, caring people against saying what’s on their minds in a way that impoverishes our dialogue. Two: It takes skill to navigate delicate topics, and I think the stakes of everything feel so high that everything is delicate. I feel pretty comfortable navigating genuinely delicate topics, but that’s a skill that I’ve developed. And even with that skill, I find it hard to do what you’ve very reasonably suggested—refuting people who come back with “you’re racist, you’re promoting genocide, you’re apologizing for sociopaths, you’re transphobic” etc. I’m not a linguist, but I’d be interested in studying how some of these terms have culturally developed so much finality. Once they’re used, what I hear is “you are a bad person, so I’m not engaging with you anymore.” I’m not “harmed” when these words are directed at me. I know I’m not a bad person. I don’t have to accept someone else’s characterization. I can still explain myself, and am happy to, to the people still listening. But as to the person who said it? I interpret their words as intentionally ending an exchange of ideas with me. That’s ok for me, but I think it’s not healthy for us. I hope this makes sense—as I said, I’m thinking out loud! I like a probing question.
Thank you for that reply, Beth. You two definitely tackle controversial subjects, and your commitment to honesty and nuance is why I’ve always loved listening to you. It’s completely unproductive and insensitive of some people to express their disagreement with something you’ve said by labeling you as someone horrible (eg, a racist) or as someone who supports something horrible (eg, genocide). I hope that is a very small percentage of your feedback, because as false as you and most everyone else knows it is, it’s still disturbing. Like you wondering about the linguistic forces at play, I am curious about the demographics of the people who make such statements. It would be so much healthier for them to express deeply held feelings in a genuine attempt to share their personal experience/perspective and to educate. I’d much rather hear about the specific reasons you or Sarah feel that you can’t express your thoughts and ideas than simply hearing how “you can’t say this or that.” Clearly you’ve accepted the vulnerability that comes with your job, and I appreciate that. You do your research to be able to present complex topics with data, real world examples, and with nuance. Please keep bringing all of that and less anger at how people respond! Thank you, again, for sharing so much with me; I found it helpful.
I’ve been thinking more about why people respond with such extreme, even shocking labels. Could it be because of our attention based economy that people feel that a shocking sound bite is the only thing that will be heard, as opposed to a longer, calmer, more reasoned explanation for why they disagree? Maybe it could stem from feeling powerless. Maybe it’s because historically we’ve only relatively recently been able to honestly address things like racism, genocide, sociopaths, etc., and it’s like a new power people feel to use such words to describe things without appreciating the implications of their casual use. Just some thoughts.
I think it's both of these, and well it's the reality of GenZ and GenY honestly. They are so obsessed with social justice while having very little lived life experience that they can't understand yet the full realm of human dynamics that are at play with these issues.
I didn’t take that kind of thing to even mean Sarah was necessarily speaking about herself & reaction to something she has said, but how she has seen others treated for what they have said. But, maybe I misunderstood or am thinking of something different than what you are referring to.
Hmm, I understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't assume that Sarah is saying she doesn't like negative feedback generally. I feel like Beth and Sarah have gone out of their way to express that they appreciate all feedback, especially comments that disagree with them, because it helps them to expand their thinking. I'm guessing that comments on Instagram are probably less constructive and more attacking Beth and Sarah as people. I know in the past Maggie has said that the comments that they get on social media are a lot more intense than the comments they see here on Substack.
This is a powerful episode. You captured exactly how I've been feeling. Thank you for being honest and open about your feelings and for starting this conversation
I appreciate how much this episode had to be an emotional rollercoaster during its production, AND, also: Bravo!. Bravo for saying all the things that I have been trying to articulate for the last 3 years, and failing at it.
The gaslighting that Democrats have been doing is just really fucking old at this point. I'm done with it. I'm done with being placating. We have to have the hard discussion about the ideas and values that we want to define the future of this country. We need fresh perspectives and bigger, better ideas. I'm sorry, but if the end of you life is within the 20 year mark, it's time to go. Stop running for office and others big up the mantle.
I would LOVE some episodes where you take a short detour into Taboo Corner or whatever you want to call it. Say the thing that you feel you can't say. You can handle it and so can your audience.
For me, the RBG and Biden stuff boils down to simple power. We want our party to have it so the other party doesn't. We don't care which individuals are holding the power, so long as they vote or govern the right way. I think people are far too uncomfortable admitting that politics is about power.
The other uncomfortable thing to say is this: an election where voters choose Trump over Kamala Harris is an indication that our society is not built for robust self-governance. Our institutions are brittle and ill-equipped. Our populace is stupid, selfish and unserious. Democrats need to adjust their tactics in how they campaign, how they grab attention, how they build their brand and who they nominate. This is going to piss a lot of people off, but that's better than losing.
Sarah, I'm 100% with you on graduations. It's one of my long-held pet peeves. Graduations are for high school only. And i don't remember extra graduations when i was growing up.
I am so disappointed in the timing and subject of this discussion. At a time when Congress is threatening to cut the healthcare and food for thousands of Americans, you are still focused backward on an elderly man who just received a devastating diagnosis and a dead judge. I’m sorry, but I feel like you are becoming part of the chattering (and out of touch) class that Naomi Biden wrote about. I’m really starting to question my support of this program.
Andrea, the Democratic party can hardly move forward and accomplish anything when the divisions with in itself are at war with each other. As long as the Biden-era establishment Democrats are still at the wheel, nothing is going to happen. This is why the party can't mount an adequate defense of the Trump Administration, much less a strategic counter-attack. There is a huge surge of younger democratics filing to run in political races all over the country. This is amazing to me, and we need to help these eager young people by at least trying to break stranglehold that The Really Old Democrats are fighting to hang onto. Breaking the myth of the Biden Presidency as being The Best Thing Ever is really, really important.
Thank you for your response. While I agree that the state of the Democratic Party is something important to talk about, piling on Joe Biden, especially at this point in time, is not necessary. And, at some point we are going to have to move forward, all this navel gazing is only so helpful. The navel gazing has been fairly consistent throughout your show since the election loss. Lots of chattering, no action. Honestly, it’s not just your show, it seems to be everyone who has an issue with the current administration. I get that it is your job, and perhaps I just need to take a break from it all, but that doesn’t change the fact that the timing of your episode was poor, and some acknowledgment of that could go a long way. Instead, you chose to double down.
I hear this criticism and take it seriously, and also, we produce a lot of episodes.
For our free episodes on Pantsuit Politics, we've really prioritized:
Last Friday, we talked about Medicaid and how terrible this budget is: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/p/medicaid-mess-and-budget-battles
The Tuesday before we talked about rampant corruption in the Trump Administration: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/p/trump-wants-deals-not-peace-in-the
The Friday before we talked to Emily Ley about the impact of tariffs and this wild policy on small businesses: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/p/emily-ley-v-the-president-of-the
We had Congressman Morgan McGarvery on to talk about the budget weeks ago: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/p/the-trump-budget-is-a-total-disaster?r=2cbqu4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Tomorrow we're having two up and coming democrats running for office on the show, and we're really excited about that conversation.
I feel like, the state of the Democratic Party is relevant to our discourse, government and future and one episode in the course of a month is not too much to spend on it as a topic.
So I want to start a hard Dems want a response. You're personally very closer friends or family is MAGA or MAGA curious. The answer is not to talk to talk people. This is very hard and painful if you love these peope but also f not doesn't seem to work. Who has an altertive that also might big these pele into the tent>?
I found the first 50-75% of this episode to be really tough and kind of a slog. I almost stopped listening but am glad I stuck it out because the last part was much more enjoyable to me.
I wasn't offended by Sarah's take on RBG or James. And I do understand why talking about the revelations about Biden are important. But...I found it really frustrating to keep hearing "we need to talk about the issues" but then not really any discussion of issues. You have a podcast, for goodness sakes. I think to me this felt like when Beth says that's she tired of people in power acting like they don't have power. If Sarah wants Democrats to talk about issues instead of people...than do it on your podcast!
In all fairness, I do appreciate that you all do talk about issues more than many (really looking forward to the education discussion) but the balance of really good deep meaty discussions on issues vs. discussion of why the Democrats are failing has been leaning too far in one direction in my mind for the last few months.
I also wondered (and I'm kind of thinking outloud here so this isn't fully formed as a thought) if some of the feeling of shame at being on the "wrong" side of an issue is generational and has to do with relationships to living more online. I'm about 10 years older than you all (I think...graduated high school in 1989) and so came of age much after the Internet and social media. You all are in that kind of middle generation where you would have had the Internet to some extent at a younger age and at least by your 20's and then started having social media of some kinds (blogs...etc) when you were in college, grad school and as young career people. It also could be being public figures. I don't post much online, not out of fear of shame or being judged but just because it was never something that was part of establishing myself in a career or as a person. I do express opinions in real life in settings where I know the other person may find disagree and I don't really worry most of the time about being judged as racist or sexist or transphobic or whatever. I find that in person it's often much more easy to have a nuanced conversation about something than online.
Finally, I was valedictorian. We only had one, weighted grades. I wasn't super stressed in high school so I don't really look back on it with regret. I did find it annoying because the person who was salutatorian knew our grade point averages exactly and had would always want to know how I did on whatever test or something. He was waiting for me to get an A- so he could surge ahead. My school was not small but we had very few AP/advanced classes so we were all kind of in the same classes together and it was easy for him to compare things to. I have absolutely told my own kids that grades don't matter as far as self worth and that there are many kinds of intelligence.
I do think some of the grade stress is internal. I have three kids. I homeschooled my oldest (now in college) all the way through 12th grade. He was a fairly traditionally good student. He did well in school but didn't stress that much. He tried hard but was probably more motivated by goals than grades. My middle child I homeschooled through 9th grade and then he went to public school. He is probably the most creative thinker and is very smart but hates any kind of box-checking so rebels against a lot of what is traditional school work. He's actually also done well in public school as far as grades but he really does not care if he does badly on an assignment if he doesn't think it's worthwhile. He is the most independent learner- reads a lot on his own, teaches himself stuff but won't do anything just because he's supposed to. My youngest homeschooled through 8th grade and then started public high school. She started asking me to grade her papers when she was in 1st and 2nd grade. I didn't typically give grades in homeschool at that age....we learned to mastery. They learned a concept, great, we moved on, no need for a grade. But she really really wanted grades. Honestly, I don't even know how she knew about grades. But if I put an A on something she had written she would ask me why it wasn't an A+. I feel like public school has been harder on her in some ways than her brother because she absolutely cares about every assignment, even when we tell her we don't care and it's fine.
People look to each other to gauge what is safe to say inside any community.
As a former public school teacher and current curriculum developer, I am waiting for your public education episode with bated breath! I resonate deeply with Sarah's statement that education is wasted on the young, and also as the mother to a toddler, I am so concerned about what that landscape will look like for him. I will say that in my (deeply anecdotal) experience, the #1 differentiator when it comes to academic success is in parental involvement. I am curious how that will play into your conversation. On the other side of the issue now, we are dealing with larger issues like chronic absenteeism, multilingual learners, the wide swath of political influence from state to state on education policy, but I wonder to what the problem solvers fix might be for families in which parents are not able to invest in their childrens' education in the way they might want to. Fantastic episode, as usual. Odd as it is to say in these times, I am feeling quite hopeful about the way forward. To borrow a phrase from Beth, sometimes shit needs to get shaken up. I regret that it looks the way it does, but I'm hopeful that the right lessons are being learned at every level.
I used to ride motorcycles and bicycles with my dad a lot growing up (still ride bikes a lot). He used to always tell me, “Look where you want to go, not at what you want to avoid. Look at that and you’ll drive straight into it.” Kept thinking of that while listening to this episode. Maybe the Dems should try it.
Loved this conversation. Thanks for being courageous enough to say quiet parts of what it means to be a “good liberal” or a “good progressive” out loud. More of this please!! 👏🏻💗💪🏻💗
I loved this whole episode for many reasons, but mostly wading into the public school conversation. I can't wait for the next episode on education. I have three daughters all of whom are dyslexic and have a collection of additional language disabilities. This fact has truly changed the course of my life - placing literacy as one of the most important strands in my life. When you are the mother of struggling readers in a world that requires you to read, you learn the system as quickly as you can to ensure that they don’t fall behind. Even still, I’ve spend thousands of dollars on evaluations (that the schools are supposed to provide) and tutoring (intervention that the schools are supposed to provide) to get my kids reading at grade level. I started advocating at the district level in 2017 and the state level in 2019, and I’ve learned a lot about education - and the politics involved - that I know most people don’t fully understand. It’s not pretty. Democrats are losing the education conversation because they are not saying what needs to be said! Kids are not reading and doing math proficiently; there is chronic absenteeism and higher graduation rates; ACT scores are at an all-time low and grades are higher than ever before - this is what we need to be talking about as a party. (Rahm Emmanuel wrote this in an op-ed in March/April - finally - one Democrat talking about it!) Here in CO these conversations won’t happen because the Democratic Party is entrenched with the teacher’s union and education associations. Three years ago, I started trying to engage the Democratic Party in Colorado in this conversation - I have been met with blank stares and zero responses over the years. I have very liberal friends who have changed their party affiliation over education issues alone. This is a major issue that the party needs to address.
And Colorado is actually relatively good - as a state - in terms of reading/literacy curriculum requirements and intervention. It’s definitely ahead of the other states I have practiced in! But yes, the lack of good reading instruction and dyslexia intervention in our schools drives me mad. We have known exactly how to intervene to teach dyslexic children to read for nearly 100 years. WHY AREN’T WE DOING IT IN OUR SCHOOLS? (Bless you for your efforts. I know how much work it is to both advocate personally for your children and also at the systems level!)
1. I’m still mad about Brexit, I was working at Edinburgh University when the vote happened and the sadness when we all came into the office the next day was awful, it was a very similar feeling to when Trump was voted in..both times (so you hit the nail on the head with the similarities!).
The UK Media did not take Brexit seriously just like the US Media didn’t take Trump seriously in 2016. They gave a lot of airtime in the UK to politicians that were making all these promises if we left the EU, BUT were not actually in power so didn’t have to deal with any consequences about the lies they told (so mad at the BBC about this). Maybe this wouldn't have changed anything as people were angry with the politicians and wanted any sort of change....
2. Agree about RBG and she should have retired earlier but also wonder do you think McConnell would have held that up too? We’ll never know.
Very thought provoking episode, thank you ladies.
Term Limits.
I just don't see a solution outside of Term Limits. Even on the Supreme Court appointees. No one person should be appointed a job "for life" in 2025. In 1789 the average life span of an American was 37 and now it's 78. There are reasons the founding dudes didn't write that language in. They never fathomed we'd have a society to live to be 70, 80, 90... When I heard Norm from Cheers died this morning I thought, "Oh he was relatively young." He was 76.
We allow our admiration of some politicians to tarnish what is blatantly clear. They are ALL in it for the power. Maybe it's not where they all start, but it's where they all end. And who knows, if I got into major politics, maybe the kool-aid is honestly too good not to drink.
I worked for a company a few years back and it had several employees that had been there since the doors opened. So they would say things like I've been here for 25, 30, 35 years. As impressive as it was to hear of their tenure at the company, and they had a lot of knowledge, they were terrible problem solvers. All of them. Because they were so "stuck" in the "this is how we do it" they were incapable or combative at new solutions when their method was clearly not working. I see this in politics too. This notion that our elected leaders will understand they are just not the person for the moment is not something they are willing to do and/or capable of (age aside). As impressive as it for the Mitch McConnell's of the world to say he has served Congress for 40 years or Sen. Ron Wyden for 44 years - it should be a phrase they are incapable of uttering.
I'm tired of hearing how difficult it is to ratify the constitution - or it will open a Pandora's box of ratifications, etc. etc. In a country SO divided you want to know what 80+% of Republicans, Democrats, Independents agree on? Term limits. We need to start demanding them.
While I agree on term limits I just want to add an issue with using “average lifespan” when discussing any period before the 1950s. Keep in mind that that “average” includes horrifically high baby and child deaths which is why it’s so low. The average person did not die at 37 in the 1700s. Plenty of people lived to their 70s if not later.
Fair point for sure. George W lived to 67 but no one in their time wanted to be a politician until death. It was a hard job that many a time they had to beg people to stay in the job. The $$$$$ and power in politics is obscene and now demands term limits. Proof common sense cannot or will not avail.
Did I miss the link to Sarah‘s valedictory address?
I honestly didn’t realize high schools still did valedictorians. I graduated over 15 years ago and my high school and none in the area had valedictorians. We didn’t do weighted grades but no one was competing for valedictorian so I never thought much about it. I don’t recall ever talking to anyone in college about if they had valedictorians or anything. Genuinely just never really thought about it except when watching Gilmore Girls..
Lots of places have dropped it because the separation in GPAs of students is often like .01 points. Most colleges are concerned with what percentile you are in re grades among your graduating class and the difficulty of the courses you took.
Interesting! What area are you from? I have never heard of a school NOT having a valedictorian. I'm 40 but my kiddo just graduated and they had one - well 3 actually lol.
I grew up in Northern MI!
I find community differences so fun/interesting/sometimes stupid. The town I live in now, they do something called a Grad Walk. It's where the seniors of the year go back to their elementary school and walk through - quickly say hi to any teachers at that are still there. The little kids act like celebrities are in their school LOL Two of our elementary schools are closing and parents are up in arms over "What about the grad walk!" I'm over here thinking, I have literally never heard of this until living here you're kids will be FINE. This does ZERO long-term damage.
One of the schools is my son's school so this will impact my kiddo too - I have zero worries of his future without a grad walk ;)
When Sarah says, “You can’t say this or that,” I want her to be clear about what she really means. If she just doesn’t want negative feedback on social media that’s one thing. If she’s worried about losing executive producers or advertisers, that’s another. I just want her to be clear and honest instead of ranting in vast generalizations. I want her to have the courage to say what she feels is true and right and the confidence to back it up with evidence and reason. If she doesn’t like contradictory comments, then refute them or ignore them, the former being my preference. It’s hard to sympathize with a podcaster who is so whiny and angry about being the victim of some sort of oppression against her ideas and speech. Please show more courage, confidence, evidence, and reason. I’ve been a Patreon then Substack supporter but won’t continue to be if I hear too many more victimization rants.
I want to think out loud about this for a second, without attempting to speak for Sarah. We’ve been making the show for ten years, and in that time, we’ve both said a bunch of super controversial things. We don’t publish a single episode thinking, “well, everyone is going to love this.” There is always a risk involved, and we absolutely lose financial support and opportunities because of things we say on the show. That comes with the territory. I changed my party registration in a way that contradicted our branding. So, I don’t feel like we fear negative feedback in terms of people’s words or dollars or anything else. Two things really strike me. One: I think many people feel considerably more restrained than we do for lots of reasons. We both have a high risk tolerance (we couldn’t do this otherwise). We both have the luxury of a working and supportive partner. We both have good social support. Even people who are somewhat similarly situated seem to me to feel they’re walking a tightrope in their communities in a way that strains their political and civic participation. There’s plenty of blame to pass around for this, and whether that pressure comes more from “left” or “right” depends on where you live. But I do think it’s bad overall. I agree with you that we’re all free to speak—we just have to deal with the consequences of our speech. I do think social pressure is ramped up to the point right now where the risk assessment tips too many really curious, caring people against saying what’s on their minds in a way that impoverishes our dialogue. Two: It takes skill to navigate delicate topics, and I think the stakes of everything feel so high that everything is delicate. I feel pretty comfortable navigating genuinely delicate topics, but that’s a skill that I’ve developed. And even with that skill, I find it hard to do what you’ve very reasonably suggested—refuting people who come back with “you’re racist, you’re promoting genocide, you’re apologizing for sociopaths, you’re transphobic” etc. I’m not a linguist, but I’d be interested in studying how some of these terms have culturally developed so much finality. Once they’re used, what I hear is “you are a bad person, so I’m not engaging with you anymore.” I’m not “harmed” when these words are directed at me. I know I’m not a bad person. I don’t have to accept someone else’s characterization. I can still explain myself, and am happy to, to the people still listening. But as to the person who said it? I interpret their words as intentionally ending an exchange of ideas with me. That’s ok for me, but I think it’s not healthy for us. I hope this makes sense—as I said, I’m thinking out loud! I like a probing question.
Thank you for that reply, Beth. You two definitely tackle controversial subjects, and your commitment to honesty and nuance is why I’ve always loved listening to you. It’s completely unproductive and insensitive of some people to express their disagreement with something you’ve said by labeling you as someone horrible (eg, a racist) or as someone who supports something horrible (eg, genocide). I hope that is a very small percentage of your feedback, because as false as you and most everyone else knows it is, it’s still disturbing. Like you wondering about the linguistic forces at play, I am curious about the demographics of the people who make such statements. It would be so much healthier for them to express deeply held feelings in a genuine attempt to share their personal experience/perspective and to educate. I’d much rather hear about the specific reasons you or Sarah feel that you can’t express your thoughts and ideas than simply hearing how “you can’t say this or that.” Clearly you’ve accepted the vulnerability that comes with your job, and I appreciate that. You do your research to be able to present complex topics with data, real world examples, and with nuance. Please keep bringing all of that and less anger at how people respond! Thank you, again, for sharing so much with me; I found it helpful.
I’ve been thinking more about why people respond with such extreme, even shocking labels. Could it be because of our attention based economy that people feel that a shocking sound bite is the only thing that will be heard, as opposed to a longer, calmer, more reasoned explanation for why they disagree? Maybe it could stem from feeling powerless. Maybe it’s because historically we’ve only relatively recently been able to honestly address things like racism, genocide, sociopaths, etc., and it’s like a new power people feel to use such words to describe things without appreciating the implications of their casual use. Just some thoughts.
I think it's both of these, and well it's the reality of GenZ and GenY honestly. They are so obsessed with social justice while having very little lived life experience that they can't understand yet the full realm of human dynamics that are at play with these issues.
I didn’t take that kind of thing to even mean Sarah was necessarily speaking about herself & reaction to something she has said, but how she has seen others treated for what they have said. But, maybe I misunderstood or am thinking of something different than what you are referring to.
Hmm, I understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't assume that Sarah is saying she doesn't like negative feedback generally. I feel like Beth and Sarah have gone out of their way to express that they appreciate all feedback, especially comments that disagree with them, because it helps them to expand their thinking. I'm guessing that comments on Instagram are probably less constructive and more attacking Beth and Sarah as people. I know in the past Maggie has said that the comments that they get on social media are a lot more intense than the comments they see here on Substack.