When the Bar Is This Low, No One Clears It

Sharon McMahon, Antifa, and the MAMDANI Act

Sharon McMahon’s cancellation as a commencement speaker for Utah Valley University has been all over the headlines this week, and I hate that for her. We’ve had Sharon on Pantsuit Politics and been on hers. We think of her as a colleague in this crazy world, and we don’t want vitriol and threats surrounding our colleagues.

“Cancel culture” is in the eye of the beholder in the private sector. There will always be speakers we find offensive, and there will always be people who find us offensive. As Sarah says plainly in the episode, mostly, there’s no winning. I hate that.

But I lose sleep over governmental cancel culture. When officials target people for indictment or deportation or denaturalization because of their ideas, we are in alarming territory, whether we agree with the speech at issue or not. I’m worried about the way the government prosecuted the Prairieland Nine. I’m horrified by Chip Roy’s proposed MAMDANI Act. I have a lot of questions about the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Outside of politics, a conversation about leisure: Derek Thompson recently asked on Substack what leisure time we end up regretting, and Kara asked what self-care we pay for without guilt. We can’t wait to hear how you answer those questions.

If there’s someone in your life who also likes to consider everything from free speech and Antifa to magazines and massages, we’d love for you to text them this episode.

-Beth

Topics Discussed

• Sharon McMahon and Utah Valley University

• The Antifa Executive Order

• The Prairieland Nine prosecution

• Chip Roy’s MAMDANI Act

• The Southern Poverty Law Center indictment

• Cancel culture and the criminalization of speech

• Outside of Politics: Leisure - what we regret and what we happily pay for

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

Episode Resources

Pantsuit Politics Resources

Help us celebrate our community in Minneapolis! Submit your design for our Good Neighbor T-Shirt Contest by April 30.

Free Speech

• Sharon McMahon out as UVU commencement speaker following significant GOP opposition (KSL)

• Report of the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education (Yale)

• Yale Has Come Up With a Surefire Way to Make a Terrible Situation Worse (The New York Times)

• “Failures of Kindness” by George Saunders speech transcript

• ‘You’ve got to find what you love,’ Jobs says (Stanford Report)

• We’re All Living in the ‘Mirror World’ Now (The Ezra Klein Show)

• Deplatforming and Defamation: Free Speech on Social Media (Pantsuit Politics - February 2021)

“Domestic Terrorism”

• Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization (The White House)

• Prairieland shooter convicted of attempted murder, others on lesser charges in ‘antifa’ trial (KERA News)

• DOJ indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges (NPR)

• Federal Grand Jury Charges Southern Poverty Law Center for Wire Fraud, False Statements, and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Department of Justice)

The MAMDANI Act

• Roy unveils immigration bill dubbed ‘MAMDANI Act’ (The Hill)

• Rep. Roy Introduces MAMDANI Act to Denaturalize and Deport Marxists and Islamic Fundamentalists (Congress)

Leisure

• Derek Thompson note on leisure (Substack)

Episode Transcript

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

Beth [00:00:31] This is Beth Silvers.

Sarah [00:00:32] You’re listening to Pantsuit Politics. On today’s show, we’re talking about free speech. And we’re going to start with the story everyone has been talking about on the internet, Sharon McMahon getting dropped from a commencement speech by the exact people we thought were anti-cancel culture. Then we’re going to go somewhere more serious because underneath this cancel culture noise, there are terrorism convictions and a bill in Congress that would let the government deport citizens for their ideas. And that’s got us thinking about free speech in America. Everybody believes in it right up until someone says something they hate. Outside of politics, it is almost Maycember as we recently talked about. So we’re asking, in the face of all this stress and busyness, what leisure time do you actually regret? And what self-care is worth paying for? Is there a connection? That’s all ahead. Stick with us.

Beth [00:01:28] If you know someone who is frustrated by the free speech cancel culture debate sounding like just a shouting match, left cancels right, right cancels left. Everybody’s a hypocrite. Send them this episode. You don’t have to post it or share it. Just text it to one specific person, even better to your group chat. That is how our show grows. And most importantly, we think that’s how good conversations about these issues spreads.

Sarah [00:01:56] All right, next up, how did America’s government teacher end up as fodder for the right? Sharon McMahon was scheduled to be the commencement speaker at Utah Valley University. If Utah Valley university sounds familiar to you, that is the location of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. So she posted, as we all did, after Charlie Kirk assassination that it was horrific. Sharon also said that many marginalized Americans had not seen Charlie Kirkus engaging in good faith. She later deleted that post, but that was enough. And once certain GOP politicians and members of the far-right media ecosystem found out that she was going to be the commencement speaker, they went after her. Senator Mike Lee, Representative Burgess Owens, and they canceled her. She’s not going to be the Commencement Speaker.

Beth [00:03:04] On just a human level, I just hate this for Sharon. I know she’s going to be fine. She’s an adult. She knows what she’s about.

Sarah [00:03:11] She’s a tough cookie.

Beth [00:03:11] She has been through the internet’s vitriol meal before so I’m not worried about her, but I hate it. From the university perspective, I think it’s such a difficult time to be a college or university president. We’ve talked about this before. The best thing that all of us could do is maybe just give them some space. The level of ownership the public takes over universities and the speakers that they invite to campus is outrageous and completely unproductive. Knowing that that is the environment, I think if I were just sitting with friends who happen to run colleges or universities, I would say, recognize that any person you invite will be seen as political. There is no one in America, no one, who people believe is entirely nonpartisan and entirely unobjectionable. It doesn’t exist. And so my advice for commencement specifically would be to just not have an external speaker, to just let it be about your students, especially when the community is grieving this trauma. Like this was horrible for everybody who witnessed it in addition to the people who love Charlie Kirk. So I think that it is really, really, sad that Sharon was caught up in this or that anyone would have been in her situation. And I also think that you have to accept a status quo that I find unacceptable that people are going to take a shot at high profile speakers if there is any political entry point to do so.

Sarah [00:04:52] I don’t know. I think I maybe feel differently. Yale put out that study this week about what’s the path forward for higher education. It’s been sitting on my desk. I have not read it yet. I am anxious to read it. But a analysis of it crossed my screen, I believe it was on the New York Times, about like in the report they say colleges shouldn’t have this expansive purpose. Like Yale had articulated some purpose of like making the world a better place or something. And the argument was like, no, they shouldn’t. They should just stick to what they know. They should educate. And this person was like I don’t agree. I think this big purpose is how we articulate the value of education. And so I think that’s a little bit of what we’re scratching at. Should they just stick to the status quo or are institutions of higher education meant to make progress, expand our understanding of our place in the world, both individually and as a society. And I think that’s a tough question. I think outside commencement speakers are so important. I think some of them hit in a way that make everybody better, not just the people at the ceremony. They’re like George Saunders’ commencement about being kind. Steve Jobs’ commencement speech about finding your passion. They become these cultural touchstones where we get to have really great conversations about some of the most important questions in the kind of a college education I want for my son, which is how to live a good life, how to craft a better world. And if you don’t have room within that conversation to say, some people didn’t think Charlie Kirk was engaging in good faith, then we got a problem. That’s a pretty innocuous statement. But the only space they have is for hero worship. That’s it. That’s the only place that they have created around Charlie Kirk.

Beth [00:06:57] Agreed, and let me be abundantly clear that I think this is a dumb argument. I think Sharon is a perfectly acceptable person to have at commencement. I’m sure she would have done a fine job. I generally agree with you that higher education serves a lot of purposes, and those purposes are everything from helping you think about how to live a good life to the way that some University of Kentucky researchers were involved with the Artemis mission. Medicine. It’s incredible all the ways that higher education. Makes life better for everyone, not only people who actually go to college for a degree. I think if I were weighing all the factors here, I would lean in favor of commencement being about the students, but the academic year being about challenging everybody. And I would want to say to a Mike Lee, hey, if I’m not inviting people to campus who ruffle your feathers, and many of your Democratic colleagues’ feathers, I’m not doing my job. We are here to test ideas and to push our students and to be uncomfortable. That’s why we exist. I just think commencement in particular because of what you said, it is high profile. Often those speeches go viral. Maybe that’s a place to say, you know what, let’s just huddle up in our community because this is about our community. This is about our students.

Sarah [00:08:21] Well, I just think if this is what ruffles their feathers, it doesn’t matter what you do.

Beth [00:08:26] It absolutely doesn’t.

Sarah [00:08:27] It doesn’t matter if you keep it internal and try to make it about the students. If the bar is this low, there ain’t no clearing it. And I think that’s the important part here is. If sharing is not good enough, no one is good enough. There is no room for any sort of not just dissent, analysis, critical thinking. That’s what they’re arguing, is an end to critical thinking. And I think, look, that was true on the left and some of the cancelations on campuses. It was we don’t want any disagreement. What you’re doing is hate speech. So you can’t be here at all. And it doesn’t make it any better that now they’re doing it. But these were the people that were out there saying the woke liberals at the colleges have lost their minds and you can say anything. And they are without an ounce of hypocrisy or irony, saying, our turn.

Beth [00:09:27] Yeah, that’s what’s happening all across the government. All across the Government. I know you are, but what am I? It’s the animating theme.

Sarah [00:09:33] Yeah, I just think it’s so gross. And I think that there is a lot of room for colleges to exert some leadership. Take a lesson Utah Valley University. It did not work well for the liberal schools to kowtow. It didn’t. It hurt them. It hurt all of higher ed. And it’s going to be true on this side too.

Beth [00:09:57] People want leadership. You would hope that everyone understanding that we can’t clear each other’s bars. We can’t and that’s true no matter what your philosophy you are gravitating towards. We can’t clear each other’s bars. So find some freedom in that. Okay, well, that’s what I’m going to do then. I’m going to push everybody around. And again that is what higher education exists for. Not to espouse one particular kind of ideology. But to put all of them in front of you and shake you up inside the vortex of lots of competing thinkers text speeches that make you think, oh God, they have a point too. That’s the best of higher ed.

Sarah [00:10:40] I am worried because we do hear this so often. We’ve heard it from ministers, we’ve heard from fellow podcasters, we’ve heard it from teachers. Hell, we just did a spicy on the pit. We hear it from healthcare professionals. It doesn’t matter what I say. It doesn’t matter. There is no neutrality. There is not safe space on which to stand and not offend somebody. And so I think so much of this is the environment created by our president and his approach, but we don’t have to participate in it. And that is often our advice to people, is you will, and that’s okay. And that’s easy to say because that can manifest in all kinds of threats. I mean, Sharon got threats, not surprisingly. We’ll do to you what they did to Charlie. Just violent threats and all this stuff. Scary, scary, scary reactions. And we all have to reckon with that because the reason we all feel offended is because there’s a little bit of all of us that have participated in the journey that got us here. Now, not all equally, but at this point in America, you would be hard pressed to find someone that has not self-censored, who has not argued that someone else doesn’t deserve an op-ed, doesn’t deserve a Facebook post, doesn’t deserve a Twitter profile. The sense that they’re so offensive, they got to go. And I think that’s what we really have to examine in our free speech environment. Because we have an amorphous free speech cultural approach. And then we have government action, which is what the Constitution prohibits. And that’s what we’re going to talk about next. Beth, I have been following the story for a while. I’ve been wanting to talk about it on the show because this is very concerning to me. It should not surprise anyone that MAGA’s approach to free speech hypocrisy extends beyond Mike Lee’s comments on Fox News into actual governmental action. So in September of last year, President Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Couple of small problems. One, Antifa is not an organization. There is not some head of Antifa. When something happens, somebody doesn’t come out from Antifa and go, it was us. Because there’s no one doing press for Antifa. It is a loose term to describe a broad ideology, usually far left ideas, anarchism, communism, anti-capitalism. Some people that describe themselves as Antifa are violent, but many aren’t. And this overarching federal designation can be really dangerous.

Beth [00:14:25] Hearing that the president designated Antifa a terrorist organization can really make you just roll your eyes and think, well, there he goes again. What’s important to understand is that when the government designates something a terrorist’s organization, they do it because it lets them bring new tools. That’s how you have to think about Donald Trump and his executive orders. He issues those orders to turn a key that unlocks power he would not otherwise have. So, when he designates Antifa a terrorist organization, that says to law enforcement, you get to do new things. And one of the new things that law enforcement has been doing is studying Antifa-like movements outside the United States, where they have even stronger surveillance powers, and then tracing back groups outside of the United States to American citizens. As we’ve talked about with FISA before, you sweep up Americans when you start to look at organizations outside the United States, and then they come back in and selectively choose Americans to spend a lot of time looking at and maybe charge with a crime and maybe overcharge with a prime because this is a terrorist, not a regular suspected criminal.

Sarah [00:15:39] Because there’s no real federal authority to designate purely domestic groups as terrorist organizations. It reminds me of what they did with Anthropic. All of a sudden a domestic company we’re mad at is now a supply chain risk. That’s something that’s never happened with a domestic group before because they see anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy. And so they use the tools that we used to use against our actual foreign enemies and they’re bringing them to bear against American citizens because of their viewpoints. So it wasn’t just maybe they will charge people- they have. On March 13th of this year, nine activists in Texas were convicted on providing material support to terrorists and attempted murder. So what happened is these people came together to do a noise demonstration out of a Prairieland ICE detention facility on July 4th. They set off fireworks. Now, in the chaos and scrum created by the fireworks, one person discharged their weapon that I believe they had legally and an officer was shot and wounded in the exchange of fire. One person of the nine that they said all of you are domestic terrorist organization and you supported this and they convicted all of these people and they’re now facing serious time because they went and protested outside an ICE detention center. And the government is arguing that Antifa is a national security threat, but some FOIA requests have revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s own files do not support what they were arguing in court, and yet these people are still convicted.

Beth [00:17:26] I think the details of this are pretty interesting for two reasons. One, it demonstrates what leveling up, that calling them terrorists, does. So this is a group of people who probably would have been charged with something by a regular old administration because they weren’t setting off fireworks and going, ooh, pretty. They were throwing them in the direction of the facility. They did some property damage, not cool. If an officer gets shot, somebody’s going to get charged with something. Yes, Texas is open carry. Maybe the firearm was legal. My understanding is that Benjamin Song, who is the person whose weapon it was, is a former Marine Corps reservist. And he said that he was doing some kind of specific shot into the ground and that the bullet ricocheted and hit the officer. There was apparently some forensic evidence that tended to show that the bullet hit something. Any way around it though, a normal administration probably would have charged this group with something. That’s different than the FBI taking battering rams to their homes, setting off flashbangs in their living rooms, seizing their laptops and phones, and charging them with this web of crime related to basically being enemies of the entire United States because they went too far at a protest. The other thing that I think the details really illustrate is again the way that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander with conservatives. Because so much of how the Department of Justice described these people could have been ripped from an indictment of January 6th protesters. The way they dressed, the way they communicated, the way they amassed weapons to prepare for this. It was like rereading charges against the January six folks. But now it’s not okay and it’s very scary because who’s in charge has changed and who’s being protested has changed.

Sarah [00:19:28] Well, and there’s just a lot of, well, how do you like it? You did it to us. But if you think this is the same as January 6th, guys, put it to the American people. Because January 6th was not about sorting people by their ideology and dialing up. Now, I think there are a lot of people who think it was. And, look, maybe we should talk about that. Maybe we should talk about were we overcharging people on January 6th? Now I would argue there’s still a nexus to me, even if you think they’re being overcharged, to the actions. I think the overcharging came because it happened at the Capitol, at that time, in that way. But again, the nexus with these people and how they’re been indicted is not to their actions but to their ideologies. And that’s what’s concerning for me. But the conservative approach, the MAGA approach is, well, you went after our violent extremists in a way that was not fair and so now we’re going to go after yours. I think we see that this week with the DOJ indicting the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering because they were paying informants to infiltrate extremist groups. I don’t understand. In what universe does a nonprofit have to describe in detail exactly what they’re doing with their money? But they’re like, well, they were giving them donations and they were propping up the organizations they were supposed to be fighting. No, they weren’t. To me, it is ridiculous on its face, but they are out here charging. And it’s clear because the Southern Poverty Law Center designated some groups they liked, like, oh, I don’t know, the Proud Boys as domestic terrorist organizations. So it’s like, well, we’re going to do it now to you.

Beth [00:21:20] The other parallel I see reading the description of these folks, you could also be reading about ICE. The nefarious details of being dressed head to toe in black being masked. It is just like are you with us? Then all of that’s very cool and actually quite manly and patriotic. And if you’re against us and it makes you a very scary terrorist, you probably shouldn’t have any rights at all. I think it’s worth noting the forum shopping happening here too. The Prairieland folks were-- this happened in Texas; they were indicted in Texas. They got a conservative jury pool to choose from. Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted in Alabama. These cases don’t go anywhere in D.C. And New York. Now that’s a problem for us as Americans. That’s a big problem. We have to see the strategy here too. Yeah.

Sarah [00:22:14] To me, if the Supreme Court was worth anything, which it doesn’t feel like it is right now, this is a problem because it’s not viewpoint neutral. You’re not going after the same groups for the same reasons. You are clearly targeting specific ideologies. Even Chip Roy-- who, look, I’m not looking to as an example on anything. And I don’t think this bill is going to go anywhere, but I still think what they introduce is indicative of the approach. And he introduced the Mamdani Act, obviously directed right at Zohran Mamdani. And basically what it does, it would allow the denaturalization or deportation of immigrants, including naturalized citizens who advocate for the restructuring of economic and social relations to reduce class distinctions. Dawg, I’ve advocated for some stuff like that. Like that’s a pretty broad definition. Like basically anybody who advocates at all for any level of economic socialism can get kicked out. Like this to me is just a continuation down the road of like we’re going to target these students for an editorial in the school newspaper advocating for the Palestinians and that’s it, you’re deported.

Beth [00:23:42] Can I tell you what Mamdani stands for? Measures Against Marxism’s Dangerous Adherence and Noxious Islamists Act of 2026. This is violative of the First Amendment along every single dimension. It names specifically Chinese communist, Marxist, Islamic fundamentalist doctrines. And I think it’s fascinating to go against anti-capitalism, socialism, and communism when this very week, as Chip Roy trots this out, we’re talking about a federal bailout of Spirit Airlines. We’re talking about this administration doing deals something like $20.9 billion that this administration has taken for the U.S. Government in equity and private sector companies. So I’m not seeing capitalism fully on display from our current president and the idea that you would pass this vague law that gives the DOJ enormous powers to decide what forms of anti-capitalism are acceptable and what aren’t, to decide what ideas about economic systems run afoul of loyalty to the United States or not. And then to name, the act names, the conduct of writing, distributing, circulating, printing, explicitly protected activities under our First Amendment is wild. Also wild to me that this is coming from Chip Roy, who is running for attorney general in Texas. That’s what makes this so relevant to me. I think Chip Roy knows there’s an audience for this. It gives him something to talk about on the campaign trail. And the fact that he still believes there’s an audience for this is really disturbing.

Sarah [00:25:43] Yeah, I mean, we’re supposed to trust the same DOJ who was like going after the reporter who wrote a story about Kash Patel’s girlfriend. That one, the same one? Okay. It’s scary. I don’t even know another word for it. It is a complete abandonment of our First Amendment principles. And look, I want to be clear. It is not only on the right. I think there are a lot of particularly European examples that we need to take seriously because I think if we’d gotten another term of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, there would be push for this on the left. Because what they do in UK, in Germany, they make explicit ideologies illegal. You can go to jail for Facebook posts and it’s unacceptable. It’s unacceptable, but I do think there was a moment where everybody was like, no, we should. If it’s hate speech, you should go to jail for your Facebook posts. I think some people are comfortable with that. And we have got to talk about that. And we’ve got to be transparent about this is not acceptable. I’m sorry, if whatever is noxious to you, be it Nazism or Islamic ideas or socialism or fascism, whatever it is, if it is noxious, let it out into the sunlight, baby. Put it out there. Let it show its ugly face so everybody can decide. Because I am disturbed by these international trends in supposedly liberal democracies. I mean, this week in Australia, some drunk dude got up at Bondi Beach and mimicked like shooting people. He said some anti-Semitic things, even though they found that was not antisemitic intent because he was intoxicated. And they put him in jail for a year. What? No!

Beth [00:27:39] The draft of the Mamdani Act that I saw also tries to write courts out of the process. Basically the determinations here wouldn’t be subject to judicial review because it’s an immigration enforcement situation, not criminal law. And so what kind of parameters go around this? If you in college wrote an essay about how maybe the communist manifesto made a good point here or there. Can 25 years later that be used to denaturalize you? That’s why we don’t convict people for their ideas because ideas change and ideas require an awful lot of context. We convict people for their conduct. We deport people for their conduct. What did you or did you not do that you were required to do that a Republican legislator who is known for being part of the Freedom Caucus is introducing thought police legislation that if enacted would give rise to a brand new McCarthyism, is something that I think is worth taking seriously even though I agree with you that this bill is unlikely to pass.

Sarah [00:28:58] Yeah, I think all of this has to get-- again, fine, I’m glad he put it in a bill so we can talk about it. Let’s pressure test this. Is this what we want? I couldn’t help but think back because I do think this is a source of a lot of Republican ire. I think particularly Donald Trump are on a revenge tour from him being deplatformed. And I went back and I was thinking about our statements back in 2021 when he got deplatformed, I found this little moment. I do not want President Trump back on Twitter ever. Ever. I think he should remain deplatformed because his rhetoric and narcissism remains and will continue to remain a threat to our republic. And I think having a conversation about the power of social media companies to deplatform a sitting president and what that means, and the impact of that is important. Not because there’s some massive free speech violation, but because it does speak to the power of the platforms. I don’t know how I feel about that anymore. I don’t know if I think I don’t want him on Twitter. Looking back on it, it is in the short term, such a reasonable reaction to be like I just don’t want to see it. But I keep about that conversation Ezra Klein had with Naomi Klein about we thought if we just closed our eyes, it wasn’t there anymore. It’s like a toddler. If I close my eyes, you’re not there. If we remove you from X, then that means the idea goes away. But that’s not how it works. Often, silencing an idea gives it power. That’s why free speech is important. Let it breathe. Let it see if it has legs. Don’t shut it down and give it a power it does not deserve.

Beth [00:31:07] The only asterisk I would put on that is that I still do believe a private platform should be able to host who it does and does not want to host. Whether they make a good judgment, a wise one, a judgment that’s good for society is a different question. But this is why I don’t like the power of the government coming to bear in free speech matters when it’s not about government restrictions on speech. I will defend all day any of these platforms rights to say, no, I’m not going to have you here. I’m going to give the time of my organization to you and your statements. I am not going to deal with the fallout of your statements here. I think that’s their right. Those are private platforms. They can put restraint on speech if they want to. I don’t think it’s the best idea. I think Trump being kicked off of Twitter was excellent for Trump. I think it has only given him more power. I think it saved him from himself in a number of instances. This is how I feel about Robert Kennedy in the Democratic primary. I think there should have been debates in that primary, show people who he is and what he’s about instead of letting him acquire this mystique and us not really hearing his voice as a whole nation until he’s the Secretary of Health and Human Services and we’re listening to him in Congress going, whoa, this was maybe a mistake guys. So I’m with you on, in general, the answer to bad speech is just more speech. This is why I think the situation at UVU is bad, but it’s not what keeps me up at night. What keeps me up at night is when you send law enforcement into people’s homes to track down their communications because you’ve decided they’re terrorists because of what you think they think. And in this Prairieland case, one of the things the Department of Justice included in describing the criminality of these folks were that two of the women distribute zines about their radical left ideology. Imagine writing that as a law enforcement officer and not having a record scratch moment in your brain where you think, whoa, we’ve totally crossed a line here.

Sarah [00:33:25] I just wonder if the distinction, at least for the public, between private platforms, government action, I just think that that distinction is very blurry and always has been. Sure. And so I’m just trying to think about if that’s true, which I believe it is, I don’t think people make a big distinction. It’s why everybody says I’ve got rights to free speech. Maybe we should just take that seriously. And I don’t know what that means except for what we did for a long time, which is bring the power of the government to bear in defense of free speech, being a robust no. Any kind of restriction we’re going to show up and go, nope. Because I do think the private platforms and the public debate, has fueled this government action. Like this set them off. And I take seriously and I don’t think it’s all hypocrisy and bullshit that they did feel there was ideological specificity and government actions under both the Obama administration and the Biden administration. Do I think they’re to this level? No, but do I think were there? Yeah, I do. I think their critique of some of the IRS actions is fair. And I think there’s some other moments where those administrations, if not outright targeting them, it was there. There was an ideological focus. You know what I’m saying?

Beth [00:35:07] I do. I wish that almost every administration of my adult life would have turned the dial down a little bit. I wish the public would be content with a little less from our public officials. Not just in what they do once they’re in office, but what they say about everything. Who cares what Mike Lee thinks about a commencement speaker.

Sarah [00:35:37] Seriously.

Beth [00:35:38] And on the other side of the aisle, I get frustrated listening to conversations about whether Democrats have sufficiently called someone out for their behavior. Often calling someone out for their behavior makes it impossible for you to do your actual job because you burn all of your relationships. I would rather have a lot less calling out publicly, a lot more denouncement and more effective actions being taken by small bipartisan groups doing things that don’t hit the zeitgeist.

Sarah [00:36:10] Yeah. I mean, you see it. There’s still this thought policing going on with Graham Plattner and Hassan Piker and all these other different ways that people are still saying that’s a no-go. I was reading Matt Iglesias and he was talking specifically about Israel. He had kind of made a point and he’s talking about the reaction. And he was taking as a given that we’re in the persuasion business in politics. And I thought, oh, that’s the problem, right? It’s almost like every time you want to call somebody out, every time we’re debating something, I think the first question should be, do you think there’s anyone persuadable on this? Because if you don’t, then what does it matter about free speech? That’s how we get in the spot where we’re willing to constrict and restrict and prosecute. Because we think it’s a war between two sides and there’s nobody in the middle able to be persuaded through actual argument. And I think we’ve gotten in that space because of Trump and the way he dials the pressure up and because of the stakes, because there are real things on the line here. And so it just became everything is high stakes. So who gives a shit about persuasion? We don’t really need free speech. We need to fight. We don’t need to persuade, we don’t need to make arguments, we don’t need to have thoughts or ideologies or present an actual case. We need to fight harder. We just need to do the things that move the needle. You even see that right now with all the conversation around gerrymandering in Virginia, like we just had to fight back. And there’s a part of me that’s like, yeah, people are hungry for action. I agree with that. I feel that way about the Supreme Court. I want action. I want to see some of the energy around the gerrymandering with the Supreme Court. But that doesn’t mean we abandon ideas. It doesn’t mean that we have to stop persuading people. But you don’t hear that language. I don’t think people do assume that this is persuadable. Because of the way the internet frames the argument so often between the two loudest 20%, you just get this is a war, not a debate.

Beth [00:38:30] And look at the wars around us. No one wins. They just rage. I was going in the exact same place that you went, that this belief that no one is persuadable is the virus that has led to policy like let’s just carve up the state based on who controls our state legislature in a way that’s most favorable to our party. And at some point you have to say, for what? When I look at Mitch McConnell’s legacy, the way that he broke so much, changed so much, use every rule to such severe advantage for Republicans, I wonder if you could have an honest conversation with him today if he could answer for what? In service of what?

Sarah [00:39:18] Of where we are now with Donald Trump and the end of NATO. Is this what you wanted, buddy?

Beth [00:39:23] What has advanced? What have you done for the world through these actions? You went to war. What’d you get for it?

Sarah [00:39:30] Yeah. I mean because to me his ideologies the truest where I believe he’s a true believer his NATO, and as a polio survivor, childhood health and vaccines. How we doing on both those fronts, friend? Did it work? Was all this sacrifice and this war worth it? Did you persuade anybody? I don’t see evidence of that.

Beth [00:39:54] He might be happy with the Supreme Court.

Sarah [00:39:56] Yeah, right.

Beth [00:39:58] Is that worth the war?

Sarah [00:39:59] You’ve got unlimited spending. I hope that’s what you wanted. I hope it was worth the sacrifice in every other area. And look, I do believe people are persuadable. I do believe politics is still about persuasion. And the stakes are high, but I still want to live in a democracy and there’s no democracy without persuasion. There’s no path forward if it’s always just war of attrition. I’m so exhausted by this back and forth, changing parties. Send me back to wear one party controlled for a couple of years, couple of decades. Like this is exhausting.

Beth [00:40:38] You mentioned Graham Plattner and you see this in lots of primaries right now. Here’s the disqualifying view for me. Well, we used to just call that having a choice. A lot of these primaries that are being fought like wars are embarrassments of riches because they represent choice where voters of a state can show up and say, wow, this kind of looks like the breakdown of ideas and personalities and styles in our populace. That’s how it’s supposed to be. I’m concerned that the gerrymandering wars this year will be more fodder to try to legitimize our elections. That if we have a blue wave in November, the talking point becomes it’s only a blue wave because they cheated. As I’ve heard about Republicans before, they only won because they cheat. The more we do that, the less we will trust any result ever. And the less ability we have to get this train back on the tracks, which I think we can do if we can hear again, one another as saying this is my idea. And you go, oh, not for me. And then we’ll see who can persuade the most people and move forward, even if it is a truly unacceptable result to us. We accept it because we live in a democratic society, and we value that more than winning the specific issue of the day.

Sarah [00:42:15] I couldn’t agree more. I hope we value our democracy more than the battles that are raging on whatever platform. So last week we talked about Maycember and its creep and its approach and how stressful and busy this time of year is. So we thought maybe it would be also a good time to talk about stress management and leisure and self-care and how we manage these specific issues busy periods.

Beth [00:43:01] I really love Derek Thompson asking the question, what leisure activities do you regret? How often do you regret leisure activities? This is a very real thing for me. On the days when I am most rung out at the end of the workday, I do find myself watching a whole lot of Instagram reels. And while I enjoy some Instagram reels, 15 minutes is the point of diminishing returns for me. I do about 15 minutes, a cigarette break, essentially. I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve laughed a little bit. I’ve probably sent something to someone that it reminds me of, love that. After 15 minutes I’m going mentally and spiritually comatose in a way that I have strong regret for when I realize that a couple of hours have gone by and now it’s bedtime.

Sarah [00:43:55] Yeah, I would say 10% of the time I’m on reels, I find something that literally sends me into hysterics that I think about for a long time, that I’ll like rewatch. The problem is it’s so random. I’m like the mouse pressing the button to see how often I hit one of those periods. It’s addictive. But I’ve got it tight. I brick my phone from 8pm to 7am in those very sensitive periods particularly when I’m laying in bed either at night or in the morning so that I just can’t. Because the regret is often pretty strong. I know it’s addictive. Now I would say other leisure activities, reading I almost never regret. I find it very relaxing. TV or movies with my kids particularly watching them with someone else very rarely regret those. Leisure activities time with friends like almost never, except my friends who keep me up too late. But even then, the regret’s still not very high. So yeah, I would say like most of my leisure activities, baking, all of the, you know, chillaxing kind of stuff you do in your house, very low regret. Sometimes.

Beth [00:45:13] I shop and have shopping regret because I find shopping extremely relaxing. So I’m working on that

Sarah [00:45:22] See, I don’t find shopping relaxing because I want to get it right. I have a lot of like I will spin and you can just spend so much time looking at stuff and figuring stuff out and thinking about it. And also just in this economy, I find spending any money all very stressful, Beth.

Beth [00:45:36] I love to wander around a store. I mean, I love it. Love, love, love. I love online shopping too. Oh, you’re talking about in person, not online shopping. Yeah, in person too. I love walk around a story. And I never regret walking around a store as long as I remember that I do regret purchasing sometimes. So I have to keep that in mind.

Sarah [00:45:54] I very rarely regret purchasing clothes I buy in person. It’s very rare. And that’s why I don’t do almost any online shopping for clothes anymore. I want to try it on. And so the regret is very rare if I try it and buy it. Especially because I don’t do a lot of in-person shopping. Whereas, in my 20s I would shop a lot in person and so I would end up at sale racks and I would end up talking myself into things even after I tried them on. I don’t do that as much anymore. I shop rarely. If I find something and I try it on and it works, I will spend the money. It doesn’t need to be on sale.

Beth [00:46:28] I’m exactly the opposite because I know online there are brands. This fits me well. I’ve been happy with the quality if I need a thing. This is where I should go but in person I do talk myself into it. It’s like I’m here. It was fun. I’ve tried it on it’s okay and then I get it home later. I’m like why Beth? Why did you do that? So that’s where Derek Thompson’s percentages are helpful to me. I do not regret the walking around especially if I’m with Jane or a friend or Ellen, but I do regret the purchases often.

Sarah [00:46:58] Well, the spending of money takes us to our listener question that’s sort of in this theme. Kara asked us, what’s your favorite self-care service you actually pay for? So like we’re spending the money and we never regret it. What’s yours?

Beth [00:47:14] I have two, one that I am on the fence about whether it qualifies as self-care. I get regular massages. Definitely self- care. I honestly think of that as health care. Fair, yeah, no, I agree with that. I agree that, preventative care. There’s so many issues in my body that that has helped me stay off medication. Like it just, it has made my health and wellbeing infinitely better. And so I don’t know that that counts as self-care. So my self-care one, I love a magazine. I love to pay for magazine subscriptions. I never regret my magazine time. But they’re so bad. Which ones do you actually get that aren’t bad? I love Better Homes and Gardens. I love Southern Living. I love political magazines even. I just like to sit down with a magazine and touch the paper and look at the pictures and read the little notes. It doesn’t have to be super engaging to me. There’s something in my brain that clicks. It’s different than a book. It feels lighter, feels closer to being on Pinterest or something, but without the screen. And it just makes me so happy.

Sarah [00:48:20] I also get weekly massages. Don’t regret it, even though my husband kind of drops not so subtle hints that he thinks it’s a lot of money. And it is, and I don’t regret. I don’t know if you remember this or if you had this experience. When I was growing up, my mother, my grandmother, my uncle, my stepdad, their backs were going out all the time, which was like, oh, their back is out. They had to like lay on the floor or just take to the bed. I was always concerned about that. My back does not go out. And I believe it is because of Marina and her magic.

Beth [00:48:53] Well, I also feel that I have learned from Beth, confusingly, that’s my massage therapist name. Beth has taught me really how to pay attention to my body in a different way. And so there are things that have come up that we’ve spotted earlier than we might have otherwise. It is really hard for me to think of that in the same way that I would think of lighting a candle and having a chocolate chip cookie and a book. It’s really fundamental to my ability to live in the world as I do.

Sarah [00:49:23] Yeah. Marina, my massage therapist, is sort of like a witch. She’ll just be like, oh, were you scrambling over gravel? And I’ll be like, yes, weirdo, how’d you even know that?

Beth [00:49:36] Same with my person. Honestly, I do want to say because we’ll get emails about this and I understand. This is an unbelievable privilege to be able to put the budget out for this service. I wish everyone had this. I believe that healthcare in the United States would be cheaper for everyone if we made this kind of investment upfront.

Sarah [00:49:55] Yeah, that’s why I don’t regret. Listen, it’s a lot of money. I don’t do other things because I do this. I make sacrifices.

Beth [00:50:01] Same. Yes.

Sarah [00:50:01] And I don’t feel an ounce of guilt about it. Because again, you realize, especially as you get older, I think that’s what selfcare is. Really good selfcare is catching the tightness, be it in your fascia, muscles or spirit, before it turns into an injury, before it turn into a condition. That to me is like what selfcare should really be. And look, I just want to be clear too. These are not relaxing. This is not what’s happening. There is work going on. It hurts a lot of times. I get cupping, like it’s legit.

Beth [00:50:40] It’s like taking your car to this shop. That’s how I feel.

Sarah [00:50:42] Yeah. To me that’s kind of what good selfcare should be. It shouldn’t just be distraction and relaxing. That’s what Derek’s getting at. Like it’s not just, let me zone out. It should be engaging. And I think this is true for leisure. Like it should be engaging. And good leisure hobbies involve a lot of discomfort and frustration if you’re learning a new skill or you’re trying to complete a project or whatever. I think that’s a key component. You don’t just want free and easy distraction. You want something a little deeper.

Beth [00:51:22] I like party planning for this reason too. Because it isn’t zoning out, it’s zoning way in. I spent last night cutting letters out. I’m going to have a conspiracy theory party next month. And I wanted to put everyone’s names on their envelopes with their invitations like in block letters from newspapers and magazines. So I was cutting all the letters out last night. And it was just great because you do that with so much love in your heart for the people that you’re going to send them to. And it’s creative, but not taxing. And also, you know that it is going to push people out of their comfort zones a little bit, but in a good way that I think they won’t regret on the other side of it. And I think that’s part of why I will spend a lot of money on a theme party because I think it is a gift to the people I love.

Sarah [00:52:16] Well, I cannot wait to hear what y’all spend money on, what you regret. I think this is going to be a fun, robust conversation in the comments over on Substack. We hope that you have enjoyed this show and this conversation, and if you have, that you will share it via text, with friends, or a friend, or a family member, or whoever. We will be back in your ears on Tuesday with a new episode of Pantsuit Politics, and until then, have the best weekend available to you.

Show Credits

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