E. Jean Carroll, Gaza, Ukraine, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • E. Jean Carroll Awarded $83.3 Million Dollars in Second Trump Defamation Case

  • Escalating Tensions in the Middle East

  • The Ongoing War in Ukraine

  • Outside of Politics: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the world of Pantsuit Politics. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

In addition to our Quarterly Book Club (starting in February) where we’ll be reading The Big Break by Ben Terris* and Her Country by Marissa R. Moss*, we’re returning to the basics with Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville.* We’ll be reading Democracy in America slowly (it’s dense) over the next six months and discussing monthly on our Premium Channels on Patreon and Apple Podcast Subscriptions.

*affiliate links: Pantsuit Politics will receive a small commission if you purchase from these links, but you’re welcome and encouraged to the books from the seller, library, or format that works best for you

E. JEAN CARROLL WINS DEFAMATION CASE

ESCALATING TENSION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

UKRAINE

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.

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:09] This is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:12] Where we take a different approach to the news.  

[00:00:14] Music Interlude  

Sarah [00:00:29] Thank you for joining us. Today, we are going to return to the two major ongoing wars in the world, in Gaza and in Ukraine. We're also going to wrap that very difficult conversation in two sources of happiness and joy in our lives, E. Jean Carroll and Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. So we hope that you will stay for Outside of Politics as well. Also, we did want to say to our eagle-eared-- is that a thing? I know we can be eagle-eyed, but I'm making eagle-eared too. Our eagle- eared listeners who did notice that, yes, we have turned up the tempo just a bit. We didn't think y'all would notice. We just wanted to get a little faster over time. But y'all picked up on it immediately. We just wanted to pick it up a little bit, make it a little more high energy. We're very happy with it. We're not going to continue to slowly gaslight you guys, so don't worry. It's not going to continue to get faster. But if you noticed, good work. We did in fact turn up the tempo of the theme song.  

Beth [00:01:28] Some of you also caught a very brief mention that Sarah made to us reading Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, and a few of you went out and purchased that book and then realized, oh, that's a big book. And it is. It is. So we will have a schedule for you soon. But what we really want you to know today is that this is going to be a slow book club.  

Sarah [00:01:51] For launch, too.  

Beth [00:01:52] It's a slow launch. Maybe got out a little over our skis on launching it without meaning to launch it. The point is, we are returning ourselves to some big text about what are we all doing here? It's a presidential year, we want to take a different approach to the news. It's a presidential year in which we are going to really strain the balance of power among the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government. So we just wanted to get back to some basic texts and foundational documents and Democracy in America is one of those. We're going to spend like six months with it. We are not going to read every single word of that gigantic book that you bought. So take heart, stay tuned, thank you for being A-plus students and ready. But we will come to you with a plan that is an achievable plan. We promise.  

Sarah [00:02:38] Yeah. Our plan is to use one particularly abridged version. You can still keep the ones if you've already ordered it, but we have the link to the version we're reading in the show notes. And at the end of February, we're going to do part one. So you got some time, got plenty of weeks in front of us to stretch out and soak it up. You don't want to gobble down big pieces of this at once. That's what I've already learned. Making my way through part one. I'm really excited about it. There are definitely pieces of this book where you're like, holy mess, are you sure this was written a couple hundred years ago? Because it's so relevant. And we're really looking forward to taking this journey with our premium community, which is where we're going to have the conversations around the different parts of the book. So if you'd like to join us, you can check out Patreon or Apple Podcast subscription and get your copy of Democracy in America.  

Beth [00:03:23] In case you wondered if we take a different approach to the news, our hard sell to join our premium community is reading a 184 year old book to talk about the foundational principles on which this country was founded. There you go.  

Sarah [00:03:36] I think that is the right approach as far as I'm concerned. The lost constituency of our ancestors. Thank you very much. Okay. Next up, we're going to talk about E. Jean Carroll.  

[00:03:48] Music Interlude  

[00:03:58] Beth, I know, as an ethical and caring person, you have a lot of trouble with punitive systems. I would like to make the case to you that it is both ethical and I'm willing to go as far as to say endorsed by the Holy Spirit, that we can issue punitive judgments with money. Money is a great way to punish people. As evidenced by the news we got on Friday that a jury has decided to punish Donald Trump for continuing to defame E. Jean Carroll by awarding her an $83.3 million judgment. $83.3 million. That does not include the 5 million she got in May. So he's going to owe her $88.8 million.  

Beth [00:05:00] I do not typically like punishing measures, but some part of my consciousness must agree with you that it's better when it's money because I did smile when I saw this number. And my brain has-- do you know the song 76 Trombones from The Music Man? My brain has been just doing every time I read it a little $83.3 million. Like, there's a little party energy around this number because this is not money that will bankrupt him. He will go out and fundraise. He will take people's $25 at a time to pay any portion of this that ever actually gets paid.  

Sarah [00:05:38] Don't do it guys.  

Beth [00:05:38] But I do appreciate a jury standing up and saying, but if you had just zipped it, like, just zip your mouth, just don't talk. Keep her name out of your mouth and you can be done with this. And he won't.  

Sarah [00:05:50] He won't. And I thought it was a strong case from Roberta Kaplan, E. Jean Carroll's attorney, who, did you know, argued the gay marriage case before the Supreme Court.  

Beth [00:05:58] He is an incredibly accomplished attorney that E. Jean Carroll got herself. Yes  

Sarah [00:06:02] What a legal legacy there. You just get on it, Roberta. I love that for you. But a strong case to say if you don't make it huge, he's going to keep doing this. It has to be enough that he will shut up. And I do believe this is enough and that he will shut up. What do you think?  

Beth [00:06:19] I think he will try hard to shut up. We will see if he can sustain it.  

Sarah [00:06:22] He will try his hardest.  

Beth [00:06:24] Unclear to me if he is really in control of himself enough to sustain that for the rest of his life.  

Sarah [00:06:30] Well, he wasn't at the trial, and that's what made the jury so mad.  

Beth [00:06:34] He acted like such a baby at the trial. I mean, in so many ways he provoked this verdict with his own behavior in every way. And here's the thing. There are people who don't like Donald Trump behind a lot of this. There are lots of people who don't like Donald Trump and who do want to be punitive. I don't think President Biden has anything to do with this or anyone associated with the campaign. I'm not making that accusation. But The Bulwark has reported extensively on the fact that George Conway, who is now making his livelihood as an anti-Trump thinker and commentator, and who was previously married to Kellyanne Conway, who made a lot of her livelihood as Trump's campaign manager and then adviser to him in the white House, George Conway suggested to E. Jean Carroll at a party that she sue him.  

Sarah [00:07:19] Amazing.  

Beth [00:07:19] And it doesn't matter. Your motivation for taking someone to court is not part of what the jury examines, and I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist as a juror to think, I bet some people don't like Donald Trump and want to make trouble for him. Still, you are constrained by what's happening in the courtroom. They knew that, and they still observed his behavior. The way he taunted the judge, the way he spoke out of turn, the way he walked out like a baby in the midst of the closing arguments. They saw with their own eyes what was going on here and rendered this verdict to send a message. And that's a jury of normal, regular people, not political operatives.  

Sarah [00:08:02] Well, and I just feel like, you know who else people are out to get? Barack Obama.  

Beth [00:08:07] Everybody.  

Sarah [00:08:08] No drama Obama. Do you know why he got that name? Because he looked at his staff and everyone in his life and said, we will not give them a thing. We will not give them a scandal or a misstep. We will not do that because I know that people are looking for the tiniest thing. That's what a person of character does. They said absolutely. I took on enormous responsibility and with that responsibility and power comes a chorus of critics who are waiting with bated breath for anything I do to tear my priorities and policies apart, so I won't give them anything. This is so far from that universe where you just can't shut up. To me, this is like such a strong case when you have people in your life that are talking about, well, he's a good president. I didn't like the tweets. Well, it wasn't as simple as the tweets. He cannot stop even when there are millions of dollars on the line. He cannot stop attacking everyday citizens with the enormous power. I mean, we're talking about this jury that had to be anonymous because of the fears of threats and physical danger that come when you just participate in a system that requires some responsibility from this man for his actions. Is this who we want as president of the United States, someone who just can't keep his mouth shut? It's also just satisfying too because it doesn't matter if he becomes president, he does pay this money.  

Beth [00:09:26] Every single person with any public profile has someone who's coming after them. And a lot of people who don't have a public profile feel that someone in their lives, maybe legitimately, is out to get them. That's part of why he has had such broad appeal, right? He uses that sense of, oh, I'm being a victim. But if there is any case for saying there has to be a limit to that, it's this one. This is so stupid of him. Even if he had absolute assurance within his own consciousness that he did not do what she's saying he did, after a $5 million verdict had decided this issue, all he had to do was not talk about it anymore and he couldn't do it. But I think your point is the point to talk with our friends and family about. The judge advised this jury not to tell anyone they served on it, because the way that he uses people is to turn us all into weapons against each other. And he's done it so successfully over and over. You might think, why does she deserve millions of dollars for having him talk about her? Because when he talks about someone, they start to need security. When he talks about someone, they can't go on the internet or a lot of places anymore without being assaulted from every angle. That is the through line to January 6th. He says to people, I want you to do this. And they interpret that in the harshest, most sometimes violent terms possible, and it works. And that kind of control over a set of people, however that has come to be psychologically, is something that I also don't want to empower again.  

Sarah [00:11:15] He does not bring out the best in people, I think, is the understatement of the century. And then to watch the right wing media turn this into, they're going to come for you too. You're going to have to pay millions of dollars because someone falsely accuses you. It's just so outrageous. How many times are y'all going to fall for the same playbook? It happened to me. It'll happen to you. No it doesn't. I'm sorry. Are you leading an insurrection? Did you run for president? Like, what is this even about? The fact that people see themselves on this man who is such a unique figure, not just in American politics, but in American life? He is a lot of things, but he is not an everyman. And I don't understand why this sense of like, if they come for him-- I guess because the argument is if they'll come for somebody as powerful and unique as Donald Trump, they'll come for you. But, no, he's different. You know what you would do if a judge told you to keep your mouth shut, you keep your mouth shut because you don't have million dollars and an ego the size of a Macy's Day Parade balloon that tells you that you never do anything wrong.  

Beth [00:12:15] And in the framework of him not bringing out the best in people, he does not bring out the best in me. And I feel myself getting all heated about it. And that is not the posture that I want to be in. I think the salient points are people do identify with this in him for good reason or bad, but identifying with him about false accusations or being bullied or being pursued, someone having a vendetta against you, that is not the job description for the president of the United States. And being defined by those things does not lead anybody to a good life. So even if you really sympathize with him here, if you allow that to define the entirety of your character and all of your interactions and the way you do your work, that is a sad way to live. And I don't experience a whole lot of people doing that. And I just don't think that that's the person we want to elevate to this position of responsibility.  

Sarah [00:13:16] Well, and the salient piece of this to me is that, look, it's working. He's being held responsible in a court of law. No, he's not going to jail-- although I do not think that is off the table. But just the sense of like, he did this thing, a jury of his peers said, you did the thing and so now you're going to be punished. And he is going to have to pay this money. Yes, there will be appeals. Yes, it will take a while. He is absolutely paying the $5 million at this point, I would say, and he's definitely going to even if it gets reduced on appeal, pay some piece of this big verdict in the follow up case. That feels good to me. It just feels like a good, healthy reminder of he is a human being. He is a real human being. I think he becomes so outsized, especially as the presidential race heats up. I thought this was a good, healthy reminder like, no, these court cases are real and the consequences are going to be real, and they are going to continue because he's a human being and he has to put himself sort of through the process just like anybody else. And there are unique components of this. But at the end of the day, the system is working. And that felt really good to me. Still does.  

Beth [00:14:29] I think it's just another reminder of who he really is too. When you read the transcripts of him saying to the judge, like, this is a sham, you're so biased, whatever, and the judge then says, "I might have to throw you out, but I'd bet you'd love that." And Trump is like, "I would love it. I would love it." It's just a reminder of the immaturity that you cannot mythologize someone who behaves in such a petty way. I mean, you can and people do, but if you want to kind of come back to ground about him, these trials are another place where he makes it really clear who he is. And who he is isn't a person of sufficient character and maturity and groundedness to handle the very serious issues that the president of the United States has to handle all day, every day.  

Sarah [00:15:24] And that's why we're going to talk about next. We're going to talk about the escalating situation in the Middle East. We're going to talk about the conflict in Gaza. We're going to talk about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.  

[00:15:33] Music Interlude  

[00:15:43] We have been paying such close attention and having continued conversation about the expanding conflict in the Middle East over the weekend. Over the weekend, there was an attack near the Jordan-Syrian border that killed three American soldiers. The attack was perpetrated by a pro-Iranian militia. President Biden has already said that there will be retaliation coming from the United States. There are people in the Senate calling for swift and harsh retaliation. There are people advising that the United States scale back the attacks they've already been launching against the Houthis in the Red sea. There are continued exchanges in Iraq. There was conflict between Iran and Pakistan. It is getting bigger, it is getting more complicated. And we wanted to take a minute to talk about that, as well as the ongoing war in Gaza and what we see as the role that has played in this expanding conflict and what's going to happen next.  

Beth [00:16:47] The issue that stands out to me right now, because it is the issue that is closest to us, is the scope of American power in the region and how it can be exercised correctly. I think that you see as Iran expands its operations through proxies and directly the limitations of America's ability to determine what happens next here, I think too often, especially in social media discussion about the Israel-Hamas War, there is a perception that President Biden could just snap his fingers and call the whole thing off. And it is clear that the interest in this region are so varied, they're so entrenched in some ways and flexible in others, because there's a lot of just take advantage of an opportunity as it opens up here by terrorist groups, that what the United States does is important. But it will not determine everything, or even perhaps the most critical pieces of what happens next in this region. And then in terms of the White House's ability to respond to these unfolding events that are even hard to stay current on because it's happening so rapidly, you have a very serious group of senators, people of real gravitas, who are not new to the institution, who've been thinking about war and power for a long time, saying, I think that the president might be overreaching in terms of what he's ordered. And then you have people who favor a very muscular foreign policy, some of them quite serious and others not, who are demanding that the president directly engage Iran right now in response to this drone attack. And figuring out what's legal and what's ethical and what's wise and what has consensus support and what can be articulated to the American people, here's why we're endangering our people to do this. That is such an unenviable position and such a thorny mess of issues. And so that's kind of where I'm putting my attention, just trying to understand what options does the administration even have right now, and what would be the effect of each of those options?  

Sarah [00:19:06] Yeah, when we talk about American influence, I was so struck by reporting that our national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, met with the Chinese foreign minister in Thailand because they want China to come in and try to influence [inaudible], because China has enormous influence in the region. I think that speaks to both wisdom and concern. I think it is smart to say we can't treat China like an enemy all the time because they have influence around the world that they've worked very hard to build. And we might need some of that influence right now. And it's scary to me that we have to depend on the government of China to come in and play a wise role in trying to tamp down conflict in the region. As we continue with this war, (I think we're over 100 days) what is becoming abundantly clear to me is no matter how much I trust the leadership in the White House, and I want to see American leadership in the region, the leadership in Israel is just fundamentally flawed. I think I hoped desperately that there would be some sort of moment where Netanyahu rose to the occasion, even though I think that he is a terrible leader. But this is just not shown to be true. I think it is just such an epic failure. And I think you see that in the protests and the disruptions of cabinet meetings, in the families of the hostages coming in and saying, what are you doing? This idea that eliminating Hamas was going to free the hostages has just not shown to be true. I mean, there was reporting in The New York Times where you had Israeli Defense minister saying those are fundamentally in conflict with one another. I mean, they've only freed one hostage through rescue, through military action, and the rest have been negotiated releases. All these tunnels remain intact. This is not working. And that I think they have lost so much support and backup from the world community, because I don't think anybody sees Israeli's response as proportionate. Now there's a bigger conversation about whether it's genocide, happening at the UN and and other levels. But it doesn't matter where you fall on that issue. I don't think anybody sees this as wise or proportionate or increasing the security of the Israeli people at this point.  

Beth [00:21:42]  We've talked before about how I don't see how anybody wins a modern war. I don't see how a modern war produces anything other than a war of attrition, and you just wait to see who wears out first. I think the difficulty for Israel is that there are so many factions within its leadership that there isn't a clarity of purpose. It's multiple purposes unfolding at one time and by and large, in Israeli society, that is against the perpetration of blanket violence against civilians in Gaza. And so at the same time, this came up in the UN World Court on South Africa's genocide complaint, at the same time that you have upwards of 300,000 civilian homes being damaged or destroyed, and somewhere around 25,000 civilian deaths. You have Israeli troops having to work on the provision of food and water and trying to build and repair hospitals. And how long are you going to do that? Every overreach militarily has a corresponding requirement of the Israeli state to come in and provide some sort of repair or some sort of facilitation of humanitarian assistance. I think that what is so gut wrenching, as you just try to understand what's happening here, there are a lot of people in Gaza: 2 million Palestinians, 180 babies born every day, even as this conflict is unfolding. It's so many people. It's so many people in this tiny space and they are all moving around this tiny space because Egypt will not allow people out. They're not going to go into Israel. It's not safe to go into Lebanon, perhaps. You just have these people moving around this very small area to try to stay alive. That cannot further any reasonable objective of anybody- of Hamas, of Israel, of Iran. Who benefits from that? So I'm so grateful that Qatar has been willing to negotiate with parties and that there is some expression of confidence as we're recording, that we might be getting closer to a cease fire. Not because I think Israel has no right to defend itself, but because I think that its objectives are not being accomplished either. The situation is terrible for everyone.  

Sarah [00:24:23] Yeah. As I think about it, I just realized that it is so heartbreakingly awful for the people of Gaza. I mean, you have 1% of the population that's been killed. I read a statistic that there was one toilet for every 220 people, only 13 hospitals to serve those millions of people. There was a statistic I read in The Economist. They were talking about the sort of scale you use to define hunger. And four out of the five people around the world who were at the worst risk of death through starvation live in Gaza. It's like 577,000 people. I mean, we're looking at death from the fallout of the destruction that could exceed the 26,000 people that have been killed in these strikes over the course of this year. And you see that and you think, who benefits? But I think the hard reality for this region of the world is a lot of people. A lot of places in the Middle East. Be it the Houthis that are now getting valuable distraction from the fact that the people who they are leading are unhappy. Be it people in Iran who are unhappy with their leadership, but who can sort of deflect their anger at the treatment of the Palestinians. I think so many of the strongman leaders in this area of the world, of which there are many-- this is not a place rife with democracy-- have to walk this line between using the suffering of the Palestinians to distract from their own abuses and oppression and being careful not to fuel that flame too much that it overtakes them. Because it is this energy source. The suffering of the Palestinians is this energy source. I think it's true in left wing politics in this sort of interesting way. And it's like you can really, I think, see it laid so bare in a moment like this because no one has a plan for these people: the Israelis, the PLO, Hamas that wouldn't even open up their own tunnels to shelter the people being blanketed with bombs and missile strikes. It feels like this population and their suffering fuels so much in this very complicated way across sort of Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, not to mention all these non-state actors that are now disrupting global commerce streams with drones. We can all see that these people gain from a solution by ending this suffering, but I'm not sure it's abundantly clear in the geopolitical politics of the region how a two state solution serves so many of these players in the region.  

Beth [00:27:25] Yeah, I think something about the status quo always works or it wouldn't be. I think you learn everything you need to know about Hamas by understanding that they have stored food and water for their own fighters, while the people for whom they are supposed to be responsible and leading and fighting this fight are bartering and begging for animal food to feed their children so that they don't starve. I think that tells you everything you need to know about Hamas.  

Sarah [00:27:56] Or even the corruption at the Egyptian border, where there is aid and food, and it's getting sold on the black market in Egypt and not being sent over into Gaza.  

Beth [00:28:07] And you have questions about the ability of the United Nations to be an honest provider of aid when there are accusations that 12 U.N. workers actually participated in the October 7th violence in Israel, and not in a passive way. One person was accused of kidnapping, another was involved in the violence in the kibbutz that killed 97 people. These are serious, crushing accusations for the legitimacy of the United Nations. And certainly there are people who benefit from that all over the world. There are bad, bad faith actors who benefit from that all over the world. The question that I have, Sarah, to your point about the exploitation of the Palestinian suffering within the region-- because I agree that there is an energy source and a lot of that energy source is just being able to blame the West for everything, which helps with recruiting and helps with relationship building among groups who hate America and helps with propaganda campaigns, and simultaneously weakens the West. Because those propaganda campaigns now so quickly spread in the form of well designed Instagram graphics about imperial feminism and whatnot. I mean, there just there are so many ways in which the level of sophistication of these groups in building their message has become hard to see as it's happening, but it is happening. My question is how far these groups can go. And how far they want to go. I read that during the last ceasefire negotiated here, the attacks on American military installations in their region effectively stopped during that cease fire. I don't think that all of these groups (for all of their ideology and for all of their funding from Iran, and who knows who else) can afford to go full scale conflict directly engaging the United States and its allies. And so I just don't know where that range is. Where's the zone where everyone's interests are in calming the situation?  

Sarah [00:30:23] I'll tell you one thing. I'm confident it's not with the advice of Senator Cotton with striking Iran and creating even more violence in the region. I do not envy President Biden trying to decide how to calibrate a response to these American deaths in Jordan, because I think any more violence in the region will just fuel more violence in the region. Because I do think there are so many actors, even like the Houthis. What do they have to lose? All that they've shown is that they gain strength by disproportionate military responses to their attacks. Be it in the Yemen civil war or on the Red sea. They are no weaker. What are we doing then? What are we trying to accomplish? And I think that's a problem. No one will answer that question. What are we trying to accomplish for the Palestinian people? Is it Israeli rule over Gaza? I don't think that's the answer. But no one else seems to have an answer. Hamas, the PLO, the UN, the United States, we have to have an answer. We have to have something that we are striving for and that I don't know if we've ever had an answer in that region. I was so struck by Thomas Friedman on Ezra Klein show, talking about in India when there was the Mumbai attacks. The Indian government and the leadership there made it very conscious decision that I do not believe would be replicated under the leadership of Modi, to not strike back, to say no, a violent response will strip us of any power we have in the situation.  

[00:32:01] I think that's a decision that the United States could have made on September 12th. We didn't, but we could have. I feel like in this part of the world, we've tried the other way repeatedly. We've tried. It didn't work and it doesn't work. And it's not working now. And so I'm just so hungry for leadership from that region. I don't think it can come from the West. I think the West has its own place in which it can exhibit leadership. We're going to talk about that in just a second. But it has to come from this area of the world. And I think that's very difficult for a lot of different reasons. Because of corruption-- I mean, it's not like we didn't have the Arab Spring where people were calling out for this, and we didn't exactly get this new revolutionary era filled with democracy and freedom and liberty. And so I don't know the answer. Thomas Friedman has this great moment in the podcast where he said, it doesn't matter what people say in English about the conflicts in the Middle East. It matters what they say in their own language. And that's what we need. That's what the world needs. That's particularly what this area of the world needs, is real leadership. And it sure as hell ain't going to come from Benjamin Netanyahu.  

Beth [00:33:21] What I think is interesting about engaging China on this is that for all of its might and for all of the ways in which China is threatening, it has avoided military engagement for a long time. I was just reading a summary of a report this morning about how truly difficult it would be for China to invade Taiwan. It would be very, very hard. That would be a massive military exercise. And the report said that China has not engaged in that kind of military activity for 70 years.  

Sarah [00:33:55] Wow!  

Beth [00:33:56] And so hopefully there is something wise and peaceful that China could bring to this conflict. And it's hard when you have to depend on people that you are not in relationship with, in a way that involves a lot of depending on each other and feeling reliable and supportive and like we share the same objectives. But I think there is a place for China in this conversation, and I'm glad the administration is willing to invite them to that conversation. I think I may turn out to be deadly wrong about that, but when you have really limited and all bad options, I get it.  

Sarah [00:34:35] It's not like we haven't done it before. It's not like we didn't depend on the USSR during World War two, right? And so I think transitioning to the other part of the world that we wanted to talk about, we're in a very different situation now with Russia and its invasion of Ukraine. I think this one is so difficult to talk about, Beth. I read stories about Ukraine. They are all hard. They are all deeply disconcerting. I think the Ukrainians are tired. I think they are depleted and they are tired. They still are trying to stamp out their own corruption in their government. They're having really, really difficult conversations around recruitment efforts because their military is depleted. They don't have enough ammunition. They don't have enough weapons. They are frustrated and they are feeling abandoned by America, rightly so, and by Europe. And Russia is just this behemoth compared to them, that as an oppressive government can just use people who don't have a lot of freedom, liberty or choice to fuel this conflict. And that seems to be what they're doing.  

Beth [00:35:45] I think constantly about the analysis I heard on an economist podcast, that for Russia people are the cheapest asset, and for Ukraine they are the most expensive. And that kind of asymmetry is really hard to overcome. I did, to your point about what's the goal for Israel, feel really encouraged by an interview I heard with Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss. He spoke with Tim Miller of The Bulwark. This is my second mention of them in this episode, because I think they're doing some really interesting work right now, and he had the clearest articulation of what the goals are going to be. He said, "I think if you conceive of Ukrainian victory in this war as sustained and secure access to the Black Sea of sovereignty and self-determination and its ability to join the West, which is really its core aspiration, and the inability of Russia through both security guarantees and Ukraine's own strength, to credibly threaten them again, those are achievable aims." And I thought, I don't feel like I've heard anyone say, here's what we're trying to do. Because you get sort of stuck. And, well, do you give them Crimea? Do you just write Crimea off? What about the Donbas? You get right to the territory. But instead, if you kind of say bigger picture, what are the goals here? That does feel clarifying to me on sort of what the next steps are, and especially for the American public to understand, what is the return on investment for the United States by equipping Ukraine? And when you think about that return, as this congressman does, as vastly increasing the NATO border with Russia. This is gross for me to think about and hard. But if you're trying to make the case to everybody who find different things appealing, the weapons are manufactured here. It gives our military an opportunity to see how some of the weapons that we haven't used yet perform in conflict.  

Sarah [00:37:44] In this new type of conflict too.  

Beth [00:37:45] Exactly.  

Sarah [00:37:46] With all the drones and all of this. Yeah.  

Beth [00:37:47] And so whatever stance you have on the merits of assisting Ukraine-- and look, President Zelensky has made this argument. It is in America's self-interest to continue to arm Ukraine. I find that ethically very hard. I find it very, very hard. But I also find it persuasive as a matter of policy. And I do feel like this conflict could have a resolution if everyone came to the table and wanted it to.  

Sarah [00:38:21] Yeah, I thought his just basic math was pretty convincing of, like, this isn't even that much money and we get so much in return. But it's not about the money. They're fighting about this in the budget cycle, but it's not about the money. It's about the winning political argument around isolationism. And I do not understand how you want to be hard on China and bomb the living shit out of Iran, but you're sitting there saying we shouldn't do anything in Ukraine. I have trouble with South Africa coming before the UN court with accusations of genocide, while ignoring the fact that Russians speak as if Ukraine doesn't exist, kidnaps their children and drops bombs on civilians. South Africa has a close relationship with Russia, so I don't see them before the court on that. And I'm not saying anybody has pure ethical arguments on the international stage about any of this. Of course, we don't. But to me, I think what I'm just realizing is with these conflicts, living through them in this way, is that it is so easy to get stuck in time where the conflict started. And forget that they are living beasts and they change. I think that's why I'm so still sort of turned off by many of the protests around the war in Gaza, and the sort of the genocidal language and the cease fire language, because it feels stuck in time to me. And I'm really trying to watch my own thoughts and say, like, don't get stuck in how you felt when it started. That's not what it is now. And you don't make your best arguments to end it when you get stuck in how it started. That's what bothers me. If you want to address the suffering of the people in Gaza, then don't get stuck in this black and white argument about cease fire now. Address the reality on the ground. Pick apart the failed leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu. Because when you argue in such a black and white reductive way, you strengthen his case. You give people space to agree with him and not to call him out as the terrible leader that he is. And I think that's true for Ukraine. It does not serve anyone to ignore that they do have trouble with corruption, that they are taking harsh recruitment efforts because what it says is they're desperate and we need to help them. If we don't want Russia to learn that this is doable, that they can resurrect the USSR, then stop playing this for political point and acknowledge the reality. And I think acknowledging some of the more difficult realities around the US military industrial complex shouldn't be ignored. Good job Jake Auchincloss for acknowledging the base calculus. That's okay. We should talk about that too.  

Beth [00:41:15] And if you are listening to this conversation and feeling kind of lost and like it is so far removed from where you are in your life, that's correct also. It becomes clear to me all the time that we do not contribute anything to the globe by getting so incensed about what's happening in the globe that we make our piece of it more tense, more anxiety-ridden, more conflict-filled. I don't think we are called to fight with each other over what's happening in Gaza. I think we are called to try to understand it the best we can. Especially if we have expertise, to contribute that expertise. To acknowledge how hard it is for our leaders to figure out what their constraints and opportunities are. But I don't think that it makes anything better for anyone on earth when we take our little section of Earth and turn up the temperature as high as we can on something that is remote from us in so many ways. And I get that this is not as remote for a lot of people as it is for me, and so it's going to be different depending on your connection to this area of the world, again, your expertise, your job, your family connections, your ethnicity, your opportunity, your faith. There are so many things. But it is okay to have moments where you say, this is remote for me, and I can't do this right now because I just got one of those life changing phone calls that someone in my sphere has had a medical emergency, or has passed away, or is contending with a divorce or something that calls for my care and attention right here. That is okay too. And I think that is our best work of making the big globe better, by caring for our sphere of it in the ways that we are most empowered and capable of doing.  

Sarah [00:43:10] Yeah. And I think at the same time, the suffering wears on all of us. And there are suffering in other parts of the globe. Besides Gaza, there is enormous suffering in Sudan right now. There is enormous suffering in Haiti that continues. And I think holding all that and trying to think I'm still a citizen in one of the world's most powerful nations, what does that mean? Well, for me, I'm going to call-- I don't think it'll matter, but I'm going to call my representative and say I support funding for Ukraine. I'm going to continue to pay attention to these situations, even when they question my own positions and my own understanding of the region and the conflict within it. I think it's hard to hold all that, but I think it weighs on us whether we do or not. I think it's impossible to compartmentalize and ignore. And so that's why I value this space with you, Beth, that we are allowed to do this with this community and pay attention to these things and talk about these things, because I think it matters deeply. It matters deeply.  

[00:44:12] Music Interlude  

[00:44:22] Beth, we had a hard conversation about conflict and suffering around the world. And as is her way, Taylor Swift came around and said, "Can I help you? Can I lighten your load? Can me and my boyfriend enact a real life romantic comedy for all of you? Would that make you feel better?" To which I say, "Taylor, sweetheart, it would, and I appreciate you. Thank you so much."  

Beth [00:44:50] I do like the memes that call her everyone's emotional support celebrity.  

Sarah [00:44:54] Yes, that is what she is. So if you for some reason live under some sort of rock or in a cave and didn't know, the Kansas City Chiefs will face off the San Francisco 49ers in the Super Bowl in Las Vegas on February 11th. There were the playoff games this weekend, and Travis Kelce and the Kansas City Chiefs pulled off a pretty surprising win over the Baltimore Ravens. They celebrated on the field. Taylor came down. So many cameras. God bless all those camera people. There were kisses, there were love yous, there were hey sweeties, just a big ol' celebration. And I just feel bigger and better and brighter because of it.  

Beth [00:45:37] I thought it was fun in following the coverage from the field to see all of the people who it's almost like you could tell by their expression that they were recognizing, oh, I'm about to be in a million photographs. Just the bystanders to this, like, whoa, just that disconcerting feeling of I just was in this photo with them kissing or hugging or whatever on the field. It made me laugh a lot.  

Sarah [00:46:03] I just don't think we've had a celebrity couple like this in a long time. Even if you think about, let's say, like Brad and Angelina, they weren't spanning this sort of area of pop culture in the way that Travis and Taylor are. Even if you have two actors and actresses that we're all caught up with, which we were. Like, definitely with Brad and Jen and then Brad and Angelina and even I can't even think of another one on that level recently. Just this sense of like, it's not just two actors and actresses that we all love and want to get together because they're private in their private lives, because of their jobs and the way they sort of move about in the world. And I think if she was still with someone else, we'd get a little bit of that. It's just something about like the public nature of him playing these games every dang week and her being there like, it's huge, guys. It's huge.  

Beth [00:46:56] I think the difference is that professionally, we don't know either of them as characters. We know them. So even the biggest celebrity couples, our relationship is usually to a character or to a set of characters or to that film or this TV show. We feel like, for reasons that are both justified and incomplete, that we know these people. That when Taylor performs, it's Taylor. And when she writes her songs, they're her songs. And she tells us that this is my music about my life.  

Sarah [00:47:29] Yes.  

Beth [00:47:30] And that when he goes to play football, that's just him playing football, you know? And when he talks about being in a gazillion commercials, that's just him talking about his life goals and his priorities, like we're getting them.  

Sarah [00:47:41] Or his podcast with his brother.  

Beth [00:47:43] Yes, I think with all of that amps up the investment in them, because we do feel closer to them than even Brad and Angelina.  

Sarah [00:47:56] Well, and it just feels so good because they're both slaying. I think that's what this is like. If he was a retired football player, I think we'd have some of this. But the fact that he's like going to the Super Bowl and his girlfriend is Time's Person of the dang year, like, this is wild. I don't know if we've ever had anything like this. Truly.  

Beth [00:48:17] Well, and the other thing is that football is the most pervasive part of American culture now. SNL had such a funny cold open this weekend where everybody was just lamenting that football season is almost over because this is what the most people watch together on live television. It is the shared experience. It is the thing we have left as Americans that a lot of people are into in real time. And it's a competition and he's racking up all of these records. It's perfectly orchestrated. One of our friends said that she feels sometimes like this is maybe evidence that we're in a simulation, and I don't think she's off based about that because it is so fine tuned to capture attention.  

Sarah [00:49:06] Well, I don't feel like it's a simulation. I feel like it's a reward for what we've been through over the last few years. The universe was like, you know what you guys need? This. And the universe was right. Because, again, what do we love more than football? Singing. We love to sing. We love to sing together. There's all that science. And I feel like this science probably between singing in a group and watching a sport event as a group, and what happens when you're in those spaces is probably not that far apart. And so what do we have? We have these two leaders of group delight and joy coming together. And I was like, I was ready for some kissing, Beth. I'd missed it.  

Beth [00:49:47] And you got it.  

Sarah [00:49:48] I got it. Like last weekend because she keeps going to the games and we get them coming in and out, but I was like I need some more Taylor and Travis. I mean, I know she's going to the games and I'm very excited about her outfits, but I need a little bit more. I need some kissing. And we got it. So much hugging, so much kissing. Gah! Put in my veins. Put it in my veins.  

Beth [00:50:09] Well, the other piece that I want to focus on, in addition to football being so ubiquitous, is that her music is so ubiquitous. She's not like a breakout indie star or something. She is a genre bending pop star. I mean, both of them just at the very top of their industries. And he’s not just a football player, but who's done SNL, who does all this commercial work, who does the podcast. It's bananas that these two have found each other, but they seem so happy. So I'm so happy.  

Sarah [00:50:42] They seem so happy. I do want him to go to the Grammy's because I need some red carpet. I need a little red carpet energy. I think we've got plenty of the football fashion. I think Jason Kelce is so funny when he talks about the game fits and he's like, "I don't play dress up, I play football." I love Jason Kelce. So funny. But I'm ready for that. I'm ready for a little red carpet energy. I need to see them like dressed up together. I'm very excited about that. If he is not the Grammys, I'm going to be sad. I'm just going to say that right now.  

Beth [00:51:08] He's only been to the one concert since they've been together. And she's been to a lot of football games. And so I'm ready to kind of even some of that out. But I will say, for me getting wrapped up in this beyond just that it's fun and I love my group texts that are devoted to it and all the things, it's just a good reminder to want what I have. Because you watch how fun it is to have a boyfriend and you forget that you do have a boyfriend. You happen to be married to him, but he is still your boyfriend. You know what I mean? There's a life coach, Brett Castillo, who talks about how important it is to want what you already have. To actively, purposefully want what you already have. And so I watched the two of them and then I just remember, God, I wanted to be married to Chad Silver so bad. And now I am. And I still want that. And it's so fun. When I saw her little Trav friendship bracelet that was gold, Instagram served me a million ads for the company that makes those. So I got myself a little Silver Chad friendship bracelet, and I wear it and it just inspires me. It just reminds me, like, I too have a boyfriend who I love and I'm proud of and I'm so delighted to be with. And I just think it's a good, healthy fascination for me.  

Sarah [00:52:17] Yeah, it's so funny. I'm like from the other angle. I don't want to be where she is. I loved having a boyfriend, yes, super, super fun. I'm just ready for her to join me over here and the long term companionship camp that is so deeply rewarding. I need the songs. I'm ready for the wife era songs. I want Taylor to write me a song about a fight. I'm excited about it. Let's do this. I think it'll be incredible. My favorite song of all time is Brandi Carlile Party of One. Because I just think when you get a songwriter who can really just get in there with the depths of a long term, committed relationship, it's some good stuff. I mean, we got a while to go there with them, I get that. But I just love it. I think they're so well matched and it just brings me so much joy because there's a lot of joy in being well matched.  

Beth [00:53:06] Yeah. I don't want to rush them. I want them to have so much fun. I want them to live their best lives-- clearly they are. If you have billions of dollars and fame and the ability to do absolutely anything that you want to do, hard to imagine you're not living your best life in that.  

Sarah [00:53:18] And also just being real pretty the whole time you're doing it.  

Beth [00:53:20] And I am so happy that she has this, because otherwise having $1 billion and all this fame is hard. I'm broken for her about these deep fakes, pornographic deep fakes of her on Twitter. 47 million views of this just horror show. And I'm glad that she has the power and the stamina to push back against all of that. And I know she will be fine. And also this person who keeps getting arrested outside of her house for stalking her. I'm just glad that she's got the joy side of being super famous, is what I'm saying, because the rest of it sounds awful.  

Sarah [00:53:57] Well, since we are just wrapped up in her life and creating all these storylines, I've created a couple around that myself. One, I believe that she should own X when this is all over. I can envision some sort of legal battle where by the end of it she owns it and just says we're done here, thank you. Bye. I'm into that. I'm creating a little fanfiction in my head. I think it's so terrible. The only slightly redeeming aspect of this is that she does have the power and obviously has shown the will in previous situations in her life to say, "And not today, Satan. Not today. I'm going to do what I can with the power and resources I have to shut this down." And I hope she does. And with the stalker, I told my husband this morning, I'm like, not to get in the fully gendered fairy tale situation here, but I would hate for that man to get crossways with Travis Kelce. He is a very large human being. Just the idea that it's just so scary to be that famous and have these people with clear issues outside your damn house, like, oh my God.  

Beth [00:55:03] Well, I just I appreciate her for bringing this kind of joy into my life. And I hope that Travis Kelce is worthy of her and she of him, and that everyone continues to be very happy. They seem to have such a supportive group of friends. I love that for everybody. I want all of us to have our versions of this romantic comedy. 

Sarah [00:55:26] I love it so much. I love it. And him and his brother when they saw each other on the field and the tears, I just even can't. I can't, Beth. I want to, but I can't.  

Beth [00:55:37] It is all well designed if someone is doing a simulation.  

Sarah [00:55:41] Good job. Give yourself a raise.  

Beth [00:55:43] Just with this portion of it. But yes, this portion is very well done. I have some complaints about the rest. With this piece, bravo!  

Sarah [00:55:50] Good job. Good work. Well, thank you for listening today. If you have found our different approach to the news helpful, we hope you'll share the show with someone. We hope you'll join us on our premium channels for our new slow book club with Democracy in America. And we'll be back in your ears on Friday. And until then, keep it nuanced y'all.  

[00:56:06]  Music interlude 

Sarah: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. 

Beth: Alise Napp is our managing director. Maggie Penton is our director of Community Engagement. 

Sarah: Xander Singh is the composer of our theme music with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima. 

Beth: Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Executive Producers: Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. The Pentons. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Emily Helen Olson. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago. Becca Dorval. Christina Quartararo. Shannon Frawley. Jessica Whitehead. Samantha Chalmers. The Lebo Family. The Adair Family. 

Sarah: Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.

Maggie Penton1 Comment