I know you don’t have much reason to listen to some random commenter on Substack, but here it is:
“populist/independent media is growing increasingly insular and self-referential”. Are the likes of The Atlantic and The Washington Post not becoming increasingly insular or self-referential (despite influential)? Do they not employ many people who attended the same four dozen or so elite universities? This (education/credentials) is the main divide in our country.
I humbly suggest having more guests on The Realignment/Breaking Points who are either 1) is religious 2) originally comes from a “heartland” (to borrow from Michael Lind) part of the country 3) ideally does not have a college degree (or at least not an “elite” one). Various good ones might be Gladden Pappin, Rusty Reno, Matthew Walther, Sohrab Ahmari, or Aris Rousinoss (not American).
The one word that leaped out was incentives. And established parties have established incentives.
Because Yang wants candidates to keep their current registration as Democrat/Republican it means they will keep some legitimacy (aka not full cringe Marshall 😬). We’ll see if any of them can best Sisyphus and push the incentive boulder over the hill.
Progressives and MAGA achieved a shift in language, but language is abstract. Incentives are concrete, cemented in evolution and rugged as asphalt. Incentives pave the way Forward (couldn’t resist).
This is a similar conversation to psychedelics, which according to the ongoing studies… essentially offer individuals an opportunity to craft new incentives.
Yang references legacy media incentives and social media incentives as well—Web 3 is a coordinated attack against those incentive structures.
Perhaps The Realignment (def: ‘to cause to form new arrangements or to have a new orientation’) is really about crafting new incentives for our Postmodern Digital Age.
Bradley Tusk also talked about incentives. He’s for radical change as opposed to Yang’s incrementalism. (I’m going to refuse the low-hanging fruit of a ‘yin to yang’ reference.) It’s Malcolm X and MLK JR. Someone needs to paint a positive vision of the way forward (I know, I know) and someone needs to threaten. You wanna lose weight? You better have that hot, summer bod in mind coupled with yourself stretched out on a gurney. Yang is hopeful and Tusk worries about The Divided States of America, but both want new incentives.
All the ambiguous talk of ‘systemic this’ and ‘systemic that’ is centered around the Issue of Incentives. I think your [un]intentional focus on incentives is the reason you have a bipartisan/diverse/blasé-buzzword audience. Save the incentives, save the world (thank you 2006 Tim Kring).
I'm going to keep pushing this, but I think you should spend a week on the role religion plays in American politics. Two guests that should bring is Ryan Burge, who wrote The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going and 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America. David Campbell, Geoffrey C. Layman, and John C. Green who wrote “Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics”.
Love the podcast. Might suggest looking for some guests who are not established intellectuals or technocrats - the parade of know-it-all elites gets very old (not a specific reference to you guys who do a great job corralling said experts). Maybe Chris Arnade, Sam Quinones or someone else reporting from the “real America” could be good, or see Tyler Cowen’s somewhat recent interview with a homeless man “Alexander the Grate”. See you at the Realignment Conference in a couple days!
I listen to two podcasts, yours and occasionally the joe Rogan podcast depending on the commute. I find your episodes, questions, and format to be the perfect podcast for me. I'm a longish time saagar fan through the hill days and breaking points, but since finding your podcast Marshall, your intelligence and questions are GREAT, I love how you always bring things big picture, keep doing that. I'm politically homeless and feel at odds with the typical peer, and your guests peak my interests and expand my views dramatically. Wish I had time to read all the books you all recommend.
Good to hear different perspectives but id recommend having someone on to counter the insane claim by your last guest that we need to implement a wartime economy to defeat China
I don't think you've sold out. Selling out would involve something like editing your guest list to appease some third party ("We can't have XYZ on the podcast or else MSNBC won't return our calls", etc). As long as you're selecting guests that you're genuinely interested in, you will remain non-sold out in my book.
On the state of American politics, I think Yang and Tusk have correctly diagnosed the problem: congress doesn't work. However, I don't think either of their solutions really hit the mark. Open primaries and ranked choice voting have been implemented in several states already to no extraordinary effect.
And as somebody who has written a reasonable amount of software, mobile voting would be a security nightmare. If they manage to write the most secure program in history, then one major vulnerability would be found perhaps every 10 years or so. We can't have one compromised election every 10 years. Fixing politics by increasing turnout also relies on the assumption that the preferences of people that don't vote are significantly different than the preferences of people that do vote. This is mostly false, IIRC.
Both solutions also mostly rely on changing who we send to congress, with limited impact on their incentive structures once they get there.
The only story for fixing American politics that makes any sense to me is the idea that we should repeal the sunshine laws of the 1970s, particularly the opening up of committee meetings. A social decision making body cannot function properly when its members are stripped of privacy and plausible deniability. This is James D'Angelo's schtick (@JamesGDAngelo on twitter). I'd love to see him on the podcast, as long as we're throwing out requests.
I met Bradley Tusk a year ago when he was a guest lecturer at one of my classes in grad school. He is a very interesting guy who has been very influential in politics and business. Anytime you have the opportunity to talk to someone who had their hand on the third rail of business and politics, I say do it. Don’t worry about the haters.
I think you guys are doing a great job booking guests. I’m here to learn and that means hearing perspectives I don’t agree with and at times completely oppose. If you are 100% set in all your views and unwilling to budge or concede points on a wide variety of issues, this probably isn’t the show for you. Thanks guys!
Great response. I want to hear Your Show, not some pre-digested debate. And both co-hosts believe that anybody can engage in actual back-and-forth conversation. That means where a guest has been need not determine what they will express when engaged. So thanks for skipping the clickbait "nihilism and doomerism" and providing surprising interactions.
p.s. Marshall should have a twice-monthly spot on Breaking Points. Perhaps a cross-posted book review segment. And can The Deep End play in the pool?
The only 3-4 people who IMO are doing a lot of great work in reaching out to the non-BA masses are Chris Arnade, & Oren Cass/Wells King with the Edgerton Essays, and perhaps Andrew Yang. The former has an excellent new Substack. Any renewal that emerges from our current ruins will helped by these men.
Marshall & Saagar,
I know you don’t have much reason to listen to some random commenter on Substack, but here it is:
“populist/independent media is growing increasingly insular and self-referential”. Are the likes of The Atlantic and The Washington Post not becoming increasingly insular or self-referential (despite influential)? Do they not employ many people who attended the same four dozen or so elite universities? This (education/credentials) is the main divide in our country.
I humbly suggest having more guests on The Realignment/Breaking Points who are either 1) is religious 2) originally comes from a “heartland” (to borrow from Michael Lind) part of the country 3) ideally does not have a college degree (or at least not an “elite” one). Various good ones might be Gladden Pappin, Rusty Reno, Matthew Walther, Sohrab Ahmari, or Aris Rousinoss (not American).
Thanks.
Sohrab Ahmari and Aris Rousinoss would be great.
I listened to Yang with Krystal and then ya’ll.
The one word that leaped out was incentives. And established parties have established incentives.
Because Yang wants candidates to keep their current registration as Democrat/Republican it means they will keep some legitimacy (aka not full cringe Marshall 😬). We’ll see if any of them can best Sisyphus and push the incentive boulder over the hill.
Progressives and MAGA achieved a shift in language, but language is abstract. Incentives are concrete, cemented in evolution and rugged as asphalt. Incentives pave the way Forward (couldn’t resist).
This is a similar conversation to psychedelics, which according to the ongoing studies… essentially offer individuals an opportunity to craft new incentives.
Yang references legacy media incentives and social media incentives as well—Web 3 is a coordinated attack against those incentive structures.
Perhaps The Realignment (def: ‘to cause to form new arrangements or to have a new orientation’) is really about crafting new incentives for our Postmodern Digital Age.
Bradley Tusk also talked about incentives. He’s for radical change as opposed to Yang’s incrementalism. (I’m going to refuse the low-hanging fruit of a ‘yin to yang’ reference.) It’s Malcolm X and MLK JR. Someone needs to paint a positive vision of the way forward (I know, I know) and someone needs to threaten. You wanna lose weight? You better have that hot, summer bod in mind coupled with yourself stretched out on a gurney. Yang is hopeful and Tusk worries about The Divided States of America, but both want new incentives.
All the ambiguous talk of ‘systemic this’ and ‘systemic that’ is centered around the Issue of Incentives. I think your [un]intentional focus on incentives is the reason you have a bipartisan/diverse/blasé-buzzword audience. Save the incentives, save the world (thank you 2006 Tim Kring).
FIN // SLAINTÉ
Excellently put.
Really enjoyed this. The transparency is refreshing and a direct response to a comment is a true service to your audience.
I'm going to keep pushing this, but I think you should spend a week on the role religion plays in American politics. Two guests that should bring is Ryan Burge, who wrote The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going and 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America. David Campbell, Geoffrey C. Layman, and John C. Green who wrote “Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics”.
Hi guys,
Love the podcast. Might suggest looking for some guests who are not established intellectuals or technocrats - the parade of know-it-all elites gets very old (not a specific reference to you guys who do a great job corralling said experts). Maybe Chris Arnade, Sam Quinones or someone else reporting from the “real America” could be good, or see Tyler Cowen’s somewhat recent interview with a homeless man “Alexander the Grate”. See you at the Realignment Conference in a couple days!
I listen to two podcasts, yours and occasionally the joe Rogan podcast depending on the commute. I find your episodes, questions, and format to be the perfect podcast for me. I'm a longish time saagar fan through the hill days and breaking points, but since finding your podcast Marshall, your intelligence and questions are GREAT, I love how you always bring things big picture, keep doing that. I'm politically homeless and feel at odds with the typical peer, and your guests peak my interests and expand my views dramatically. Wish I had time to read all the books you all recommend.
Good to hear different perspectives but id recommend having someone on to counter the insane claim by your last guest that we need to implement a wartime economy to defeat China
(hopefully not too late)
I don't think you've sold out. Selling out would involve something like editing your guest list to appease some third party ("We can't have XYZ on the podcast or else MSNBC won't return our calls", etc). As long as you're selecting guests that you're genuinely interested in, you will remain non-sold out in my book.
On the state of American politics, I think Yang and Tusk have correctly diagnosed the problem: congress doesn't work. However, I don't think either of their solutions really hit the mark. Open primaries and ranked choice voting have been implemented in several states already to no extraordinary effect.
And as somebody who has written a reasonable amount of software, mobile voting would be a security nightmare. If they manage to write the most secure program in history, then one major vulnerability would be found perhaps every 10 years or so. We can't have one compromised election every 10 years. Fixing politics by increasing turnout also relies on the assumption that the preferences of people that don't vote are significantly different than the preferences of people that do vote. This is mostly false, IIRC.
Both solutions also mostly rely on changing who we send to congress, with limited impact on their incentive structures once they get there.
The only story for fixing American politics that makes any sense to me is the idea that we should repeal the sunshine laws of the 1970s, particularly the opening up of committee meetings. A social decision making body cannot function properly when its members are stripped of privacy and plausible deniability. This is James D'Angelo's schtick (@JamesGDAngelo on twitter). I'd love to see him on the podcast, as long as we're throwing out requests.
I met Bradley Tusk a year ago when he was a guest lecturer at one of my classes in grad school. He is a very interesting guy who has been very influential in politics and business. Anytime you have the opportunity to talk to someone who had their hand on the third rail of business and politics, I say do it. Don’t worry about the haters.
I think you guys are doing a great job booking guests. I’m here to learn and that means hearing perspectives I don’t agree with and at times completely oppose. If you are 100% set in all your views and unwilling to budge or concede points on a wide variety of issues, this probably isn’t the show for you. Thanks guys!
Thank you!!
Great response. I want to hear Your Show, not some pre-digested debate. And both co-hosts believe that anybody can engage in actual back-and-forth conversation. That means where a guest has been need not determine what they will express when engaged. So thanks for skipping the clickbait "nihilism and doomerism" and providing surprising interactions.
p.s. Marshall should have a twice-monthly spot on Breaking Points. Perhaps a cross-posted book review segment. And can The Deep End play in the pool?
Great! Now I can look forward to watching Breaking Points on Monday again. 🤗
The only 3-4 people who IMO are doing a lot of great work in reaching out to the non-BA masses are Chris Arnade, & Oren Cass/Wells King with the Edgerton Essays, and perhaps Andrew Yang. The former has an excellent new Substack. Any renewal that emerges from our current ruins will helped by these men.