The Realignment: Help Us Improve the Show + Audience Feedback Part I

Episodes of the week, feedback game plan, Bookshop, and more...

Thanks for checking out our Substack!

If you’re new, hit subscribe to get future issues in your inbox every Thursday.

Welcome Back to The Realignment

Hello everyone! We had a blast at The Realignment Conference last week in Miami. We definitely plan on more in-person events in the future. Thanks to everyone who came.

We released two episodes this week: Christopher Mims gave us a deep-dive into the global supply chain and Ross Douthat discussed his struggle with Lyme disease. Both guests have books available at our Bookshop below.

Audience Response to Our Feedback Request Part I

My girlfriend Olivia and I just got a new puppy (pics coming soon). So let’s just say that I’ve got plenty of time stuck inside to think about future The Realignment. As I mentioned in last week’s edition of the newsletter, I’m interested in how you think the show’s developed so far and where it could go, especially considering that we’re planning this on a ten-year timeframe. To that end, I’m going to continue to request audience responses, and post the meatiest ones here. This will go through the week of the 11th.

To be clear, I’m not just doing this to prove that people care about what Saagar and I do. I actually think the biggest long-term strength of the show is that we’re a really disparate set of people, ideologies, nationalities, and everything in between. The only thing that ties us all together (at least so I hope) is our desire to understand the world better, especially given the lack of other comprehensive sources. The only way we can do that is by soliciting feedback and building our community.

TLDR: I want this to be the best show possible. There’s no rush. We don’t need 250,000 downloads per episode (yet). We basically have another year or so before the 2024 cycle begins, so I’d like to take the next 125 our so episodes before that to continue scaling up. We need your help to do this.

Today’s response is from Aaron, a listener from NYC who’s still in high school. Let us/him know what you think below in the comments. Plus, submit your own responses as well.

I must disclose two biases. The first is that as a big fan of the show, I’m naturally predisposed to enjoying what it does. For some of this, I’ll try to put myself in a hypothetical future listener’s head and try to formulate what the Realignment must do to achieve its goals. The second is that much of my thinking is influenced by the show. I’ll try to structure this as much as I can, but I’ll also include miscellaneous notes.

I’ll start by defining what I think The Realignment is and what it aspires to be. 

Functionally, it is a book podcast. That might not sound sexy and isn’t an ideal branding strategy, but it’s how most interview related shows function. Just like actors go on Late Night shows to promote their movies, selling themselves as the product for ten minutes of popular entertainment, authors need to promote their book to intellectual audiences, selling their ideas (though also their personality) to the listener. This form has advantages and some drawbacks. Authors, especially the non fiction policy oriented ones, don’t bring the same sort of audience with them (unless they’re a celebrity who writes a book, into which I put the category books media types like Andrew Yang or Ben Shapiro). A book takes a long time to write, meaning the topics they touch are less likely to be hot. More importantly, it focuses on long term trends, rather than current events, which while attracting less listeners, will produce more well thought out conversations and have more staying power. The podcast in August with General Bolger didn’t really discuss the Afghan withdrawal and managed to be more relevant and intriguing than any other conversation directly about it.

But what implications emerge from these facts? If we plot every podcast as a point, what are the trend lines? What is missing to better tie these somewhat related conversations together? 

The Realignment is obsessed with the future. It comes up in every episode and is implicit in the name of the podcast. Marshall frequently asks what other decade the next decade will be like (a question I’m not a huge fan of because if I can’t answer it for any decade previous decade, how could I do it for the future? What decade was the 1980s like? Does it even matter?). It focuses mostly on 21st century problems that will probably get worse before they get better, such as technology, China, America’s place in the world and the future of our republic. Missing from this conversation is any discussion of climate change, which lies at a very pretty intersection of all three. The podcast has touched on a variety of other issues such as healthcare, finance, and e-mail, which is great because the well of the other topics might run dry. This would match with Marshall’s stated goal of being a “all in one podcast for heterogeneous listenership.” 

The last part is what distinguishes The Realignment from The Ezra Klein Show or Kara Swisher, shows that try to operate similarly to like minded audiences. Unlike those shows, The Realignment is about the guests not the hosts. There’s a reason it’s not called the Marshall and Saagar show. This again is another choice that comes with tradeoffs. It makes it harder for listeners to get to know the host’s personality and develop a listening relationship, which helps retention. The show also doesn’t necessarily take on the politics of the hosts. This makes users more suspicious. It’s comforting to find a podcast that fits in a box. People trust those who obviously share their politics and hate listen to those who they can cleanly define as anathema to them. The Realignment walks the fine line of impartiality, focusing on the guests and the questions which come across the political spectrum.

I haven’t answered what The Realignment in the name is exactly. Right now, it’s not clear. The first season had a really clear narrative and it was wrong. In fact, what’s shocking is how wrong it was and how consistent our politics have been. Do we live during the sixth political realignment? I don’t think so. The main change we might look back on is the widespread belief in a conspiracy theory surrounding the 2020 election, epitomized in January 6th. Or maybe we won’t. The podcast has taken to discussing other realignments, especially those in geopolitics and technology. Unlike Frank DiStefano, I don’t think these new 21st century issues will cause the breakdown of our present political parties, because these issues don’t displace the traditional left-right debates. The issues themselves don’t represent realignment. Technological change and China’s rise have occurred steadily over the last thirty years. What’s realigning is our attitudes and policy towards these issues. The public square analogy doesn’t quite describe social media and a cold war doesn’t quite describe China.

 The Realignment’s fluency in the internet gives it a leg up over competitors (at least for now). This might be the top selling point for the show, because everyone hates the internet and doesn’t really know why. I’ve asked countless peers in my supposed internet generation whether they’d prefer to regress technology back to flip phones. No one hesitates to answer yes. But for better or worse, we can’t put this genie back in the bottle. The core conflict is that unleashed something incredibly powerful and possibly dangerous and we must realign our approach to figure out how to maximize freedom, trust, and positivity in this new world. 

China and tech issues haven’t fully fallen into the partisan vortex. Unfortunately, almost every other issue has. There is no political consensus on health care, immigration, abortion, taxes, and climate change and there might not be for a long time. To break this would require A. the parties to agree on something (won’t happen), B. one party to become dominant (won’t happen for a while) C. massive governmental reforms that leads to A or B(forgetaboutit). Until one of these three occurs, we will continue on this 15 year gritlock of ineffectual congresses and presidents. This third issue is the major theme of the Realignment. How do we realign our approach to politics in a system that can’t operate? 

Marshall wrote in the recent newsletter that the show is at an B+ and still can get to an A. Here’s the thing, podcasting isn't rocket science. The main key to a great show is great guests. As much as Marshall harps on narrative in his substack and I have in this paper, my favorite Realignment episodes, the ones that stick with me and remind me of why I love listening to the show have no discernible connection to each other or the show as a whole. The Matt Stoller episode has stuck with me to this day: I loved hearing a proggressive who actually understood how our government worked. As I mentioned earlier, the General Bulger episode kicked ass, that man was insightful and hilarious. Interviews with Josh Rogin, Cal Newport, Michael Lind, Brad Stone, Robert Draper, and actually Joe Scarburough get me revved up and proselytizing. While these men have no thematic connection, all of them are somewhat big names and made many points beyond their recent book. They’re also just great podcast guests. 

Part of the Realignment’s philosophy is that not every episode is for everyone, and even if you find one boring you might enjoy another one. This isn’t a great approach. First, it doesn’t build good listening habits, where a listener is conditioned to a regular schedule. But more importantly, it’s not true. I’ve loved many episodes on topics that didn’t heavily interest me beforehand. I’ve disliked ones that did. Interesting guests, who are passionate and insightful on what they speak, can generate interests themselves. The Realignment should see itself as a high end restaurant where diners sample from unknown options. They go not because of what’s on the menu, but because they know it will be good. 

It’s difficult to get biweekly guests of this caliber, especially for a podcast that lacks major institutional recognition. I bring this up, because it’s possible to get hung up on the precise narrative, which is important, but that’s not what makes a podcast work. This all takes consistent hard work, something that clearly already exists in the organization. Guests also can cross pollinate, with big names from corners of the internet pulling listeners. The Realignment has clearly opted not to go this route. Instead, it wants to spread slower, with high retention and strong word of mouth.

This Week’s Episodes

Episode 171: Ross Douthat: The Limits of Modern Medicine in a Post-COVID World

(Audio) (Video)

Episode 170: Christopher Mims: Inside the Supply Chain Crisis

(Audio) (Video)

The Realignment Bookshop

As a reminder, we’ve created a Realignment Bookshop affiliate store showcasing books by guests, what we’re actively reading this year, and deeper dives into the featured topic of an episode.

If you purchase a book using our link, the show gets a 10% commission, a local, independent bookseller gets support, and you get an awesome book!

We’re reorganizing our book lists over the next few weeks, so for now, check out our primary one:

Books by Realignment Guests

---

Let us know what you think about this or any other week’s episodes. Please share The Realignment with anyone who’d enjoy the podcast.