The whole long intros thing has come up multiple times over the last month and I have to say that I don't mind the intros at all. It's one of the few opportunities we have to hear your thoughts about the issue at hand without the restrictions of the interview format or the time limit.
Maybe you can put your longer or less organized thoughts at the end so they're still available but not bothering the people who like short intros.
While the critiques of many here about the guest are legitimate, I was (maybe for the first time ever) disappointed by Saagar's approach during the interview. He seemed not just skeptical and provocatively argumentative about the Civil War idea, but borderline rude, and lacking in the curiosity that he usually brings to all his guests regardless of the topic (I wish he had more skepticism about that China hawk and the anti-marijuna guy they had on) btw. In any case its unfortunate because I think if Saagar could have held his skepticism a bit and asked probing questions we would have all heard a much more interesting conversation. Marshall approached him much more effectively and respectfully.
I don't care in particular about the prediction of civil war even if that's the main thesis of the book, but about the underlying factors that he says are tearing the country apart in many ways. That's what struck me as so odd about Saagar during the interview; on Breaking Points and Realignment he is constantly hammering home the point/sounding the alarm bells that our institutions are crumbling like never before, that citizen faith in those institutions is at record lows, and polarization is at record highs. Unless I have seriously missed the major messages by them, our government is inept, corruption by corporate and media elites is profound, and there is no clear way out...so why does Saagar in this interview seem entirely unable to imagine any scenario where this leads to some awful consequences? Has the Realginment and BP not done various episodes about how the financial and mortgage crisis, bail outs, corporate greed, nepotism, corruption, wokeness-ID politics, Iraq/Afghanistan, political ineffectiveness, unfair trade deals, etc. contributed to the erosion of the Middle class, decimated working class communities, and fractured belief in American exceptionalism?
I don't see how things just sort themselves out without any major changes, and I haven't heard them argue how it just gets any better from here naturally. Again, please critique the prediction about civil war, but many of his points about where America finds itself (not a good place) are the same points frequently raised by Saagar himself. Going out on a limb here I think Saagar let his emotions get the best of him and was seriously distracted by the idea that his beloved America could ever be destroyed so entirely, he felt he had to be particularly combative about the civil war piece and missed a lot that they actually agree on about what isn't working in the country right now. Which is a lot.
I’m perfectly willing (though very unhappy) to entertain the thought that there may be another civil war but this guy just wasn’t rigorous for all the reasons others here have already stated. As you can see, the topic gets engagement but it’s not the right kind. The quality of this guest wasn’t up to your standards.
Also, the fixation of geographical differences as a necessary factor for civil war was misplaced. That’s how our civil war played out but I’d be surprised if even half of civil wars are cleanly geographically divided.
It wasn't a good interview. I was interested in what the author had to say because I'm also of the opinion that the US is hurtling towards dissolution or civil war in the near future, but he didn't have the receipts to back up his points. Did you read his book (I didn't)? Did anyone vet him?
Unfortunately it seems the myths of 21st Century America are being formed through the partisan media lens. These culture war topics are becoming the myths.
I agree that even if Hilary won in 16 we’d still be a mess…Obama had great presence but couldn’t accomplish what he envisioned. Why, was it because he was a terrible politician or was it bad luck and timing? Bad luck and timing seems to be a reoccurring theme in Washington these days. So is it bad leadership or bad actors surrounding leadership? I’d like you to dive deep into the topic of leadership in the 21st century. Can we be decentralized and have clear unified leadership? Maybe you guys discussed this topic and I missed it in a previous discussion.
Great episode but difficult to listen to at times - especially when the guest brought up the 'policeman beaten to death on Jan 6th' comment. Ouch. That coloured the rest of the interview poorly.
And the guest post was really written by somebody in High School? Wow. What a bright future he has.
My wife & I watched your interview for a while. We got more than 1/2 thru, and as a result I'm going to have to bone up on my French history (TBH, not gonna happen)
Marche lost me the second he stated that a cop was killed (beaten to death?) on Jan 6.
All his cred went right out the window at that moment. You guys were generous to him by simply calling it out and moving on.
For me, I couldn't get out of my head the thought 'You've done a hella lot of commentary about Jan 6 -I refuse to use the made up term Insurrection- and you demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the facts of that day is of epic proportions.
His understanding of Quebec separatism is just as lightweight, as is his understanding of the Canadian system of gov't.
IOW, this guy's take on the status of the United Sates as a republic is as valid as anything you'd read on someone's blog; not a coherent look at the situation. And that's in spite of his home country showing it pretty much has broken up (he can go and look at and read the 'Notwithstanding Clause' and its current history) in that the province of Quebec pretty much does what it wants (see above re Notwithstanding Clause)
Sheeeesh! Sorry, he's just another yammerer. Sure, he must write OK b/c of the gigs he's had w/The Atlantic & WaPo. But really, BFD...he's an intellectual lightweight on this topic.
MY PREDICTION/TAKE?
Well, this 'secession' is already happening, and COVID shows it.
Just last week the Federal gov't, via Biden stated that the problem cannot be solved on a national level, it's up to the individual states.
I'm seeing a fair number of 'things' being solved at the state level. Just look at minimum wage laws. Sure, the Feds have been thrilled to be the holders of the longest time span for a minwage increase. And so the individual states have taken it on. (NY, FL and Wa for examples). As a result, the Federal minimum wage is less and less meaningful. The FED's.
I believe I heard it here that there's a midwest state (MO? WI?) that has specifically invalidated a Federal law regarding firearms. And nobody's raising hell. So now Federal gun laws are less meaningful.
The individual states will be more than happy to have this power, and I believe this pattern will grow. And yeah, I can see some governor or legislature head finally ask 'Why we sending DC so much money? What do we need DC for anyway? I don't have a clue how that will get resolved, but it will.
And it won't be through a clash of arms. MSM will do everything possible to force that issue, but ultimately their efforts will fail. Today, MSM is looked down so much; they're just that brat in the schoolyard who sits on the sidelines chirping 'You gonna let him get away w/ that?' Their ability, despite the tsunami of talking heads programming has little effect on how people vote and live. VA is the latest example. See Taibbi for a coherent explanation.
No, it's going to be more like governors saying to the President when they disagree, 'Yeah, yeah you don't like it...tough noodles, we're sticking with this.'
You're not going to see another 'Stand In The Schoolhouse Door' episode like what happened in Alabama regarding the enforcement of Brown V Board Of Education decision.
Not. A. Chance.
Because the leaders know that if that was tried again by the government, it would get bloody real fast. They already know this.
So the states will continue to absorb power from DC.
It'll get downright fascinating when the current old guard dies or retires- the sooner the better- in the Senate and Congress. I mean, seriously? We have someone in their 80's Speaker? Really? What?
The Democratic Party exists today only b/c of MSM. The next 3rd party will replace this collection of empty suits in one, maybe two election cycles. I figure they'll only need one senator and a bunch (20 maybe?) of House members to become the center of power in DC. And once it happens, the DNC is done for. B/c this new party will grow massively.
I haven't seen any evidence yet of a new party forming; but it will happen. It will badly hurt the Republican party I think, but not nearly as much as it will crush the Democrats. I believe that Republican politicians listen more closely to their constituents than the Democrats. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
That's my take. I can be on the show any ol' time. Sorry, but I don't have a political book to flog, but I'd know my stuff better than today's guest.
He showed he had a strong, traditional, Twitter liberal misinformed bias within the first 20mins. I enjoyed hearing his perspective but, it would behoove him to read some Glen and MT instead of MSM.
I would assume our story for the 21st will have some part of paying the debt for past transgressions the military-industrial complex has so carelessly spread across the globe. It would be foolish to not acknowledge the strong possibility, that we have inspired plenty of new groups with the constant bombing and “nation-building” since 1945. We've been lucky nothing has come to our shores, but we live in a digital world.
I guess we’ll be able to see if it’s been money well spent. After watching the 20yr sandcastle competition, I assume Americans will be, let down as is tradition these day. Is greed the deadliest of them all? Time will tell.
A) Aaron, great write up and analysis. Looking forward to move of your thoughts.
B) I feel like this is someone who is online a little too much and puts too much emphasis on the fringes of the political isle. I was a little similar in his thinking during the Presidential election period as I was just getting politically active and was eating up political narrative drama like it was Game of Thrones.
C) I’m reading Age of Acrimony right now due to the recommendation by Marshall. I’m about halfway through and I can’t stop highlighting passages because the parallels of then and now are so prevalent. It helped confirm my realization that people need to slow down on civil war-esque thoughts. This podcast was a great listen while I’m reading that book.
Thanks guys, looking forward to this years podcasts.
Saagar asks about violence being higher in the 60s and 70s and the guest points to membership numbers of Weather Underground and Black Panthers being so low and then talks about the current levels of political violence and never points to any specifics.
The whole long intros thing has come up multiple times over the last month and I have to say that I don't mind the intros at all. It's one of the few opportunities we have to hear your thoughts about the issue at hand without the restrictions of the interview format or the time limit.
Maybe you can put your longer or less organized thoughts at the end so they're still available but not bothering the people who like short intros.
While the critiques of many here about the guest are legitimate, I was (maybe for the first time ever) disappointed by Saagar's approach during the interview. He seemed not just skeptical and provocatively argumentative about the Civil War idea, but borderline rude, and lacking in the curiosity that he usually brings to all his guests regardless of the topic (I wish he had more skepticism about that China hawk and the anti-marijuna guy they had on) btw. In any case its unfortunate because I think if Saagar could have held his skepticism a bit and asked probing questions we would have all heard a much more interesting conversation. Marshall approached him much more effectively and respectfully.
I don't care in particular about the prediction of civil war even if that's the main thesis of the book, but about the underlying factors that he says are tearing the country apart in many ways. That's what struck me as so odd about Saagar during the interview; on Breaking Points and Realignment he is constantly hammering home the point/sounding the alarm bells that our institutions are crumbling like never before, that citizen faith in those institutions is at record lows, and polarization is at record highs. Unless I have seriously missed the major messages by them, our government is inept, corruption by corporate and media elites is profound, and there is no clear way out...so why does Saagar in this interview seem entirely unable to imagine any scenario where this leads to some awful consequences? Has the Realginment and BP not done various episodes about how the financial and mortgage crisis, bail outs, corporate greed, nepotism, corruption, wokeness-ID politics, Iraq/Afghanistan, political ineffectiveness, unfair trade deals, etc. contributed to the erosion of the Middle class, decimated working class communities, and fractured belief in American exceptionalism?
I don't see how things just sort themselves out without any major changes, and I haven't heard them argue how it just gets any better from here naturally. Again, please critique the prediction about civil war, but many of his points about where America finds itself (not a good place) are the same points frequently raised by Saagar himself. Going out on a limb here I think Saagar let his emotions get the best of him and was seriously distracted by the idea that his beloved America could ever be destroyed so entirely, he felt he had to be particularly combative about the civil war piece and missed a lot that they actually agree on about what isn't working in the country right now. Which is a lot.
I’m perfectly willing (though very unhappy) to entertain the thought that there may be another civil war but this guy just wasn’t rigorous for all the reasons others here have already stated. As you can see, the topic gets engagement but it’s not the right kind. The quality of this guest wasn’t up to your standards.
Also, the fixation of geographical differences as a necessary factor for civil war was misplaced. That’s how our civil war played out but I’d be surprised if even half of civil wars are cleanly geographically divided.
It wasn't a good interview. I was interested in what the author had to say because I'm also of the opinion that the US is hurtling towards dissolution or civil war in the near future, but he didn't have the receipts to back up his points. Did you read his book (I didn't)? Did anyone vet him?
Unfortunately it seems the myths of 21st Century America are being formed through the partisan media lens. These culture war topics are becoming the myths.
I agree that even if Hilary won in 16 we’d still be a mess…Obama had great presence but couldn’t accomplish what he envisioned. Why, was it because he was a terrible politician or was it bad luck and timing? Bad luck and timing seems to be a reoccurring theme in Washington these days. So is it bad leadership or bad actors surrounding leadership? I’d like you to dive deep into the topic of leadership in the 21st century. Can we be decentralized and have clear unified leadership? Maybe you guys discussed this topic and I missed it in a previous discussion.
Great episode but difficult to listen to at times - especially when the guest brought up the 'policeman beaten to death on Jan 6th' comment. Ouch. That coloured the rest of the interview poorly.
And the guest post was really written by somebody in High School? Wow. What a bright future he has.
Greetings from Canada! (Transplanted NY'er here)
My wife & I watched your interview for a while. We got more than 1/2 thru, and as a result I'm going to have to bone up on my French history (TBH, not gonna happen)
Marche lost me the second he stated that a cop was killed (beaten to death?) on Jan 6.
All his cred went right out the window at that moment. You guys were generous to him by simply calling it out and moving on.
For me, I couldn't get out of my head the thought 'You've done a hella lot of commentary about Jan 6 -I refuse to use the made up term Insurrection- and you demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the facts of that day is of epic proportions.
His understanding of Quebec separatism is just as lightweight, as is his understanding of the Canadian system of gov't.
IOW, this guy's take on the status of the United Sates as a republic is as valid as anything you'd read on someone's blog; not a coherent look at the situation. And that's in spite of his home country showing it pretty much has broken up (he can go and look at and read the 'Notwithstanding Clause' and its current history) in that the province of Quebec pretty much does what it wants (see above re Notwithstanding Clause)
Sheeeesh! Sorry, he's just another yammerer. Sure, he must write OK b/c of the gigs he's had w/The Atlantic & WaPo. But really, BFD...he's an intellectual lightweight on this topic.
MY PREDICTION/TAKE?
Well, this 'secession' is already happening, and COVID shows it.
Just last week the Federal gov't, via Biden stated that the problem cannot be solved on a national level, it's up to the individual states.
I'm seeing a fair number of 'things' being solved at the state level. Just look at minimum wage laws. Sure, the Feds have been thrilled to be the holders of the longest time span for a minwage increase. And so the individual states have taken it on. (NY, FL and Wa for examples). As a result, the Federal minimum wage is less and less meaningful. The FED's.
I believe I heard it here that there's a midwest state (MO? WI?) that has specifically invalidated a Federal law regarding firearms. And nobody's raising hell. So now Federal gun laws are less meaningful.
The individual states will be more than happy to have this power, and I believe this pattern will grow. And yeah, I can see some governor or legislature head finally ask 'Why we sending DC so much money? What do we need DC for anyway? I don't have a clue how that will get resolved, but it will.
And it won't be through a clash of arms. MSM will do everything possible to force that issue, but ultimately their efforts will fail. Today, MSM is looked down so much; they're just that brat in the schoolyard who sits on the sidelines chirping 'You gonna let him get away w/ that?' Their ability, despite the tsunami of talking heads programming has little effect on how people vote and live. VA is the latest example. See Taibbi for a coherent explanation.
No, it's going to be more like governors saying to the President when they disagree, 'Yeah, yeah you don't like it...tough noodles, we're sticking with this.'
You're not going to see another 'Stand In The Schoolhouse Door' episode like what happened in Alabama regarding the enforcement of Brown V Board Of Education decision.
Not. A. Chance.
Because the leaders know that if that was tried again by the government, it would get bloody real fast. They already know this.
So the states will continue to absorb power from DC.
It'll get downright fascinating when the current old guard dies or retires- the sooner the better- in the Senate and Congress. I mean, seriously? We have someone in their 80's Speaker? Really? What?
The Democratic Party exists today only b/c of MSM. The next 3rd party will replace this collection of empty suits in one, maybe two election cycles. I figure they'll only need one senator and a bunch (20 maybe?) of House members to become the center of power in DC. And once it happens, the DNC is done for. B/c this new party will grow massively.
I haven't seen any evidence yet of a new party forming; but it will happen. It will badly hurt the Republican party I think, but not nearly as much as it will crush the Democrats. I believe that Republican politicians listen more closely to their constituents than the Democrats. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
That's my take. I can be on the show any ol' time. Sorry, but I don't have a political book to flog, but I'd know my stuff better than today's guest.
He showed he had a strong, traditional, Twitter liberal misinformed bias within the first 20mins. I enjoyed hearing his perspective but, it would behoove him to read some Glen and MT instead of MSM.
I would assume our story for the 21st will have some part of paying the debt for past transgressions the military-industrial complex has so carelessly spread across the globe. It would be foolish to not acknowledge the strong possibility, that we have inspired plenty of new groups with the constant bombing and “nation-building” since 1945. We've been lucky nothing has come to our shores, but we live in a digital world.
I guess we’ll be able to see if it’s been money well spent. After watching the 20yr sandcastle competition, I assume Americans will be, let down as is tradition these day. Is greed the deadliest of them all? Time will tell.
Few comments:
A) Aaron, great write up and analysis. Looking forward to move of your thoughts.
B) I feel like this is someone who is online a little too much and puts too much emphasis on the fringes of the political isle. I was a little similar in his thinking during the Presidential election period as I was just getting politically active and was eating up political narrative drama like it was Game of Thrones.
C) I’m reading Age of Acrimony right now due to the recommendation by Marshall. I’m about halfway through and I can’t stop highlighting passages because the parallels of then and now are so prevalent. It helped confirm my realization that people need to slow down on civil war-esque thoughts. This podcast was a great listen while I’m reading that book.
Thanks guys, looking forward to this years podcasts.
Saagar asks about violence being higher in the 60s and 70s and the guest points to membership numbers of Weather Underground and Black Panthers being so low and then talks about the current levels of political violence and never points to any specifics.