Here's Where It Gets Interesting - Humanizing Politics with Sarah and Beth from Pantsuit Politics

Episode Date: August 23, 2021

Having a civil conversation about politics in our polarized society seems to be a near-impossible task these days. But why? In this episode, Sharon and hosts of Pantsuit Politics Beth and Sarah talk about how we can have kind, thoughtful and compassionate political discussions on and offline. Beth and Sarah talk about the political polarization we face today and why people get so up-in-arms about politics. Their answer: We care so much because we care about each other.  When we realize this, we are able to diffuse arguments and have political discussions with friends and family members that are centered around connection and relationship. Sharon, Beth and Sarah teach us how to have fruitful political conversations with our friends and family - even if they hold opposite views. Political conversations can be enriching, relationship-building and thought-provoking. There is so much to learn in this episode - let’s dive in! For more information on this episode including all resources and links discussed go to https://www.sharonmcmahon.com/podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Dyson OnTrack. Dyson OnTrack headphones offer best-in-class noise cancellation and an enhanced sound range, making them perfect for enjoying music and podcasts. Get up to 55 hours of listening with active noise cancelling enabled, soft microfibre cushions engineered for comfort, and a range of colours and finishes. Dyson OnTrack. Headphones remastered.

Buy from dysoncanada.ca. With ANC on, performance may vary based on environmental conditions and usage. Accessories sold separately. Hello. Thank you so much for joining me. I am excited you're here. I'm excited to be chatting with Sarah Stewart and Beth Silvers. They co-host the incredibly popular podcast, Pantsuit Politics.

If you know, you know. They've also co-authored a book called I Think You're Wrong, But I'm Listening, a guide to grace-filled political conversation. They have another book coming out next year. They both have law degrees. They've worked on all kinds of interesting things like in HR and as a congressional staffer, a city commissioner. They work on a bunch of civic organizations.

They are just really, really governors. So let's dive in. So much to chat about, as always. Too much to talk about, not enough time. So let's do it. I'm Sharon McMahon. And welcome to the Sharon Says So podcast. Yay. Thank you guys so much for being here. It's always fun to chat with other people who are as

nerdy about these topics as you are. Thank you for having us. We certainly fit the nerdy roles. Yeah. I was debating politics with my grandfather at like seven. I was like that seven-year-old. So I'm fully embodied into that identity. We had this conversation the other day. We're like, we're not fun people. It's not our gift. I get it. I gave up trying to be cool at approximately age 16 when I realized this is hopeless.

It's not a cool thing to be a six foot tall 16 year old who's really into government. Yeah, that's tall at 16. All right, I want to talk today about how you guys have seen the political climate shift over the last, let's say, 15 years. And what you've seen it change into, where you think we're going. What do you feel like has contributed to these shifts? Do you think there is an increase in polarization?

So let me break it down into questions you could actually answer. So first of all, do you think we are more polarized now? in polarization. So let me, let me break it down into questions you could actually answer. So first of all, do you think we are more polarized now than we were say 20 years ago? I do not think we are more polarized now than we were 20 years ago. I think we express it differently and more often and in spaces that make us feel like the expression of the polarization has some kind of merit. I think we were deeply divided 20 years ago and that we always have been throughout our country's history, maybe just about different things. And I think the things we were divided about led us to different kinds of attachments than we have today. But I think that our belief that we are more polarized now than ever is mostly a product of social media and the fact that we are in constant conversation about our difference and that our difference is a way to distinguish ourselves.

I think it's marketing that makes us feel more polarized than we've ever been in history. I agree with Beth that our politics are not necessarily more polarized. that our politics are not necessarily more polarized. I do think there are portions of both parties that have become more radical, and maybe those particular populations have either grown or expressing themselves a little more strongly. But, you know, 20 years ago

was my first presidential election. It was the 2000 election with Bush v. Gore. And I can tell you, when George W. Bush won the election, it felt like the end of the world. That sort of history, remembering how his presidency was talked about, remember how executive orders were written about, how he was doing so many, and he was appointing so many judges, and watching those patterns of reporting show up in other presidencies was eye-opening for

me. When you are 18 and it's your first time in the game, you're like, yeah, well, this is the worst it's ever been, of course. And so with the benefit of age, seeing that, oh, there is some patterns to this. Now, where I disagree is I think there were healthier institutions to hold some of our differences 20 years ago. Church and civic organizations and just honestly, like our offline life was more robust 20 years ago. That channeling into more and more online life can really show us our differences and I think grow our differences and exacerbate our differences. When I was growing up or even just in my 20s, the people who were political, everything felt like a huge

deal. But the people who weren't political did not oust people from their lives because they were of a differing party. Like that was not common. It didn't feel as intense as if you disagree with me, then we are enemies. You want bad things to happen to this country. It feels different than 20 years ago. I think we have gone through times in history where that was the reality, obviously, and not just the Civil War. So I don't think this is necessarily new in the long range of American history, but it does feel different than where we were, say, 20 years ago. What do you view as the biggest differences? Is it solely social media? Is it the rise of cable news? Is it that our psychology has changed? And like you were saying, we have moved to living a larger chunk of our lives online where we have access to a

more diverse audience than we used to. Now we can click to follow somebody who lives on the other side of the country where we would never have known them before. The online space has allowed us to have access to people that we would never have had access to before outside of our small town, small group of friends at school, small group of Sunday school friends. We now have access to the actual thinking of somebody who is not like us. And that provokes a response in us. What do you view as the main drivers behind this shift in perspective. Growing income inequality, changes in media and media consumption, and polarized partisan media playing a role in Americans' lives. And I think you can see those different influences. I think there's so

many similarities to sort of where America was at the beginning of the progressive era. All of those different components are really key here and are playing a role. Of course, I think cable news plays a role. Of course, I think social media plays a role. I just think it's important to look at those broader trends and look at those institutions. And what Beth is always good at articulating and forcing me to do is think about the leadership. Because I think if we're not careful, it just becomes this individualized conversation. We all just feel like if we can log off Facebook, it'll fix our democracy. We have to have a little broader view and see where the leadership has failed us, where there's a role for really active leadership and pushing our cultural conversations in new directions and seeing that we didn't get

here through just everybody being lazy or everybody being mean or everybody giving up on kindness. You know what I mean? Like it's more complicated. There's a lot of factors at play, institutions, cultural trends, technologies. And so I think there is a space for gentleness to remember that like we're all being worked on by a lot of things and not just each other and not just our individual choices. Remembering that and focusing on

where can we work in those systems, work on those institutions as a group with leadership, hold our leadership to account so that it doesn't feel this existential crisis, but something that ebbs and flows throughout American history, human history that we can work on together as opposed to feel just stuck individually. Sarah often says that when your stress goes up, you need to dial up your stress management tools accordingly. And so when you said, is our psychology changing, that came to mind for me.

I think our fundamental human psychology probably remains as it has been for centuries. But I also think we are in a giant psychological experiment all the time. When you think about being able to follow someone around the world and not just follow them, but have them comment on what you're doing. When you have access to 24-hour media that you can pinpoint to the views that you want to hear articulated. And I'm not sure what we've dialed up to support us through that stress of all those inputs. It's not that I think all of this is bad or that any of it needs to go away. It's not going to, I could fight with that reality, but it's, it's going to be here. To me, the question is what can we dial up to give us support? How do we help people figure out what they're seeing? That's news versus opinion. How do we help people know how to

manage the onslaught of commentary on their commentary? How do we teach people? You don't have to be a press secretary for yourself. Every time something happens in the world, you don't have to issue a statement, even though you have a platform to do that. But no one's kind of taught us how to be in this new reality. Yes. Well, and I think the technology has also been positive. Absolutely. You know, people find support on Facebook for really difficult challenges in life when they find groups that share that struggle, that share that challenge. I like to think that as podcasters, we use that technology to provide a new way to be, to provide

that support for people as they're moving through a new media environment. We hear all the time, you know, you're saving my life right now. I cannot take in the news without you. There are new ways to be that can dial up that support and institutions that could use some love and care that could help us find that support as well. I love that. That just makes so much sense that as we are going through times of increased stress, we have not fully figured out how to adapt to life online. This is still very much in progress. We have not fully adapted to this. Humans have just lived in much smaller communities. So we haven't fully adapted to this, and we probably need to get better at seeking additional support for how we can relieve these

kinds of stresses that are so pervasive. I'm Jenna Fisher. And I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends. And together we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office with insane behind the scenes stories, hilarious guests and lots of laughs. Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from The Office It's my girl in the studio. Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from the office and our friendship with brand new guests. And we'll be digging into our mailbag to answer your questions and comments. So join us for brand new Office Lady 6.0 episodes every Wednesday. Plus, on Mondays, we are taking a second drink.

You can revisit all the Office Ladies rewatch episodes every Monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode. Well, we can't wait to see you there. Follow and listen to Office Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts. I don't love that this is the way stress works. Like you're stressed, you have less time, less energy, and the answer is find more ways to manage your low time and energy. Like I've just fought it my whole life with no success. And so now I'm like, okay, fine.

I will exercise more. I will sleep more. I will journal more. Fine. But I'm like kind of doing it in protest. And it feels like that's where America is at right now in the pandemic. We're just like, oh, fine. So everything needs work. We'll just have to figure out how to do that. Then fine.

It's really cool to watch the ways that happens and through technology and through connections, like, listen, I just got a Peloton. Talk about a community. Talk about people's like life-changing situations with stress management. I didn't even fully understand what I was getting myself into, but it's really interesting to watch that, to watch the way the technology works. Like I told my husband, I'm like, it's like they figured out all the best parts of the gym without the worst parts of the gym. Like we need to do that with lots of things, not just exercise, you know? Talk to me more about how you would suggest somebody find new tools to manage their online stress during this massive societal change? What do you think is useful? Journaling? Yeah, always. Exercising? What else? I don't think that we should have tools that are all in one space. So even as we learn to find people to help us manage

our online lives, and I think there are lots of good people doing good work around that, that can't be the total answer. I think that journaling and exercise have to be a component, and that can't be the total answer. Just recognizing that this stress, and truly the stress of everything feeling laden with political conflict, we're going to need all kinds of people in all kinds of spaces to walk us through that. And I think reaching out generationally is very important because even where maybe your grandfather doesn't have experience with Snapchat, your grandfather can provide perspective on how human beings relate to one another. And that's very relevant right now. And I think it's important to have people who are much younger, you know, now that I'm well into my forties, it's important to have people who are in their twenties talking to me about what I'm missing and just making sure

that your life is full of mentors who can give you that kind of 360 degrees around yourself. Part of feeling like this is the worst it's ever been to me is making your world too small and compressing too much into this current moment, how I feel, where I'm being affirmed, where I feel attacked, because we've decided that if it's not affirming me, it's attacking me. There's no just space where we coexist. And so we need a robust social support system around us to walk us through that. That's what I was going to say. I think that it can become what we always do in America, which is like individualize it and hack it.

You know what I mean? Like I always joke, people want us to give them like a true mathematical equation for when they can ghost their uncle on Facebook. Like time the thread, divide it by two, multiply by your bloodline. If it's less than four, you can ghost. You know, like, but I can't get that. It's not going to work like that. And I think realizing that if you feel stressed about the news, or if you feel like you're on Facebook too much fighting with your relatives,

do not attach moral failing to that. Like that is not a personality failure or a flaw. You're not going to productivity your way out of polarization, right? Reading voices who are also like describing what's happening. I'm a huge fan of Anne Helen Peterson. I think she does some of the best cultural work out there. As far as like her book Can't Even about millennial burnout is fantastic. If, for example, you are born in the greatest year, along with me and Beth and Beyonce, 1981, it's really going to speak to you. And I think that like the Ezra Klein show, he brings on people, thought leaders that are always like trying to describe. I mean, when Adam Grant wrote that article about languishing

and everybody was like, yes, you know, like when you're in spaces and taking in voices that can help you see that it's not like, it's not your personal failing. Like there's a lot going on here. And like she said, like using thought leaders and mentors and friendships, I'm a big believer in like weak social ties, just like your pal at the coffee shop and your neighbor who you chat when you're like cross each other, walking your dogs. And just those like people around you that you can just remember, like, like humanity is beautiful, right? Like it's, it's not all conflict and conflict can coexist in this space of connection. We let conflict fill the room and we forget that we care about the conflict because we care about each other. And I think just remembering that and sort of tapping into that, like, why are we doing this? Why do we care about

politics? Why do we care about government? Well, it's because how we live together and community together and that that is essential and important and something we all care about deeply and sort of like channeling that love and that care and letting the conflict coexist, not trying to solve it, not trying to fix it, but just, you know, kind of letting, I would say like, you just got to let each other rub our rough edges off. You know, we got to bump into each other. That's just part of the game. But it's hard to remember that when you're languishing, when you're in the middle of a pandemic, when you have a toddler, I mean, I can name a million different scenarios. So it's a lot. I always feel like I end every sentence on Pantsy Politics, like George W. Bush. It's just hard. It's hard. It's hard out

there. It's hard being president. It's hard. Yeah. I want to go back to something you were just saying, Beth, which is if you're not affirming me, you're attacking me. If that does not encapsulate life online in the year 2020, 2021, if you're not affirming me, you're attacking me. It's this us versus them mentality. Either you are a good guy or you're a bad guy. Either you're on the side of the saviors of the world or you are trying to destroy it. And I think that that manner of thinking is incredibly dangerous and not useful at all. Well, it's totally inconsistent with trying to live in a multicultural democracy. We cannot live in a multicultural democracy if everything is good guys or bad guys.

Right. I heard a counselor once talk about people and say, like, sometimes your M&Ms, you meet someone who's lasagna. They're both delicious. They do not go together. And that is fine. And if you can walk around in the world, understanding that some things are M&Ms and some things are lasagna and they're, they're lovely and not a combination, you're going to be so much happier and at greater peace. Now I know there's like a valid criticism of me saying that right now that that's wrapped in a lot of privilege because sometimes it's not M&Ms and lasagna. Sometimes it's like M&Ms and poison. And I understand that. I think the trouble is we behave online as though we are always encountering M&Ms and poison. I'm

really beating this metaphor, but I think we act like that's always our situation. Yes. And very often it is not. And when Sarah talks about being able to exist through that conflict with your neighbors, for example, it's not always M&Ms and poison. COVID has made this harder undoubtedly because it is harder to say, well, we're just going to live and let live and peacefully coexist with one another's choices when our choices really deeply affect each other in serious ways that we can't always be aware of. So it has made it much, much harder. As the world has gotten more complicated and we are asked to deal with more and more choices,

more and more stress, more and more financial instability, it is normal that we want to simplify and we want to us versus them. That is a normal human psychological reaction in group, out group. We did not make that up in 2021. It has been around for a very, very long time. Look, when we were even all more similar, we just find things. That's my grandmother speaking to best point about like multi-generational perspective. I was like, well, she was like, we just didn't talk about politics. I'm like, what y'all fight about? She's like religion, duh, like denominations, like Baptist versus Methodist, like that. I was like, well, she was like, we just didn't talk about politics. I'm like, what y'all fight about? And she's like, religion, duh, like denominations, like Baptist versus Methodist, like that. I mean, you gotta think like back in English history,

they were tearing each other apart about Catholics versus Protestants. You know, like it's like that we find things to in-group, out-group, even when everybody's the same. So the fact that we're not the same is really problematic. I had this aha moment. I was listening to Tressie McMillan Cotton and she was talking about privilege is thinking we're going to pull everybody up where everybody's as comfortable as the privileged person. And she's like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Letting go of that and understanding everybody's going to be uncomfortable because it's hard and it's complicated work being around a lot of people different than you. And so I think that desire to agree is actually kind of a privileged viewpoint, that we're going to get everybody to a pace where we all agree what's

right and wrong and everybody's like really comfortable. That's actually privileged speaking because that's the privileged position. Like people who've never been privileged in the conversation don't expect that. They know how to move about when there's disagreement and when there's discomfort and how to manage that and deal with that and let it sit and let it be and not moralize around our differences. But that's hard. That takes a lot of work. I'm going to mess things up, but I believe in this so much that the discomfort is worth it, right? Like, I believe that this is important. I'm invested in this. I'm invested in humanity or America or my state or my family or this friendship, like I'm invested in this. It is

a value for me. And, you know, for us, the one value we really focus on is like, we do not dehumanize. We do not dehumanize ever because that is the path to evil and death and basically everything bad in human history. But it becomes like, well, if you don't dehumanize, you're condoning. And I just reject that. It will be complicated. You will be uncomfortable. You will be uncomfortable because that's how you grow. That's how you learn. That's how you stay in relationship with people. But I think it's like this consumer mindset. Like we come to everything as a consumer. And so, you know, we want to take it in, fix the problem, move on. And that is not a good model for human relationships or human institutions of any kind. I think we do it with politics. We want to roll in like a

consumer. Or here's a problem. It needs to be resolved to my personal satisfaction. Yes. Or I am done with your candidate, institution, party, friendship, whatever it is, because the customer is always right. And that's not actually how any of this works. That's not even how retail works. That's right. Do you ever want to be like, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. No. So Sarah said we have that one animating principle that we don't dehumanize others. I think the internet's momentum is around creating 600 animating principles a day. That every topic comes to have its own animating principle. On the right, you know, that critical race theory is going to destroy America.

It's going to tear us apart. It means you don't love this country. It means you're going to indoctrinate our children that everything here is wrong. On the left, it can be something as simple as, do you call it the George Floyd trial or the Derek Chauvin trial? And that takes on this life of its own that for today, it's like Moses brought this down and this is the rule and we all have to abide by it. And I think people want to abide by the rules. I think a lot of people, especially people who are interested in, in being like modern global citizens who are sensitive to other cultures, just want a new slate of rules that they get to follow. And that's where I have that instinctive. That's not how this works because you could ask people directly impacted by whatever you're

talking about. And the people in those communities aren't going to agree on one particular rule and it's reductive to ask them to, and that's hard to hold on to. And so just kind of dropping that need to get it right to me is the most helpful thing we can do. Talk more about, for somebody who is new to listening to you, what you mean by an animating principle. What does that mean? When we started the show back in 2015, we wanted to show a different type of political conversation because the animating principle for political conversations was like crossfire. You know, it was you be a puppet for your side, I'll be a puppet

for my side. We'll parrot our talking points and then the show will wrap in 45 minutes. And we were both really hungry, I think, for a lot of different reasons. One, it was not reflective of the conversations we were having in our community. It was not reflective of the things we cared about in our lives as young mothers at the time. We wanted to show conversations that were animated by something else. And when we started, you know, there was this idea of like, we would come together and we would find compromises and we would represent both sides. And then, you know, the universe gave us Donald Trump and that's not how things went. What it ended up showing is that we allowed ourselves curiosity and our politics have shifted and we don't do the both sides thing anymore. And we don't try to push ourselves to come to some sort of compromise. And now we're more driven by like curiosity and questions than we are answers and solutions and like neat immigration packages that check everybody's boxes. As it got more complex and as we allowed more room for both of us to shift and

our audience to shift and really to allow more space for people's feelings, I think that was another thing we realized is like there are just such big feelings about politics. And we act like we're always like debating legislation when you're dealing with personal issues.