It Could Happen Here - Andrew on the Authoritarian Follower

Episode Date: May 8, 2024

Andrew and James discuss authoritarian followers and what traits might make people more likely to follow an authoritarian leader.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Curious about queer sexuality, cruising, and expanding your horizons? Hit play on the sex-positive and deeply entertaining podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Join hosts Gabe Gonzalez and Chris Patterson Rosso as they explore queer sex, cruising, relationships, and culture in the new iHeart podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Sniffy's Cruising Confessions will broaden minds and help you pursue your true goals.

You can listen to Sniffy's Cruising Confessions, sponsored by Gilead, now on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday. Welcome to Gracias Come Again, a podcast by Honey German, where we get real and dive straight into todo lo actual y viral. We're talking música, los premios, el chisme, and all things trending in my cultura. I'm bringing you all the latest happening in our entertainment world and some fun and impactful interviews with your favorite Latin artists, comedians, actors, and influencers. Each week, we get deep and raw life stories, combos on the issues that matter to us, and

it's all packed with gems, fun, straight up comedia, and that's a song that only nuestra gente can sprinkle. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into tech's elite and how they've turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google Search, Better Offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech Welcome to Krapn here. Call zone media. or more pointedly, a video that sought to define the state and its functions, synthesize its critique by anarchists, and basically understand the ways that states fail both society and nature

so that we can let go of state's inevitability and think outside of it to realize the freedom and power of all the people. Most people aren't anarchists, unfortunately, but I've noticed that generally speaking, some folks are more receptive to anarchist ideas, and others just seem to shut down without engaging with it earnestly or meaningfully.

You get a mix of those reactions in my comments, though overwhelmingly toward the receptive side because, I mean, that's the kind of intellectual curiosity I try to attract in my space. But the more hostile reactions had me thinking about a book that I read many years ago and did a video on years after that was called The Authoritarians by Bob Altamira. land and any truly radical conclusions his scholarship in my opinion gets us closer to understanding the psychology of both authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders also rest in

peace i found out that he died when i was preparing this just this year in february but uh yeah that aside we'll be talking about the former first and that is what's up with authoritarian followers let's get into it. First, we need some context. So in the wake of World War II, social scientists sought an explanation for the evils perpetuated by the Nazi government during the war. Theodore W. Adorno, Els Frenkel Brunswick, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford published The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, proposing a personality type for the fascist follower ranked on an F scale. They particularly concentrated on prejudice

within the psychoanalytic and psychosocial frameworks of Freudian and Frommian theories. Their work was highly critiqued, but it was also highly influential in laying the groundwork for our understanding of authoritarian personalities. In the aftermath of Adorno and Company's book, social scientists would continue to tweak, develop, and expand our understanding of authoritarian psychology. Most notably, the concept would be refined by Bob Altamira, a Canadian-American psychology professor who proposed the right-wing authoritarian personality in 1981. After numerous studies, Altamira presented his findings in his free book, The Authoritarians, in 2006. I had to clarify though, right-wing here is not being used in the context of the political spectrum, which is a concept that deserves its

own scrutiny. In this context, Altamira uses the word right in the sense of the old English writ, an adjective for lawful and proper. Altamira defines authoritarianism as, quote, something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want, which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical, and brutal, unquote. I find this definition of authoritarianism lacking, but I'm an anarchist, so of course I would. To me, if authority is defined as the recognized right above others in a social relationship to give commands, make decisions,

and enforce obedience, then I would define authoritarianism as a matter of degree to which you uphold the principle of authority. I think many people are at least authoritarian-lite because that's the status quo, unfortunately. But more specifically, I think the people we call authoritarians are those which are especially invested in the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of freedom and plurality. So right-wing authoritarian followers, or RWAs, are those which overwhelmingly support the established authorities in their society, like government officials, arms of the state, and traditional religious leaders.

In North America and elsewhere, RWAs tend to be, or rather I should say high RWAs, because the RWA thing is a scale, but the high RWAs tend to be, or rather I should say high RWAs, because the RWA thing is a scale, but the high RWAs tend to be political conservatives. However, that doesn't mean the authoritarian personality is exclusive to conservatives, nor is it exclusive to North America. But the scale is definitely tailored to a North American and English-speaking audience, lending to its documented issues with translating to other regions, but with effort, I could definitely see it being adapted to other cultural contexts as well. And as Altamira argues, the concept of the right-wing authoritarian could equally apply to a society where the

established authorities claim to be representing the left. So what defines the right-wing authoritarian personality, psychologically speaking? They feature three primary traits or attitudes. For one, a high degree of submission to authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. Two, a general aggressiveness directed against various persons that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. And three, a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. These traits are measured with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale, or RWA scale for short. It's readily accessible online, so I'm not going to go through the entire scale point by point, but basically includes a mixed series of statements that folks can indicate their level

of agreement or disagreement with. Statements like, our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the rotten apples who are ruining everything. Or, what our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil and take us back to our true path. And just to mix things up, a woman's place should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women were submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past. As you could imagine, the degree to which you agree or disagree with these statements would place you somewhere along the scale. The lowest total possible score on Altamira's version of the test would be 20, and the highest 180, but most people who hit either extreme. A sample of 1000 Americans in 2005

found that the average score was 90. Technically speaking, high RWAs are just people who score higher than the average population, so it's really a relative term. Also, another disclaimer, in the context of psychological studies, personality tests can definitely make mistakes about individuals, so it's not a diagnostic tool for individuals to determine if they'd make a good stormtrooper. However, the scale can reliably identify levels of authoritarianism in groups. Also keep in mind that stuff like the interpretation of wording and foreknowledge of what the test is trying to measure can definitely influence results. Still, this tool has been used for most of Altmeier's research on authoritarianism, so it's good to be familiar with it.

So now you may be wondering, how well does the RWA scale's measurement of submission, aggression, and conventionalism map onto people's reality? So for submission, high RWAs tend to believe that people should submit to authority in almost all circumstances. So they put a lot of trust in the law and the authorities. Maybe not all authorities in every single circumstance, but they definitely bought into the concept itself. They're the types who trusted Nixon during and even after the Watergate crisis. Likely the ones in Germany in 1945 who refused to believe that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. The type to rabidly support anti-terrorist initiatives, no matter how invasive. Throughout

his research, Altmaier found that high RWAs are far more likely to tolerate police burglaries, drug raids without warrants, police crackdowns on peaceful protests, subversion via agents provocateurs, and so on As far as they're concerned, father knows best Their favourite authorities are above the law But like I said, they don't always submit. Their blind support can be trumped by other concerns, but most times they're not big fans of holding officials accountable for their actions. They really don't care if a cop kills someone in broad daylight or someone drives through a crowd of protesters on the street. In terms of aggression, higher WAs aggress when they believe right and might on their side.

Right meaning their hostility is authority approved. Might meaning they have a physical, tactical, or numerical advantage over their target. They don't fight fair. And just like they go easy on authorities who commit crimes, they go easy on anyone who attacks people they're prejudiced against. But they definitely don't go easy on the people they hate. They seek to sentence criminals to longer terms than average and are some of the loudest supporters of capital punishment.

And if they hate one group, bet your bottom dollar they probably hate other groups too. You could call them equal opportunity bigots. Chances are if they hate immigrants or trans people, those are not going to be the only targets of their ire. Their prejudice has more to do with their own personality than their target's actual attributes. Still, they don't always aggress when they think the proper authorities approve, just like they don't always submit. There are always more factors at play in any given situation, including a fear of counter-aggression

or consequences that may halt their hostilities. Regarding conventionalism, higher WA's believe that everyone should live by the norms that their authorities have decreed. Multiculturalism, plurality, diversity, those things clash with what they consider correct and what they consider wrong. They usually get their ideas from fundamentalist religions, so you'll find that higher WA's are strong advocates for the traditional family structure, with patriarchal husbands, submissive wives, and obedient children. They're also far more likely to support their government's patriotic

version of various historical narratives. Most interestingly, their conventionalism even influences their response to the high RWA test itself. If they were told the average response for a statement on the test, they were far more likely to adjust their answers to the mean than most. When asked what they would like their own RWA score to be, low RWAs said they would like to be low RWAs. Middle RWAs said they'd like to be low RWAs. Middle RWAs said they'd like to be low RWAs. But high RWAs said they want to be middles, not lows or highs. Why? Because they tend to rank being normal very highly in values tests.

Also, just because they want to be normal doesn't mean they don't want to be richer or smarter than others. Nor does it mean they're necessarily going to drop their prejudices. They may get tugged slightly, like with the somewhat decrease in prejudice against gay people after the legalization of gay marriage. But their normal is often

a measure of what's normal in their in-group. So if it's still normal in their in-group to be violently homophobic, more than likely they will still be violently homophobic. The conformity is the value rather than specific bigotry or what have you. Yeah. Talking of conformity, Andrew, we have to conform to the needs of sponsors of this show right now.

Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into how tech's elite has turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search, Better Offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech from an industry veteran with nothing to lose. This season, I'm going to be joined by everyone from Nobel winning economists to leading journalists in the field and I'll be digging into why the products you love keep getting worse and naming and shaming

those responsible. Don't get me wrong though, I love technology. I just hate the people in charge and want them to get back to building things that actually do things to help real people. I swear to god things can change if we're loud enough. So join me every week to understand what's happening in the tech industry and what could be done to make things better. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Check out betteroffline.com.

Hola mi gente, it's Honey German and I'm bringing you Gracias, Come Again, the podcast where we dive deep into the world of Latin culture, musica, peliculas, and entertainment with some of the biggest names in the game. If you love hearing real conversations with your favorite Latin celebrities, artists, and culture shifters, this is the podcast for you. We're talking real conversations with our Latin stars, from actors and artists to musicians and creators, sharing their stories, struggles, and successes.

You know it's going to be filled with chisme laughs and all the vibes that you love. Each week, we'll explore everything from music and pop culture to deeper topics like identity, community, and breaking down barriers in all sorts of industries. Don't miss out on the fun, el té caliente, and life stories. Join me for Gracias Come Again, a podcast by Honey German, where we get into todo lo actual y viral. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

On Thanksgiving Day, 1999, a five-year-old boy floated alone in the ocean. He had lost his mother trying to reach Florida from Cuba. He looked like a little angel. I mean, he looked so fresh. And his name, Elian Gonzalez, will make headlines everywhere. Elian Gonzalez. Elian. Elian.

Elian. Elian. Elian. Elian Gonzalez. At the heart of the story is a young boy and the question of who he belongs with. His father in Cuba. Mr. Gonzales wanted to go home and he wanted to take his son with him.

Or his relatives in Miami. Imagine that your mother died trying to get you to freedom. At the heart of it all is still this painful family separation. Something that as a Cuban, I know all too well. Listen to Chess Peace, the Elian Gonzalez story, as part of the My Cultura podcast network, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And we're back. Yeah, so Altamira has been lightly critiqued for rendering RWA as the dominant psychological account of authoritarianism. Of course, it makes sense that RWA has been the focus, considering that the study of authoritarian personality was born out of post-World War II studies of fascists. Right-wing authoritarians often favor established, absolutist forms of government and weaponize the presently dominating hierarchy to facilitate said absolutism. But there are authoritarians who also favor absolutist forms of government,

with slight differences, believing that the presently dominating hierarchy should be overthrown and replaced with their own. These have potentially been called left-wing authoritarians, even though the right and right authoritarian didn't have anything to do the political spectrum let's keep pushing in chapter nine of the authoritarian inspector altmeyer conceptualizes left-wing authoritarianism or lwa as also composed of submission aggression aggression, and conventionalism. So essentially, LWA is a subcategory of RWAs. He's also quick to point out that not all leftists are LWAs,

but as he describes them, LWAs are revolutionaries who, 1. Submit to movement leaders who must be obeyed, aka submission. Two, have enemies who must be ruined, from capitalists to counter-revolutionaries, aka aggression. And three, have rules and party discipline that must be followed, aka conventionalism. In essence, authoritarianism is psychological. RWAs support the established authorities, LWAs oppose them in favor of their own, but the underlying dispositional core is still authoritarianism. But the focus is on RWAs in general here. Considering these traits,

submission, aggression, and conventionalism, it's clear that people with right-wing authoritarian personalities are rather dangerous. They find it easier to bully, harass, punish, maim, torture, eliminate, and exterminate their victims than most people do. They're more willing to join mobs and militias, more likely to blame victims for their misfortune, and more likely to condemn common criminals to long, brutal sentences in jail. They seem to have a lot of hostility boiling away inside them that their authorities can easily unleash. So we have to ask, what causes this? Why are they like this? According to Albert Bandura's social learning theory of aggression, aggression occurs after two conditions are met. Firstly, some feelings like anger or envy need to stir up

hostility. Secondly, inhibitions or contextual restraints against releasing that hostility would have to be overcome. Only then can the aggression erupt and flow. So let's discuss the instigator and releaser of authoritarian aggression. High RWAs are highly motivated by fear. Like, they have an extra dose of fear response in their genes, more than most people. They probably learn to be fearful from their parents about all kinds of things, you know, radicals, atheists, kidnappers, queer people, etc, etc. They grew up in a scarier world than most, which is probably why they tend to score so highly on the dangerous world scale. That scale, like previous scales, provides statements and measures levels of agreement or disagreement with stuff like, quote,

if our society keeps degenerating the way it has been lately, it's liable to collapse like a rotten log and everything will be chaos, end quote. Any day now, chaos and anarchy could erupt around us. All the signs are pointing to it, end quote. Everything, to them, is a sign of the times, a perversion corrupting society. In peaceful times, and in generally dangerous ones, higher WAs feel threatened. But what releases that aggressive impulse to act? feel threatened. But what releases that aggressive impulse to act? Altamira found, more than anything else, self-righteousness. Of course, almost everyone thinks they're a bit more moral than average, but higher WA's, they tend to think they're the holy ones, the chosen, the righteous, that empowers them to isolate, segregate, humiliate, persecute, harass, beat, and kill. That self-righteousness,

combined with their high scores on the dangerous world scale, is what empowers their prejudice, their heavy-handedness, their mean-spiritedness, and their eagerness to crusade against the other. So, how do high RWAs become high RWAs? Are they born that way? Possibly. Do their parents make them that way? Somewhat, but not completely. You see, no one's a complete carbon copy of their parents. Hola mi gente, it's Honey German and I'm bringing you Gracias, Come Again,

the podcast where we dive deep into the world of Latin culture, musica, peliculas, and entertainment with some of the biggest names in the game. If you love hearing real conversations with your favorite Latin celebrities, artists, and culture shifters, this is the podcast for you. We're talking real conversations with our Latin stars, from actors and artists to musicians and creators, sharing their stories, struggles, and successes.

You know it's going to be filled with chisme laughs and all the vibes that you love. Each week, we'll explore everything from music and pop culture Thank you. podcast by Honey German, where we get into todo lo actual y viral. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into how tech's elite has turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search, better offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech from an industry veteran with nothing to lose. This season I'm going to be joined by everyone from Nobel winning economists to leading journalists in the field and I'll be

digging into why the products you love keep getting worse and naming and shaming those responsible. Don't get me wrong, though. I love technology. I just hate the people in charge and want them to get back to building things that actually do things to help real people. I swear to God things can change if we're loud enough. So join me every week to understand what's happening in the tech industry and what could be done to make things better. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever else you get your podcasts. Check out betteroffline.com. On Thanksgiving Day, 1999, a five-year-old boy floated alone in the ocean. He had lost his

mother trying to reach Florida from Cuba. He looked like a little angel. I mean, he looked so fresh. And his name, Elian Gonzalez, will make headlines everywhere. Elian Gonzalez. Elian Gonzalez. Elian. Elian. Elian Gonzalez.

At the heart of the story is a young boy and the question of who he belongs with. His father in Cuba. Mr. Gonzalez wanted to go home and he wanted to take his son with him. Or his relatives in Cuba. Mr. González wanted to go home and he wanted to take his son with him. Or his relatives in Miami. Imagine that your mother died trying to get you to freedom. At the heart of it all is still this painful family separation.

Something that as a Cuban, I know all too well. Listen to Chess Peace, the Elian González story, as part of the My Cultura podcast network, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So what determines a person's position on the RWA scale? Experience. Our life experiences teach us lessons that our parents and peers may not. Our experiences with authorities shape our perception of authority. Especially when someone hits adolescence, they tend to chafe against authority, even if they're submitted to authority

as children. Those hormonal urges, desires for autonomy, and new experiences could shake up their early lessons completely. Experiences could either end up reinforcing the authority's teachings or contradicting them entirely. Naturally, it's easier for kids from authoritarian homes to remain authoritarian and vice versa, but ultimately, experiences do most of the shaping. Middle RWAs have some mix of experiences and upbringing that keeps them in the middle. When it comes to higher RWAs, their experiences were probably very controlled. Authoritarian followers usually live in a homogenous bubble of patriotic, traditional people. An echo chamber apart from the evils of the world, safely kept on a short

leash for most of their lives. But there's hope yet. Autonomous research has shown that high RWA's can change if they have some important life experiences. That's why university can be such a game changer for people. It's just meeting new people, leaving that small, enclosed world and developing relationships with people of different walks of life. And that makes a big difference. There are a couple of traits that make higher WAs such good followers for would-be dictators. In short, those traits are illogical thinking, highly compartmentalized minds, double standards, hypocrisy, a lack of self-awareness, ethnocentrism, dogmatism. In Long, well, consider syllogism. All fish live in the sea.

Sharks live in the sea. Therefore, sharks are fish. Logically speaking, the conclusion doesn't follow. Even if sharks are fish, and they are, the premises do support the conclusion. But if higher WA's were asked if the reasoning was correct, they were more likely than most to say that it was. When asked why, they'd answer because sharks are fish. In essence, because they agreed with the conclusion, they assumed the reasoning was right. That simple test shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is fairly irrelevant. Reasoning is what should justify the conclusion,

but as far as they're concerned, the conclusion violates the reasoning. Of course, let me not overstate, a lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning. Higher WAs just happen to be slightly more likely to make such mistakes. But higher WAs generally have more trouble than most people do realizing a conclusion is false. They have a harder time determining whether empirical evidence proves or doesn't prove something. They more easily fill gaps in science with supernatural forces. And they have trouble being critical of anything unless they've already gotten their talking points from their authorities.

Regarding the highly compartmentalized minds, I mean we all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but their minds just be like oil and water. One second they're saying free speech, next they're saying ban critical race theory. One moment they're talking about individual freedom, and next they're basically throwing the boot of the state. They don't merge files in their brain to really see what fits. They tend to just pick up whatever their demagogues are saying. And if your mind is such a mess of contradiction, so you're going to end is such a mess of contradictions, you're going to end up with a lot of double standards, easily justified by whatever idea you hold that's most convenient in the moment. Principles are really irrelevant.

Keep in mind the excuses they make for those in power and how hard they are on victims. Classic example is the difference between how they treat a prisoner who beats up another prisoner versus a police officer who beats up a prisoner. Low RWAs usually don't have such stark double standards. When it comes to hypocrisy, I'm going to keep using this example because it's still somewhat topical. Critical race theory. As much as authoritarians accuse the left of being anti-free speech, politically correct

types, RWAs are far more likely to report a desire to censor ideas they don't like. This is also because they tend to lack basic self-awareness. If presented with a list of things right-wing authoritarians are likely to do, like be prejudiced, conformist, etc., and then ask how true it is of themselves compared to most other people, they really have no idea how different they actually are, and that's partially because of the bubble they tend to exist in. Us vs them is a very hard line in the sand for authoritarians. Humans as a whole do have a tendency sometimes to fall into tribal patterns of thinking, but authoritarians see the world far more sharply in terms of their ingrgroups and out-groups than most.

We do tend to associate with people who agree with us on many issues, but authoritarians really do stick to their bubble of validation and ethnocentric reinforcement. That's why they don't realize how prejudiced or aggressive or submissive they are compared to most people. people. By avoiding challenges to their beliefs and holding fast to their authorities, they remain stuck in a circular logic of I'm right because the people I agree with say I'm right. Finally, in terms of dogmatism, higher WAs hold to unchangeable, unjustified certainty, righteousness beyond a shadow of a doubt. They're more likely than most people to agree with statements like the things I believe in are so completely true I could never doubt them, and there are no discoveries or facts that could possibly make me change my mind about the things that matter most in life. I am absolutely certain that my ideas about the fundamental issues in life are correct.

Meanwhile, they're more likely than most people to disagree with statements like, it's best to be open to all possibilities and ready to re-evaluate all your beliefs, and flexibility is a real virtue in thinking, since you may very well be wrong. When you receive or absorb rather than contemplate your beliefs, you have no basis upon which to determine whether or not they're true. So you avoid challenges by staying in the bubble as much as possible. And when that can't be avoided, threaten out whatever token points you got from wherever.

And if that dialogue tree fails, you can always fall back on your group's assurance that you are right. Now you could challenge your beliefs, or you could insist you're right and retreat. What option do you think higher WAs tend to choose? Yeah, the double down. Exactly. Dogmatism is by far the best fallback defense,

but it's also the most blatant dead giveaway that the person doesn't know why they believe what they believe. Alas, higher WAs are only one side of the authoritarian coin. They're nothing without their leaders. So next time, we'll be talking about those leaders, those social dominators. Until then, all power to all the people. Peace. Cheers, Andrew. I need you. It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media.

For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It Could Happen Here updated monthly at coolzonemedia.com slash sources. Thanks for listening. Curious about queer sexuality, cruising, and expanding your horizons? Hit play on the sex positive and deeply entertaining podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Join hosts Gabe Gonzalez and

Chris Patterson Rosso as they explore queer sex, cruising, relationships, and culture in the new iHeart podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Sniffy's Cruising Confessions will broaden minds and help you pursue your true goals. You can listen to Sniffy's Cruising Confessions, sponsored by Gilead, now on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into tech's elite and how they've turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search, Better Offline is your unvarnished

and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech brought to you by an industry veteran with nothing to lose. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever else you get your podcasts from.

The 2025 iHeart Podcast Awards are coming. This is the chance to nominate your podcast for the industry's biggest award. Submit your podcast for nomination now at iHeart.com slash podcast awards. But hurry, submissions close on December 8th. Hey, you've been doing all that talking. It's time to get rewarded for it. Submit your podcast today at iHeart.com slash podcast awards. That's iHeart.com slash podcast awards.