The Daily Signal - #338: Trump's Fight Against 'Fake News'

Episode Date: November 11, 2018

On today's show, we talk politics and culture with Emily Jashinsky, an editor at The Federalist and regular guest on Fox News' "Media Buzz." A week after Election Day, Jashinsky shares the most important lessons for conservatives. Plus, she gives her take on President Donald Trump's fight against "fake news," the leftist mobs who attack conservatives, and how she approaches her job as an editor covering American culture.Also on today’s show:• Your letters to the editor. Don’t forget, your letter could be featured on our show; write us at [e-mail] or call 202-608-6205.• Lindsey Burke, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, reveals the results of the largest survey ever of a K-12 private school choice option.The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, November 13th. I'm Rob Blewey, editor-in-chief. And I'm Kelsey Harkness, senior news producer and host of our other podcast called Problematic Women. On today's show, we'll feature an interview with Emily Jashinsky, culture editor at The Federalist. We also have your letters, and Lindsay Burke joins us to share some good news about school choice in Florida. We're joined today by Emily Jashinsky, culture editor at the Federalist. Emily, thanks for joining us. having me. I want to begin, obviously, with the election. Here we are, just a week out. So many

big takeaways you've heard from the news media, but what is it that conservatives need to know about the results last Tuesday? Well, I think the message really worked in states that it needed to on the Senate side. So I think Republicans had a huge success in Missouri, in particular. I think the margin there was 5, 6 percent. And I honestly didn't expect Josh Hawley to win that because Claire McCaskill had such a knack for hanging in there getting lucky election after election, but he messaged conservative principles really well. So one of the most interesting things about his campaign to me is that he came out swinging in his announcement speech against Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, kind of this trifecta

of elite institutions or whatever you want to call them. And he hammered that going through the campaign and talking about how the left is tied up in these institutions, in the institutions. elite coastal enclaves, and it really worked for him. And so in those states, that was successful. We obviously need to come up with a way to talk better about conservative principles in some of these suburban areas, maybe like figuring out what we can do in Orange County, those places where Democrats made some gains. But, you know, they were gunning for turnout. They got high turnout on the left. And so we'll just have to see going forward. One interesting thing I did see

in my home state of Wisconsin, is that Tammy Baldwin won 17 counties that Donald Trump won. And on top of that, 12 counties went for both Ron Johnson in 2016 and Tammy Baldwin in 2018. So there's something, I think, about this message. She's kind of a, I don't want to necessarily say Bernie Sanders style, but she's very, very progressive, kind of an old-school progressive, sort of with Trump on trade issues. And so there's something in the Rust Belt and in these rural areas to that. And even in a post-Trump world, Republicans can't give it up, clearly. I'm glad you brought up Wisconsin. I'll come back to that in a minute. Josh Hawley, former Heritage Foundation intern, I should know. Intern, I didn't even know that. Yes, back in the year 2000. He is somebody who,

on election night, I was watching Fox News, and Britt Hume said, isn't it amazing that Beto O'Rourke and Andrew Gillum and all these other young progressives got so much attention from the media and almost nobody covered Josh Hawley. So, I mean, certainly a surprise. And it was, you know, a rare moment where a respected journalist like Brit Hume, I think, was scolding some of his colleagues in the business. But you do have a unique perspective coming from Wisconsin. Of course, some losses there. Scott Walker, the lieutenant governor, Rebecca Clefish. So what is it in a state like that, which Donald Trump had success in, that changed?

in this two-year interval. Yeah, I think there was a lot of talk about how between Paul Ryan and Reince Prebis and Scott Walker and Ron Johnson to some extent how Wisconsin had turned red. And it really never turned red. It's a very purple state. And I would say almost still a blue state to an extent. And when Walker just didn't have big room for one of these high turnout midterms. Like he didn't have much because it's such a swing state, you can't have much room for error.

People, I think, are upset about Foxcon in Wisconsin is what I've heard on the ground, that that became a big campaign issue. And so I think they're just in these states, you have to have to have high Republican turnout. And Scott Walker had always electrified his base so much that in 2012, 2014, he was just able to get really high Republican turnout. And I think, you know, if Walkershire County, for instance, I'll have to go look in. That's where I'm from. But I heard from some Wisconsin sources that it just wasn't where it used to be in some of those really conservative southeastern Wisconsin counties. So I don't know. I mean, it's just really tricky.

And Trump only won that state by less than one percentage point. Small margin of victory. Small margin of victory for Tony Evers. So swing state. Sure is. Well, on the note of media bias, Emily, you are a frequent guest on Howard Kurtz's media buzz. So we wanted to know what your take is on the Trump administration's tangling with fake news. It's such a tough question.

I think it's a tough question for a lot of people because conservatives, I mean, the reason that I came to D.C., I think when I'm looking back at when I was in high school and I went to GW, so I made a decision when I was like 18 to move here. When I look back on it, I really think it was because I was so frustrated by media bias. I think that's what it was. I think that was like a huge motivating factor to me. And so we've all been frustrated by this for decades conservatives had. It's nothing new. And so I think sometimes it's fantastic.

I mean, I love his, I love when he calls the media out sometimes because they're so ridiculous. And there's so many different times when Republicans in the past maybe just wouldn't come out swinging against the press or they wouldn't, they don't get the message through that they're upset about the press. Trump gets the message through that something's wrong. And so now we have this larger conversation about media bias that's more high profile than it was in the past. At the same time, the one particular phrase I don't love is enemies of the people. I'm not a big fan of that. I don't like using the language of war in our civil society. I don't necessarily know that that's the healthiest thing.

But he has a way of messaging our problems with media bias in a way that's elevated the conversation to kind of a top line feature of the Trump era. And I think that's a great thing. One of the members of the media Trump is likely referring to when he says enemy of the press, enemy of the people, is Jim Acosta of CNN, of course, who just last week was temporarily denied his hard pass to the White House. What is your take on the situation? Major crisis, Jim Acosta, not allowed into the briefing room without some kind of. temporary pass. No, it's, it's, I think on the one hand, it's giving Jim Acosta and CNN the hostility and attention that they want. Jim Acosta loves this stuff. So I don't like that necessarily, but at the same time, what he did was ridiculous. I mean, he asked his questions when he was,

when the president gave him, I mean, the president was in a long exchange with him going back and forth. And when he was asked to move on, he wouldn't move on. So I totally understand it. Jim Costa really is, but also it's what the White House wanted to happen because the White House knew that by starting this conversation, taking away his hard pass, all of the media would breathlessly rush to defend Jim Acosta. And that is only helpful to the White House to see all of these people huddle around Jim Acosta and lock arms with Jim Acosta because he's really the caricature of what so many people see is wrong with the press. Like he's this guy. who is a reporter, purportedly a reporter, a straight news reporter, for a news network, the Apples and Bananas Network, the Network of Objectivity, who goes out there and just openly, shamelessly opines when he asks his questions. He's obviously not objective. And so to see the media rush around him and defend him, that's exactly what the White House wants,

right? Because the media is now defending this person who's doing his job wrong. And in a way that a lot of people think is eating away at our politics. So it's just it's hard to even understand why they don't see this, but I don't, you know. No, it's so true. And look, I have been critical of some of the people who are part of the White House press corps. Our own Fred Lucas is a member of the press corps. White House Correspondents Association, he's in the briefing room.

He's been there under President Obama and President Trump. And last year, it was at Fred, who was doing some pool reporting. Kelsey, remember this, when some people's people who are in that. cabal, that club, decided that they would take it out on Fred and some other journalists, both left and right, who they didn't really want to be part of their club. And they restricted his membership. He's not, he can't be a full-fledged member. And Breitbart is in the same group as along with Mother Jones. So I certainly see kind of that, that mentality that exists here in Washington. And I think, frankly, it's one of the reasons that many Americans have lost trust in

the press because they, they don't see it necessarily representing their values. And, And one perfect example of this on the front page of Friday's Washington Post is an article about Jim Acosta. And then in tiny text, it says, you know, angry mob storms Tucker Carlson's house. Oh, my God. Inside, page A12. Now, if this was just reversed, if Tucker Carlson was a left-wing progressive commentator on MSNBC and there was a conservative mob that stormed his house, I'm sure it would have been prominent

front-page news. Yes. But my question goes more to the fact that you did have this left-wing mob, basically scaring Tucker's wife into hiding in their own house. Is this the new normal, this kind of behavior that we're seeing? Yes. I mean, I see no end in sight for this at all. I only see this escalating because it's – I mean, we've seen it steadily escalate. I think over the past, really, I feel like this started with the red hen incident with Sarah Sanders.

And then in reaction to that, there was some pushback from people in the center and on the right saying this is completely uncivil. And you have people like Maxine Waters coming out and saying, no, interrupt them. Don't let them eat anywhere. Don't let them pump gas or whatever the heck she said. And so I think since that moment we're seeing an escalation. I don't see any end in sight for this. And it was really unfortunate because, as you mentioned, Tucker's wife, I mean, I think it was Antifa, cracked the door. And she had to barricade herself in the pantry and call 911.

And like you said, if this was Lawrence O'Donnell's wife, I mean, oh my. Or Jim Acosta. Jim Acosta. I don't know if he's married, but if you can imagine this happening to a left-leaning White House correspondent, like Jim Acosta, it would be front-page news of the Washington Post. It would be completely reversed. The upsetting thing to me about this, and I think I heard Tucker mentioned this last night. He called into a show last night. I think Brian Kilmeet was hosted, or last week.

And what he said was the sad thing is that I'm the one who has these people on my show. Like who puts Antifa on his show and has conversations with them? The only person who does it is Tucker Carlson, of all people. He's the one that would go out there and talk to them and be like, no, I want to hear what you're saying. Let's have a debate. Let's argue. And yet he's the one that got targeted by this. Well, let's switch gears a little bit and talk about the PC culture getting out of control.

This is something I know that you have covered in your work. A particular article that stands out to me was the way you cover. the Megan Kelly situation, who, as we all know, has been M-A-M-I-A from NBC. I'll be very curious to see where she ends up. But tell us about your take, for those who didn't read your article in the Federalist, tell us your take on what happened with Megan Kelly. Yeah, I have kind of an interesting experience with this because I was one of the few people who was watching the show live when it happened.

And honestly, I didn't really even blink because I was like, that's, you know, I don't agree with that. But the conversation moved on and her panelists pushed back. And they were really, it was in the context of she used to do this segment on her show when it still existed, that they kind of all sat at a table and had really good discussions. She had like four panelists, including herself, and they would just take on all the hot topics of the day. and it was kind of a callback to how she rocketed to fame in the first place. She got to be her smart, argumentative, contrarian self. And it was just a conversation.

It was a debate. It was the kind of debate that you would have on a barbecue or something, and someone says something kind of stupid. You tell them that it's wrong and you move on. And I get that you have to be more careful. And this is what I wrote in the piece for the federalist. I understand that you have to be more careful on television. You have a responsibility anytime you're on the air not to spread bad ideas or to corrode the discourse more largely.

But everyone on that panel pushed back on her. Everyone by the end of the segment was like, that's, you know, we don't agree with this. It sounds kind of racist. And at the end of the day, it really was just not that big of a deal. And so as I watched this blow up on Twitter, I couldn't believe it. And it was just really because people wanted, like Megan Kelly is a pinata. because people on the right don't like her, people on the left don't like her, and it's like sport to beat up on Megan Kelly anytime she slips up just a tiny bit. And so I think that's what happened. NBC used it as an excuse to get rid of someone who wasn't performing in the ratings.

And on top of all of that, you know, all of the people who dislike Megan Kelly, which probably a lot of people because she's, you know, people on the right think she's a crazy liberal, people on the left think she is a racist conservative. it's just it's easy it's so easy for people to gain up on Megan Kelly but really what that segment this is what I wrote what that segment showed to me is that the best the best answer to bad ideas to wrong ideas is to just talk about it because that's what happened they were having a conversation it wasn't as though she was delivering a monologue this was in the context of a debate and in the course of the debate everyone pushed back and that's how it ended and I saw on Twitter you faced a lot of accusations for even that take. Yeah.

I think people call you racist in some way? Probably. I don't know. I try not to pay attention to it. You received some nasty attacks afterwards on Twitter. I don't know about you, but I always just don't even look at that stuff. Unless it's like, unless I get a tweet that's like all caps and it seems like something that needs to be reported. It's like threatening.

And you weren't even sticking up for Megan Kelly's idea. You were sticking up for having a. the idea that you can and should be able to have a conversation about this and explain, have the opportunity to explain to Megan Kelly why that was a bad idea. Right, exactly. And that's what's so frustrating is that we can't even talk about the fact that we need to talk about things. We can't even have that conversation about conversations. It's so silly.

And so that's why I'm in places like Heritage and the Federalists are so important because the kids that are me in high school that are conservative and are interested in those ideas, moving into the space, like, why would any kid want to do that? I mean, it's just we need these institutions that give people the opportunity to be confident in the fact that there are other conservatives out there and that, you know, they'll have your back if you say something that happens to be in disagreement with like fervent progressivism, which is what the city is run on and what our institutions are run on. So, yeah, I mean, that's, I'm very grateful to a place like the Heritage Foundation and the

federalist and all of the great conservative institutions. Well, that is certainly a priority of ours. It's one of the reasons that I think the Daily Signal was created by heritage. It's one of the reasons we encourage people like Kelsey to contribute to the Federalist. And I want to ask you because we've had David Harsani on the show. Obviously, we've had people like Molly Hemingway on the program. So the Federalist, Kelsey does her show with Bree Payton, problematic women. What is it that the culture editor at The Federalist does?

And tell us a little bit more about your job. It's so funny you asked that because I was going through the comment section on one of my articles the other day, which I never do. But someone said, like, what the heck is a culture editor? Like, why does the federal say the culture editor? But the idea really is that I write a lot about, honestly, the Real Housewives, the Kardashians, reality television, music, movies, all of that sort of thing. Because I think it's a huge, I mean, most conservatives accept that we have a problem sort of with the culture. culture with, you know, it's Andrew Breitbart's famous statement, like politics is downstream of culture. And so if we're not engaged in the culture, how can we change politics? How can we change or preserve

the good things that we need to preserve? And so I guess a lot of it is, my biggest problem I would say is like if you're looking at a conservative outlet, whenever they cover an entertainment story, it's usually, and a lot of times reasonably, to rage at the culture, right? Because it's usually someone did something wrong and conservatives are now going to spill 500 words raging at it. I think it's that stuff is totally necessary, but it will come across much better if not everything we write is raging at the culture. And some of it is just having fun, trying to understand it. And rather than even when, even when someone does something wrong, a Kardashian says something stupid, which probably happens once a day. But even when that happens, it's so much more productive,

I think to try to understand it. Rather than just say these people are all idiots, they're destroying everything, which they may be destroying some things. But they're also really funny. And so just to be able to have fun with these things and to help bring conservatives in a little bit to culture is what I see my job as. It's hard for me to rage at culture sometimes because the real housewives is funny. I have a hard time not laughing at the real housewives, stuff like that.

So that's what I try to do, basically. It's an interesting job. I'm totally with you. And one of the additional ways you have been contributing over at the Federalist is through Bright, which for those who aren't familiar, is a morning email. We say it's for women by women, but we have a lot of very loyal male readers, too, and we welcome them in our circle. Every morning you get a roundup of the news culture entertainment from a different female writer. My edition comes out every Wednesday, and you've recently been writing for Tuesday's edition. This has been new for you since you joined the Federalist just a couple months ago.

So I'm curious where you see a product like bright going, we sort of see it as an alternative to the skim. But I personally think it's very important to reach out to young women and connect with them and to show that there is an alternative way to get your news by women who are fun and do take, you know, do love following politics, but then also appreciate the culture and entertainment stories as well. Yes, 100%. I was just going to say exactly what you said is that the reason, like, my position as culture editor exists and something like Bright exists is because things like the skim exist.

And the skim for listeners that might not know is basically a morning email that's a roundup of the news of the day really geared towards women. And it has a totally, I would say, left-of-center bias. It's not always outright, but it's a clear left-of-center bias. It's not exactly fair to conservatives. And so if you want to create a product that's competitive with the skim, or if you want to create commentary opinion sections that are competitive with the others that people like going, you have to be able to meet them where they are.

That doesn't mean you concede your principles, but people in the real world outside D.C. aren't obsessing over politics. They just want to enjoy. A lot of people rarely ever think about politics. And so they come home at night, they watch Real Housewives, they like it, they watch 90-day fiancé, or they like whatever this TV is,

and they're not thinking about the moral implications of it. They're not thinking about the political implications of it. So I think the importance of something like Bright, it makes inroads with those groups and helps you relate to them, helps them relate to you. And so that's just, It's the perfect example.

Bright is like the perfect example of what conservative should be doing. If only we had someone like Oprah endorsing our product. Does she endorse the SCIM? Oh, yeah. She's a big fan of the SCIM. The SCIM has had so many celebrity endorsements. They get deals from companies who want to sponsor them. They have private donations.

They have massive headquarters in New York City. And, you know, the editors over at Bright, a lot of us are. doing it into the wee hours of the evening on top of our normal jobs just because it is something we believe in. It's a product. We have a very loyal, loyal readership base, which really gives me the motivation to do it every week, that they do continually open our product even without those celebrity endorsements. So for all those who do read and subscribe to Bright, thank you.

We really do appreciate it. And you can sign up getbright email.com or via. the Federalists slash newsletters. Well, Kelsey, thanks for doing what you're doing. And Emily, we appreciate you being on today's show. It was great to talk to you. Thanks for having me, guys. Good to be here. Do you like podcasts like New York Times The Daily or anything from NPR that breaks down important policy issues? But are you tired of the liberal spin? Then you need to check out Heritage Explains. Each week, we dive into timely policy issues at a 101 level from a conservative perspective. Find us on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor. We feature some of our favorites both on this show and in our Morning Bell newsletter each week. Kelsey, what do we have? Dwayne Potador writes, Why is there little to know positive or encouraging news? Every day we are bombarded with negative news and the terrible things that are happening. What would happen if we started hearing about good things? It would strengthen and encourage instead of negative.

oppressive, discouraging, and discouraging reports. Let's hear about the good, encouraging, strengthening, and uplifting stories. What we hear and see has a huge impact on what we think and believe. Let the news create a whole new perspective on life, especially in America, where we have so much to be positive and thankful about. Well, I certainly agree with that, and I hope you can find some of those good news stories on The Daily Signal, Dwayne. Well, we have another letter from Anton Zilwiki who writes, As an economist, I feel it necessary to point out that President Obama added $30 trillion in long-term obligation and unfunded mandates to the U.S. economy. President Trump has rolled back some of them.

Eight years of Obama nearly destroyed the largest economy in history. When the collapse does come, it will be fallout from the past 30-plus years of Democrats giving away the farm and rhino Republicans being compelled. implicit in every way. This is why the swamp has gone insane. Your letter could be featured on next week's show by sending us an email to Letters at dailysignal.com or leave us a voice message at 202-608-6205. Want to get up to speed about the Supreme Court? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast about everything that's happening at the Supreme Court and what the justices are up to. We're joined now by Lindsay Burke, Director of the Heritage Foundation Center for Education Policy.

Lindsay has joined us to talk about some good news from the state of Florida. Now, as of this recording, it appears that Congressman Ron DeSantis will be the next governor of Florida, and that bodes well for parents and students because of his support for more education choice. Florida has long been a leader on school choice, and as you and Jason Bedrock of Ed Choice just conduct, the largest survey ever of a K-12 private school choice option. The results here were clear. 92% of families using a tax credit scholarship in Florida reported being satisfied with their child's experience.

Lindsay, tell us about those results. Well, first, I really appreciate your emphasis on largest ever because it really is the largest ever study survey of a private school choice program. So that in and of itself is exciting and gives us, I would argue, some of the best evidence to date of the priorities of families when they're engaging in the school selection process, shopping around for schools that they hope will be a good fit for their children. And so you note 92% of families are satisfied with the tax credit scholarship in Florida. And by the way, this is a large-scale option in Florida. There are more than 100,000 students who participate in the tax credit scholarship program there. So the fact that 92% are satisfied really says something.

And so we wanted to figure out what are families looking for. So we surveyed these families. We sent a surveyed about 66,000 families in Florida and got about 14,700 responses from these families. So a high response rate, about 22%. And what really stood out to us was what families are looking for are some of the intangible outcomes that schooling can deliver that aren't well captured in test scores. So just quickly, two examples. We had families in the survey rank their top three priorities when they're looking for a school. And the number one thing that stood out was that families are looking for a religious environment and religious instruction.

So 66% of families listed that in one of their top three factors. And that was closely followed by morals and character instructions. So 52% of families listed that. And those are the only two factors that rose above 50% for families in our survey. Just quickly I'll add, the thing that came way, way, way at the bottom of the list was standardized test scores. Only 4% of families listed how a school performs on a state standardized test as being an important factor to them. How should state lawmakers in Florida and other states use this data to develop policies that encourage some of the findings that you've discovered? Yeah, well, as I said earlier, families are really prioritizing things that aren't well captured in test scores.

So religious instruction and morals and character development are schools forming, you know, good citizens. And that's something that when policymakers are designing the regulations that governs school choice programs, they should bear in mind. And so if you create a regulation that says every private school that participates in a state school choice program has to take the same state test as a public school, we know from Louisiana that private schools just won't participate. and then you end up limiting choices for families on a factor that they don't really even prioritize, at least not as much as some of these other intangibles. So that's really important. Policymakers need to keep regulations light so that choice can actually flourish. And then I would just say that, you know, what these findings show is that parents choose their children's schools

because those private schools offered either what the public system can't offer or just doesn't offer. And so that's something else really important to keep in mind. I think it's rare that 92% of parents agree on anything. And in this case, they're expressing satisfaction when it comes to their children's education, which is perhaps one of the most important things a parent could ever desire to be satisfied with. But still, school choice options like what we see in Florida, received so much pushback. Tell us about that pushback and, you know, how do you put it? back against the pushback.

Yeah, well, you know, it's the same old story we hear over and over against special interest groups always push back against school choice options that provide families. And bear in mind, these are low-income families in Florida who qualify for this program. And so the special interest groups will always push back against options that provide an escape hatch for these children to go somewhere other than their government-assigned, government-run, public school. And so it's no surprise that teachers' unions in particular see this as an exorcist. threat to their sort of power that they have over the existing public education system.

And so we see pushback not only in Florida, although in Florida we have seen really just tremendous growth and bipartisan support for school choice over the years. But we still see it, state after state, states like Arizona and Wisconsin, and you name it, we see special interest groups really try to thwart school choice policies. But I think at the end of the day, parents are satisfied. Policymakers know that parents are satisfied. it is becoming more of an issue for families when they're thinking about the future of their state. I mean, the election that we just saw unfold in Florida, you know, if you look at some of the outcomes,

there were something like 8 million votes cast. And, you know, there are, like I said, over 100,000 private school choice families in the state now. And they know that the long-term viability of their tax credit scholarship program in that state relies on policymakers who are also supportive. And so school choice could have actually played a non-trivial effect in what we saw transpire over the past week or so. Lindsay, aside from Florida, what are some of the other bright spots where you see a lot of positive action happening on school choice? Well, we see so many everywhere. I mean, we see state after state embracing private school choice options. Arizona, of course, always comes front and center in my mind because they were the first state to enact an education savings account option.

This is the sort of new and improved and refined school voucher model where families can use all of their money that would have been spent on their child in the public school system by the state to not only pay private school tuition, but they want they can hire a private tutor. If their child needs special education services and therapies, they can pay for that. They can buy online courses. They can roll over unused funds year to year. So just the sheer innovation in choice that we saw Arizona just sort of leap forward. forward with in 2011 is still to me really exciting. And notably, Florida was the second state to adopt a ESA option. And so that's still alive and well in Florida. And I think we're up to about 20,000 families in Florida using ESAs there, about 5,000 or so in Arizona. Nevada, Mississippi,

Tennessee also have ESA options in law. Nevada's isn't operational yet. So we're still watching Nevada to see what unfolds, but there are just states all over the country who are moving. What will be most interesting to me at the state level is to see what Texas does in the near term. Texas is one of those states that you just think, why in the world? Don't they have school choice in place? They have an opportunity next year to make that happen. We will all be waiting with bated breath to see if they do it. School choice options are, for the most part, led by the states.

it can be difficult to keep track of what's happening in your own state. So for anyone who's listening who might want to know whether they have choice in their state or if they don't, what they can do to advocate for that, what would you tell them? Yeah. So there are a lot of great resources out there. Heritage is a great resource. But if you're really looking at state by state, Ed Choice, this is the Legacy Foundation of Milton and Rose Friedman, they keep track of every single policy happening in the state on school choice. So there are really, really, really great resource. They have great maps that you can click on to see exactly what's happening in your state and what needs to happen in your state on school choice. Lindsay, so much good news

for parents and students. We appreciate the work you're doing. Thanks for joining us on the Daily Signal. Thanks for having me. We're going to leave it here for today. The Daily Signal podcast is broadcast from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. You can find it on the Rikishay Audio Network. All of our shows can be found at DailySignal.com. slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. And if you like what you hear, please leave us a review or give us some feedback. Be sure to follow us on Twitter at DailySignal and Facebook.com slash the Daily Signal News. The Daily Signal podcast will be back tomorrow with Kate and Daniel. Have a great week. You've been listening to the Daily Signal

podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren and Thalia Ramprasad. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.