The Ezra Klein Show - Spencer Cox Wants to Pull Our Politics Back From the Brink

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

The Utah governor is trying to model a different kind of leadership in a very dangerous political moment.The Trump administration seems intent on using the assassination of Charlie Kirk to crack down on what it calls “the radical left.” But Spencer Cox doesn’t believe that suppression will make Americans safer.For years now, Cox has been thinking seriously about our toxic political culture and what the path out of it could be. So I wanted to have him on the show to talk about how he responded in the hours and days after the shooting, what it has left him thinking about and what he thinks we should do now.Mentioned:Politics and Social Change LabBook Recommendations:Our Biggest Fight by Frank H. McCourt, Jr.A Time to Build by Yuval LevinAmerican Covenant by Yuval LevinThe Pursuit of Happiness by Jeffrey RosenThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at [e-mail] can find the transcript and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.htmlThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact checking by Michelle Harris, Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Aman Sahota. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show’s production team also includes Marie Cascione, Annie Galvin, Kristin Lin, Jack McCordick, Marina King and Jan Kobal. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

I don't know. We increasingly feel like we're in the scenario I've been worried about since at the moment Charlie Kerr was shot, where his death, his assassination, is used by those in power to excuse a crackdown on those they have already seen themselves as at war with. You have the crazies on the far left who are saying, oh, Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance, they're going to go after constitutionally protected speech. And no, no, we're going to go after the NGO network that fomence, facilitates and engages in violence. That's not okay. Violence is not okay in our system.

It is a vast domestic terror movement. And with God is my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name. I think it's a very, very, very dangerous moment. But it's not inevitable. is always a choice. You can choose to use a moment like this to deepen our divisions, to pull us apart from each other, to make politics into something yet that much closer to war. Or you can use a moment like this to reduce them, to try to take the country in a

different direction than the one we've been going in. We have had over the past week and change an example of that kind of leadership too. Charlie Kirk was murdered in Utah. The governor of Utah is Spencer Cox, a Republican, a conservative, but one who is very, very concerned about the ways we've been coming apart as a country. He didn't come to this on that day. He's been thinking about political de-escalation, thinking about the way we disagree with each other, and how we can do it in a way that does not tear us apart for years now. So I wanted to have him on the show to talk about what that day, that week, was like for him, what it has left him thinking about. and what he thinks we should do now. Governor Cox, welcome to the show.

Thanks for having me, Ezra. So I want to start in 2023. You said back then that you felt we were, quote, facing a toxic debate unlike anything we've seen since a civil war. What were you seeing then that made you say that? Well, I was taking over as chair of the National Governors Association. And as chair, you get to do an initiative. Everybody gets to do something. And I was looking at healthcare cost escalation. I was looking at critical minerals and energy production. And we had this conversation with my team and just decided that we couldn't solve any of the biggest problems facing our country if we all hated each other. And so one of my team members had this idea, what if we focused on kind of the toxic polarization as our initiative? for the NGA, spend a year working with experts across the country, trying to figure out if there's real research around how we could de-escalate what was happening. And in one of those first convenings,

we were in New Hampshire, actually, on a college campus. And we had an expert who came in from the Carnegie Foundation who had done some research around this type of political violence that we were seeing in our country. And the report came back that we were kind of blow going through all those checkpoints towards some very serious division, the, you know, potential for a catastrophic decline in kind of Western civilization and a serious increase in political violence. And just led us to believe that we were on the cusp of something pretty dark. When you did that research, when you spoke to those experts, what were the kinds of conditions that revealed themselves to you as dangerous? What were the sort of checkpoints that people worried about that you saw us breaching? Yeah, so a lot of it has to do with the way we talk about each other in our politics.

It's the inability to accomplish big things, the lack of civility that we're seeing. And I kind of don't like the term civility anymore because we think civility means kind of holding hands in kumbaya, and it's something much deeper than that. it was the threats that we were seeing in our language, the rhetoric that we were seeing from elected officials, and then we found that there was a measurable increase in threats of political violence to members of Congress in less than a decade. So threats against judges had doubled, attempted assassinations that we had seen, the different types of shootings, the rise of illiberalism, I guess for lack of a better term, but the rejection of Western norms of free speech,

for example, others, campus protests. And, of course, coming out of 2020, the January 6th and the George Floyd and all of those different issues, the riots that we had seen in the streets during 2020, all of those things combined for kind of a tinderbox when it comes to our body politic.

So that was something you'd begun to think about, I mean, at least as early as 2023. I want to move us into the present. Talk me through September 10th for you, the day Charlie Kirk was was murdered in Utah. What was that day like, what happened? Yeah, well, I mean, it started out like any other day.

I had a couple events. I had driven to a small town in Utah called Mona, where we talked to telecommunications providers, and then came back, and I was actually having lunch with my staff. We have a quarterly birthday lunch, and it was my quarter. I had a birthday in July, and we were really excited. I just got my plate of food to sit down when my assistant came and grabbed me and said, I need you immediately.

we had a captain and a lieutenant from a highway patrol who told me that Mr. Kirk had been shot. And I couldn't believe it. I knew he was in town. I knew he was on campus. And I thought, are you sure? Because as a governor, you've learned pretty quickly that there's a fog of war when it comes to these types of events. And you know you really can't trust any information you get early on. And then 30 seconds later, I have the White House on the phone.

they've called me and they want information. Actually, it was Marco Rubio, Secretary Rubio, who was in the situation room for something else. I have a great relationship with him, he called. And from there, it was just how do we get the right information where other people shot and injured? Which hospital is he at? What is his condition?

The initial report I got that he was awake and responsive, that of course was not true. So I said, look, I need one of our people at the hospital, so we have the right information. And then I get, you know, conditioned Delta, which is not great. And then a few minutes later, fatal. And, you know, that called to the White House to inform them what had happened. And then just trying to figure out, you know, who is this?

We have a suspect in custody, but that's not the guy. And now we're, you know, we're chasing. What do we know? Did anybody see anything? Is there any video? And everybody wants information and no one has. information. And that's the hardest part because then people start to make up information and trying to figure out what's real, what's not. And then you're dealing with, well, who's in charge?

You have campus police department. You have the county sheriff. You have the state. You have the FBI and the feds who are coming in. Who's taking lead? Who's got what assignment? And just trying to organize all that is in real time is something, look, I just said, the governor before me, I was lieutenant governor. He did not leave me a handbook explaining how to deal with the political assassination. It's never happened here. We're just making it up as we go along. What were your first thoughts about what this meant when you knew Kirk had died about what it meant for the country, about what it meant for our politics? Well, my first thoughts were certainly for his wife and kids. And I just, in that moment, in every moment, you know, he's a dad and a husband

first and foremost. And that's the kind of the sickening pit in the stomach. The second one is, And by the way, every governor does this. You worry about your state. I'm like, oh, my gosh, how could this happen here? Especially because we really pride ourselves on trying to be a little different and trying to be the type of people that are peacemakers, that we lead the nation in service every year. We leave the nation in charitable giving.

It's kind of part of our brand and our DNA and who we are. And you're like, this, you know, please, just not here. How could this happen here? But I think the thing that really hits so quickly to me, and I don't think it hit for a lot of people that were dealing with this here in Utah, was what this actually meant in a bigger picture, that this wasn't a local shooting or something that impacts us, that this was much, much bigger, both because, you know, I now have the President of the United States on the phone with me within an hour. So that's different than anything else, right? But two, just what this means culturally and as somebody who has been working on this for many years, understanding that this is something different. This is, I guess if the president getting shot, President Trump, the attempted assassination would have been the same, but he survived that. But this is a big one.

I mean, you have to go back a long time in our nation's history for something of this magnitude for a large segment of the population who held him in a very, very specific light. You know, in 2020, I published my first book, which is called Why We're Polarized. And the final paragraphs of that book are this argument that I make about realism, that as polarized, as divided as things feel. I mean, you can look back in our history and see it much worse, not just a civil war, but look back at the 60s. Look at the political violence. Look at the assassinations. Look at the violence in the streets. We are in so much better of a place today than we were then.

And I've been thinking in the last few days that when I was on the tour for that book, one of the things I kept saying, though, was that my nightmare scenario is something like the 60s, but with today's hyper-polarized parties, hyper-polarized media, hyper-polarized social media. And, you know, as I've watched the rise in political violence, the attempted connecting of Nancy Pelosi and then the assault on her husband, the attempted firebombing of Josh Shapiro's residence, the attempted assassination of President Trump, the assassination of the former Speaker of the Minnesota House,

now of Kirk, it's knowing it's coming into this context. And I just, when I saw Kirk had died, I just remember my stomach sinking. And the future going foggy because we're not well equipped for this right now. That dark pit in your stomach. I'm glad you said that because,

that was one of the first feelings I had just this wave of nausea kind of washes over you. And if you didn't feel something like that, again, regardless of your politics, then I do believe there's something broken inside of us when we don't feel that. And again, understanding there are a lot of people out there that disagree vehemently with maybe everything that Charlie Kirk said, although I suspect if you heard everything he said, you would probably find some things that you agreed with, but that is part of the issue, right? And you're right.

I mentioned in one of my press conferences after a question that the 60s are important, I think, to go back to. I think that, in fact, I've actually, in the last couple of days, been trying to look for the definitive piece on how we got out of that 1969 into the 70s. What was the off-ramp there? And I'm not sure I found that definitive piece yet.

But you are also right. And I think this is so critical to understand, the differences between then and now and the way we get our information and consume our information and share our innermost thoughts and feelings with each other in such rapid succession and the way the algorithms especially steal our agency and and addict us to them and and show us the worst of humanity to get us that dopamine hit from outrage that is very different you know when when john f kennedy is assassinated you have to go turn on a television and some breaking news and other political assassinations were not caught on tape, so you don't have

tape of that. Martin Luther King, you know, as a junior as an example of that. It's not being looped on social media in front of everybody over and over and over again. In a way that desensitizes us, again, in a way that we should not be capable of processing. So if you take that hate and divisiveness and polarization of the 60s and implanted into today's different culture and media culture and polarization. It's a recipe for something, I believe, far more worse than that. And that's exactly why you and I, on very different ends of the political spectrum, had that same pit in our stomachs.

Over those next few days after the shooting, I think everyone was desperate to know who the killer was, why they did it. I had so many private conversations with people in which they would say to me, I'm like, I just hope he's not, or she's not, but I think people assumed it was a man, X, right, where X was their politics, right? Just let them be illegible. Let this be John Hinkley, Jr., trying to impress Jody Foster, locked inside some kind of mania, not some kind of legible political actor. you were up there sort of getting that information

as it came in I guess I've had a question about our whole debate over politics and motive what is knowing alone gunman's motive tell us and not tell us

what meaning does it permit us to make because I think we're looking for it as a way of making meaning and what doesn't it? Yeah, it's fascinating you know, I said in that initial press conference that, or one of them, that I'd hoped it wasn't a Utah, that somebody had driven from another state or from another country. But by the way, just as an aside, in real time watching some people of a different political ideology,

take that and accuse me of racism that I wanted it to be an illegal immigrant or something. It's just seeing that happen is just crazy to me, but there is no generosity, and it's happened to me on both sides of the political spectrum. I believe firmly, And what I've tried to do is just to share what the facts are because too often we have a tendency to hide those things. And when we do that, then we lose trust. And we've lost so much trust in our institutions, so much trust in our elected leaders. If there was clear evidence right up front that, you know, this guy had a MAGA hat and had been MAGA's hold. I would have said that too. So I think it's important that we understand the facts of every single one of these cases, whatever it is. There are examples and you've pointed out examples and I pointed out examples. of people all across the political spectrum who have committed these atrocities. And I think it's only helpful in that we do need to try to figure out

if there is something we can do societally to prevent these things from happening. And the only way to do that is to find out why they happened and how they happened. And if there is a certain belief system or a way that people went from one fairly normally held belief to something else

trying to understand the human condition, in such a way that are there things we can do to try to prevent this from happening again? And I think those are worthy discussions. But if we're only trying to find out the political ideology of the person so that we can feel better about ourselves or to hate a broad group of people who have no intention or no, you know, don't support this type of behavior in any way, then that's not healthy. Well, I worry that, I mean, I think we're trying to find it out because we want to know. But then the question is, what do we do with that knowledge? You said that the evidence suggests the shooter out of leftist ideology.

I've watched the Trump administration of the day since saying that there is a crackdown on, you know, what they call the radical left without defining it, that is now necessary that we shouldn't be thinking of this as the act of one man. We should be thinking of it as the outcome of some broader network culture, ideology that if this is to be a safe society, needs to be repressed, suppressed, destroyed. What have you thought about that? Yeah, so I've obviously heard that. I've tried to be careful in a couple ways. One, my political ideology and my faith teaches that every person is responsible for their own action. So we have agency and that it's the greatest gift that we've been given as human beings. And this person made a very, very, very terrible decision. And as society, we need to hold that person accountable to, again, to the greatest extent of the law. And I always cautioned against

removing agency from a person that this person didn't have a choice, that this person acted because he had been acted upon. I think that's a big mistake. I think that's an illiberal ideology. And it's something that I reject when the left does it and I reject when the right does it. As to the radicalization piece, and again, I know that wasn't defined as radical left or whatever that is. I think we do need a deeper dive to understand what is radicalization and how does radicalization happen and are there things we can do to prevent that from happening. And so that's a worthy discussion. But we have to do that within the bonds of our Constitution and within the bounds of the law. Look, I don't get to speak for Charlie. I don't. And I don't presume

to. I didn't have a relationship like Vice President Vance or others. And so I just want to be clear about that. But one of the things I truly appreciated about Charlie was his defense of persuasion, his defense of being willing to show up on campus and engage, his defense of the founder's vision for our country, his defense of free speech. I go around universities and have challenging conversations because that's what is so important to our country is to find our disagreements respectfully, because when people stop talking, that's when violence happens. His words about if we stop talking to each other, that's when the violence starts. When people stop talking, that's when you get violence.

That's when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil and they lose their humanity. I don't think that you can remove a radical ideology through just pure repression or government enforcement, I think it's going to take more speech and more sunlight and more disagreement, more words, and less violence. Now, again, if there is a way to do that, I'm certainly open to understanding it, but I truly think that the answer to getting rid of what got us into this situation is not more of the type of thing that these anarchists or evil people have brewing in their souls. What do you think about the people on the right who say, look, this was a

guy, at his best at least, who is trying to operate through persuasion, who is trying to do politics the way you all say it should be done. And this just shows you can't, right? They tried to kill Donald Trump. They tried to kill Charlie Kirk. They'll come for all of us eventually. This has been a more common reaction in some ways than I would have expected. I do think it reflects people who, as I have spoken to them and tried to understand where they are coming from, get more death threats than I realized, right? So I think they've, you know, many of them have been quite radicalized by that. But the sense of this, you know, he tried to do it through persuasion. He was killed. The period of persuasion of normal politics is over. How do you respond to people

who want to give up on politics in that way? Well, I first respond with a great deal of compassion and sympathy. I actually think that's a very normal reaction. And it's one I've had to kind of question myself on many occasions. He's literally in the act of doing the thing. And that he said would help us prevent violence and he's been killed for it. And so it makes it really easy. I just think that's a human response. And I think we should give a lot of grace for that response. And then I hope that we can elevate what he taught and the reasons behind it and understanding what the consequences of rejecting that actually mean. And this is where many people, some intentionally, but most unintentionally, don't think through the consequence

of rejecting what he was preaching and what he was standing for. And my question is, okay, and then what? Where does that take us? And how do we engage then in a way that doesn't lead to more of what just happened?

I will tell you when I started that disagree better initiative, I got attacked on the right and the left. And the attack on the right was, and again, I'm over generalizing here, but generally it was, oh, you just want us to get along. You want us to hold hands.

You want a kumbaya moment. You just want us to capitulate, right? And that's not what I meant at all. I chose the term disagree first because I think disagreement is absolutely critical that we should be fighting as you do on your podcast and as I do in other ways for what I believe in and doing everything possible to win elections and to convince people to join our side and our tent so that we can adopt policies that make a difference. I don't think unity means agreeing together, as Yuvalovin says, I think it means acting. together. And acting together is very different. Acting together is acting within the constraints that the Constitution gives us. The disagreement that came from the left was actually different than that. It was, why should I talk to those people? Why would I engage with those people? And

as Charlie said, I actually do believe that is more dangerous. I do believe it is more dangerous when we're not talking to each other. Look, there's two ways this can go. And I've warned people before, if you don't like Charlie Kirk, what comes after Charlie Kirk is going to be far, far worse. Charlie had a vision for young men in this country, a vision of self-worth, a vision of building a vision of morality, getting out of the party culture, and getting out of the darkest parts of the internet, and building a life, getting married, having kids, human flourishing, which I think is so important, you know, pushing back against the Andrew Tates and others on the more illiberal side of things. And, you know, I've heard it said that by killing Charlie

Kirk, you've now created a million more Charlie Kirk's. And the best version of that can be very healthy for us. I don't know that I have a great answer, except that the only way we survive as a country, the only way that our ideals that created this grand experiment 250 years ago only survives if we can find an off-ramp and continue to engage with each other. There's a worse version of Kirk and Kirkism, too. You're talking about criticism from the left. The criticism I've gotten quite a bit of from the left in the past week or so. So it's been that you're sanitizing this guy. You're sanitizing this guy who bust people to the January 6th protests,

sanitizing this guy, said the Democratic Party hates America, said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. If we would have said that Joy Reed and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Katanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called the racist. But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us. They're coming out and they're saying, I'm only here because of the first. affirmative action. Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person slot to go be taken somewhat seriously. Sanitizing this guy said Spencer Cox should be expelled from the Republican Party after you vetoed a bill. There was a side of him that did dialogue, although some people feel he weaponized it. But there's a side of him that was also open to much more illiberal means. And they see that running through. And they say, that in pretending that this was a kind of path that we could all be on together, right?

This is sort of related to the critique you got from the left. There's not a way to be in community with people who do not want to be in community with you. And that there's a kind of pretense being made here by people who want to be in some kind of center, have some kumbaya moment, that is whitewashing how divided we are. Disagree better is fine when our disagreements are within a certain range, but I think something I have become more sensitized to, even in last

week, although knowing it in a broader sense before that, is how many people think our disagreements are already out of that range, that we have already gone through some kind of national divorce, and the question we are really in now is simply in what way it will be effectuated. Sure, and I've heard those same complaints. I've heard him for a long time far before the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and to a guy who a few years ago did want me out of the Republican Party, I've been told he didn't share that sentiment now, but I get that, and I applaud it. And that's exactly what we're talking about here, is that we can have these type of disagreements, and the people that are talking to you can very much use their

platform to say that they don't think we should whitewash everything that he said, and that that they had real concerns with him. That is part of what we're trying to do. That's part of the grand experiment. I don't think they should give up those views their opposition to Charlie Kirk or their opposition to me. I think that is well within bounds

and what we should be doing. I do worry that you and I still are too trapped into a very deep political culture. This is where we spend our time. We talk to people who are deeply ingrained in political culture. We spend a lot of time with people who are very much online. I'm online too much. You probably are too. And we start to think that this is the real world. All those people you're hearing from about whitewashing Charlie Kirk, the truth of

the matter is, a lot of people had never heard of Charlie Kirk before this happened. And I think we forget that. And they're learning about this in real time. As to that concept of a national divorce, look, and I know this conversation has been pretty dark and pretty pessimistic. We haven't heard a lot of hopefulness yet. But there are real things out there that are happening that can make a difference. First of all, more in common, the group has done some tremendous research about how we are divided and the different ways we're divided. And what they found was 70% of Americans hate where we are right now. They're desperate for something different. And neither party is offering them an opportunity for anything different. There is a market failure, as we traditionally understand, market failures in both

major parties. At some point, I hope there will be a market correction. We also have a history in our country of very dark things and tragic things happening that wake us up in a way that allows us to find our better angels. I mean, we've talked a little bit about the Civil War. We've talked about the 60s. I mean, I think you can go back to the Gilded Age and certainly the Great Depression and how we found ourselves out of that. This is not out of the realm of things that happen in our country. And so, yes, there are people who are angry and they're trying to figure out what this means. And there will be a battle of words about what he stood for, what he didn't stand for. And that is all very important. But we do have an opportunity for all of those

people to just say, you know what, I am done with this. I'm tired of it. I want something better. And somebody, hopefully, lots of somebody's will stand up and say, hey, I don't like this either. Maybe you should vote for me. Well, I've watched you up on that stage that week trying to practice politics in a different way than many people are right now. And I want to ask you about some of the things you said in particularly the speech you gave or comments you gave remarks you gave after the suspect was found. But I could feel you worrying about whether or not we were still, are still going to come apart. And you started by saying that of all the forms of violence, political violence is distinct. It is different than any other kind of violence. Why?

Well, if I could, and I'll encourage your listeners, as I was preparing for this, I listened to your last podcast in which you interviewed Ben Shapiro. By the way, amazing. Incredible. I hope everyone listens to it. I think it's the perfect example of how to engage with someone you disagree with in a way that is respectful of both. of you. I appreciated that. Thank you for that. But before that, you talked about political of violence and why it was different. And what I said and what I feel about this is, while it was an attack on an individual, it is broader than that. It is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on our ideals. It is attack on the founding principles of our country. I've had legislators whose kids have asked them to get out of politics because it's too dangerous. That is the biggest red flag. That's why political violence is so damning and so dangerous because it takes us

out of the public square. And it makes us fearful of engaging. This was a conversation I had with President Trump. He talked very directly to me about the assassination attempt on his life and how dangerous the job of president is. And if someone out there just decided not to run for office because they're fearful for their safety. If someone out there decided not to give a speech because they're worried that they could be attacked, if they are fearful to express an idea, then we are truly broken.

And that's why we have to treat this differently than everywhere else. That's why this is different than any other type of shooting or violence that we see in our country. One thing, and you brought this up a second ago, but I want to go deeper into it. You said that the path to building a better political culture

isn't pretending our differences don't matter, but actually embracing our differences with each other. What do you mean by that? What does it mean to embrace differences with each other when the differences are so profound, right? When they're over, you know, whether people who are living here should be deported, when they're over whether Medicaid should be cut,

when they're over what you should be teaching children in schools, When the stakes of them have real consequences for ourselves, for each other, what does it mean to embrace difference? This is where it gets so hard because there are two things that are important here. We definitely need more kindness in our public interactions. We definitely need more peacemakers and bridge builders. We need more people with compassion and sympathy towards people who disagree with. We need more people breaking bread with each other and sitting down together and having those type of moments, those kumbaya moments. That is not what I'm talking about now.

I'm not talking about kumbaya moments. I'm just trying to get people to stop shooting each other. That's it. And the way we do that, the founders were brilliant in understanding this. And they gave us the roadmap to doing it. And again, I just can't emphasize this enough that unity is not thinking the same things. It's acting together. And the way we act together is through the constitutional framework that has been set up. And the way we do that is by engaging in an electoral process. It's by running for city council and voting for someone in your local city council or your school board. It's when somebody's running for the president of the United States, we have a clash of ideas that are very different.

Should we shut the border or should we have an open border? These are the battles that we should be having. And then your side either wins or your side loses. And if your side wins, then you go about trying to enact all of those things. And if your side loses, then you don't. And you get a chance now to go build a coalition, which is really important. And again, this is where I just feel like persuasion. We've forgotten the importance of persuasion so that you can win the next time.

And this is the problem. We believe in just short term. If I could just this one, if I could win this election, then all of my wildest dreams will come true and my enemies will go away forever. if we win this presidential election, then I will never have to deal. Again, I'm sorry to keep quoting Yuval, but I'll never have to deal with those damn people ever again. And that's not what the Constitution envisioned. It envisioned that you will always have to deal with those damn people, that this is a lifetime of work. It is not a single event. And if I could, just as an aside,

because I think this is really important. One of the big mistakes that we have made over the last 250 years with our country is losing the concept of federalism so much. One of the brilliant things that they did that was very unique. You know, there had been checks and balances in government in other places, but having two sovereigns at the same time was really important. And here is why. Because they didn't want our national election, our presidential election, to be that important. They really didn't. That's why they gave the federal government a very distinct set of powers. And the rest of that was left to the states. They knew that Texas was going to be very different from New Hampshire, or, you know, I guess we're going back a little bit.

So maybe I should say Virginia very different than New York, right? They understood that those local differences were important. What we've done, by giving the federal government so much power and taking that away from the states, we've upped the stakes of these presidential elections to such a fever pitch that it feels like life or death. And in fact, those are the very terms that we kind of use in our politics, which is so dangerous. But California should be very different than Utah. And it shouldn't be, gosh, you know, if Kamala Harris wins, then the whole country is going to be like California. And that's something that I just can't stomach and we're going to have to go, we're going to have to do everything possible and that leads to some very dark places.

And so I do think getting back to truly understanding the Constitution and how we act within that will help us to disperse with some of the truly terrible feelings that we're having for each other and give us a framework for acting together. I think people often move to this federalism point. And I don't totally disagree with it. And there are many ways in which I think it's even true. But I think the way people experience politics, as much at least as they experience it through policy, is they experience it through media and culture. And it's something that's very, very different than the way American politics worked at the founding, or the way it worked in 1927, or the way it worked in 1977,

is that our media has nationalized, our local media has weakened terribly, So you know a lot less about what is happening right around you, a lot more about what is happening elsewhere. We have national cable news. We have national social and algorithmic media. You know, something that I notice a lot of on the right is the grabbing of something from wherever in the country, this thing happening in this random school district somewhere. And then all of a sudden it's like a national cause-celeb, a national story, a national. It's like you don't have that separation anymore. You know, if you lived in New York at the time of the founding, you didn't know that much about what was happening in rural Virginia.

But now you can live in rural Virginia and know a lot about what is happening anywhere in New York. Zara and Mamdani is a national story in a way that is unusual, in part because so much media is concentrated here. And that feels like a big piece of this to me, that we're all kind of like locked in this box where our local politics for a lot of people has dissolved into something they barely. even know anything about, right? How many people can name their state senator, their assemblymen, if they, you know, their city council member? And yet so many people can tell you what is happening in a school district they now hate or what they think about how crime is policed in San Francisco. And these are local issues, but I don't think we've seen, we live in a world right now where local issues calm the debate. Instead, it's like people hunt for the local story that will show us the

deepest difference from each other, then they blow that up. And in part because there is nothing to do about it nationally, it creates this, like, incredible, like, cultural pressure in our politics. Like, the only way to win is to, like, vanquish the other side, because otherwise they're just going to be there doing what they're doing, and eventually it's going to seep into you and your children. I couldn't agree more. When I graduated from Utah State University in 1998, if you took Political Science 101, which I did, the first thing you learn in there is that all politics is local. And so if the president of the United States was coming to visit your state, he would learn some issues, some local issues. There's a, you know, there's a water

issue or an infrastructure issue. Ethanil subsidies in Iowa. There you go. That's the perfect example, right? And so he would show up and he would talk about these local issues and you'd be like, oh, that guy gets me. I like that guy. He understands our issues. when it's a couple staffers who are briefing him on the flight over. That has completely changed. I now believe that the ethos of politics is that all politics is national. So the exact opposite happens, right? You show up to a local school board meeting or a local city council meeting,

and they're talking about something that's happening in New York or a school district in Virginia. You are absolutely right. That is part of it. There are two things that I think are the focal point of this. And you hit on the first one that I think is very damaging. The rise of cable news, first and foremost. and the need for content, and then the understanding by cable news, working with psychologists and

psychiatrists of the outrage effect and the addiction that happens through dopamine releases for outrage, which is a real thing. And so then you started to get not just cable news that was covering what was happening in the country, but you would get to fill in the gaps when nothing was happening, you would get two people screaming at each other, and that's very addicting. And then social media takes that and puts it on steroids. There's no question. The algorithms drive us. if I'm fed outrage, especially if I can see the worst of the other side. So people always say that you get locked in this cocoon, right? You only see your side of the story, which is true. But it's not just you're hearing people telling you what you want to hear about you. It's that they're cherry-picking

the worst of the other side so that you can get outraged and justify your feelings about that. And that is happening. It's well documented. But there's something else that I think is important. And we have to go back to the early 2000s when Professor Putnam at Harvard writes a book called Bowling Alone. And this idea of loneliness is, I believe, is at the core of all of our greatest problems in this country right now. If you look through history, there is less of what we would call community. One of my favorite things to do when I'm in a crowd is to ask how many of you belong to the Rotary Club or something like that, you know, Lions Club, whatever, volunteer organization, an Elks Lodge, something like that. And, you know, 50 years ago, almost every

hand would have gone up. And now almost no hands go up. There may be a little bit of a reawakening happening, but same thing with religious affiliation. Do you go to church on Sunday? Do you have real people in your life outside of the virtual world where you can have dinner and have conversations and get to know each other better? And that loneliness epidemic now, if I don't have any real friends in my town, at least I can hate the same people together on Facebook, right? That's where it starts. I do just want to say, for the record, my wife and I are 12 years sober when it comes to cable news. We turned it off 12 years ago. We had a Fox News addiction in our family, and we've been happier, healthier, our marriage is better, our relationship with our children are better,

all of that. And now, sadly, social media has taken up even more of that. One of the things I think when I hear this argument on loneliness is I don't think we're online because we're lonely. I think we're lonely. I think we're lonely because we're online. Yes. Yes. And the loneliness is partially a product there. Sometimes you're lonely being online with people you know, right? this sort of canonical kids texting their friends instead of hanging out in person. But I also think that even people not lonely online, there is something really disastrous about the politics it produces, the perspective we're getting on other people right now in this moment of extreme emotion is so dangerous. Henry Farrell, the political scientist,

he has this great piece about this where he talks about that one thing that, one thing that politicians like you yourself are always doing is trying to get a sense of the public. I mean, what do you really have? How many people can you talk to in a day? Not that many. So I guess there are polls, but that tells you one kind of thing and it's a very, very coarse snapshot. And then people, whether they know it or not, they go looking for some other kind of shortcuts, some other kind of way of conceptualizing the public. And for a while, the news did it one way, right? How is the news responding to things? Then cable news. And if you're on the right, Fox News became the right if you're on the Democratic Party, MSNBC became the voice of the Democratic Party.

I have many of the same criticisms, I'm sure, of cable news that you do, and I don't watch much of it myself, but seeing how cable news has been treating the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death and seeing what it is like when I log on and try to check the temperature on X on blue sky, you know, on other platforms, it's night and day. And it is something about the algorithms that what they want in this hungry, heedless, dumb fashion is just something that makes you emotional. They don't care how it grabs you, just that it grabs you. And so we're all acting with this sense of a malformed public, right? We have this idea of who the other side is, particularly in our heads, and it's not who they are. Something that I think is interesting about your work going before this is, I think a lot of us who has treated this as an inevitability, that I think we think the public square has become degraded. I think we think what social media is doing, not just politically, but in many cases, we think the way young men are getting addicted to porn, we think it's all bad, but what are you going to do, right? Free market.

And that's not really been your approach, right? I think something that's interesting in your politics and your policy is a sense that we've sort of abdicate. our responsibility to choose and shape? I mean, we shape markets, but we don't really shape online life. And I get the sense it's actually a pretty big place you diverge with a lot of other people where you think we should and need to, particularly for children. Can I get you to talk a bit about not just what you've done, but actually the theory of it? Yeah. Look, I'm a tech optimist. I have been. I'm a huge believer. I come from the telecom world. I was giving speeches many years ago, 12 years ago, 13 years ago, whenever it was on the Arab Spring and how social media was going to

bring us all together and allow us to see past cultural divisions and solve all of our greatest problems. And here we are. So we passed some of the most comprehensive social media legislation in the country a couple years ago here in Utah. And we passed several bills since then that I think are really important to protecting our young people, but it is more than that, and it is bigger than that, and it is philosophical, and it is deeper than that. And I think we've made a huge mistake. I think our response to technology,

and specifically to social media, and what it's done to our young people, has been abhorrent. You know, I know we both know Jonathan Haidt, who's written kind of the preeminent book, The Anxious Generation. I was talking to Jonathan well before Anxious Generation came out. When I saw some of his initial work,

he was in front of Congress, kind of sharing some of that. which led to the passage of those bills here in Utah. But it is deeper than that. It's a decision we've made to allow these companies to hijack our kids in ways we would never allow in any other way. We do not allow historically contractual relationships between corporations and minors for their data. The algorithm runs on us. It is our agency.

I believe there's a great book called Our Biggest Fight by Frank McCourt that I would recommend, where they make a really interesting argument that they're taking our agency from us and that our identity, really our personal freedom is bound up in that, and we have to take that back from them. The social graphs that they use, which are us that know us better than we know ourselves, that allow us, as you so eloquently stated and better than I could, to understand what makes us emotional and what keeps our eyeballs on there so that when a kid is somehow, even if they don't want to, they're on TikTok at 3 a.m. just going from, you know, you know, from video to video, and they've given up their free will.

And that is unbelievably dangerous. When tobacco companies addicted us, we figured out a way out of that. When opioid companies did that to us, we were, you know, we're figuring our way out of that. And I'm just here to say that I believe these tech companies with trillion dollar market caps combined are doing the same thing, the same thing that tobacco companies did, the same thing that the opioid companies did. And I think we have a moral responsibility to stand up, to hold them accountable, and to take back our free will. You went on in that speech to say something I quoted in the episode I released a few days ago now, which is that we don't know what kind of turning point this will be for the country. It could be one towards something better.

It could be one towards something worse. It could not be one at all. But that we sort of can each choose our own reaction, that we at least have agency over ourselves and how we. we respond to politics next. What do you hope and people do? Well, I hope that that people had that dark feeling in the pit of their stomach like you and I had. And I hope they will remember that. And I hope that they will ask themselves, am I part of the problem or can I be part of the solution? I hope that people will build community. I think we make a mistake telling our young people that they need to go out and change the world. I've given those

speeches at graduations, the truth is it's very unlikely that that's going to happen. Most people will not have a huge impact on the world as we understand it. And sadly, I think many of these most evil people that we're talking about, including shooters, are trying to have some sort of impact on the world. What I think we should be telling our young people is that they shouldn't be trying to change the world. They should be trying to change their community, their neighborhood. And that's where I really want people to focus. The experts, again, have said that service is one of the most important things that we can do for our own mental health, but also for building community. I would encourage them to join a faith, a congregation, believe in something bigger

than yourself. And if you're not interested in faith, then find a group, a positive tribe that is doing good in this world, that will give you a place to meet people who are different than you. I think all of those things are how we do this differently. I hope people will log off of social media, especially, you know, discord and 4chan and the deepest and darkest places and find human beings again. You said it best. It's not that we're lonely and seeking out social media. It's that social media is making us more lonely. And I need people to get out of that and get back in the real world. The virtual world is not real life. And we need the real world. I will just say that AI is going to make this a thousand times worse. And hopefully we have our eyes wide open as we head

into this new whatever this next thing is. Absolutely, we don't. But do you have views on what would de-escalate our politics beyond individual action? We talked a little bit about federalism, but I think I'm thinking of something that's more about our politics, about politicians, about your sense that you described a few minutes ago, that there are a lot of people who don't want politics to feel this way. There is an unmet market for something different. And yet we are getting a lot of this, whatever you, however you may define this.

And it feels like it's been getting worse, not better. Politics is structural. It's shaped by primaries, by money, by all kinds of things. You're a professional practitioner of the arts. What would make for a better politics and what we have? So there is a lot of research about this. And again, I would point to Stanford, who has run some pretty interesting experiments with what they call interventions.

And there are several of them. Unwittingly, a professor at the University of Utah, a video that I filmed with my Democratic opponent in 2020 when we were trying to de-escalate coming out of that terrible summer, George Floyd and the pandemic and everything else. And what they found was that one of the things that can de-escalate, and especially, interestingly enough, people's thoughts towards political violence were having politicians on stage together or on camera together talking about how they disagreed without hating each other. And so that is powerful. they found that there was a measurable drop in that polarization, again, and thoughts of violence

towards the other side, when you were able to get political elites, as they call them, and that's a term of art for them. Political elites are people of high political office in a room together talking like human beings. And so that's something we've encouraged. We filmed lots of videos together. I've encouraged my fellow governors. Governors are a great way to do that. But I would also caution that no one person, no governor, no president is going to be able to get us out of this. It really is those individual decisions that you focused on earlier. And always our final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience?

Well, I've probably already mentioned a couple of them. I'll go ahead and just mention our biggest fight by Frank McCourt since I already mentioned it. We passed some legislation around that this year in Utah. By the way, it's kind of like the 96 Telecom Act, what we passed for social media companies. it would allow you to take your data, make your data portable and take it to other companies, which we think will increase competition, but also allow you to have your data deleted from these companies, which is important. The second one I would urge is Yuvalovin, since I already mentioned him, I'm going to cheat and do two for one here. He's written two books that I think are the most

important books. The first one is called The Time to Build. It's really a rehash of almost everything we've talked about today. And then American Covenant was his latest one, which is kind of the answer to a time to build. American Covenant is about the Constitution and how it can solve this polarization that we're in right now. The last one I will mention is one by Jeffrey Rosen, and it's about the Declaration of Independence is called The Pursuit of Happiness, as we're celebrating 250 years. That phrase, that phrase in the Declaration, so life, we all understand what life is liberty, that's freedom, but the pursuit of happiness, we misunderstand. The pursuit of happiness was a term that actually dates back to,

to the Stoics, back to Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics, they understood, the founders understood the pursuit of happiness was not the pursuit of pleasure. It's the pursuit of virtue of personal enrichment and of taking care of the people around us. And getting back to those virtues, I think, is critical for our country. It's the responsibility piece. You have freedom on one side and responsibility on the other piece. We've forgotten the responsibility piece to be better people that will lead us to human flourishing. And I think that's something our country needs right now. Governor Spencer Cox,

thank you very much. Thank you, Ezra. This episode of this episode of Issaquinsch is produced by Roland Hu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris with Kate Sinclair and Mary Marjor. Locker. Our senior audio engineer is Jeff Gelb, with additional mixing by Amman Zahota. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Annie Galvin,

Marie Cassione, Marina King, Jack McCordick, Kristen Lynn, and Jan Kobel. Original music by Amman Zahota and Pat McCusker. Audience Strategy by Christina Samaluski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times-pending audio is Annie Rose Drasser. Thank you.