Constitutional Crisis?

Discussion post for February 11, 2025

Sarah and Beth discuss the recent actions of Trump's DOGE, the courts, the tweets, and how we as citizens might think about the current state of the Federal Government.

Topics Discussed

• DOGE, Bureaucracy, and Change

• Outside of Politics: Art That Moves Us

Want more Pantsuit Politics? Subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode and get access to our premium shows and community.

Episode Resources

Pantsuit Politics Resources

• Sarah’s Itineraries

Are We in a Constitutional Crisis?

• JD Vance (X)

• Opinion | Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Jacob Lew, Janet Yellen: DOGE Is a Threat to U.S. Democracy.(The New York Times)

• Demon Mode Activated (The Atlantic)

• Judge Rules That Trump Administration Defied Order to Unfreeze Billions in Federal Grants (The New York Times)

• The Storm Before the Calm by George FriedmanOOP Resources (Title Section)

• We were peaceful Americans, worried about democracy. Why did Mitch McConnell’s office call police? | Opinion (Lexington Herald Leader)

Show Credits

Pantsuit Politics is hosted by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The show is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our Managing Director and Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.

Our theme music was composed by Xander Singh with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.

Our show is listener-supported. The community of paid subscribers here on Substack makes everything we do possible. Special thanks to our Executive Producers, some of whose names you hear at the end of each show. To join our community of supporters, become a paid subscriber here on Substack.

To search past episodes of the main show or our premium content, check out our content archive.

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

Episode Transcript

Beth [00:00:07] This is Beth Silvers. You're listening to Pantsuit Politics, where today we're discussing what the Trump administration is doing, whether or not we're in a constitutional crisis and how we're calibrating our responses to Trump's actions. Outside of Politics, Sarah has just returned from a trip to Paris. I went to one of my favorite places this weekend, and all of that activity has us thinking about universal experiences and stressors and stuff and the passage of time.

Sarah [00:00:32] Before we get to that discussion, we wanted to send a little Valentine to all of you who listen and comment and email us about your thoughts and experiences. We received the most insightful messages from listeners after every episode that make our conversations and our thinking better. We especially love hearing comments like this episode prompted a great discussion with my family at dinner or my friends and I texted each other during every episode. So we really appreciate that, especially because that's how most people find new podcasts; it's when someone shares I heard this conversation, I want you to hear it, too. So keep talking to us and keep talking about us.

Beth [00:01:04] Last week I made an episode of More to Say about studies showing that American students are falling behind. And we're going to talk more about that on today's episode. But I was really blown away by the comments on Substack in response to that conversation. And I was especially touched by comments from teachers that said I was afraid to hit play on this episode. I was afraid it was going to be hurtful. I was afraid it was just going to be overblown criticism. But then I listened and I found it really important and constructive. And that kind of trust where you think, what are they doing? And you listen anyway and you take time to respond makes this the best job in the world. So thank you so much for that trust and for being here with us. Even when the news is challenging as it is, we love this work and are happy to do it with all of you. Sarah, I think the phrase of the moment is constitutional crisis. Are we in a constitutional crisis? If not, when will we be? And so I'm wondering how you are reacting to that commentary.

Sarah [00:02:09] I really tried to wipe my mind. I took some cleansing breaths. I tried to eradicate the anxious voices and outrage and sit down with this Christian Science Monitor article asking this question. Like, really just clean slate it. Let's go through this. And I think one of the triggers in the article talked about was the district court saying, you're not doing what I told you to do as far as ceasing the access to the Treasury payment center. Plus you have this editorial from all the Treasury secretaries in The New York Times saying this is a constitutional crisis and so that was concerning to me. But as I went through the article and they talked about all the historical parallels where this has happened or something similar has happened and how is it [inaudible]batting this idea around. But the only thing that comes up really repeatedly as a concrete thing to point to is J.D. Vance's statement that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. And so I got to the end of the article and I thought, okay. I don't think JD Vance's statement is a constitutional crisis. I think we will reach a constitutional crisis when these appeals make it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says cut it out and they say, make me. I'm not saying we couldn't get there; I'm just saying we're not there yet.

Beth [00:03:54] That is my perspective as well. This isn't new from J.D. Vance. He used this line to get himself to the vice presidency. I remember him saying that President Trump ought to look at John Roberts and say, you've made your order; now enforce it.

Sarah [00:04:10] Which is a play off an Andrew Jackson quote.

Beth [00:04:12] Right.

Sarah [00:04:13] So, again, nothing new under the sun.

Beth [00:04:15] I think the phrase that I would use right now is Republican backsliding. Which is also not new, but is a continuation and feels like it's accelerating to me. So I've been really thinking about our system. We are a democratic republic, right? So there is a portion of our system that is about people voting for what they want and accountability to voters. And then there's a portion about insulating officials from that direct accountability to voters so that they can do unpopular things that still advance our constitutional priorities. And that is where I think we are falling very short. I think you see that going back to the Trump impeachment efforts, when clearly the Senate had a role to play that it disregarded. I think you see it in some of the confirmation fights. I think you see it in the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be on board with Trump inventing a department out of thin air, allowing that department unfettered access to other departments that were invented by acts of Congress.

[00:05:25] I think we have Republican backsliding in a way that is extremely detrimental to the country. And I agree with you that we are walking toward a situation potentially where the Supreme Court says to the Trump administration that you are not exercising legitimate power of the executive. You have exceeded that power and you need to stop. And Trump says, make me. And that will really worry me. But I don't want to use this phrase casually because we've been hearing about a constitutional crisis since January 6th and well before it. The first Trump term was filled with people saying we're in a constitutional crisis. He does test the Constitution. He does. He strains the system. He strains the balance of power. I want to believe in the resilience of that system in the face of that.

Sarah [00:06:16] But he is the latest manifestation of a road we've been walking on for a long time as far as the expansion of executive power-- in the book The Storm before the Calm, he was talking about the nuclear football. We really let go of the idea that Congress has the constitutional duty to declare war when we got into nuclear weapons, because that's not going to work, because you have to act too fast to go to Congress and get a declaration. And we certainly abandoned it around Iraq and Afghanistan. And so I think there's some hard realities we have to face when the easy narrative is he's a fascist, it's a constitutional crisis, when he's just the latest manifestation of some stuff we've been assenting to for a long time around particularly expansive executive power. And what I'm worried about as a member of the minority party is that we're just doing the same thing again. It's a five alarm fire because he's a racist. It's a five alarm fire because he's a sexist. It's a five alarm fire because he doesn't care about climate change. It's a five alarm fire because he's a fascist. It's a five alarm fire because it's a constitutional crisis.

[00:07:37] It's a five alarm fire because he's corrupt. It's a five alarm fire because he's just trying to make money off the office of the presidency. I can keep going. Should I? Is that working? Even to that Treasury secretary op-ed, what was the point of that? Honestly. To just freak people out and then to ask them to do what? Make more phone calls. Phone calls are up 3,900% to Congress. To do what? We're doing it again. When we clamor about how he's moving fast and breaking things, people hear he's doing things. Actually I thought nothing mattered, nothing ever changes, and here he is breaking shit and making things matter. Why are we doing the same thing again? That's what's so frustrating to me. When that Treasury secretary op-ed came out, I'm like, goody, gumdrops. Another lineup of government officials representing a status quo that people hate, saying Donald Trump is a threat to the status quo. What are we doing?

Beth [00:08:49] I had a similar reaction to that op-ed from the former Treasury secretaries. What are we trying to do? What are the goals? I have questions about what the goals from the administration are, and I have questions about the reactive goals. And that's why I'm trying to slow down on everything and not react too much to his pronouncements. We had a very kind email from a Canadian listener. Our Canadian friends are struggling and I totally understand why. And she felt like I was flippant about this 51st state idea. And that's fair. That's totally fair criticism. I think I'm trying to be flippant about it because I don't want to give it a bunch of legitimacy and weight and oxygen. Not that I personally can, but in the spaces that I control I am not ready to go there yet because that is his pronouncement of something that will take a lot of effort and energy to actually enact.

[00:09:42] Now, I think he's serious about it. I think he means it. I don't know how many people behind him are serious about it and mean it too or if they just let it be a thing that he rambles about. I think clearly his statements about Gaza, he means. And they are having a significant on the ground real world impact right now. And so I want to contend with that. I am struggling, as we've been talking about for weeks now with this line between don't freak out, but pay attention and be serious about what is actually unfolding. And I keep finding that line difficult. And that's why I think giving the courts a little bit of time to work is my posture in relation to this constitutional crisis question. Well, are we? I don't know. We're just in the district court right now. Let's get to the Supreme Court and go from there.

Sarah [00:10:39] And I'm trying to think about ways-- I'm not trying to discount the calling. I believe in calling your member of Congress, okay? But I keep reading analysis that's like Trump makes it impossible for people to reach across the aisle. And, look, in some ways I agree with drawing a line. The reason it's going to sound like I'm talking out both sides of my mouth is because I'm trying to find a way, particularly as the minority party to meet the moment. So the reason I am going to say both, I think it would be appropriate for Democrats to shut down the government and they should find ways to work with Republicans when they can is because shutting down the government, to me, that disrupts the narrative that Democrats just protect the government at all costs. Like they just love the government. They're the status quo. They're the elite. That's all they care about. And so it's, to me, a win-win except for the risk to the global economy, obviously goes without saying. Not to be flippant. And it says, look, we can do this, too. We see things that are wrong, including you. You're wrong. You're the government now. And we have problems with the government. You're the government.

[00:12:01] Because that's the other thing. The more we do this, they're outside the norms, the more they can play this card of we're not the government. No you're the status quo now. And I feel like the more we do the five alarm fire constitutional crisis, the more they get to keep the hat on of challenging the status quo, which is what people want. Because what people want is what won in the election. And so at the same time, the working across the aisle to me-- everybody says like he's made it impossible to be bipartisan. Well, then there's a power there. There's an opportunity there to say, okay, well, listen, I don't like Rand Paul, but if we can find some alignment for different reasons we're on the reconciliation process, let's find it. Let's call him for that. Not just call him to call him and say, I hate all this, but to say I agree with you that we shouldn't do this without funding. Here's my spin on this. Here's what I care about.

[00:12:57] I think there's some space there because if the idea is that we're going to empower Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties by shaming both Republican and Democratic representatives from a place of extreme ideology on either side, I don't have a lot of hope in that strategy. Like just screaming at Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer that they need to do more. Do what? They're in the minority. So unless you have a very specific ask, which I think the improvement in the calling has been that they are specific. This is what I'm calling about today. This is what I care about today. This is what I'm asking for. But I think the more we can find especially people like me who are Democrats in a red state, to say, hey, look, I'm usually just opposed to you, but this is where I agree with you and I think that you should press constitutional authority on this issue, presents an opportunity.

Beth [00:13:54] There are two pieces of the calling to me. There was a very love hate split in reaction to my conversation with the No Labels co-founder, Holly Page, on Friday. Because some people do think the Republican Party, at least at the national level, is abhorrent and they deserve none of our time or attention. And where I fall into the No Labels, let's try to find bipartisanship where we can camp, is that the math says there are opportunities here. There are opportunities. You peel off a few Republicans on something, you can really make something happen. And I think where you can do that to either prevent harm or do good for people, you should do that.

Sarah [00:14:36] Well, and that attitude of forget them they're abhorrent, that to me is like the I don't believe in vaccines. Well, I don't care if you believe in them. They exist. It's not the tooth fairy. I don't care how morally or ethically you feel about the Republican Party, the reality is we live in a two party system and they're the party in power.

Beth [00:14:52] So I think the calling puts pressure on or has the potential to put pressure on in situations where there is an opening. The second piece of the calling to me is to get a temperature check on that Republican backsliding. There's an op-ed making the rounds of my Facebook feed because it's from a Kentucky author talking about a small group of people, almost all people over 50, she said, going to Mitch McConnell's office this week. And the staffers in Mitch McConnell's office called the police on this small, peaceful group of people in their 50s and older. Finally, the police helped them get in touch with the staff, and the staff agrees to meet with people two at a time, according to the op-ed. So they line up in pairs. Like I pictured Noah's Ark, right? They line up in pairs to go in to meet with the staffers. And after the first two people had their meeting, a woman came out of the office with comment cards and said they weren't going to do any more in-person meetings. People could fill out these comment cards. And then rushed back into the office and locked the door and they didn't see anyone else. That is Republican backsliding.

Sarah [00:15:58] Yes.

Beth [00:15:59] Here is a United States senator whose job is to himself and through his team listen to constituents, refusing to do it. I think constantly about that Senator Kennedy clip that we played in an earlier episode where he said to people, if you don't like this, call someone who cares. I don't. Well, that is evidence that we have deep problems in our system, that, again, we have some power to change. You can elect somebody new. You can start running against these folks. Even if they aren't up for election for years, fundraising sends a message. People running ads against them sends a message. There are pressure points in the system. So when you're calling or you're showing up at offices or you're doing that kind of advocacy, you can see close to you how are we surviving this stress test and what do I need to do to affect that in a positive way?

Sarah [00:16:52] Well, and I just think you have to say over and over again this is the elites inside the government, and they don't care about you. They don't care to listen to you. I just think the more we can label correctly in my opinion the MAGA Republican Party as elites who completely disregard the will of the voters, like they are doing a good job right now of saying promises made, promises kept. We have to disrupt that because it's not all true, for one thing. And that's a really powerful message. And insane constitutional crisis does not combat it. It just doesn't because I don't think people-- if people feel like they're doing what they said they were going to do, which is something people never feel like politicians do, then that's more important to them than a constitutional crisis. I'm sorry. I don't like that and I don't think it's right and good. But it's just the reality. Donald Trump was elected post January 6th. So the messaging around constitutional crisis doesn't work. And I want something that works. I don't want holy pictures. I don't want to just feel good or feel righteous. I want it to work. I want it to land. And that's what I'm worried about right now.

Beth [00:18:08] And I also care about what's actually happening separate from the messaging. There is a part of me that knows constitutional crisis doesn't work in that it doesn't resonate with voters. But it is also true that judges have some really important decisions in front of them for the long term about what the balance of power is going to look like. And so I want to be able to hold both of those things at the same time. It's similar to how I feel about what's happening in the executive branch agencies. I know that the public in sort of a topline way, agrees with this administration that government is too big, that often we spend too much money on things that the vast majority of Americans are not concerned about or touched by. But I want to be realistic, too, about the fact that they are going in in the dumbest, least efficient way possible to make real change. I keep thinking about Office Space and the Bobs where the consultants come in and interview everybody what is it that you'd say you do here? Except that these are the Braden's and they're not taking time to meet with everybody?

[00:19:19] These are young kids with very little experience walking into these agencies like they know everything and own the place. And most people have life experience where they have run up against someone who believes they know their job better than you do, even though you've been doing it every day for 20 years. So how can you connect those dots to show people I agree with you, the government does a lot of things inefficiently. I agree with you that there are aspects of where we spend our money that we have been doing for years just because we used to do it and it doesn't apply in the modern world anymore. But look at how this is unfolding and think about how that has unfolded in your business or your workplace. You know that this is a destructive, crazy, expensive road to go down. Maybe it's promises made, promises kept to deport some immigrants to Guantanamo Bay. Do you know what it costs to keep someone at Guantanamo Bay? Like we might be aligned on the goals, but the process here is bananas. And if you would think about it for a second, you would agree that it is bananas.

Sarah [00:20:26] I don't know. I worry that they wouldn't. I just don't think process is something that connects with people. I don't think they trust the process any more than they trust the institution because they think the institutions created the processes. And I think they're right. I think the processes are a reflection of the institutions. And so breaking the processes to them is just part and parcel of breaking the institutions, which is what they want. I have a glimmer of an alternate reality where you're like, well, that would be worse, at least. Because I was thinking a lot about Elon Musk and his demon mode and I thought, well, Kamala Harris could have won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote and Elon Musk could be unleashing this demon mode on our electoral system and that would be worse. I would choose the Department of Education and USAID over him staying up late trying to take out our elections. So there's that. It's a small comfort, but it was a comfort as I was having this mental exercise.

[00:21:37] I will say that I found Yuval Levin on Ezra Klein greatly comforting. And I agree with him that some of this is just what happens when a new administration comes in. They come in big and everybody thinks they're going to be in power forever and that this is the new reality forever. And there is no forever in politics. And the minority party often finds its footing and the administration finds challenges outside their very pre-planned order of events. And also I don't think this is that well planned. This doesn't feel like a carefully orchestrated rollout of Project 2025. This feels like demon mode. Doesn't mean I don't think that is dangerous. Doesn't mean I don't think they're going to break very important things. But it feels a little slapdash to me in a way that ultimately I think will strain the system, but I don't know if it will ultimately change the system. And, look, I would have no compunction as a Democratic lawmaker once they break things and it all rolls back to the way it was say and see they said they were going to change things and they didn't. Even if I didn't even want the stupid change.

[00:22:43] I just think that we have to saddle them with this stuff. Like they're sloppy. They're saying promises made, promises kept. But this is sloppy. All they're doing is setting themselves up for legal challenge after legal challenge after legal challenge. They're not delivering the change that they said they would. This immigration stuff, it looks pretty on TV, but they're not going to meet the numbers they promised you. They're not going to get anywhere close to deporting the amount of people they promised you. He said he was consumed with your prices. He's not doing a damn thing to bring your prices down. All he's doing is making the prices go up. I guess the posturing I don't like is instead of saying what he promised you was fine and he's not delivering, it's everything he does is evil. Everything he does, the promises he made you were bad. He should never promise that to begin with. Well, that's not a good argument politically, because he won and people wanted those things. So you have to work with what people wanted. I think you can't always just try to talk them out of it.

Beth [00:23:44] I don't think it's completely clear what people wanted beyond change.

Sarah [00:23:49] Yeah.

Beth [00:23:50] A lot of what he's doing right now, I think, meets his persona. The plastic straws are a great example. I don't care about the plastic straws executive order. I think the vast majority of people do think that plastic straws are superior to paper straws. I think the vast majority of people aren't going to consider whether the president ought to be involving himself in plastic versus paper straws and what that means. That persona is I fix everything. I have all the power. I'm the king. No problem too great or too small for me to make a decision on. And I think that's bad for our system long term. I think it is an opportunity to do exactly what you're talking about, though. To say if he is the king, then he is responsible for everything. And so if things aren't getting better, then that's on him because he's taken all the power for himself. So anything that doesn't work, you put at his feet now.

Sarah [00:24:43] And that's so hard. I don't think we've cracked that code yet. He still has a shocking ability to say I'm going to fix everything and then when something doesn't go his way, like, I don't know, the plane crash over Washington, D.C., to say it's somebody else's fault. To say it's somebody else's fault. I think Americans who don't pay a close enough attention to the news will make the commonsense assessment that that was very close in time to his inauguration and so perhaps it was previous administration's fault. But I don't know what to do now. I don't know how to prepare for the inevitable consequence of some of these decisions which will be things are going to get broken, and to defend against the inevitable strategy, which is it's somebody else's fault is not my fault. That's what we've never gotten quite correct. Even in his first term he was so good at saying it's not my fault. Even during the pandemic, somehow he made it not his fault. And I still don't think people blame him. We know they don't. They re-elected him. So they still didn't say a pandemic came on your watch and you fucked it up. We have not been able to saddle him. And I think some of it is because we make it about him morally as opposed to him managerially. And so as long as we're doing the moral stuff and we're calling him a fascist, we can't actually say no he's just a president; he made the wrong call and it's his fault.

Beth [00:26:24] It's also that there is a long term project in convincing some people that anything government does is good because you'll never get to government is good in general. It's too big. You have too many interactions with it as a citizen. There are too many people carrying out the acts of government that everybody is going to have an experience classically at a DMV somewhere in the system where someone exercises their power in a way that makes you feel something between annoyed to ruined. So it's hard to get to government is good in general. In that way, you're always asking people to take a more nuanced posture. Government can do good. Government does do good. There are things government does that can't be done elsewhere as well. I was thinking about that with medical research this morning. What do you do about the fact that people mostly say they don't like government doing things, but they do want cancer to be cured? They do want drugs to roll out that help alleviate suffering. It is a multi-year project to help educate all of us, me included, on the places where government research leads to private sector breakthrough. I don't know if there's a universe where you could craft legislation that requires financial disclosures that are like nutrition labels. Like when a new drug rolls out the pharmaceutical manufacturer has to disclose that they built on government research. But I think there is a long term project that has to be undertaken while dealing with the short term implications of everything Trump is doing to build some confidence in what government is involved.

Sarah [00:28:11] I'm going to talk about that book again, I can't help myself, The Storm Before the Calm. And he has a sentence and I send it y'all and said this felt like a piece of a puzzle I've been working on for 10 years because the power of the federal government isn't doubted. Its failures are perceived by an increasing number of people as deliberate. That's what you hear about USAID. That's what you hear about the Department of Education. And his argument is that we have to go under a more military model. That's like the intent of the general. I forget the phrase, but it's basically like empower bureaucrats to make a commonsense call. It's not that people's lives are ruined by them exercising power. So often it's because they won't exercise power and they're just "following the rules" when the rules are dumb.

[00:28:56] I just went through TSA, encountered all kinds of dumb rules. That if people were in power to say no, of course, common sense says that we don't need you to test your breast milk or whatever because we don't think it's a security threat. Stuff like that. His argument is it's gotten too dispersed. Like there's so many processes. There's so many rules you have to follow that we think bureaucrats are so powerful, but really they're not empowered to just do the thing that makes the most sense of the moment, but otherwise just follow the process so they don't get sued on the other end or written up in a Dateline for sending condoms to Gaza or whatever the case may be. That to me, I think, is the tough nut. And whether they come from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, the person who can articulate a new vision of the federal government-- because, listen, Elon Musk is unelected, unaccountable, uninformed. Not an expert.

[00:29:56] But our attention economy responds not just to people who can articulate the problem, but who can at least show a different vision, an attention getting vision. And that's what he's doing right now. He's doing what everyone said was impossible. I don't even think he's going to achieve it. I think it ultimately will be impossible, but it looks like he's doing what everybody said you can't do, which is shrink the federal government. What have we heard for years and years and years? You can't shrink it. It is what it is. You can't get smaller. And he's doing it. And so that is going to be appealing to people. So unless we have another vision that's not let's keep it the same size, it's just complex, it does a lot of different things, I'm worried that it's going to be the same thing. They're just going to get empowered through the chaos. Through the chaos of their creation because at least it's attention-getting. You know what I'm saying?

Beth [00:30:59] Ilan absolutely rivals Trump in attention-getting because he's such a character and he's an interesting character. The space stuff, the way he names his children, the many, many children. The Tesla, the bid to buy OpenAI this week. He knows how to keep the focus train on him. He does have something interesting to say about such a wide range of topics that are topics that capture the zeitgeist. I think that will ultimately be the undoing of that relationship, that he's as good as Trump at getting and sustaining people's attention. I don't think it's going to happen as quickly as some folks do. But I don't think that town is big enough for both of them for very long. I am fine if on the other side of this the federal government is a little smaller. And I think a little smaller is probably what Elon can get done. A little smaller.

Sarah [00:31:57] Listen, I'm thrilled about the pennies. I'll just straight up agree with that. Thrilled.

Beth [00:32:00] I agree. I think the pennies are exactly the kind of place where these sorts of changes make sense. I don't want to get in the business of predicting what this Supreme Court will do. And then here I'm going to try to do that. I think most things are going to be a mixed bag from this court. I think ultimately, yes, the executive branch if it's able to still do what Congress has mandated that it do with fewer people, the courts are going to be fine with that. If they can go to a court and say, I understand that people are mad that we fired half of the people in our workforce, but we can still get the job done the Congress has given us. Shouldn't we do it that way? I think the court is going to say, yeah, you should. I think the court is going to say, yes, he has the authority to declare a national emergency about immigration and use our military to do what it needs to do to deal with that. I think the courts are going to empower him in a bunch of places. And I think the question will be what are the handful of places where he really has exceeded the scope of executive power and intruded on Congress? And I think there will be those places, too.

[00:33:06] I don't know how directly this court will reach that question, but what you see from this court is a sense that is the opposite of what you just talked about with The Storm Before the Calm. This court has said no, bureaucrats should be less empowered. There should be less deference to these executive agencies. And it said that during the Biden administration, but I believe that it will still mostly think that in the Trump administration too, because you got long term views held by a lot of these justices, personal views for some of them. I'm thinking specifically about Justice Gorsuch and his mother's experience at EPA. You have a personal sense from these justices that bureaucracy in total, no matter who runs it, is bad. And I think we probably are due for some rethinking. I am relieved today that Build Back Better in its entirety didn't pass because I would not want this kind of chaos to be touching child care.

[00:34:08] It already is in the form of funding and grants, but for it to be more directly affecting child care I think would be really horrifying. If it were more directly affecting health care even more directly, I think that would be very, very concerning. So I do think that it is okay to shrink the discretionary side of government. The mission of actually getting the debt and deficit under control cannot be accomplished until they hit mandatory spending. And that is where I think Elon Musk is way out of his depth. That is where I think Trump himself runs pretty dry on political courage and will. That is where the voting public will lose its complete mind if anything changes. So I'm in a very wait and see posture on whether Elon actually accomplishes much fiscally. There's a lot he can do around the edges that I think will be bad in the short term and okay in the long run. Okay-ish. Fixable. It's not the last day. The mandatory pile, I just don't know.

Sarah [00:35:22] Because here is where I'm really trying to push myself. Obviously, I don't want king Trump-- I should hope I don't need to say that at this point. But I think for most Americans part of the government being too big is also the government being too slow. That's why the pennies thing really appeals to me. Because it's infuriating as a person who thinks government is the solution to lots of problems, to see a problem so obvious that everybody was like, I don't know. Too hard. I don't know how we going to get it done. Same with Daylight Savings Time. Like, just do it. I think there's a sense of Americans as the pace of change gets faster and faster and faster-- I mean, that's part of this constitutional crisis analysis. It's that the courts move slow. And yes I went to law school. I understand that that's the way the founding fathers designed it on purpose. It's for things to move slow.

[00:36:22] But that was the legislating process. That was the checks and balances. What we've designed is an executive branch that moves very, very slowly. We have expanded it and expanded it and expanded it to where it moves slowly. And I think there is an appeal to the Trump administration saying it doesn't have to. We can get to things quickly. We got a lot of problems. Let's get to them quickly. But I don't really think they're doing that. So maybe what I'm really saying is there's an opening for someone to come and say they've gotten this wrong. We do need to move faster. We can't move faster just by breaking things. They're not actually doing what they're promising. They're not keeping the promises. What they're doing is making their friends richer and themselves more powerful, but they're not actually getting at the efficiency of the federal government and your life.

[00:37:09] Your life is not getting any better or less complicated because he shuts down the Department of Education. Let's talk about why. Like, even though I think there's room at the Department of Education to shut some stuff down and make it faster. Because it's the speed, too, it's not just the size. The size makes it slow and that's what makes people mad. It's they see a problem in front of them and they're being told that the government should be able to fix it. But the government is saying it's the critique you had from the Democratic Party a lot. Like give us this power, but we can't really do anything with it. And so there's a lot of appeal for Trump saying, give me this power, I'll do something with it.

Beth [00:37:44] And, look, I think the court system moves unnecessarily slowly. I don't think that a lot of the delay, certainly the cost, but the time that it takes for courts to resolve something is consistent with constitutional design. Constitution doesn't say a whole lot about how the judicial system is supposed to work. And much of what we do dates back to Old England. Judges write rules of procedure. There are lots of places where if you want our country to work better and you want people to have better experiences of and with their government, and if you want things to be fairer, if you want to advance liberty, you do a big renovation of the court system. They used systems that are old and slow. There are too few people doing too many jobs. There are procedural rules that make absolutely no sense in the digital age.

[00:38:42] There are a ton of places where no one can just do the right thing because of some technicality. And we need to fix all of that. I think if you want to really fix immigration quickly, you fix a lot of this clog in the judicial system and you get there. So, again, I am for change. I am not standing here saying everything works great today. Thank you very much. Don't touch it. And I do think getting out of that protective posture is really important for Democrats to be that opposition party that can meaningfully oppose, overreach while advancing their own vision of government.

Sarah [00:39:19] Because, listen, I have a higher threshold for change. We did a tour through the United States in 2019, and I said let's just change some stuff. I'll do a constitutional convention. I'm not scared. Put it on the table. But if we think that we're going to improve government or win elections or change people's lives or drop the price of eggs or whatever the hell you want to put on the list only through a tightly controlled process that never makes anybody uncomfortable, then I have a bad news for you about how change works. It's big and it's scary. And so there is just a part of me as a person who likes change and thinks that there's a lot of room for improvement in government and people's lives, that like fine shake some shit loose. Because we'll be there to say you did it wrong. Let's try our way. Because we do need change. We do need change. That's the argument from the book. It's that we are reaching the end of the systems we both institutionally and socioeconomically that we built post-World War Two.

[00:40:14] That's what we were articulating over and over again during the election. It just feels like we've run out of runway. The education system, we've got all these reports that we're not making up for Covid. That's what Covid felt like. It felt like it was just accelerating change and showing that all these systems, processes, institutions that we had built were no longer meeting the needs of our current time, country, culture, society, whatever. We've been saying that I feel like for the last ten years on this podcast. There's institutional distrust because they're not doing what they're supposed to do. And so there is just a part of me that can see this shaking loose. I don't know how to use it or how to say it any other way. They're going to create chaos and chaos is an opportunity to say you broke it, but your plans for fixing it suck and that's not how we're going to fix it. But fixing it cannot be let's just all put it back neatly the way it was. It cannot be that. It cannot be that that's not going to work. And so there's just still so much of that, especially from the professional class.

[00:41:28] I was telling our team it feels like for 20 years, 30 years, particularly around the Great Recession, the industrial class said, "You told me this is the way the American dream worked. You lied. People are cutting line. I'm pissed off." And now it feels like in this Trump administration, the professional class is saying, "You told me this is the way the world works. That if I went to grad school and I became an expert and I went and worked as a contractor or whatever, that this is the way the world would work. And this isn't the way the world works. Trump's breaking all the processes, and now I'm pissed off that people are cutting line." It feels similar to me. And instead of maybe fighting each other, we could all just agree that the there was a lie. And we need a new story and a new promise and new processes that serve everybody. Instead of saying no my process was right and you suck it up and quit voting against your economic interests. And no you suck and your processes are the ones that are wrong. And you're the one that's not voting your interest. You know what I'm saying? Stop fighting each other and realize that the whole story needs to change, including the processes and institutions.

Beth [00:42:39] This is my fundamental problem with the way the change is happening. They do not have a vision of collaboration for change. There's no chapter two here. There is demolish, but not what happens next. And the demolition is not collaborative. There is a way that this could happen where the demolition itself is collaborative, where people come together and talk about what's been in my way. Okay, let's move that out of your way. I think, again, about Gavin Newsom's response to the L.A. fires. What's in the way of rebuilding? Oka. How do we balance the short and long term concerns around what's been in the way? How do we do it better? How do we get things out of the way while not allowing ourselves to go so fast that we break more things in the process? And they don't have any sense of being able to collaborate because they are not driven by a sense that things haven't been working well and need to be fixed. They are driven by a sense that we have been disrespected in the old way.

Sarah [00:43:50] A hundred percent.

Beth [00:43:51] And now we are going to be respected. And that's as far as it goes. And once they are respected, they don't care what's working well and not working well for people. It's just the group of people doing the smashing right now because it's just about giving a middle finger to the people who had the power and were respected. That's it.

Sarah [00:44:12] Because they don't care about the systems or the processes at all, much less the institutions.

Beth [00:44:16] Or the outcomes for people. They don't care about the outcomes for people.

Sarah [00:44:19] It's only a manifestation of the people they hate, of their enemies, which are liberals, deep state, [inaudible]. That's it. The fact that they just do this DEI like they're running it into the ground. As if like what? You're going to turn back the last 20 years of diversity in hiring? Hello, look at your own cabinet. It's pretty diverse. I think that's good. And to me the message is like, fine, you know what, we have total faith and ability in the diversity of the American people to meet the needs to get the jobs. That's never what these programs were meant to do. Was to give a leg up to somebody who didn't deserve the job, so we're not scared that you're on doing that because that's never what we thought they were doing. We know that the American people can do the jobs they're hired to do. That's not the issue. This is what you're saying it is, but that's never what it was about for us. We know you believe in diversity because we can see your cabinet. So we do, too. Good. We're all on the same team. That we hire the best person for the job.

[00:45:28] Like you said, that the villainization, the just we're just getting out the bad people cannot be met with you're the bad people and we just have to get rid of you. That's not the answer to that. The answer to the liberal woke elites are ruining America is not the fascists MAGA Republicans are ruining America. It's just not. That's not going to get it done. It's not going to break through. It's not going to make the American people where they're at. I was looking on Facebook and people were getting into it in a comment thread in my community. And what comes up comes up all the time, which is they're just trying to tear us apart. That's really all this is about. And I hear that more from MAGA Republicans than I do from Democrats. This is just the attempt of the media to tear us all apart. So don't. Okay, fine. I agree. I don't want us to be all torn apart. Let's find some space where it's not I'm the villain. You're the villain. Because that is not going to move us to a new place, which is clearly what America wants. I think broad strokes. They want to go somewhere new.

Beth [00:46:34] I think the DCI thing is about that ability to be the hero and the victim at the same time. You especially see that in this new executive order declaring that white South Africans are being persecuted now. That clearly is a personal issue for Elon Musk. But the idea that white people are victimized in the system motivates all of the DEI considerations. I think the cabinet's diversity is not at all about meritocracy, but about being able to say, "See, we aren't racist." And being able to buy the loyalty of people who were Democrats. I think you see some of that in the decision not to prosecute Eric Adams. It is so valuable to Trump to have a Democratic mayor, a high profile Democratic mayor.

[00:47:25] A New York mayor no less that matters so much to him who sings his praises or at least prevents other people from criticizing him. So there's just a transactional ego component to all of it. But it doesn't really matter. Those aren't the focus areas. I think the focus area has to be recognizing that Americans have that sense that everybody is out to get us, everybody wants to tear us apart. I think push comes to shove people know that Elon Musk and Donald Trump don't really care about real people. The problem is they think Democrats don't either. And that's what you have to rebuild a sense that Democrats actually do care about their results for real people, not just the process, not just the power, not just the respect.

Sarah [00:48:09] I think that it is a type of meritocracy if the merit is based on loyalty. If it's a different set of requirements that you define as merit, which is the ability to communicate effectively on TV, the ability to feel loyal and the ability to be shameless. And so I'm just trying to see that because when people post that stuff on Facebook about his diverse cabinet, they are saying these people are qualified, of course. And let me put it this way. If you can articulate without seeming like the biggest of biggest hypocrites why their diversity is fake and ours is real, Godspeed. I can't find a way to do that. I can't find a path forward to say the fact that they have the first female chief of staff or the first Indian-American head of the FBI is all bullshit, but when we do it it's moral and good and righteous like. If you can, I'm open to listening to that.

Beth [00:49:22] That's not what I'm trying to do.

Sarah [00:49:23] No, not you. I meant if somebody else out there can do that, Godspeed. Because I can't figure out how to thread that needle. You know what I'm saying? And I think by ignoring it, there is a sort of hypocrisy, too. Because then they can point out that you're ignoring it and saying, see, they don't care about diversity. They're not praising Siouxsie Wiles. They're not excited about Kash Patel. Everybody we have sucks. It doesn't matter.

Beth [00:49:47] Yeah. Look, what I want is the ability to hire, fire, praise, criticize anyone in any position no matter what party they're affiliated with or who nominated them. And I think that's where most people are. So I don't want Tulsi Gabbard to be insulated from criticism because of any factors about who she is or prevented from going forward because of any factors about who she is. And I do think that most people are on the same page about that. And I do think that that's where there's frustration with Democrats, because Democrats want to do the insulation of people from any criticism or votes of no confidence. Democrats want to use those identity factors as part of the merit. And I think most people just want them to come out of that equation wholly.

Sarah [00:50:41] Well, and I just think the more we escalate, it feels really weird to me because it feels like right now Trump's posture is I don't know a better word than to just say chill. He feels very like above the fray to me right now. Whereas, as used to in the first administration in his first term he felt very in the fray. And I don't know if that's because he's built out this reality show cast or what? But to me the way he comments even the Gaza stuff, it was very much like, yeah, I just threw out this idea. I'm just thinking out loud here. And again that feeds this sense of like I'm not the government. The way he can occupy this space of like "I say it, I proclaim it happens, but also it's just a suggestion if it doesn't work out, it was just an idea; it's not like I'm the president of the United States or anything," is wild to me. And I can't wrap my head around how to navigate that because he just seems to be getting better and better at it.

Beth [00:51:54] I think that's interesting. And I just wonder how long that will last. Because it is still really early. As much as they're doing, it's still really early. And that's another piece of just keeping my feet on the ground, recognizing where we are, recognizing that they have put a lot into this stream, much of it intentionally to mess with the nervous system of people who disagree with them. There was an article this morning about how he says that he floats a third term just to mess with Democrats. And so I don't want to just be messed with. I'm not moving my money around. I'm not regretting taking my husband's last name when we got married. I'm not going to react to every single thing because it's early. And because as fast as it seems like they're moving and as much as for the federal workforce it is very real every single day and I never want to leave that behind, if you work for the government I know that it's not early, it's late and it's miserable and I am sorry. And I wish that I could personally do more about it.

[00:53:04] I hate the way people are being treated in their jobs right now. I hate the way they're being spoken to. I hate that people with very little life experience and certainly no relevant experience are just coming in and doing the equivalent of a smash and grab in these places that you've worked your whole life to build for mostly people who are not partizan at all who just want to come in and do their jobs. So that's the universe where this all feels very real and present to me right now. Outside of that universe I do not want to allow them to mess with my nervous system. And I do want to wait and see how our system responds to the stress test and recognize that for both me personally and for the system, we are in like week four of a four year journey. And so using all of my resources to be upset about this every single day is just going to be really ineffective and only hurts me.

Sarah [00:54:05] And I think to the federal workforce, I was really happy to see some of the workforce in the contractors coming forward and saying I had to go run and fill my prescription because they cut my health insurance off in three days. I think that there was an old way of doing things and a continued old way of responding to the Trump administration that's like fear of retribution; don't use my name; don't tell people. Sort of their head down, bureaucratic, keep calm and carry on head down, bureaucratic posture that I just don't think is going to work when Elon's in demon mode. I'm sorry. I think that is not up for the current challenge. So I was happy to see a lot of people-- and I'm not saying everybody has to do this, but the people who came forward and said, no, this is how this is going to play out in my life and this is what it means for you because this is the job I do, the more people who do that the better.

[00:55:02] The more people that put a face on the "federal bureaucracy" the more people that say I'm a member of the Swamp, let me tell you how this looks. I think that's really, really positive. A friend of mine works at the VA. He's a doctor and he got that email. He's a doctor taking care of our veterans, making less money that he could in private sector. So are we all okay with him getting the email and walking away? Somebody who's supposed to take care of the warriors we all care about. Like, what are we doing? So I just think the more the specificity-- but there's no specificity in constitutional crisis. The more specificity we say like do we want to treat people who've dedicated 10 years of their lives to X, Y, Z pursuit for you having to run to CVS so that they didn't lose their prescriptions? Is that what we meant when we said shrink the federal workforce? Putting names on it, defining the stakes for people, defining the failures of the Trump administration because they are the government now? Because the more you talk about Elon as unelected and unaccountable, well, then that means he's not the government, but he kind of is the government right now. And I think we should say that. Do you see him saying you can't have it both ways? We can't say they're rogue and also they're in charge. It has to be one or the other.

Beth [00:56:28] And you know that this is my hobby horse right now. I just don't want to talk about Elon. It's Trump. It is Trump's administration doing this. He has allowed Elon to have the keys and drive and he has allowed Elon to bring in all of these folks and let them drive and to do it in ways that are going to be hard to even get foyer records about. And I know that that doesn't break through to the public, but I sure care about it. It's Trump. This is his White House. It is his authority. And the buck stops with him on it. And I agree with you. I think it's really important for federal workers in this moment. And this is such a hard ask when you feel so powerless to recognize how many of you there are and how much power there is in that. And the other thing that's going to happen, I think ultimately probably the courts will allow this buyout to go through.

[00:57:23] When it does, the fine print of that fork in the road says we don't have to accept your resignation. And I think everybody who said, okay, I quit and then the government says, no, we actually still need you, has a really important story to tell and quite a bit of power and leverage. The general public, me included, does not think every day about how many people we know who are impacted by what's going on right now; and the clearer that becomes, the stupider this approach looks. And I just think that's important. I think labeling it as stupid is better than labeling it as evil. I think people can get to this. This has been stupid. It's been ham fisted. It's been less than half baked. I think that's kind of where we want to be.

Sarah [00:58:14] Yeah, because then it gets at everything. He says he's so smart and he can fix every problem, but all his solutions cause more problems. All his chaos makes more chaos. It doesn't get us any closer to a more efficient government, to a better functioning government. All it does is create more problems for you that he doesn't care about. He wants more power to go after his enemies. And maybe he'll free some other minions to wreak havoc on the government you pay for. And he doesn't care if there's money wasted in the interim. He doesn't care how expensive it is to ship people to Guantanamo Bay when our passings are at historically low numbers. What does he matter to him? So I just think, like you said, tying that to the king has no clothes instead of he's a fascist connects better to people. It gets it gets through. Because it just doesn't work. It's not working. The way we're communicating about this is not working. It's for the base and there's not enough of us. The math doesn’t math. There's not enough of the hardcore Democratic base, particularly in a minority position, to make an impact that way. With all due respect to the former Treasury secretaries.

Beth [00:59:53] Sarah, tell me about your trip to France. We really haven't gotten to talk. How was your trip to France?

Sarah [00:59:57] It was great. My husband and I went to Paris. We left Tuesday night and came back-- what's today? Tuesday. Yeah, we came back Monday night. Still a little jet lagged. It was just lovely. We went to Paris two years ago in March. You don't need sunshine to enjoy Paris. It's really not required. And so it's really cheap to go in February. We went to see Notre Dame. Which was-- there are no words. Stunning, breathtaking awe-inspiring. Because since the fire, the renovation has basically put Notre Dame back in the state it was when it opened in the Middle Ages. It is gleaming. It's the only word I can use to describe it. And just incredibly beautiful. So that was wonderful and we had some time to wander around the loop because it wasn't hot and packed full of people, which was great, and did lots of shopping and eating. Paris is just one of my most favorite places on planet Earth. So we had a lovely time.

Beth [01:01:12] That's great. I got to go to one of my most favorite places on planet Earth this weekend, too. I went to Rupp Arena. We had a very kind listener give us tickets to see the UK versus South Carolina game. And so thank you, Karen [sp] and Greg [sp] for that experience. Chad and I were talking about how it just feels good to be there. Everybody is so friendly. When the people scan your tickets on the way in, they're so happy that you're there. You know what I mean? They're in it with you. The whole crowd is in it with you. Every person who goes to a Kentucky basketball game has the knowledge and insight of an ESPN commentator, but they're funnier. So just the crowd conversations are so fun to listen to. And it was a blast.

Sarah [01:01:58] Yeah, I went to Rupp Arena for the first time, thanks to Karen and Greg, like a month ago with Felix and my dad and my best friend Elizabeth. I'd never been to Rupp Arena before, just crazy as a Kentuckian, but I agree, especially the like blue coat helpers, they were very much the closest I've seen to in Japan. Every section of the baseball stadium has like a leader. Like just somebody who leads all the songs and the chants and keeps the crowd going. And it's the closest American equivalent I've seen of that to like the person who is in charge of the fun, empowered and in charge of the fun. And so we had a great time. I got the soft serve. UK lost, that sucked. But other than that, we had a really good time.

Beth [01:02:45] The soft serve is very good.

Sarah [01:02:47] It is good.

Beth [01:02:47] The whole atmosphere is amazing. I also saw a play I wanted to tell you about. There is a very small theater in Cincinnati called the Ensemble Theater, and they had a production of a play called I Need That. And it is about an old man. There's just three actors in the play. It's an old man, his daughter and his neighbor who's his only friend. And the man is a hoarder. The set for this was incredible because it's in this tiny theater and they had so much stuff on the stage. You walked in and my nervous system responded to how much stuff was on the stage. There was this one laundry basket full of TV guides that I really fixated on because I love a TV guide. I used to read the TV guide cover to cover every week. And there were just piles and piles of TV guides. It was such a touching and beautiful exploration of our relationship to physical objects and how that relationship changes as we get older.

[01:03:51] It was surprising. There was a twist that I did not see coming. But it was one of those moments where art really did make me understand life better. The way that this man explained why he couldn't get rid of the things. The way that he expressed that the things disappearing made him feel like he was disappearing, too. The way he connected it to his grief over losing his wife. It was remarkable. It was absolutely remarkable. My friend who went to see it with me said that she's going to go again and I might go with her again because it just put its arms around a lot of things we've been talking about: consumerism, loneliness, relationships, and made it obvious that complex problems don't have easy solutions. As much as you kind of want to just say the hoarders should Marie Kondo it, it doesn't work that way because it doesn't get to some of the fundamentals driving people's behavior. So I loved it. I think anybody who has an opportunity just to see it should go.

Sarah [01:05:01] Listen, I was a long time viewer of Hoarders. I loved that show. I thought it was incredibly important. I think they were really trying to help people. The psychiatrist on those shows-- and they always brought a psychiatrist with them. It's not like they just came in and were like garbage trucks, after voila. Isn't it so satisfying? They really tried to help people work through. And listen, to Marie Kondo's credit, her series on Netflix also did that, also really tried to unpack literally and figuratively why people's houses were full of stuff. And I was really interested in Helen Peterson did an interview with Emily Mester about her new book. I think it's Essays on Excess: American Bulk. And it's all through the lens of her grandparents and her parents. I really want to read it because it's a topic that I am endlessly fascinated by and interested in. I think the stuff really holds a lot for people. And a culture that is built really on consumption has enormous impact. I love the French. I really do. I just love them.

[01:06:23] We went out one night with a Parisian couple, and they were talking of how they stay up late and they say we have an expression "success belongs to those who get up early, but pleasure belongs to those who stay up late." And they are really motivated their culture is focused on pleasure and not consumption in a way that ours is not I think. It's different. It's a different thing, even to the level of regulation they have around their bread and cheese. And the fact that it's cheap. She was like, is cheese cheap there? And I'm like, yeah, but it's also not good. We don't have good cheese. We just have crappy cheese. And I think that's why I like it there so much because the emphasis is on pleasure, not consumption. Not that there's not a lot of consumption going on like the [inaudible] or the designer stores. Of course there is, especially from tourists. But this emphasis on not just acquiring but enjoying what you are eating or spending your money on or putting in your home, I think is very different. And I think that we're broken around that in a lot of ways in America for a lot of different reasons. I think probably some that are still have to do with the Great Depression and definitely the Great Recession. I just think some of that is like a seismic impact. It registers in the rings around the tree in ways you really don't see for a really long time, both individually and culturally.

Beth [01:07:56] Part of what made this place so interesting to me is that at the same time as I agree with all of that and have been thinking about overconsumption and especially my own, I also have been thinking about the way that physicality matters to me. Algorithmically, I'm being served a lot of pieces right now that are like I don't want to scan a QR code for a menu. I want to hold a menu at a restaurant. I don't want everything to be digital. I think about the commercial where Apple smashed all of the things and the outcry in response to that. And this play talked about how the things, even the crappy cheap things, hold a lot of significance to us, a lot of memories for us. The play especially focused on the game of sorry and the way that that game encapsulated a lot of the family dynamics for this man. And so that balance of respecting and living into our physical human experiences, not letting everything just be digital but also not letting ourselves be overtaken by our things, is really fascinating to me. And I thought this play did a good job of hitting both of those things. And some of that I think gets to that focus on pleasure. That maybe what we need to be asking is what are the things that we really derive pleasure from versus the things that just stack up on us and don't have that sense of meaning infused into them?

Sarah [01:09:34] Well, I think the reason we're so hungry for physicality is because a main source of physical pleasure is eating and we treat food as fuel, not pleasure. That's a huge difference between Americans and Europeans, particularly the French. I think that there's a way I learned that; I went to Italy for a summer after my freshman year of college and it just put it in my cells in a way that I'm very grateful for that summer. It builds a section of my brain that said food is for pleasure, not for fuel. Even though I take nutrition pretty seriously. I like nutrition. I'm interested in it as a topic. But the thing that always makes me the saddest about what I will call sort of like-- I don't really want to say picky eating, but limited eating, it's just the breath of pleasure that's missing when you limit what you eat because there's just so much out there to enjoy and you get to do it three times a day or more if you take some snacks, which I do. My husband was laughing at me because every 45 minutes I'll be like, oh no, it's treat time.

[01:10:37] The sense of that's such a source of physical pleasure. I was so sad we got back last night; we went to a convenience store and I just thought, man, this hurts. This is a hard transition back from Paris as walking in American convenience store where the food is just bad. It's not even the convenience part because they don't have to be like that. Because Japan's not like that. Their convenience stores are fresh and delicious and full of food that is a pleasure to consume. And so that physicality, if you're just to fill your stomach and move on to the next thing, you're just missing that. You have to really protect that part of your life and your experiences. Now, I would argue to the French that sleep is actually really pleasurable, too. And so we don't have to stay up till 4 a.m. every night. But I think that that's part of it, too, and that consumption model, the individual model, the success model is just like feeding everything. There's whole experiences of just human existence that get left behind.

Beth [01:11:43] Fundamentally, I think that's a manifestation of our messed up relationship with time. We regard food as fuel because it makes it faster for us. We just spend less time growing, less time preparing less time shopping, less time with the actual meal. And I do think that much of the unhappiness that we're circling around right now as a big we, is our relationship with time is messed up and that is manifesting in so many ways. It manifests in the way that we buy things because it's faster to buy a new thing than to repair an old thing or look for a combination of old things that will do what we need to be done. We don't really pause to ask if it needs to be done at all in the first place. We're just doing, doing, doing. I just read a piece this morning about how juicing will really mess with your body.

Sarah [01:12:43] I know. I thought that was so interesting.

Beth [01:12:44] Did you read that, too? Yeah. That when you are juicing you're taking a lot of the fiber out of the foods that you're trying to eat. But that's all about efficiency too and time. Like, let me maximize what I'm getting in the shortest window of time. And so I think even the hoarding conversation in this play was a lot about our relationship to time and our relationship with getting older and our relationship to change that happens with time. And so it's interesting to set all of that alongside your trip to a place that's much older than any of the places that we spend time in right now, any of the buildings and the architecture and the art and those traditions around food.

Sarah [01:13:26] Yeah. Our Airbnb building was older than America.

Beth [01:13:29] Yeah.

Sarah [01:13:31] And it kind of made me feel better this evening we spent out. We were also complaining about a lot of the same things. The woman who we were at dinner with was saying her sister, who's a teacher, feels disrespected and underpaid. That there are hiring people who aren't qualified. They're asking them to do too much or too little. And I thought that sounds familiar to me.

Beth [01:13:54] Yeah.

Sarah [01:13:55] Now, the difference is that doctors inside their national health care system feel the same way. I think we hold up the national health care systems in Europe as like see how easy this is and we can't even do that? That's not true. It's not easy. It has a different set of problems. I'm currently totally obsessed with the Lucy Letby case because I don't think she did it. I think it was just the system sucked and some babies died and they wanted to blame someone. And that's just a different kind of problem. She was just saying her friends who are physicians feel like they cannot give the care that people require and they feel terrible about it. It's like a moral injury. And speaking of moral injuries, they also had massive homeless encampments along the freeway into Paris. Big ones, just like you see here. And I just thought so much of this is not about just us.

[01:14:49] It's not some unique American moral failing or political failing. We are a global connected system, which means we are experiencing a lot of the same global connected problems. And so that's both-- I don't know if encouraging is the right word, but it's a perspective that I found decompressing. That's what I'll say. It felt decompressing to think, well, we're not alone in this. We're all struggling with the appeal of nationalism and the stress of global movement. Migrants moving across the globe due to stresses from all kinds of things. From authoritarian governments, to climate change, to authoritarian governments empowered because of the changes under an ever increasing climate. So I don't know.

Beth [01:15:46] No, I agree. We're getting ready to talk to Jane Perlez, who is a longtime correspondent for The New York Times on China. And I was listening to an interview that she did talking about the urban rural divide in China and it sounded so similar to themes in America. And I also find it comforting. And I think in some ways there are uniquely modern dimensions to these problems, but they all have ancient sources. We've keep going back to this quote at church in my pastor's sermons from Thomas Merton that's like "We are not at peace with each other because we are not at peace with ourselves and we are not at peace with ourselves because we are not at peace with God." And I think if you don't believe in a God, you could substitute time there easily. We are not at peace with time and the passage of time and it just keeps cropping up in new and interesting ways. And so we appreciate how much time you spend with us because we know that your time is limited and your attention is pulled in a number of directions. Thank you for being here. We'll be back with you on Friday with another new episode. Until then, we hope that you have truly the best week available to you.