Putting Policy Through the Social Media House of Mirrors

Putting+Policy+Through+the+Social+Media+House+of+Mirrors.jpg

Topics Discussed

  • Keystone XL Pipeline

  • Transgender Athletes

  • Moment of Hope: Ending Private Prison Contracts

  • The Biden Administration

  • Outside of Politics

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for daily news briefs, GIF news threads, and our real time reactions to breaking news. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

Transcript

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth, 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

Sarah: [00:00:00] Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We are thrilled to be with you as we always are. Today on our show, we're going to tackle what we're calling the policy house of mirrors. It's these Facebook memes that are filling your relatives feeds that sound like a critique of Biden policy, but is neither a real critique nor real policy.

It's just, it's all created controversy so we're going to tackle a couple of those and then we're going to, in our main segment, just recalibrate, this was really my I've kind of forgotten how to exist in a regular presidential administration. So we're going to talk about that in the mainstream of the show and then of course, we'll close out with what's on our minds outside politics.

Beth: [00:00:47] Stop number one in the policy house of mirrors is the Keystone XL pipeline. And I won't drag you through too much history here, but I do think it's important to say what we're actually [00:01:00] talking about with the Keystone XL pipeline. It is phase four of a project that was commissioned in 2010 and has been built in phases one through three and the Keystone XL portion, it is not a situation where we're talking about we get all the oil or no oil. Oil is flowing from Canada to and through the United States right now. Keystone XL would be an expansion, it's a more direct route for part of the pipeline. It is a larger diameter pipe, literally pumping more oil through the pipe.

The whole Keystone project started during the George W. Bush years. Late Bush years they said yes to some kind of Keystone project. President Obama actually green-lighted the third phase. He said, we're going to cut through the bureaucratic nonsense and get this done. And then the fourth phase comes around and the landscape has changed in a lot of ways.

And the administration [00:02:00] does a study and says, you know, we're not really sure how much Keystone XL changes the greenhouse gas calculation, but there is enough perception around serious environmental risk that it would harm our ability to be influential in global climate change discussions to have this project going forward.

That's John Kerry's recommendation. We pull the plug from the state department. John Kerry says, we're going to pull the plug on this project because it's not in the national interest. And president Obama accepts that administration and so it pauses. And then of course the Trump administration rolls into town and says, oil is good.

We love oil. Oil is the best. Oil equals jobs. Let's do it. And so they restart the process, but the process restarts slowly and all along the backdrop, there are tons of lawsuits, so much eminent domain controversy in Nebraska. This is not every Canadian's favorite thing either. There are lawsuits and concerns in Canada.

There are [00:03:00] redrafts of proposals. And so none of it has been simple, but even after Trump restarts it, a federal judge in Montana stops construction again, because he says that the way Trump restarted it violates the administrative procedures act, which is designed to keep administrations from just going back and forth because they disagree with each other about policy without doing some work to make sure that they're doing it for good reason.

And what the Trump administration did when they restarted Keystone XL was basically used the same factual record developed by the Kerry state department and just changed the conclusion. And the federal judge in Montana said, no, that's not going to work. So president Trump says fine, I'm going to revoke my permit and issue a new one.

And so appellate court said good enough and it starts up again. And so in March, 2020, the company that owns this project with Alberta's government in Canada, thanks to the Trump administration and says, let's do it. And then the Montana [00:04:00] judge says not so fast. I think the endangered species act has been violated here.

And so that made it all the way to the Supreme court in July. And it's kind of complicated what can continue and not right now. And that brings us to January of 2021 when president Biden says, actually I'm going to revoke the permit for the pipeline. 

Sarah: [00:04:21] And that has flooded many feeds with claims about jobs, lost jobs, lost wages and energy independence. So I spent some time going through a list that my father had clearly copied and pasted and sent to me about let's take a look at what the Biden and Harrison administration has done so far in their 50th hour or their first week or whatever. There's been lots of these lists going around and the Keystone pipeline is that at the center of lot of these claims and we call it the hall of mirrors because Beth just walked you through the policy. And guess what almost none of this has to do with the actual policy of the Keystone pipeline.

 You [00:05:00] know, the actual policy is that approximately a thousand jobs will be lost. They are temporary jobs and the number placed on the amount of wages lost that shows up in these memes, vastly overestimates. If you can, it's, it's a difficult number to estimate to begin with, but like, for example, and if you want the complete rundown of my responses to this list, it's going to be in our newsletter today.

Okay. So the first one is a loss of 57,000 jobs. Okay. No, under no estimation is that how many jobs this phase four of the Keystone pipeline would result in. So, you know, I kind of walk through that. Enabled energy independence for the United States. That's another one that's coming up a lot in this hall of mirrors related to the revocation of the Keystone pipeline permit.

You know, we are one of the world's largest oil producers before this pipeline, total independence isn't really popular in the United States, but we're really, really close as it [00:06:00] is not to mention that oil consumption is really on the downward swing anyway. And so, you know, there was also claims that Canada was suing Biden.

In this list, which I think is also sort of related to the claims about Keystone pipeline, except for Canada is not sueing the United States or Biden personally. I'm not even sure if that's what they're claiming and the company has sort of floated the idea, but that hasn't come to fruition either. And so there's just like one thing after another, that you can kind of trace back to this Keystone pipeline decision.

And again, it's a hall of mirrors because nobody's actually debating the policy. They're taking this one administration action, twisting it and then touching on all these, uh, controversial touchpoints, like jobs and energy independence, and the frustration of Canadians or the Canadian government with this process.

And I just think like, this is what happens when I [00:07:00] get these lists all the time. There's like a kernel of truth. There's a kernel of something in there, but once you figure out like within the list what, what one policy is feeding all this, it's pretty easy to kind of take apart each one, one by one. I would say I spent 20 minutes rolling through this list and kind of searching through ones I didn't quite get what they were coming from because I don't listen to right wing media. And then realizing that like this thread was flowing through multiple points on this list of what the Biden administration has quote, unquote, done. 

Beth: [00:07:36] And it's really hard for me to know when it's worth doing that point by point rebuttal. I'm interested in how successful that's been in your relationship with your dad. Like what happens when you do the point by point? 

Sarah: [00:07:48] So I emailed it to him. I never heard a response. That's what usually happens when I do the point by point rebuttal. Like he doesn't come back because that's not what, and that's kinda my that's sort of my motivation right. Is I [00:08:00] want to expose, like, this is not actually a policy debate. That's not what you want to have here. That's not what this list is supposed to do. It's supposed to confirm what you feel, which is that Biden doesn't care about us. That's what he told me. He just doesn't care about any of us.

And I thought like, well then let's, let's, let's poke holes in that so you see, like, it might confirm your feelings and we can talk about that but I read the ones that sort of list this, this hall of mirrors approach that take an emotional argument or a cultural argument and try to dress it up in policy. They make me mad. And so like, it's really, to me, it's what I want to do is like, poke holes in that approach if nothing else. I have no, you know, dream or fantasy that this is going to shift the emotional argument, but I at least don't want an emotional argument dressed up as policy because that's what this does.

I mean, there's another one that keeps coming up a lot, which is he shot down an order to lower the cost of insulin and to lower the cost of epinephrin like, that's just see Biden, [00:09:00] doesn't care about people. And look, we do it on the other side too, you know, there's this a sense of like, No. I think about the abortion argument all the time.

It becomes you, you want people to die. It just doesn't, it depends on what side you're on and who you're accusing them of wanting to die. Right. And so that you can see that thread here. Of course he didn't want to, do you think Joe Biden is going to stand up and say, I want the price of insulin and epinephrin to be higher?

No, it was a complicated rule forcing community health centers to pass on their discounts to patients. The community healthcare centers were really opposed, and it wasn't necessarily that they were even targeting that particular policy it's that they were freezing all the policies to examine the impact.

But it's just that sort of see, I told you everything bad was I tell you. I think it's also not an accident that's coming from people from like Charlie Kirk, who had been telling people for months, years, if Biden wins, it'll be the end of the world. And see, look, see, I'm going to list all these reasons where it's already the end of the world.

Beth: [00:09:55] It does such a disservice to what is a really hard policy problem. I think Keystone [00:10:00] XL is very hard because I think our relationship with Canada is important. And I think the Canadian government has every right to feel completely jerked around by the United States over the course of this project. 

Sarah: [00:10:11] And that it makes them feel any better. I also feel jerked around by the American government pretty often.

Beth: [00:10:17] And I am certain that people who live on the pipeline route and people who work in this industry have that feeling and that's not good. That is not how our government should operate. The instability around this project reveals so much that is broken in the way that we work. A piece of that is that we have had real disagreement about how the US government ought to do environmental impact studies on infrastructure projects. And we should care a lot about that as the Biden administration tells us that climate change is the jobs program, which means a lot of infrastructure being built.

I think that's really exciting. I think a bunch of green infrastructure would do more for the United [00:11:00] States economy than I can even conceptualize sitting here today. I think that's really, really good. And also there are complicated questions about that and, and questions worthy of study and discussion.

One of the things that really jumped out at me as I was reviewing this issue this morning is how native communities have vigorously opposed the Keystone XL pipeline. And that is true both among indigenous Americans and indigenous Canadians and among the factors are disturbance of sacred lands and monuments, and that's important and something that we need to do better on all of our infrastructure projects.

And it's really hard to get that right, whether you're building an oil pipeline or building a high-speed rail system. It's something that is important and needs to be talked more about. Another reason is environmental concerns. Is, are we going to have a spill that pollutes our water supply? Are migrant birds going to be impacted? So [00:12:00] many things.

And a third reason is that they are finding that native women who are already suffer such high levels of violence and sexual assault are in more danger when pipelines are being constructed near them. Women who live along those pipelines face higher risk levels of being the victim of a sexual assault or other violent crime because those temporary jobs that are created for these things often involve basically mobile camps of workers being set up. And those they're called man camps in the literature and those man camps lead to women going missing and being killed and being raped. That is really unpleasant to talk about.

And it is really important to talk about because yes, I want those thousand jobs, but I also want the people who live near the pipeline to be safe. And that seems like a [00:13:00] risk that probably springs up around a lot of infrastructure and we don't talk enough about it. So there's a part of me. I don't know how to feel about whether this part of the pipeline should be constructed or not.

I think that a lot of the economic arguments are overstated. And I imagine given how much of this pipeline already exists, that some of the environmental ones are overstated too. But I respect the idea of hitting pause here to say there are so many important considerations at issue, we need a better game plan than just go ahead and build it.

There are so many important issues at stake here that are going to be directly relevant to the things we want to do next that we need to hit pause and develop a better game plan. And I think from a diplomatic perspective, that would be something that prime minister Trudeau would be interested in being invited into in terms of conversation.

So I have some critiques of the way this has been handled. My critiques though are not, let's make a list showing that Joe Biden actually doesn't care about anybody because there are ways to slow this pipeline down or to [00:14:00] stop it entirely that are based on care. We're just talking about who you care about and why.

Sarah: [00:14:06] Now you also tackled the executive order on transgender discrimination in a nightly nuance this week. And that's another one that I think has bubbled up quite dramatically in this policy house of mirrors. 

Beth: [00:14:21] Shortly after this order went on, we got a hashtag Biden erased women, based on the best I can tell, one sentence in an executive order on equity that said children should be able to go to school and not have to worry about whether they're going to be discriminated against in a bathroom or a locker room or in sports. And based on that one sentence, we have this idea that suddenly every school program throughout the country and every athletic program throughout the country is going to be completely open to basically any [00:15:00] person deciding what gendered sports they want to play. 

Sarah: [00:15:03] Yeah, I was going to say it's not necessarily based on one sentence, because this has been a narrative and sort of right. Wing cultural controversy for a long time. Like this is something they like to poke pretty often. 

Beth: [00:15:14] As though we have an epidemic of people switching gender identity, because they want to be more competitive in a particular sport. I just think that whole premise is messed up. From a policy perspective, what I've tried to lay out in the nightly nuance is that we don't know how the Biden administration is going to enforce the Bostock versus Clayton decision. In a lot of ways, this order is kind of unremarkable because it's the administration saying we heard the Supreme court say that when you discriminate based on gender identity, you're discriminating based on sex and that violates federal law and so we are going to follow that and enforce it.

Sarah: [00:15:54] In an opinion, written by Neil Gorsuch, Trump appointee, friendly reminder. 

Beth: [00:15:57] Never forget. So [00:16:00] in some ways, all they're saying is we're going to look at the federal government and make sure we're complying with federal law. And we're going to make sure that our department of justice and all of our agencies follow this law too, but there is a huge array of ways that sports programs might be able to follow the law and still have some guard rails in place.

Now, I think of this as an issue of prioritization, and I know this is a very sensitive topic for me. I am always going to prioritize people, inclusive of transgender people, of course, feeling supported and cared about and respected and having a sense of dignity and worth over who might be slightly competitively advantaged in a particular sport. And I think the research is very inconclusive on the impact of hormones on different sports when you actually look at the research, but again, That's not what any of this is [00:17:00] about. 

Sarah: [00:17:00] I wish we had some sort of mechanism that in political conversations, particularly political conversations that at least on their surface, are discussions of policy, that when highly controversial issues such as issues of gender, sexuality, reproductive rights come up there's like some sort of rip cord we can pull. They'd be like, hold on, what are we talking about? How are your feelings? How defensive are you? Like, it's just, I was so particularly offended that it kind of gets like it's getting tossed in these lists as if it's, I mean, the phrasing in the list of my father sent me was created a new glass ceiling for girls to hurdle, which just sent me right over the edge.

 You know, like it's such this you're hypocrites, you don't actually care about gender equality because you just want to, because what I mean, I don't even understand the reasoning there because [00:18:00] they really have it out for girls in sports. That that's what that Joe Biden, the grandfather of what four granddaughters really doesn't care about women being able to pursue their dreams on sports or other areas.

And they really, he just really wants to stick it to him at any, any opportunity. It's like a text thread I had with people with some family members recently. Well, we were talking about the vaccine and two family members were bemoaning their democratic governors. One who prioritized prisoners sooner than a family member would like. And one who just, I guess, I don't know, just didn't care about elderly people at all.

 And I said, okay, well, now that we've established that democratic governors want to kill Grannies, can we move on to the rest of our conversation? Because that seems to be the argument you're making. Like there's just no, when it's really highly emotional like this, there's never a moment where we take and say, is that what you really think they want to do? You think a president who in theory would like the populous on their side or a governor who would like the populace out their side is out there trying to get granny's [00:19:00] murdered and little girls kicked out of sports?

Does that sound right to you? Does that sound like something that makes a lot of sense or do you think perhaps there's something a little bit deeper going on here? I 

Beth: [00:19:12] want to always speak with kindness and respect for everyone listening so forgive me as I get things wrong as I talk through this. My analysis here is that when someone says, well, this just puts new place, new barriers in place for girls, what is underneath that is a sense that boys are going to decide I really want to be faster in cross country than all my competitors. And I think it will be so easy to change my gender identity and worth it, that I'm going to do that to win more cross-country and let's take it very far to even [00:20:00] get scholarships and then compete in college and go to the Olympics and be a world renowned athlete.

When I look at the data, absolutely nothing tells me that any part of being a transgender person in this country is easy. Not only easy, but it's also not safe. All of the data tells us that you are at great risk if you declare to the world that your gender identity is different than the sex assigned to you at birth. Everything tells us that it is not safe and it is not easy.

I cannot imagine, and especially honestly, here's a bias that I have, in our culture I think that transition from male to female has to be incredibly, incredibly hard. And we know that that's especially true for black people. We know that being a black transgender woman [00:21:00] is so unsafe and so difficult in the United States.

So I really struggle with the premise of this entire discussion that it's just so easy that people are just casually doing it. That really bothers me. And then I want to say next, you know, there's a lawsuit pending in Connecticut from some cisgender girls about two transgender girls who have been fairly successful in track.

And they feel like they don't have any chance against these transgender girls. I understand that. And how hard that must be for the families. I imagine it's hard for the transgender girls who keep winning to feel like their win is being undermined. As I think about all of this though, I also think about how frustrating it must be for a child whose parents are not wealthy enough to send her to tumbling lessons when she's four to not [00:22:00] make the high school cheer team, because there is an inequality that exists here. There are new obstacles being put in her way, right? The obstacles of being able to afford private training in order to succeed in a public school sports program are clear. And it's frustrating for people who are born with smaller stature or lower bone density or less muscular structure.

They're all, we tolerate all kinds of unfairness based on physicality and wealth and a host of other things in sports. And so the fact that we are seizing this one to challenge a feminist mantle about women in athletics, I just think it's purposefully deceptive and hurtful and I want us to stop. There are complicated conversations to be had, especially in religious communities about gender identity. 

I don't think that's what this is about either though. I think this is about confirming any fear that you have based on where your religious community is [00:23:00] and blowing it up and trying to say, see, you don't care about this either. 

Sarah: [00:23:07] I think everything you said is 100% correct. And I think that while the argument that boys are going to pretend to be a different gender to win or get in the locker room is not made in good faith by most people. I think the concerns about competition like in that Connecticut lawsuit are made in good faith, but here's what I think they miss. There are innumerable genetic differences among all of us. And some of them make some of us biologically superior at some physical feats and you know, well, there's the South African Trakstar caster, Caster Semenya.

And she's been going through this because she has a, a, a genetic [00:24:00] condition known as differences in sex development, which means that you're just born with an identity that doesn't quite fit, neatly lean everybody's category. I love this quote from a doctor. I read an article about her recently. I said, people think it's simple to define sex. It's not, and it's not just about sex.

 I think about that dude, who used to own the hot dog competition for like years, because his, the way his body was designed or Michael Phelps and the way his body is designed. And I just think like, it's why I understand the concerns, there are always, not just socioeconomic conditions that make people or set people up to succeed, but genetic conditions and not just being transgender, that set people up to succeed in certain sports. 

And it just feels like this deliberately ignores that. And it focuses all on this, on this one issue when yes, there will be transgender students that, that come along and that probably win at a much higher rate, but if we're [00:25:00] arguing in good faith and understand that their statistical, um, appearance in the population is not likely to dramatically increase just like the statistical presentation and the populace of all kinds of other genetic anomalies that make you more likely to succeed at certain sports is not going to increase then that's just the dice we roll when we compete. Okay. And. Teaching our children that that's the dice we roll. And sometimes that dice comes up in our favor and we are the benefits of not just genetic anomalies, but socioeconomic standings, or just luck of birth in a state like Connecticut, where you can even compete in track.

And then sometimes we're on the losing end of that dice, is a valuable lesson, not just for children, but for all of us in our culture. And I think that these administrative policies get to that. And I think the pushback in this hall of mirrors say, we don't want that. We want the people who win to keep winning and how dare you try to make it a little more fair and let it let another [00:26:00] population or another group of people benefit from the role of a dice when we've been able to prevent that decades 

Beth: [00:26:07] In sports it's not all physical. So if you're talking about barriers, some of us in as competitors are going to have physical barriers. And some of us are going to have emotional and social barriers. And so to act as though transgender athletes have a complete and unquestionable advantage, just ignores again, all of the social context and reality.

And if sports are so important that we're willing to use an order that just says we want children to be able to go to school without being discriminated against, I think we've really missed the mark in our prioritization around sports, is sports are so important that we're willing to continue a conversation that we know is harmful to people.

I don't know what we're doing. Again, I understand that people are in really different [00:27:00] places in their understanding and acceptance of fluidity around gender, and there are real conversations to be had in appropriate spaces for that. But this to me feels like a media manipulation by conservative commentators that grossly blows this order and its impact out of proportion.

Sarah: [00:27:23] Well, as is often the case in these hall of mirrors thing, all kinds of things are getting blown out of proportion and dramatically underestimated or under-emphasized. And so it was the last little piece of this list. And I think the undercurrent of so many of what's going on around right now in the byte administration and these sort of Facebook memes that sent me right over the edge, it was, but Hey, at least Biden hasn't tweeted mean words and we have a woman vice-president and then the shrugging emoji. How do you feel about that Beth?

Beth: [00:27:56] It's hard for me to put into words how I feel about that.  [00:28:00] that's awesome. Especially after we have seen the impact of tweeting mean words and how it is definitely not limited to twitter. 

Sarah: [00:28:08] I've been concerned recently that January 6th is fading from our collective conscious or certainly it seems to be fading an impact on our politicians and legislators. And there seems to be this desire to downplay it and move on and I will not stand for it. I will not stand for a rewriting of history where this man was just saying some mean words. 

I will not, I will not do it. I refuse. I cannot, it makes me so furious to try to rewrite history that this man who not only incited an insurrection in which our capital, our seat of government was overtaken, but who has for years vomited violence to the point where we have a national bulletin from the department of Homeland [00:29:00] security that we, all of us, not law enforcement, all of us, the entire public need to be aware of domestic terrorists and homegrown terrorists because of what he has talked about and how he has acted for years has put us all at risk. And we're just supposed to say, but he was mean, and we all couldn't get over it. I will not, I will not. 

Beth: [00:29:24] I think that's well said. And I think the moment that this starts to fade too much from the rear view mirror, we are at serious risk of it popping right back up. And I think that the fault for allowing this to fade is going to be shared by a lot of people. And I agree with you. I do not want to be of that number. I do not want to pretend that really what the country needs is for us to just move on. No. Our country's history is a whole lot of, you know, what let's just kind of dust up and move on. And that is why we have issue after [00:30:00] issue that is boiling over right now.

I can't think of a more important task even with COVID. And I say this as a person who is about to jump out of my own skin because of the way that we've been living under COVID-19. But even with COVID at the forefront, I can not think of something more important than us drawing a line in the sand around how our political leaders speak right now. Because when I hear members of Congress say things like if we're just going to impeach him for his words, then we're all at risk because who among us, hasn't gotten a crowd fired up at a rally with a little bit of hyperbole. 

To me, that's exactly the point to me. Exactly. The point is to set a new standard and say no more. We are not doing that anymore. So you're on notice today, representative so-and-so, Senator from whatever you're on notice today that we're done with that now. And there will be consequences for that now, and the consequences won't just be being stripped of your prime [00:31:00] committee assignment. You will be tossed out of leadership if you can not do better, because this is the dire need of America.

Sarah: [00:31:07] I think that's a really good pivot to our next segment because the approach of the, by the administration, I think to really get to work and focus on these executive orders and stay out of the fray. You know, Jen Saki said famously this week that she was not going to talk about Marjorie Taylor green in the press briefings anymore is really interesting. And I think speaks to how we all have to recalibrate when we have a president who doesn't create chaos and how do we act within that framework when there's still so much chaos around them?

Beth: [00:31:43] Before we do that, we always like to have a moment of hope. Sarah, I have a confession to make. This moment of hope is not a pure one for me. And perhaps we never get a pure moment of hope. 

Sarah: [00:31:55] Yeah, it sucks to say that doesn't exist. 

Beth: [00:31:57] I wanted to highlight the executive [00:32:00] order from the Biden administration, just keeping with our theme today on reducing profit based incentives for incarceration by instructing the attorney general not to renew any of the federal government's contracts with private prison facilities.

And I have strong feelings about this in a lot of directions because I, on the one hand feel so hopeful that the administration is talking about the need to reduce overall incarceration. I think that is exceptionally important. And I think it's exceptionally important, although the vast majority of people who are incarcerated are in state prisons, not federal.

It is important for the federal government to set up a leadership example of how we can start to do that. And I hope this puts pressure on States to discontinue their contracts. I worry a lot about what the fallout is in the meantime, because one of the reasons private prisons are bad is that they have higher levels [00:33:00] of mistreatment of prisoners, a lack of safety, not just for people who are incarcerated, but also for the people who work in the facilities. 

And so I worry if the contracts are pulled back and the money starts to dry up, investors are not taking this news well, that those conditions get even worse for people who are still going to be in those facilities because of state contracts.

And so I would like to some good thought to go around that issue and the, and the transition here. And I also worry as many activists are saying that if you do what is largely symbolic and largely a small thing at the federal level, do you take the pressure off to do bigger things? I feel a sense of trust that this is just going to be one step of many from this administration. And I maintain hope around that. I also understand the concern. 

Sarah: [00:33:52] Yeah. I would've liked it to be broader specifically. I would have liked it to include ice detention centers. I think if we're just not renewing contracts, [00:34:00] I don't know why we couldn't have included that I don't want to go back and I don't think we will.

And I said this last week, that the critique of let's just Obama administration part two assumes that these people didn't learn from the last four years. They didn't experience the trauma of the last four years. Um, and I don't believe that to be true, but there is a part of me that kind of bubbles up. It's like, okay, I don't want to just do the smallest pragmatic step. Let's go a little bit bolder, but I'm, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait and see. 

Beth: [00:34:26] So hopefulness around continuing the discussion of ways that our criminal justice system needs serious reform.

I think that mixed bag around our moment of hope also transitions us to a discussion of how to recalibrate from the Trump era into a time when we have an administration that's doing actual governance and ways to oversee, as lawmakers report on as media [00:35:00] and process as citizens, more normal governance when we're coming off of like an addiction to a chaotic media cycle.

Sarah: [00:35:10] I think that their strategy of like theme days, tying everything to this theme today, yesterday was climate changes are recorded on Thursday. We did, you know, they started with COVID. We work through racial equity. Like I love that. I think that is genius because I think it just really pushes the narrative that, that it's not just political fights.

It's not just the chaos of constant bullying and insulting or propping up and praising that there is actual action that needs to be taken that the government is for doing. And they're going to do these issues are what's important to the American people. [00:36:00] And so that's how we're going to pay attention to them.

And it's very structured. And I do think for the Biden administration, The most important thing is not to give oxygen to these fights. I do think there's a little tough medicine needed and, uh, like a sort of dramatic cold Turkey situation where we have to remember that there is leadership at the top.

And that means we don't give oxygen. We don't give white house oxygen to Marjorie Taylor Green. That doesn't mean that Marjorie Taylor green is not an issue that needs to be addressed, but that oxygen does not need to come from the white house. That the white house provides the strategic vision. The white house provides action, provides legislative priorities and organization and advocacy and media support. And like they're driving the bus [00:37:00] and so they need to focus on the road. Right.

 And I think that's very, very wise and I've just like, I've forgotten what it's like. And I feel like inexplicably defensive of him more than I ever felt with Obama. It's like, I can't, I think that they're doing such a good job of being like, this is what we're going to focus on.

And I think that's smart because like I said, I don't think the oxygen needs to come from the white house, but then there's a part of me that's like, but what do I do as either media or a citizen or to advocate with my lawmakers about like, well, what should we all be doing? It's like, we've all, I've just like literally forgotten how to behave with a normal president.

Beth: [00:37:42] And we aren't really getting a transition period because of the pace that the Biden administration is, is setting. It is easier for my brain to take in who Jared and Ivanka are throwing [00:38:00] under the bus today, then to take in five pretty substantive executive orders. 

Sarah: [00:38:08] My attention span is shot, man. 

Beth: [00:38:10] Well, and it's just, it's just more difficult. It's just harder. Policy is hard, you know, policy that the president is involved in setting is hard, or it wouldn't be up to the president. And so I'm coming off of. It is, it is like going from eating nothing, but a stream of like ring pops and pixie sticks to being fed a, an enormous diet of only broccoli.

And I'm really glad for the broccoli, like bring on the broccoli, but we do need a minute to digest it. And I'm a little bit concerned that, that propensity to continue to view everything in the same terms as we did during the Trump administration, is the cause of the hall of mirrors being so successful that we just talked about and is the [00:39:00] cause of defensiveness on everyone else's part. 

So the hall of mirrors, people keep going in that direction and everyone else goes, Oh, but do you want Donald Trump again? And there's no space for legitimate inquiry, not even critique, but inquiry and understanding of what's being done and what its impacts will be because the train just keeps going and the culture is stuck, the citizenry is still stuck in what we've been practicing since the 2016 election. 

Sarah: [00:39:30] Well, I think a huge part of this is because we have leadership now in the white house leading this, you know, I would argue center left, but I know some people see it more as progressive, and there's no leadership in the Republican party to focus or launch an actual critique.

And so if you critique, because we've spent years decades saying that if you don't agree with me, you're the [00:40:00] enemy. Then if you're critiquing the Biden administration, there's a sense of like, Not just do you want Donald Trump back, but you want the, what the Republicans want and I can't tell what they want, except for to continue to prop him up and defend people like Marjorie Taylor Green. 

Beth: [00:40:18] Not what the Democrats want. I think it's the best, most generous shorthand. 

Sarah: [00:40:23] That's not a critique. A critique is not, not uh, that's not a critique. And so like since there's no leadership like actual policy initiative or leadership to say, I don't think this is a good idea. I think this is a better idea then there really is a problematic posture you have to get into in order to cri- critique the Biden administration, because you're like twisting yourself a knots. I think that's a great goal. I don't think this policy will get there and it's not that the Republican party has a better idea.

It's just, I think this one could be improved, you know, who twist themselves in this kind of nuts all the time as Matt [00:41:00] Yglesias cause he's a policy wonk and he'll often critique a progressive policy and then it becomes on Twitte, you're a racist who wants to support Republicans. Like, it's just like, you cannot win because again, and I, and there's a part of me that's like, yeah, I get it. I get it because I don't want Donald Trump. And there was such chaos and we are all stiff and out of practice at having actual policy conversations. And there is, there is a real drive in me to say, it's policy. And w and this, and it's not just that it's not, it's not just that it's policy, which is a change from what we had.

It's not just that the Republican party, I mean, I don't mean to be dismissive is a joke right now, when it comes to policy, at least. It's also that the situation is dire on so many levels. The pandemic climate change, racial equality, just trust in our institution. It's also the sense, and I don't think it's created of urgency.

Things are really [00:42:00] bad, so we need to move quickly. And I think that's the, like all these things combined. It's like, even if I remembered what it was like to operate in the Obama administration, do those rules even still apply right now? I'm not sure they do. 

Beth: [00:42:14] And what I like about what the administration is saying is that a lot of things are really bad right now. And so we have to move on all of them at once. So I get COVID-19 plus racial justice plus climate change. I get, especially when you think about the coalition of people who elected this administration, that all of those things are high priority and need to be acted on.

 At the same time, in terms of what citizens need, I think that we need more direction around COVID-19 worse than we need anything else right now, just right now. And I have trouble saying that without sounding like I don't care about the other issues or, [00:43:00] well, I think probably Trump would have been a better choice, which I don't feel, I don't feel either of those things.

I have trouble expressing how I feel about our new secretary of defense, who I think is going to be a massive, massive improvement over where we've been for the last four years. And our new secretary of state, I have conflicted feelings about both of these candidates. I think it is a wonderful thing that the new head of the Pentagon is a person who has served as a black man in our military and seen firsthand how white supremacy and extremism are flourishing within our military.

I think that is so important. I also am really concerned that he hasn't been retired for seven years. And I don't think that that's a small thing. I also am really concerned about ties to defense contractors. And I don't think that's a small thing and it's difficult to say [00:44:00] on balance, would I have voted to confirm him if I were a Senator?

Yes, because I think the president is entitled to qualified nominees serving as the president feels confident and also, these are things that I want to watch for, especially in terms of trends, right? We just have to slow everything down so much to have that level of conversation. And none of us are trained to slow everything down right now.

I don't know how you make editorial decisions. If you're at a newspaper for, or a prominent news website. I don't know how you, I just don't know how you are deciding what to cover right now, because there are so many really important things happening. That have a ton of Ram to argue about them, even if you are very broadly aligned on the objectives.

Sarah: [00:44:50] Well, it's so interesting though, that you say there's no room to slow down because in some ways it feels very slow down to me. I know there's a lot of policy depth [00:45:00] coming out and that it does feel hard to dive into that after the chaos of the Trump administration. And also I've woken up to do the news brief and thought, well, this is easy.

There's, there's a couple of things to tackle. None of them are like breaking where we have to learn a new language immediately. So it does feel like the pace of news is slowed down, but in some ways it's because policy doesn't always make news. Although I, I think the way they've organized these policy sort of strategic days is breaking through in the way that exactly the way they want to.

And it's like, you know, you've, you've been reading the executive orders. None of these are so massive that it's this huge change that we need to debate. Like some of them are really restorative. Some of them are pretty small and pragmatic. And so, you know, two minds, like, I don't know if it's necessarily that it's going so fast in the same way, the way that it was drinking from a fire hose, with [00:46:00] the breaking Twitter moments of the Trump administration.

Or if it's just, it's not sexy enough to really be, like it's plotting and not controversial. And I think that's fine. And I don't think that, I think there's still room for critique within that. My problem is just feeling like the critique, like being so defensive in the face of any critique of him. I feel that response in myself. I really do. 

Beth: [00:46:30] I think that's because though that when we are adjusting from that frenetic pace that we've been used to, because all of the headlines that got everybody's attention daily for the past four years have prompted like this really urgent, emotional reaction. And so I think that's why, in some ways it feels like delightfully peaceful right now, because with the policy you can say, yeah, pros and cons, but [00:47:00] on balance, I don't feel like the government is falling apar.

At the same time, I think if I go back to my broccoli candy metaphor, you know, actually absorbing nutrients takes time. And so if you want to set a different tone for the citizenry, we kind of do need time for these policies to marinade and for people to understand what we're talking about and to make this shift because otherwise what we're going to keep getting are memes. Memes and defensiveness will stay because it keeps us binary.

And I think that if we could pump the brakes a tiny bit and really educate people around the policies that are going into effect specially related to COVID-19, I think it would at least expose where Republicans aren't saying anything ideological, where they aren't offering a different idea and [00:48:00] maybe that could help us move forward. That's probably exceedingly optimistic. It's just how I'm viewing the situation right now. 

Sarah: [00:48:08] Well, maybe that is what's happening though in a way, because the old way, the traditional way based on norms, gives a lot of space for that. It's like in these executive order, there's a lot of like, let's study this. Let's direct department heads to examine this. Let's scale this in, let's just freeze the renewal of new contract. Let's not cancel every contract. Like it's sort of, it's baked into the mix, the sort of traditional Washington approach, which is let's do a little bit and see what happens. It's very pragmatic, right?

 As opposed to the Donald Trump is monarchy approach, which felt so gut wrenching and traumatic for all of us. Oh, by the way, zero tolerance at the border. We're going to start separating children from their parents. Oh, by the way, if you're in the airport and you come from a Muslim majority country, your life is disrupted immediately. That sort of [00:49:00] norm shredding of there was no pragmatic plotting. It was just, I'm going to wave my magic wand right here cause I can, and I want to, that felt so frenetic and, and crippling in a way. 

And so maybe like, even though I know there's a new thing every day, it sounds like what's actually contained within those gives plenty of, I mean, there are, none of them are big and impactful enough that we couldn't assess them as we go. Except, I mean, I think the department of defense, except for some of the confirmation and the appointments, and I think those issues are important and they did get raised in the media. It's not like that totally flew under the radar ever. I mean, you know, it came up immediately that he had not been retired long enough and.

So I think, I wonder if we are going to get a little bit of that and what we really need to train ourselves to do is remember that and wait for it. That every policy that comes out of the Biden administration is not going to have the dramatic impact that the policies coming out of the Trump administration did by design, by design. But that it's the, the stacking of one on top of the other, which is probably why [00:50:00] there's so many so quickly, where we start to see an impact that is indicative of the crisis as we face. I 

Beth: [00:50:08] both agree and sort of disagree with that point that the executive orders don't have a ton of impact. I can imagine a real sense of whiplash for people who work within the government, because even as we would have expected and hoped for the Biden administration to turn the ship from Trump's executive orders, actually doing that takes a lot of people in a lot of work and a lot of resources, and to have it happening in lots of places at once, I think that's gotta be hard.

 I think even just changes of leadership are hard. You know, I was reading about how people at the state department are pretty frustrated. You know that a lot of political appointees seem to be coming in and career people are feeling passed over and marginalized. I don't know that that's going to be that way forever.

Certainly the statements from secretary Blinken and others would indicate that they really value the state department experts [00:51:00] and diplomats and people who have endured a lot over the past four years. But it does take time for things to sink in. It is a big deal for us to rejoin the Paris Accords. It is a big deal to be talking about nuclear treaties with Russia and, uh, what we're going to do with Iran.

All know, I don't think that these things are small. I think they're expected, but I think that's different than small. And, and I also think we need a lot of citizen reeducation on this stuff because it's not what we've been talking about. 

Sarah: [00:51:30] And that's, what's so hard, I think is that we're having to do this civic and policy reeducation, as we do simultaneously do this deep, emotional and cultural work and detox from the Trump administration. We're going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time. And that's hard. 

Beth: [00:51:48] It's especially hard when there's a pandemic and members of Congress are talking about their need for security because of threats being made against their families in a terrorism bulletin. I mean, it just continues to be a, to be hard, to be a [00:52:00] person right now.

Yeah. But I do feel on balance that we can get to a place where we can treat this administration like a normal administration and, and detox from where we've been.

Sarah: [00:52:13] I mean, there's no doubt I don't want to go back correct. That wasn't clear enough. I like to see the government functioning and taking important action around the issues that keep me up at night, that keep my child in tears of anxiety. Like, yeah, please let's keep doing that. That's very important. But it does feel like I'm using muscles that I haven't had to use in a while. 

Beth: [00:52:37] You know, it's almost full circle because we started this podcast saying, can you assume a little disclaimer on everything that I say, can you assume that what I've just laid out does not mean I hate you and don't want to be in relationship with you if we disagree. It doesn't mean this is the sum total of my perspective on this topic. It doesn't mean, I think I know [00:53:00] everything on this topic. Don't have more to learn. 

Can we just build in a little disclaimer? So I will revive that one and add to it. Can you also assume that I don't mean, well, I'd rather be governed by Republicans right now, or I'd rather have Donald Trump back? No, I just want to be an intelligent person trying to expand my own understanding and thinking and, and being open to the best ideas that are going to get us unstuck as a country.

Sarah: [00:53:26] Beth what's on your mind outside politics? 

Beth: [00:53:28] I am just noticing in myself and a lot of my friends, especially through our group texts that I think a lot of us are feeling exceptionally depleted. I blame the weather in so many ways for this, these gray sort of rainy, but not fully rainy, sort of snowy, but not fully snowy days.

There's a lot of mud around me and my mood is not good Sarah, I'm just going to be honest with you. I'm a grouch right now. And then I'm grouchy about being a grouch. You know, I think like we're, the vaccines are coming. [00:54:00] Everything is on the upswing. It's going to be fine. Get it together, Silvers and I just can't.

Sarah: [00:54:06] Yeah. Well, first of all, you have snow right now and I don't, so I'm not  hear your complaints about the weather submit those another day when we're both back to, to rain, I want snow so badly and it's like, they just keep promising and ripping it away, promising it and ripping it away cause I love snow deeply, but I take your point.

I think that everybody, it's almost a little more torturous because that we can glimpse relief. Like we can, it's just so it's right there. It's getting closer every day and yet it's still not available to us. I will say that in a, a fit of optimism, I booked spring break travel for April. I feel pretty confident that it will be okay.

I got some cancellation policies, well handout, if it's not, but having something to look forward to, like made me realize how much I needed that. How kind of stuck I was. [00:55:00] Um, I think I do. I think everybody's just, weren't like, here's the, also the truth. Everybody feels this way at the end of January, no matter what else is going on.

Beth: [00:55:08] That's true, January is tough .

Sarah: [00:55:10] It's long, the holidays are over. Even if you stretch it out through the 12 days of Christmas and you have some of that new year's Eve excitement, it's still long gone by the end of January. February is a short month, but it's still a whole other month before we get to something even looking a little bit like spring and it's just hard. You know, I, I think just, again, my word for 2021 is gentle and I'm really trying to lean into that. It is hard because when I am grumpy, gentleness is not easily accessible to me, even though that's probably what I needed the most. No 

Beth: [00:55:47] same here, but I have been trying to also adopt a posture of like, Hey, this is a signal that you need to slow things down. You need to care for yourself a little bit. And then the grumpy voice goes, slow things down? Oh my God, that's the problem. [00:56:00] Um, but I am trying to do like restful yoga practices. I was pushing myself pretty hard with exercise at the beginning of January and have realized like, maybe not right now, uh, we'll come back to that. We'll get it. When we, when, when you feel like it, do it. And when you don't, just move your body, but move it with kindness and compassion.

Sarah: [00:56:20] Then I heard something in the 10% Happier, new year's Eve meditation challenge that I thought was really helpful. They described it as you. We need both like a nurse and a warrior. We have to be able to understand and sort of observe and realize that both are important. That sometimes we need care and sometimes we need gentleness and sometimes we need to be a warrior and it's not helpful or beneficial to sort of accommodate our anxieties or accommodate our fears.

You know, that fine line between when spending a day with a book or binging, a TV episode feels restorative and then when it feels numbing and, you know, I think that [00:57:00] so many of us inside this pandemic have had a lot of opportunity to observe those two impulses and the differences they make in our own lives.

Beth: [00:57:10] I'll tell you, I'm using all my warrior up on relationships. I'm, I'm using my warrior up with parenting, trying to still be really connected to Chad, trying to hang in with my friends. Like, because I get something back from those two unquestionably. Like that is how I keep my energy up. Um, but, but in my quiet moments, I don't have a lot of warrior left.

Sarah: [00:57:30] Yeah. I feel that, I feel that we hope that you're both finding space for care and for your inner warrior. We are always so grateful that you spend the precious moments of your life with us here on Pantsuit Politics and we hope that everyone has the best weekend available to them.

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Sarah: Alise Napp is our managing director. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Sarah: David McWilliams. Ali Edwards, Martha Bronitsky, Amy Whited, 

Janice Elliot, Sarah Ralph, Barry Kaufman, Jeremy Sequoia, Laurie LaDow, Emily Neesley,  

Allison Luzader. Tracey Puthoff,  Danny Ozment, Molly Kohrs, Julie Hallar, 

Jared Minson, Marnie Johansson. The Kriebs! 

Beth: Shari Blem, Tiffany Hassler, Morgan McCue, Nicole Berkless, Linda Daniel, Joshua Allen, and Tim Miller. 

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.

Alise NappComment