"Everything is really about story"
Topics Discussed
Derek Chauvin Trial
The American Rescue Plan
Dr. Seuss and the Republican Party
Moment of Hope: Proxy Voting
Governor Cuomo, #MeToo, and Power
Harry, Meghan, Oprah, and the British Royal Family
Outside of Politics: WandaVision
Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a financial 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 our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. 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
Beth: [00:00:00] Toxic work environments, whether they include an element of sexual harassment or not, depend on lots and lots of people accepting unacceptable behavior from particular individuals, because there is something in it for them. And I am ready to hold that to some kind of account. And that is true of governor Cuomo. This seems to have been a really poorly kept secret in terms of how it felt to work with him.
Sarah: This is Sarah
Beth: And Beth,
Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.
Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.
Hello, and thank you so much for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. [00:01:00] Lots to discuss today. Lots that we've had internal conflict about how to discuss and how to position, so I think it should be an interesting show. If you are new to Pantsuit Politics, because you found us through Apple podcast spotlight, we are so happy that you're here.
This is our sixth year of podcasting. If you are not new here, we're so delighted that you've been with us. We've covered a lot of news and policy. If you are looking for what we have said about anything specific at a particular moment in time, Alise who works on our team has a, a very well done Episode Guide that sorts our episodes by category. It provides a comprehensive list of all of the episodes we've done with like five things you need to know or a general overview of a topic.
You will hear some changes in our positions. You'll hear some changes in the way that we process and think about issues, but that's part of the fun of what we do. We're not trying to remain stuck. This is about growth. So check out our episode guide. We'll link it here in the show notes for you.
And before we jump into all of the topics we want to cover today, [00:02:00] which will include what on earth is happening in Congress, a little bit on governor Cuomo, more than I would personally like on Meghan and Harry's interview with Oprah and outside of politics, we're going to talk about Wandavision, which I do have sincere enthusiasm for. Let's hear from Dawn about our extra credit book club.
Dawn: [00:02:21] My name is Dawn, and I'm a member of the extra credit book club. It's been one of the best decisions I made all year. Last year, I've been exposed to a wider variety of books that I might've picked off the shelves myself and I love supporting an independent bookseller too.
I feel so good about that. The little extras that come in the boxes like coffee and candles always provide me with moments of joy and fun. Overall, the book club makes me feel more exposed to new information. It makes me feel helpful and brings me a spot of joy in an overwhelming world. Thanks so much.
Beth: [00:02:54] Thank you Dawn. And thank you to Megan who runs our extra credit book club and to everyone who reads along [00:03:00] with us. It's such a good representation of what we're about here, just constantly learning and growing.
Sarah: [00:03:04] Before we get started, we wanted to acknowledge that the city of Minneapolis is tackling, beginning, kicking off, I don't even know the right words for it, and incredibly tough time right now as the trial of the former police officer who killed George Floyd is beginning this week with jury selection and Beth, I loved how you were thinking about the city and the people of the city.
Beth: [00:03:28] There is so much reporting about the trial itself, but also about the security precautions that are having to go into place. I've read several times that Minneapolis is bracing itself for this event. It is such a traumatic occurrence, but Minneapolis went through when George Floyd was killed. It is so traumatic to relive all of that here just about a year out from his death.
And so I'm just thinking about everyone who is touched in some way, [00:04:00] particularly in Minneapolis by this trial. And I know that includes the families of many other victims of death by police. And so you're all in our hearts as you go through, what I know is going to be a painful retelling of one of America's most shameful stories.
Sarah: [00:04:20] Yeah. And it's not just the trial that they're going to have to live through. They're going to have to live through the verdict. You know, I think that's the, just this jury selection part is terrible and it's just going to get more and more difficult as the trial continues and the verdict is rendered. So we have all of the people of Minneapolis in our hearts as this moves forward.
Beth: [00:04:39] And I want to say that that includes law enforcement and their families as well. This is not easy for anyone and there are safety concerns or the entirety of the city and its population and I leave no one out of the concern that I feel right now.
[00:05:00] Sarah: [00:05:07] Next up, we want to talk about the American Rescue Plan, which has officially passed the Senate with some changes and is now heading back to the house of representatives so they can approve the changes to the legislation they previously passed. And then this is like a little bit of how a bill becomes a law. Good reminder.
And then it will head to Joe Biden's desk for signature. I think that everyone expects it to pass through the house with these changes, even though it is, it is less than some progressives wanted in the house, but it'll pass through the house and be signed into law and we'll have this massive piece of legislation and Congress actually doing some real work, which I think let's, let's lead with that. That's exciting.
Beth: [00:05:49] And I recognize that there were some changes that brought the unemployment programs down a bit, ratcheted back the direct payments to Americans and that [00:06:00] people feel disappointed about that. I also think that probably zero people in the Biden administration thought that they would get anywhere close to $1.9 trillion when they put that number on the table. This was a massive accomplishment for this administration. It has to be beyond what they thought they would actually get past when they started the process.
Sarah: [00:06:24] Yeah. And I just loved the reporting on the process itself. It just, it felt like a relief in a different meaning of the word, right? To hear of Joe Biden on the phone with Joe Manchin, really working out the details and hammering out this compromise. And just the fact that this bill is bi-partisan among the American people. I am incredibly disappointed at the Republican party's reaction to this legislation, but we'll get into that in a minute, but it was supported by the American people overwhelmingly across party lines.
And so to [00:07:00] see that and to see just, you know, a president who understands how the institutions work, who understands the important role, he must play and getting it across the finish line and also the finish line belongs in Congress. Like all of that I think was so reassuring and just encouraging and not to mention that I just, the legislation itself is going to help so many people. Um, it was an incredibly positive development and I think how all of us see government and its functioning and the role it plays in all of our lives.
Beth: [00:07:37] And it should start helping people pretty quickly. There's going to be a lot of commentary about inflation and economic overheating, and is this more money than we needed given the positive jobs news and the positive economic news and the positive vaccine news all around, and I think that's all good, healthy debate that I am excited to have.
Overall, this puts a lot of [00:08:00] money into schools. It puts a lot of money into COVID testing and vaccines. We still need that COVID testing, especially as there's more reporting about variants and kind of everyone's fatigue and spring break and summer coming. And so I am just relieved that this has finally made it through. I understand we've put a lot of money into COVID relief until now, this was money that was raised really needed.
Sarah: [00:08:25] Well, and I think that debate is going to look so dated so quickly. I really don't think six months from now, we'll still have, you know, anxiety written analysis about whether this was too much money. I just cannot fathom a reality where this is the conversation about this particular piece of legislation a year from now. I really, I think that that is going to seem, I don't think that's going to age well, I guess that's what I'm saying.
Beth: [00:08:53] I think that this will create some problems because every action creates positive and negative [00:09:00] externalities. I think those are solvable problems. Inflation is a problem, yes, but it's a problem that we have experience with, that we have some levers we can move to deal with. The problems that are trying to be solved by this bill are scarier problems to me than inflation. I mean, a lot of governing is choosing your poison, right. And I think that this was the correct decision on which poison to pick.
Sarah: [00:09:24] Yeah. So I think that this was such an interesting and important moment when it comes to governing and because the democratic party is in power and because they're the ones doing the government, the governing, it was a really interesting moment to think about the party and where it's headed.
And also, it was a very interesting moment to look at the Republican party. Not a single member of the Republican party voted in favor of this legislation and I think one of the most interesting observations came from Politico that talked about, you know, the conservative media in the middle of this [00:10:00] huge bill, that is not just money and relief, but really changes a lot of things. It changes the child tax credit. It changes the earned income tax credit, like really some heavy shifts and this, this political reality that people are ready to see the government work in their lives.
And what were they consumed with? They were consumed with Dr. Seuss,
Beth: [00:10:21] I can't imagine who advised.Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader in the house of representatives, to sit down in front of a camera and read for Twitter's sake, green eggs and ham. I can't imagine who thought that was a good plan, but that is what he in fact did.
And it just shows you, and, you know, I think even beyond the ridiculousness of capitalizing on the Dr. Seuss controversy and blowing that into more of a controversy than it had to be, the fact that Senator Johnson demanded that [00:11:00] Senate personnel read every word of this bill to a practically empty chamber, the fact that the only people who stuck around for the end of that reading were Democrats, which then enabled them to pass some rules that were helpful to them on getting this thing across the finish line. Republicans weren't there to object because they left after they demanded that people who just work in the Senate had to read this bill.
There is just so unserious. It makes me angry. There were legitimate things to negotiate here. How do you legitimately negotiate when that's what's going on? And that's why all the drama of negotiation happened on the democratic side of the aisle. And there's a part of me and I know that people are going to throw tomatoes at me from their houses on this.
But I am grateful that you have some diversity of thought on the democratic side so that the government didn't just rubber stamp almost $2 trillion out the door. Like it's good to have some debate about that. I'm sorry that that debate didn't come from the opposing party in [00:12:00] Congress. .
Sarah: [00:12:01] You know, I talk about this all the time, because it is truly in my cells at this point, I will never stop thinking about Madison Cawthrone's memo about how he's staffing up on the comm side and not the legislative side, because I just think it is so indicative of where the Republican party is right now. You see that in moment after moment after moment after over the course of the weekend, right?
I think you see it in the serious members of the Republican party and leadership announcing that they're not running again in 2022. Roy Blunt announced today is we're recording, Rob Portman from Ohio, Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, Richard Burr from North Carolina, all these people with a lot of experience and a lot of really serious legislative accomplishments in history, saying I'm out.
I don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to go through the Trump primary and then a difficult Senate race. I think you see it and again, [00:13:00] this just the right wing media, following the lead of the Trump approach, which is profitable. It's a communication strategy that is profitable to lean in to the cancel culture and the grievance politics, but it is not a policy strategy.
It's just a communication strategy. And look, I'm sure they got a lot of social media interactions on Dr. Seuss and their green eggs and ham and riling people up about something that, we won't even talk about that. They were like deliberately misconstruing. It was Dr. Seuss is estate that dialed back these certain books, none of which are the big hits, none of which were Dr. Green eggs and ham or cat in the hat.
And it's just all of this to be playing out in the midst of this major piece of [00:14:00] legislation that's going to affect people's lives. That's really going to change permanently the role of government in some people's lives. Just, it was the contrast was overwhelming.
Beth: [00:14:15] I am very worried about all of the implications of this strategy, because it's not harmless when you make something of Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato head. It is not harmless and we see the results of it all the time.
I agree with you. I think about that Madison Cawthorne email a lot. I also think a lot about the report from the Mueller investigation and the way that it talked about Russia using racial division in the United States as an opening for sowing the seeds of distrust in government, of chaos in our society and our culture. And we're seeing the fruits of all of that come to life.
You know, we're going to spend Friday's episode [00:15:00] talking about some 40 proposals to make it harder to vote across the United States. Axios, this morning, reported that over 60 bills in at least 25 States have been introduced, targeting transgender children. It is not harmless. What's happening. Great. Also
Sarah: [00:15:17] Russia is out there sewing misinformation about the vaccines, right?
Beth: [00:15:21] And, and again, whether COVID is serious or not serious was another communication strategy a year ago. So all of these efforts to take the conversation to a direction that says you're either with us or you're against us, is hurting America in such obvious ways. And I just want it to stop. That's why I can't be all that mad at Joe Manchin because he is trying to govern.
You know, I don't agree with him about everything. And also I think it's better to have a conservative Democrat from West Virginia, then two Republican [00:16:00] senators from West Virginia right now, when one party seems to be in favor of allowing more people to vote and in favor of using the government for legitimate ends to try to respond to a pandemic and in favor of trying to care about each other and exercise some level of sensitivity about race and about people's identities, where we're just, there is an unevenness to what's going on in our system right now.
And so when you look at a state like West Virginia, where the math is so heavily in favor of another Republican Senator coming to Washington, DC, I think Joe Manchin in some ways is singing from the same hymnal as Joe Biden and that the two of them know what they're doing and they're going to make it harder for Republicans in the next cycle to say, you must elect Republicans as a check on the radical Democrats. Then you can just fire back, the radical Democrats aren't organized. The radical Democrats haven't passed anything that would [00:17:00] seem radical to you. You know, look at what you're calling the radical Democrats.
Here's what, here's what Joe Manchin has been doing. Here's what Senator Sinema has been doing. I know that that is not where Progressive's want to be, but like we gotta, we gotta drag along the country that we have . And I think there is some value in what took place over the last four to five days.
Sarah: [00:17:23] I think we've hit upon an important distinction. The difference between a legislative strategy and a communication strategy. And I'm not asking anyone anywhere, including on Twitter, to give the benefit of the doubt communication strategies, but we all know those when we see them. I am asking people to give the benefit of the doubt when it's a legislative strategy.
You can disagree with it and that's fine and we should talk about that and we should debate legislative strategies, but we should at least give the benefit of the doubt when it is a legislative strategy and not a communication strategy, because there are Republicans out there with legislative strategies and let's [00:18:00] acknowledge them. And there are conservative Democrats out there with legislative strategies and there are progressive Democrats out there with legislative strategies and there are progressive Democrats out there with communication strategies, right?
So like, I just think like, and look, it's not always easy to break up the two and distinguish like, well here, they're just being, you know, just trying to get on Twitter or they're just trying to get on Fox news and here they're really submitting a legislative proposal, but it's getting easier. You know what I mean?
Like there are some people it's real easy to, to distinguish between the two. And I mean, I think that that's something that we should really, really, really try to keep in mind that there is a difference and that we want to acknowledge and take seriously when people have policy differences and we want to not spend our hard earned time and energy and money and, and emotional energy on people that are just putting out a communication strategy.
Even though I think you're right. I've even those like totally craven, politically motivated [00:19:00] without an ounce of goodwill or fair motive, political communication strategies do harm us, do harm us, even if there's no policy attached but I do think that distinction is helpful.
Beth: [00:19:13] I do too. And I 100% agree with you. For example, I understand a lot of what Senator Murkowski is doing right now. And I understand voting against this bill, while she is simultaneously stepping out a little bit to support Deb Holland's confirmation to secretary of the interior and I understand the way she is kind of playing the chips that she has with the Biden administration around energy policy and Alaska. That's what she's supposed to do. Senators are supposed to represent their States.
So even where you strongly disagree with her, about some of that, all of it, even, I think she's doing what she's supposed to do for her state and I think she's taken some really tough votes along the way. And so I [00:20:00] get when you're staring down and this is kind of the theater of all, this makes me upset, but I also am trying to hate the game, not the players as you counsel, often, Sarah, you know, I understand if you are Senator Murkowski going into this vote, knowing that it's going to pass and probably being relieved that it's going to pass, and you don't have to cross the aisle to do that, so that you have more leverage in other discussions.
If you can't shape this bill, what can you shape down the line and how do you kind of manage your power in a way that maximizes it. I get that. And I get that a lot of people are engaged in that right now. And it is frustrating to know that a lot of Republicans are probably pretty happy that this bill passed and they didn't vote for it. That stinks. And it happens the opposite sometimes too.
And that is just our system rewards a no vote more than it rewards a yes vote right now. That's too bad, [00:21:00] but this got done and I'm happy about it. And one other thing I just wanted to say is that I am really encouraged by the fact that Alaskan Senator Sullivan prioritized going home for his father-in-law's funeral in the midst of all of this.
I can imagine that that was very difficult and that there was some pressure on him around that and I just want to say that I think whatever his vote would have been, and I'm pretty sure it would have been a no vote, but even if it had been a yes vote, I am encouraged by that example, being set in a culture that I think too frequently tells us that our family matters are not as important as our work.
Sarah: [00:21:37] Well and I think what we're seeing, because this passed and because you know, all the issues and intricacies, we just articulated is more space for people to do the work. I can, I think you see senators hungry to do actual governing. I think that's true of Joe Manchin's role. I think that's true of the way Joe Manchin has started articulating that he's open to quote unquote [00:22:00] filibuster reform or people like Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith coming out and saying, get, or John freaking Tester, saying, get rid of the filibuster.
I mean, I think you just see this hunger and I was really encouraged by senators, Tim Kane and Todd young, Todd young who's Republican from Indiana and Senator Kane from a Democrat from Virginia, introducing bipartisan legislation that would repeal the war authorization for military force in Western Asia, that's been there for decades, decades.
You know, we talked about this and our conversation about the airstrikes in Syria. We've talked about this on the show before that we need a re-examination of our role in foreign policy. We need to reexamination of our use of force and Tim Kane, who has a son in the military has been speaking about this for a long time.
Like we need to revoke this authorization. If we think it's important enough to use military force, then we think we should be willing and able to take hard votes on authorizing that military force every single time. I desperately hope this [00:23:00] passes. And I think that it is incredibly important and it's been something that both sides have been arguing for different members of both sides, obviously.
And so I think that just all that sort of, you know, you can just see the, the, the gears starting to churn, no matter how stiff and dry they are that they're like, okay, I think we can, we can start doing literally anything again.
Beth: [00:23:25] Yeah. And that kind of thing today's moment of hope, although I would certainly include the Kane and Young proposal in our moment of hope as well, because we have been talking for years too, about the importance of reexamining the role of Congress as it relates to use of the United States military.
I was also encouraged to read about representative Gallagher's proposal in the house of representatives to address the issue proxy voting, now that members of Congress have been vaccinated for quite some time. And representative Gallagher and this is, you know, what we [00:24:00] want people to do, right is speaking to an issue within his caucus, within the Republican caucus, where he sees members using proxy votes so that they can attend events like SeaPak, where he sees members using proxy votes, because they would rather be anywhere than in the chamber doing the work. And he's frustrated by it. And he says that it is damaging the institution and I think that he's probably right.
This goes along with the filibuster reform that Senator Manchin indicated an openness to right now, no one has to actually filibuster. They can just indicate their objection and, and we get into 60 vote territory. What Senator Manchin says is I'm open to saying that if you want to filibuster, you have to show up and keep talking, um, which would certainly change the dynamics around how the filibuster is used and demonstrate more clearly to the American people what's going on when the filibuster is being [00:25:00] used.
I think that most of us have a gut sense that we want our members of Congress to be members of Congress, to be in the chamber, to take votes on the floor, to take hard votes when they're called for and so I'm just, I am encouraged by the momentum around making Congress work more effectively.
Next up, to my great chagrin, we are going to spend some time talking about Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah in the context of what's going on with governor Cuomo and where we are with media and power and race and harassment generally.
Sarah: [00:25:42] So we had some major developments with governor Andrew Cuomo. I should say we both had like.Major hesitation to talking about him at all from the beginning of this controversy, because I just never felt the attachment to him that I think a lot of Americans did. You know, we have coined the term crappy governor's coalition on [00:26:00] Patreon. We were not a member of that coalition. I think a lot of people became attached to his briefings because they felt abandoned by their own governors. Um, but you and I did not feel that emotional attachment to governor Cuomo.
Beth: [00:26:11] No. And I sometimes worried that I just had like a regional bias because whenever people would compare him to our governor, Andy Bashir, I thought, I don't think so. I don't feel the same things from the two of them. I mean, I think we were in an era where any trace amounts of empathy and concern and competence were latched onto understandably, but I just never I never got the fascination with governor Cuomo and I was bothered enormously when it was announced that he was writing a book about his leadership before the pandemic had ended. So I've always kind of had an uneasy feeling about him and have not been particularly shocked by what's being [00:27:00] reported.
Sarah: [00:27:00] Had the New York state law makers voting on Friday to strip him of his emergency pandemic powers. He has said he will not step down, but we now have, I think a total of five women who have come forward with allegations of sexual harassment and several top Democrats within the New York state party demanding his resignation.
So we have sexual harassment, a toxic work environment, loss of credibility and the COVID-19 nursing home data scandal. This was all laid out by us, New York Senate, majority leader, Andrea Stewart, cousins who called on him to resign.
Sarah, you
Beth: [00:27:33] suggested that we talk about this more in a framing of like, where are we in terms of our larger understanding of the Me Too movement. And I think that is a really good frame and also kind of an awkward frame and that part of what everything swirling around governor Cuomo illustrates right now is that Me Too has always been a lot about power and how power is used and the [00:28:00] specific details of any one Me Too moment are less what that movement is about then that overall understanding of power and how we hold power to account.
Sarah: [00:28:14] Yeah, I think it's really been discouraging because you know, Me Too, literally the words me too, it happened to me too, were meant to show how many women that issues of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and power used within a patriarchal system affects women.
It was supposed to show this, this really incredibly expansive impact, the diversity of its impact and instill instead, it feels like it's gotten flattened. And now me too means one thing like it's the Harvey Weinstein. He was a predator, should be, you know, ran out of every organization. And, and if that doesn't happen immediately then is [00:29:00] Me Too over, are they me too hypocrites?
And it just makes me sad because I think like, no, the point is that this was and continues to be, um, something that is as wide and prolific as women themselves. Right? Like w th this experience is this massive spectrum. I thought that the writer Tonya Silverado spoke of this really beautifully on an interview I saw with her. You know, she came forward about abuse inside an intimate relationship she had with the New York attorney general at the time, Eric Schneiderman.
And she was saying like, what we're seeing is like these waves of Me Too and you start with just true sexual predators, like Harvey Weinstein. And then you start talking about workplace harassment and inappropriate touching and that she's really encouraged because she feels like there's been a lot of progress in this next wave of intimate partner violence, which is really, really difficult and really [00:30:00] traumatic for people to come forward and talk about.
And she mentioned like Evan Rachel Wood coming out and naming Marilyn Manson as her abuser. She'd been speaking about her experience with intimate partner violence for a while, but had not spoken of it. That wave and this the way to think about this as like just different waves about different topics and that like this isn't all going to be the same.
Like the response to a true sexual predator, in relationship to a response about intimate partner violence, in relationship to governor Cuomo and the accusations of sexual harassment, toxic work environment, are going to be really different. And, you know, the interviewer asked her what she thought about governor Cuomo and she said, my reaction is that there needs to be an independent investigation before jumping to conclusions.
I believe in due process and establishing the rest of the, of the allegations and the credibility of the accusers. What is remarkable about these stories is that there are multiple women sharing, eerily, similar experiences independently of one another and what they're describing are experiences that most women will have in their lives. A diminishing of women's worth and of [00:31:00] men in power crossing lines that they think they can cross because they are empowered and entitled.
Beth: [00:31:04] I think that's really well said. And I look at some of what has been shared, um, about governor Cuomo and it feels similar to me to some of what was shared about now president Biden. It feels similar to me to not in terms of the toxic work environment, but just the familiarity and touching too much and being, you know, too intimate and too familiar.
It sounds like there was maybe more of an edge with governor Cuomo's then what's been reported about, uh, now president Biden, but it's also, you know, I, I said from the beginning, like, I want to take a lot of this at their word, because to me, Me Too was about, it was not about the punishment side.
It was about the affirmation that yes, things happen and yes, they are uncomfortable and yes, we can talk to each other about them and yes, we can affirm the discomfort of it. You know, I have worked with people who have kissed [00:32:00] me on the cheek uncomfortably, who have put an arm around me that I would have not chosen. And, and I don't want to punish any of those people.
I was uncomfortable in those moments though. And so you get into this weird space of thinking, this is not a bad person. This is not a person who had even particularly bad intentions. This is a person who understands the world in a way that is different from the way I understand the world and it is harmful to me on some level.
And I also don't feel a sense of vengeance about it. I just want the world to progress around our understanding of this. It's what has bugged me in his response has been this kind of contrite, oh, now I have learned. Well, like you didn't learn a few years ago when this is all anyone was talking about, like, was that not the moment?
Cause to me the, or of the movement was to elevate that conversation have people like some of the people who have pecked me on the cheek in a professional situation here, like, [00:33:00] Hey. We don't do this anymore. You know, I know that your intention is not awful and it does have a very negative impact. And so I struggle to receive governor Cuomo's response in good faith, because I feel like this conversation should have progressed beyond this discussion now.
Sarah: [00:33:22] Well, and I think the really important aspect of that and the distinction is like you said, it's the power. It's not like, it's the, it's the women that were working for him who felt this pressure to sort of stay silent in the face of these situations that felt incredibly toxic and uncomfortable, you know?
And it seems the narrative was, everybody knew that he's like this, but his leadership approach is very top down, is very, you know, authoritarian in a way. And you see, and I think particularly because you, you see that in the nursing home data controversy, [00:34:00] right. I will maintain total control of the information and the employees in the, in the, in the narrative. And that's the only way I know how to lead right, is to make, maintain control.
You know, this reminds me of another famous New York leader that we were talking about is there was really great reporting on Chuck Schumer's leadership style and keeping related to our first segment and keeping the, the democratic party sort of unified.
And there was this great line where they were talking about how different he is from Harry Reed and Harry Reed had a couple of close advisors. It was very top down. It was very like hierarchical and that Chuck Schumer has this very different approach, this great line, where they said, everybody thinks Chuck's their best friend.
And he has this like kind of kitchen cabinet approach and he brings in all these people. And I thought like he doesn't get the respect he deserves because this is a very different approach to power, almost diametrically opposed to what we're hearing described with governor Cuomo. This very hierarchical controlled approach to leadership. And I [00:35:00] think that that is such an important component and he deserves to be held to task for that. And they're like, this is bigger than this power dynamic in particular. Seems to me like something that is very, very important in this entire conversation. I
Beth: [00:35:16] think that's right. And that's where I would like to see the next phase go because toxic work environments, whether they include an element of sexual harassment or not, toxic work environments depend on lots and lots of people accepting unacceptable behavior from particular individuals, because there is something in it for them and I am ready to hold that to some kind of account.
I felt this way throughout the entire Trump administration. I spent a lot less time thinking about Donald Trump, the man then I spent thinking about all of the people who facilitated his presidency. So many people facilitated every single [00:36:00] action he took. You cannot govern this country alone. And the same is true of every president, but the singularity of our attention on just this one guy always bugged me. So many people allowed this to happen.
And that is true of governor Cuomo. This seems to have been a really poorly kept secret in terms of how it felt to work with him. And there are just probably everybody listening can think of a person in their organization who creates a really toxic environment that is propped up, fed, protected by other human beings because what that person brings in a lot of business or makes a lot of money or is particularly smart in a way that no one else seems to be.
There's always a reason. There's always some kind of justification, but what I hope a conversation about a more diverse and inclusive world can lead us to, is that those people aren't so [00:37:00] special that we should put up with that behavior. And I'm not saying purge everyone from the universe, cancel all the people who've exercised bad judgment in the workplace. I'm saying, identify it early. Make it clear that that's not acceptable, provide whatever support is needed to be provided to stop it and then if the person won't stop, say we were done, we're not doing this.
Sarah: [00:37:26] Well, I have to say, I think that this conversation about toxic work environments is the perfect transition to our next section on Meghan and Harry's interview with Oprah. Don't you think?
Beth: [00:37:36] We're going to bring Alise in to this conversation because she is far more invested than I am.
Sarah: [00:37:41] And here's, she's our Royal correspondent. We're gonna, we're gonna add our rural correspondent.
Beth: [00:37:45] Let me just say this one thing before I stepped back a little bit here. It is not that I don't care about the mental health issues, the issues of racism, the toxic [00:38:00] dynamics that this interview shared with us. It is just that this particular lens for these issues does not make my like top 10,000 list of things to care about. I am so sorry for what Harry and Megan have gone through and it does not feel like breaking news to me that there is explicit racism happening within the British monarchy.
Sarah: [00:38:38] There are a lot of people, exactly where you are. You do not have to have an interest in the Royal family, British, Australian, American. Definitely not required of anyone as a human and as we, as we add in our, uh, Royal correspondent. Welcome Alise.
Alise: [00:38:56] Thank you. I do just have to say that I would like to officially change my title now because I [00:39:00] think Royal correspondent is about your favorite job thing I've ever that's it now I've I've I've peaked.
Yeah.
Sarah: [00:39:07] I mean, I, you know, the reason I love it and I think it is so fascinating is it because it is at the cross-section of so many things that I'm interested in. History, gender, power, fame, wealth. Like I just think that it is such an interesting manifestation of all these things. And look, I am a true Anne Helen Peterson disciple.
I think that the way we talk about celebrity and royalty in this day and age is another form of celebrity as much as I think that they would like to believe something different, is about, you know, we're, we're working out our own values, we're working on our own ideas about things. And so I just think it's like also a really aesthetically pleasing way to work out all these tough cultural issues.
And you know, and I think you see it in [00:40:00] the interest in the Crown, like there's so much here. There's politics, there's history, there's gender, there's family dynamics, wealth. It's just, it's all there. It's all there. And then you add in mom Oprah, who we all know raised me every day at four o'clock for most of my life, man, you just got it all. You just got it all.
Alise: [00:40:20] Yeah. I think my interest stems from very similar places that yours does. I love history. And I think that royalty was an entry point for me into loving history, like from very early in my life. Um, you know, which there's probably a whole cultural conversation there about the princessifcation of what we give little girls.
Sarah: [00:40:49] Well, yeah, like, think about that. You have this whole like story fairy tale fictional, like this, like a literal arc that runs through our stories we tell our children that lines up with this stuff too.
[00:41:00] Alise: [00:41:00] Yeah, for sure. And I think for me, it was like one of the very first things that like, I became obsessed with, like independently of like, I want to learn everything about this I can. Like the, from the current space to like historical stuff. And, you know, I love being the person who, when my friends have questions about the Royals they text me. You know, I it's dumb, but like it's fun. It's fun to have a thing where it's like, Oh yeah, this is what I know about. Like, let me tell you about the, the letters patent and what's really going on here.
But, but I think you're so right that it's, you know, I think this ties in really well with your conversation about power, because really that's what so much of this is about is who is holding power and the, the really interesting thing that I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this morning, after watching this interview last night, when we're recording, is this toxic symbiotic way that the monarchy depends on the press and the press depends on the monarchy and the way that those two things are intertwined.
[00:42:00] And, you know, hearing Meghan talked about it some in the interview last night, where there's just kind of this, this understanding of, you know, they wine and dine certain press to get better coverage and, and whatever and, and just the way that power weaves through all of that in such an unhealthy way, I'm spending a lot of time thinking about that this morning.
Sarah: [00:42:19] Well, and here's the part, Beth. I couldn't wait to ask you cause I thought that this point I was like, yes, this is, this is everything. One of the first things that Meghan and Oprah talked about it, the first first, gosh, I guess 15 minutes of the interview was this controversy that Meghan made Kate Middleton cried during her wedding and then Meghan says, actually it was the reverse. And to me like the particularities of that story, it just sounds like wedding drama to me. Lived it, got it. We all know, especially like future sister-in-laws.
I have a lot, listen, I have a lot of sister-in-laws y'all my husband is one of five kids. I get it. That part to me was not important, but like when she said, and this is what I couldn't wait to ask you about, Beth is like the polarity of [00:43:00] like, they think one of us has to be the villain and one of us has to be the hero like, and when she said you can like me and not hate her and you can like her and not hate me. And it doesn't have to be this way. And I thought this is everywhere.
This is Christina and Britney, right? This is you see it with first ladies and second ladies, you see it all the time, this idea of like, there has to be one woman and you know, the undercurrent of this is there is one, one woman at the top of this thing and it ain't Kate or Meghan, it's the queen. And so, like, I just think that I loved when she said that cause I thought, man, I wish we could all put that in our veins.
Beth: [00:43:38] Well, for sure. I, I think something that felt ironic to me about watching this interview was the moment when they were talking about Meghan and Harry's new media company and Meghan was saying, well, everything is really about story. And I thought, right, but like, that's been the problem. Everything is about story. We are so [00:44:00] obsessed with story. Why do we need to pick Meghan or Kate? Because it's a better story than they both seem lovely and fine. Right. And why did the young women have to be at each other in the British press? So the queen can float above all of it.
Even in this interview, the queen got to float above the whole thing as the, as the kind grandmother who is also just another cog in a system that is built on and driven by story. I mean, I, I just think that's the most interesting thing about every single thing we've been talking about. What are, what is the point of any of this?
What is the point of being a member of the United States congress if what you're really about is reading Dr. Seuss on Twitter? What is the point of being the governor of New York if you are not going to be honest and transparent, even in your dealings, within your own workplace? What is the point of getting invested in Meghan and Harry's [00:45:00] story if what we're looking for is just another angle of story, instead of kind of breaking down the fact that this is a whole lot of human beings in a really messed up system that everybody has known has been messed up for a long time.
And we still don't want to accept it. We still want to step back and go, Oh my God, how shocking? Like this is part of a system that created the British empire in the world. There are zero shocking things about it, but it gets dressed up for us every once in a while and it feels really good. And that's why we keep going back for more.
Alise: [00:45:33] Yeah, I think that's also part of what I'm not even struggling with. Um, because I like cognitively, I know all of that, but I really love the pageantry. Like I love and Sarah, I know you're the same way. I love feeding into it all. And yet I can look at it and I think last night, the interview, I think the interview really helped me clarify just how toxic it is for the people inside of it.
I mean, obviously I've been watching the Crown and seeing so much [00:46:00] of it there, but you know, that's also a fictional interpretation, but seeing them lay out their stories so, uh, openly, you know, for one thing, it made me wish that we could get that same level of openness from other people in the family cause I'm sure that there are two sides to some of this story as there are with anything. But we won't ever get that because of how the system works.
You know, that whole story about Kate and the wedding and the bridesmaid dresses. Like we also, like Kate was like, I don't know, a week or two postpartum at that point from having given birth to their third child. So I'm sure that she had some things going on and we certainly know that Harry and William did not have the happiest of childhoods. And we're seeing that play out for them in, I think two very different ways, but both of them very clearly impacted by real family issues throughout their entire lives.
It's just a week dress up this pageantry and it becomes easy to wipe over the racism, the colonialism, I shouldn't say easy, [00:47:00] but right. I mean, it is to an extent because we like looking at the prettiness of it all, but we're also wiping over very real lived experiences by human beings here and forgetting that at the core of this, they're just people too, and they are going to make mistakes and they're going to say stupid things and they're going to do wonderful things and be hurt and be loving and all the full range of the human experience, just like the rest of us.
But we don't want to know about any of that mess, right. Because we just want them to stand on the balcony and wave and look beautiful. And look, I'm a guilty in this as well, to an extent, because I'm a consumer of that content. Um, just like we talk, you all talked about with Britney Spears and wa who are, when are we consuming? When are we making choices to consume? How are we feeding into the machine that is perpetuating this it's problem?
Beth: [00:47:50] Oh, I think we want the mess. I think we crave. I think that's why the whole tablet side of it exists and why? As, as Meghan put forth in the interview, they feed on each [00:48:00] other. It is a symbiotic relationship of strategic mess, contrasted with pageantry, which is what we expect of American celebrities too.
It's what we've started expecting of our politicians and it's gross. The part that I think we need to embrace is like just the normal, the normalness of these people. Right. But that's not a good story. And so we don't tell that part. Well, I
Sarah: [00:48:23] mean, here's the thing first, you know, when Meghan and Harry got married, um, I had a long conversation with a friend of mine and who we've always followed world stuff. And I was, you know, several seasons into the Crown at this point. And let me tell you, like I was very invested in princess Diana's life. Very truly devastated when she was killed. And so like, there was all these swirling emotions and also I'm a person like I've talked about this a lot. I'm I, you know, I think a lot about the cost of fame on individuals.
I tell y'all this, I I'm, I'm still sad about Whitney Houston every day in my life. I'm sad about her. I'm sad about Amy Winehouse. These were real people and [00:49:00] they are gone and I was, you know, Working through all that, thinking through all that. And I think what's complicated when you talk about this with the monarchy is as Americans, we think they're just celebrities. And in many ways they are. There is a real component of celebrities, which the monarchy fights.
That's why they don't talk because they don't really want to become just a celebrity because it's right there. They're a sovereign, right? The, the myth, the legend, the story is that these people were chosen by God. The queen was chosen by God. Now, I don't think anybody really believes that anymore although I think the queen does and so what does this mean? And I think, you know, I told my friend last night, I don't think there's any modernizing the monarchy. Let's let that go. That's not a thing that is ever going to happen.
And as much as I am somebody who, who has followed it and who like feels emotionally attached to these human beings and wants the best for them, I think they should shut it down. It's not [00:50:00] worth it. You know, I think that the monarchy serves a lot of purposes. One of course is tourism, but people are going to still travel to England and still see the castles and still want to see the jewels and Buckingham palace, whether there are real people continuing to perpetuate the monarchy or not.
And as far as the figurehead component, I mean, I don't see the figurehead, I don't see the queen leading the British people out of the polarization caused by Brexit. Right. I don't see her solving this figurehead role of all these people solving in any real way, the real divisions that can come about by politics. Right?
And so to me, the cost to these real human beings is not worth it and it is real suffering to hear somebody who we've all looked, watched a thousand images, a thousand videos of her looking just beautiful, every ideal, right? At the, every ideal, even to that moment where she was pregnant and she was saying, I [00:51:00] looked beautiful, but I was having suicidal thoughts, to me is both very brave and, uh, Just a gift to all of us as a reminder that mental health is mental health.
It does not matter how rich and famous you are. And the idea that like this is real suffering, whether you are a Duchess or not is just, we have to take that in. It's just, it's not worth it to them. I don't think it is and when he tends to talk about his own family members as trapped, as the relationships between them as separate as space, it just, it breaks my heart for them. And I think like at like, exactly what best for what, for what, even if there is a, what is it enough? Is it enough to justify what these people have gone through? I don't think it is. I really don't think it is.
And I feel the same way about celebrity in pop singers. You know, somebody was tweeting like, Oh my God, we want this Oprah interview with Brittany and Nicholas was [00:52:00] like, but we don't right. That's the point .We have to stop doing this. Even if we're rooting for Brittany, we have to stop hungering for more of her because she cannot give any more. And it comes at a cost when they give and they give and they give and they give. It comes at a cost and it's not worth castles or fairytales or arenas full of adoring fans. It's not worth it.
Beth: [00:52:23] And it cost other people too. That's important. It costs other people too, because what is a clear embodiment of what we mean when we say patriarchy, which is just holding power over other people, instead of holding it with them, then the monarchy. There are so many systems that reinforce our understanding of power and how it's held and what you sacrifice in service of preserving it that are screwing us over.
This is going to be a very weird connection point, but I spend a lot of time reading secretary of state Blinken's first address to [00:53:00] the country. And I got really stuck on this line where he said, who will organize the world? And he was making the case for American leadership, which I largely agree with, but I was really struck when he said it's basically our obligation to organize the world, because if we don't, we create a vacuum that another country will fill or we create chaos.
And I think that is true and deeply deeply problematic. Our reinforcement of so much of what is devastating across the globe and I've really been sitting with that line and thinking through what that means and how I feel about it. And so I think you're right that like saying the monarchy is an idea whose time has come and gone uh, is important in saying to people like, you know what, I don't have a good solution for what follows the monarchy, but I do know that this is a system where power is held over other people and we need to [00:54:00] be done with those systems everywhere we can be.
Sarah: [00:54:02] And even if it wasn't the media component, it's just a resentment machine inside their own family. When we knew you have to bow to your own mother or curtsy to your future grandmother-in-law that is just, even if that person who I think by all accounts is not a perfect human, but is not an ego-driven human, which is actually Charles who's the real villain in the story, but that's another podcast. The queen doesn't have that, but it doesn't even matter that she doesn't because it's just an inherent constant churn of resentment and power and power jocking within a actual family. The only family these people will ever have.
Alise: [00:54:43] Yes. You're exactly right. I think that this is where the intersection of family and business for in this particular circumstance becomes so messy because at its core the monarchy, be that the family or [00:55:00] the support people in place around them right, if you've watched the Crown or if you've studied this world at all, you know, that it's not just like, there's this family sitting around making decisions. They have advisors, there's people, right? There's a whole machine around it. And at the core, the highest need of that machine is to protect the monarchy, right. To protect this ongoing line of leaders.
And so that will always be at the sacrifice of people lower on the totem pole. Well, when those people lower on the totem pole are your siblings or your children that becomes hurtful. And I think that's a lot of what is going on in this story of Meghan and Harry not feeling protected. Yeah. They probably were not protected in the same way in part, because I think that people within the institution, family, and non-family did not understand the racial component of this or chose not to understand the racial component of it.
And in part, because [00:56:00] Harry is not ever going to be King and they know that, and he will continue to slide further down that totem pole as his life goes on, further out of the spotlight. And, you know, you said, Charles is the villain and it's so true. And I think that it's true because in this particular circumstance, that comes from his desire to continue to slim down the monarchy. He doesn't want his siblings involved anymore. He doesn't want, you know, all these extra cousins. He wants them off the payroll.
And I think he's looking longterm and seeing the same thing. Okay, well, this is gonna, I'm gonna go ahead and preempt this and you're going to be out of the picture eventually, too. And that's awful and it's a business decision and it should never happen within a family. And it's just, it's messy. I really loved the New York times had said something in their coverage of this. They said this story has no heroes. It only has victims and villains. And I, I, that really resonated with me that they are all just messy broken people and, and it's just, it is, it's just a mess.
Sarah: [00:56:57] I'm hard on Charles because he deserves it but let me [00:57:00] say, like, what must it be like to live your entire life born into a role you did not pick, which is basically number two with all the costs of being the heir and none of the benefit of being the sovereign for your whole life.
Like, I mean, he is like resentment personified and who can freaking blame him in a lot of ways. But I mean, I think to the, the racial component to me, that is, so that was like, it was a moment for all of us to see in such a, like a real way I think what happens across the country, across the globe, in America, when someone with a different racial identity enters your family and you see families that choose it as the opportunity in the moment to grow.
Like, there's a moment where she's talking about, and this was in an extra clip where Meghan is saying, you know, Kate had all this tough coverage too and they called her weighty Katie, and it was really hard. And she's like, that is true and I don't know what that looks like or feels like. And also rude is not the same as racist. [00:58:00] Like they have you see families that learn from that and see it through the eyes of the people they love and grow and change.
And you see families who refuse. Who just refuse to take this opportunity for what it is to learn and to expand and to take this perspective of these people that they loved most and gain in their racial understanding of the world. And so to me, it's like, it's just another example of like, Oh yeah, look, they're just like us.
Like, and it was, uh, I, I, I really thought it was brave and wonderful and powerful because I think it was like people had that chance to see like, Oh, this is what happens and this is when someone you love is experiencing this. And I think this is true, you know, they would say feminism, men come to feminism through women they love. And like, I think that that's so true. And then watching this play out this way and then being so open and upfront about how hurtful it was to be able to come out publicly and say, a member of my family said this. [00:59:00] This is what, this is how hurtful it was. He stopped taking my calls. Like all that I thought was just so vulnerable and had the opportunity to be really enlightening for lots of people. Yeah.
Alise: [00:59:14] I, stay with me a minute, Kevin and I started watching Succession this weekend, which I realize we're several years behind, but you know, it's a pandemic, so we're still just watching TV. And there was a scene early on where for those of you who haven't watched Succession is basically a fictional version of the Murdoch family and these hyper hyper wealthy people, you know, living their life, trying to run this company. I mean, we're four episodes in, so that's a very small representation of it.
But there's a scene early on where one of the children who is now placed in this position as temporary CEO is walking into this board meeting, stockholder meeting. And all of the staff is like trying to kind of tell him this doesn't [01:00:00] seem like a good idea what you're doing here. And he just blows him off. And I, I looked at my husband and I said, I don't ever want to be in a role where I feel like the people around me can't really say, whoa, this is not cool. You need to like, take a step back and like rethink this and, and, you know, Kevin said, it's like, yeah, well, they are trying to tell him.
And I'm like, well, not very directly, but also because he will just fire them. Right. And, and I say all that to say, I think that part of what is going on here with the Royal family is, everything you're saying Sarah, about the difficult transition and opportunity that this can be for families, and also how much harder that must be when the members of your family have lived their entire lives in a bubble where people don't tell them the full truth.
Sarah: [01:00:51] The part for me that's hard to hear about that is as someone who just, again, a piece of my heart will forever belong to princess [01:01:00] Diana, like the world showed you the truth. The reality of the situation when she died came up and knocked your butts down. Like in that you would live through that moment we all lived through and the impact of it and still refuse to see what was coming your way and the opportunity presented to you. If you took it and just make the same mistake, the same mistake.
Like my friend was like, well, I wonder if, if they should really like restaff and hold people responsible, I'm like, it won't matter. It'll be the same problem wearing a different pair of pants if they can't learn from Diana. If they can not learn from that, then it's done. There is no modernizing the monarchy, like. This is not to mention that Harry is Harry is her boy. At one point, I was like, this is her boy. And they always said that they always said like, Charles is more like, or William is more like Charles and Harry is more like Diana and it just, I could feel her.
I literally like felt [01:02:00] her, a woman I have never met and who has been gone for most of my adult life. But it was just that feeling of like, Even him articulating, like this was the same thing was playing out again. I felt like she saw this coming. Not to mention, like, it's been the Diana season on the Crown, like all of this, how could you not? And I mean, I think it's because it's broken, it's broken and they have to, I just want to like set them free, like get out. Y'all just get out.
Beth: [01:02:30] I think there's a version of living in a bubble that infects every family and every organization. George Floyd isn't the first name that we know. We didn't, we didn't learn from past experiences. And I remember us talking with Lisa Sharon Harper at the very beginning of COVID-19 about our inability to heed warnings and especially when they come from people who have less power than we do in the world.
And I [01:03:00] think that's in a way you can dissolve the monarchy and there still won't be freedom for some of the people in that system because we create bubbles and keep them because they serve us in some way. It's easier than facing what is, and it becomes hard to know what is when you've held onto that bubble so long. And that, that's why we're still talking about Me Too years later because people keep recreating the bubbles.
Alise: [01:03:25] Yeah. And if it has taken us to this many iterations to make such little progress on an issue like police violence, You know, the Royal family really has only had one example of this between Diana and Meghan, and that was Kate. And she had an incredibly long adjustment period because they dated for so long. And also she's just a very different person, I think, than Diana or Meghan. And so it looks a lot different as well.
Sarah: [01:03:54] Listen, Beth, have I converted you to like this? Look at what deep, beautiful reflections we [01:04:00] found within this interview. I'm telling you it's all there. It's all there.
Alise: [01:04:06] Well, I'm always game to come on and talk more about this. Anytime we want to talk about the Royals or all the intricacies of this situation, and there are many, there are so many layers. I have so many more thoughts about all of this, but you know, this isn't just a royalty podcast. So until Sarah and I our spinoff royalty podcast, feel free to call me in as the Royal correspondent anytime.
Sarah: [01:04:27] Make sure and get your business cards made, Alise. Okay.
Alise: [01:04:29] I will, I'll get them switched from a managing director to Royal correspondent ASAP.
Beth: [01:04:34] For sure. Next up, we're going to talk about something that I'm genuinely excited about and that is Wandavision.
Sarah: [01:04:49] So Beth, what's on your mind outside Politics?
Beth: [01:04:51] Wandavision all the time. Last night, Chad was like, what do you want to watch? And I said, I want more Marvel. I want another Wandavision season. I want the same [01:05:00] kind of thought to go into a new character. Okay. I think we should try to do this without spoilers. It's going to be hard.
Sarah: [01:05:05] Beth I think we should try it, do that, but I will try to follow your lead. And can I just get something off my chest? I feel about Marvel, how I feel about the Royals. Just stop trying to act like it's not a thing. Just get on board with it and just everybody have a working knowledge of it.
I'm not saying you need to start and watch all 30 million films, although you should. And my argument is just because it's nice to sit down and know what you're going to watch next, because that will keep you occupied for a solid six months. But also because there's just so much good stuff there and we all want to talk about it and when you're like, and I don't watch Marvel movies, it's such a freaking drag on the excitement we all feel. So I'm just as a invitation to everyone. Please just get on board.
Beth: [01:05:46] I just Marvel as an institution is filling a lot of gaps in our society. It is a patient institution. Marvel is playing a longer game then I don't know, Congress, the church, like just you name your institution. [01:06:00] Marvel is probably playing a longer game right now. There is such passion for what they're creating and that's what I loved about Wandavision. All of that patient building complex plot, nerdy, enthusiasm created what feels like a new genre of television to me. It was the most creative thing I've ever seen on television.
Sarah: [01:06:25] Okay. So let me give you a little history here. My stepfather is a comic book person, as in, like, I would estimate that in my parents' home, there are several thousand comic books. And that's probably several thousand. Um, I have the entirety of wonder woman. Like it just it's this thing I grew up around. Okay. Before the movies were made, obviously, and I always kinda like, didn't love this part of the comic books.
Like I didn't love how expansive they would become and how all of a sudden wonder woman was dead. And there's a new wonder [01:07:00] woman or like, and it just, it felt. And this is why people are so judgy looking on the outside, looking in, like I can get in that space because that's how I felt when this only existed in the comic books. Because for a long time with the movies, they were not doing this. They were keeping it not easy, breezy, simple for everybody.
They were making movies. They were not translating the comics to the screen. Right. And so I get it. It's intimidating. It's overwhelming. And I think especially like when you talk about Wandavision, there are substantial portions where you are uncomfortable and confused. And that is such a surface to everyone to be like, Oh no, we're not going to, you're going to be this. You don't know what's going on. That's the point. Like, that's the point is that you need to not understand what's going on right now.
And I think like that, I just so get it. I get why everybody was the people who were in this world, you know, literal decades ago when they were doing this on the comic books and the appeal like I just get it on a new level now.
Beth: [01:07:56] I think part of what I really loved about this, cause I don't like it when [01:08:00] we go into what feels like artificial darkness for the purpose of making our superheroes edgy. I do not dig that. This is something totally different. I think where you have characters just unsure of what motivates them and just unsure of where their power takes them.
And you can see this. It's just, it's so human. It's not like I tried, I want to turn off the good guy, bad guy dynamic, because this isn't cool enough. It's like, no, these are it's more raw and real than that and the themes of grief around her and desire and defeated expectations and groundlessness, it's just so good. And it doesn't feel contrived the way it has felt contrived to me and other superhero movies.
Sarah: [01:08:55] Yeah. I mean, I think the themes were so strong and the reason why it's such an amazing [01:09:00] piece of culture and art and media is because the themes were strong enough for people's creativity to flourish. And because it was, you know, Marvel gets beat up. I want new content. Why don't we keep recycling the same, uh-uh. That's not what happened here. Like the way that they played with the format of the sit-com, the creativity on display in like the theme songs, which were written by the creative team behind Frozen and the costuming and the set design and just the subtle shifts.
And especially if you are like us and really watched. Cause I mean, I grew up watching I love Lucy on reruns. I think I probably, the, my weakest decades are like the sixties and seventies. I did not watch a lot of those sitcoms, but man, when they rolled in with like the eighties and the nineties sitcoms, I was like, this is so intense. This invitation to to look back and examine what the, just the sitcom [01:10:00] was saying and doing to us and the, the frameworks around which these, these cultural conversations were happening in the plot lines of these 30 minute comedies, man, it was just so brilliant.
Beth: [01:10:13] And it trusted the viewer. It is a big deal to tune in for any television show and be transported into a completely different place with every episode. For it to not have the same wraparound every single time for you to go three, four solid episodes with no idea what this thing is that you're watching. I just thought it communicated a lot of trust.
And I thought all of the little Marvel kind of Easter eggs along the way, which I'm sure I caught a fraction of, because I haven't read all the comic books and I've seen the movies, but you know, not, I don't get it all when I'm watching the movies, I just admire the artistry around commercials and the [01:11:00] commercials were so good. I mean, I just think it's brilliant. I am bordering on Sarah level enthusiasm about it. Like I feel evangelist about it. I want everyone to watch it.
Sarah: [01:11:11] Well, and here's the other thing I agree with you that they trusted the audience. And also, I feel very confirmed in the case I've been making that, which is, we should not binge watch everything. And they clearly thought that as well and did not release it all at once, which would have been a disservice because people would have watched it all at once. And that was not how that should have been consumed.
Look, I don't think that's how Ted lasso should have been consumed. I watched it one week at a time. This is how we should watch television. Some things we get new media, like I think we should watch things on like, on demand. Like I think there is something to be said For being able to go back and watch things or being able to like watch that one episode a week at any point in your week but we are missing something when we are binge watching everything. This, [01:12:00] this to me was a real good case for let's watch one episode at a time and give it room to settle.
Beth: [01:12:06] I think that's true. I watched it later in the process, so I did get to watch them back to back, but I didn't watch any of it in one sitting. And it was good to have a little time to just kind of marinate on what happened yesterday. I will watch it again. I could sit down and watch it again tonight. I thought it was that interesting. Let's answer the question that's that the people who are not in the Marvel universe, who have not accepted Marvel as you're making the case.
Sarah: [01:12:31] We'll convert you eventually.
Beth: [01:12:32] Do you think that you can start with Wandavision?
Sarah: [01:12:35] I mean, I guess you could, but why would you? There's so much out there and I do think to fully appreciate if this show is built on themes of grief, to fully appreciate the grief, you have to understand their relationship and how Wanda and Vision in case you didn't know, that's where the word, the term Wandavision came from.
And if [01:13:00] you don't watch the other movies, now I'm not saying you have to watch all 32. Somebody out there on the internet has created the ones that you need to watch in order to get Wandavision I promise. But I do think you need some context to really appreciate it.
Beth: [01:13:13] I think you could probably jump in and enjoy it for what it is, even if you don't get all that context. I hope that it would make you want to dive into more of it. I do not like the little legends packages that Disney has put together. I think if you're new to this universe, that's going to feel overwhelming more than like a quick catch-up. So I would not recommend going down that path.
I'm enchanted with what they created here. It feels like the newest thing I've watched in a very long time, the most fresh approach I've seen.
Sarah: [01:13:44] Yeah. And I mean, we rewatched all of the Marvel movies with our kids over quarantine. So I was particularly primed and I think we did skip the first Hulk movie, but that was the only one. Um, and there's like such cool ways you can arrange them. They'll like put like some people will [01:14:00] put them in chronological order, which I think is the least confusing way to watch them so you understand all the stones and all that, or you can watch them in the order they came out and there's like all these interesting, fascinating ways to group them.
And, you know, I just. I love it. And also before we move on, most important points, it's ushered in a Hahnaissance. I love Kathryn Hahn so much. I mean, I've loved her as an actress for so long. I fell hard for her during Transparent. She was such a good, did you ever watch that show? You should watch that show.
You will love it. It's so good. And she just is so brilliant. I'm going to go on record now. I think Katherine Hahn will show herself to be the next generation's Meryl Streep. Eventually not, she's not there yet, but it's all the foundation has been laid. And I think she is up to the challenge.
Beth: [01:14:51] I like that prediction. This was not an easy role and she was brilliant.
Sarah: [01:14:57] I mean, she was better than Elizabeth Olson. Let's just, I'm just [01:15:00] gonna put.
Beth: [01:15:00] She was, I totally agree about that. Yeah, totally agree. So go watch Wandavision, let us know what you think. Have the best week available to you. We back with you here on Friday.
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 Greenup
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.