“Inextricably linked”

Image from iOS (34).jpg

Topics Discussed

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

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:00:00] Setting aside the fact that like every single state has been admitted to the union for political reasons.

Sarah: [00:00:04] That's what I was going to say. We were inventing other States because we were just feeling incredibly altruistic, like addition to the union has been political every single one. And I think Heather Cox Richardson had a really good thing this morning about the addition of Maine and how, you know, the Missouri compromise and all that. Like all of these decisions to add States has been political to imply that like, well, because this is political, then we shouldn't do it.

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth. 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

Beth: [00:01:00] hello, and thank you so much for joining us for a new episode of Pantsuit Politics. In our main segment today, you're going to hear from Meagan Hatcher-Mays who is an activist working toward DC statehood since the house has just passed a bill supporting DC statehood, it will head over to the Senate and we think this conversation is going to give you a timely look just at history and how we've added States and why DC isn't a state. What the impact of that will be.

 Hopefully you'll hear some things that you've not thought about before in that conversation. As we begin today and as we close and our outside of politics segment, we're going to pick up some threads from conversations that we have started on Patreon and I think that these threads that we're picking up, we'll show you that we have just a wonderful and really kind of intimate community there where we discuss things very openly, very vulnerably things that are giving us pause, things that we know are kind of working on your minds and hearts.

To our listener, Christine put it best when she said that it took her a [00:02:00] while to become a patron, but it is the best money per month she's ever spent. She said, the community here is so supportive and drama free. I'm happy that you all get to do what you love to do full time. Your love of doing this comes out and shows in each and every episode and we're all better for it. 

Thank you so much, Christine, and to everyone who makes that possible. And we hope that you enjoy this conversation that we're going to start now about vaccines and just the tension of celebrating the vaccine distribution success that we've had so far in the United States while acknowledging that that distribution success is not happening all over the world, that us holding on to vaccines here in the United States for citizens who are vaccine hesitant in some cases and outright opposed to vaccines and others really provokes feelings of some kind of strange guilt and just weirdness.

Sarah: [00:02:52] Yeah, the situation in India right now is what is provoking a lot of this conversation, not just on our Patreon page, but across the country. [00:03:00] They have registered the fifth day in a row of over 300,000 plus cases in India. Now, most experts believe that this is a massive under count of cases and that the death reports, which are about 1700 deaths per day are also massively under counted. I saw a Twitter thread from a financial times reporter who estimated that the death count could be as much as 10 times higher than what is being reported and beyond the statistics that are always hard to comprehend and to understand.

There are heartbreaking stories and social media posts and videos, and on the ground reporting, coming from India, doctors weeping because they do not have enough oxygen for their patients, um, families distraught and mass funeral pyres. Like it's just, it's a truly, truly tragic situation. And, you know, Something [00:04:00] we've talked about on Patreon, is that in classic American fashion you know, I think for myself, I saw the positive trends in our country and I just assumed it would roll out positively across the globe. 

And that has not been the case and the surge in India is reminding us all that, no matter how well we are able to produce manufacture, distribute vaccines in our own countries in wealthier countries that the Coronavirus does not care. They, it does not care about borders and as long as it is allowed to continue to spread and mutate and cause such human suffering, then none of us are done. 

Beth: [00:04:46] And India differs from the United States crucially in that many of its hospitals do not have an independent power system for medical oxygen because they don't have the sort of uninterrupted [00:05:00] access to power supply that we just take for granted and expect everywhere in the United States.

So medical oxygen tanks coming into India are being greeted like they are priceless and there's so much work being done to try to share that oxygen with India. Countries around the world are stepping up because there's a recognition that what happens in India is going to affect the world for a number of reasons. 

As you mentioned, Sarah, that mutation of the virus is part of it. Another aspect of it is that we sometimes refer to India as the world's pharmacy. The manufacturing of pharmaceuticals in India is a key part of their economy and something that many countries throughout the world rely on. India is critical to vaccinating the world and COVID 19 hitting India and the fashion that it is, it's going to slow that down, not just for India, but for lots of countries. And so the ripple effects of this surge in cases, it's hard [00:06:00] to overstate the ramifications that could have for the world. We're going to link an Atlantic piece about just all of the ways that India is inextricably linked to the world's fight against COVID-19.

Sarah: [00:06:12] Well, and I want to say like the idea that we should only care, um, because it will mutate, it could put us at risk. I really reject that. You know, I mean, I think that that is such a limited and harmful way to think about COVID spread and other parts of the world. You know, I think that we live in a global environment and not just as it plays out in the face of a pandemic, but we on a day-to-day basis as average Americans are very limited in our capacity to understand how inextricably linked we are to the rest of the world. And every single way from the products we buy to the lifesaving medicines and technologies we use. 

And, you know, [00:07:00] and also, you know, not just on a pragmatic level, but on just a human level. I think that suffering on this level, And other parts of the world impacts us all. And I think, you know, this was, this was a big criticism of the Biden administration because India is the world's pharmacy. We had an export ban and they were having trouble getting many of the ingredients they use to produce those lifesaving techniques.

And the ban was, you know, out of an abundance of caution and a prioritization of our own manufacturing and distribution but to me, it just feels like an in the pandemic and so many ways has exposed our limitations. And we talk about this all the time, right? Like we're seeing the limitations of so many institutions and the fragility of so many institutions and it's like in a moment like this it feels like this whole nation state idea. We've put all our chips on, [00:08:00] like only serves us so well in certain areas. And that the, the idea that we should all really protect our own and, and prioritize our own populations, which I'm not necessarily arguing against. And I think being able to hold the complexity of prioritizing your own population while still participating in global efforts is hard.

I'm not, I'm not, you know, I don't want to dismiss how difficult and hard that is, but you know, I, as long as there are surges, And crisises, like we are seeing in India, then the pandemic can't end and that means people continue to suffer no matter where you live. And that's what we all want. And I think prioritizing supplies and expertise and oxygen for areas of the world that really need it has to be the new top priority. 

[00:09:00] Beth: [00:09:00] It also just requires a re-examination of what it means to be an American, right. Because if you ask, are there American interests in aiding India through its COVID-19 fight? Unquestionably yes. Scientifically from a foreign policy perspective from an economic perspective, absolutely. And there are so many Americans who have very close family members living in India, and they are suffering knowing that their families are sick. We have listeners right now who are suffering because people they love, they cannot get to, to help, even if they could be there, they couldn't be with them.

Exactly what many of us have gone through here in the United States? States throughout the pandemic. And we are at a point now where vaccine supply is not the problem in the United States anymore. Vaccine demand is the problem and what are we to do when we have people here in the United States who don't want to take the vaccine, are missing the second dose of the vaccine for a variety [00:10:00] of complex reasons.

And we have all of this supply that we could be sharing with other parts of the world in ways that do ignore to the benefit of the United States as defined and a whole host of ways. I think it's, it's just time. And I think the administration is working on this, but I, I would like to see that work accelerate. It is time to share.

Sarah: [00:10:35] No, in fairness, there is real difficulty here. Um, when you are thinking about this from the perspective of nation States and the leadership in those nation States and the difficulty of offering help where it might not be wanted. You know, I think that honestly, if the administration had reached out months ago, when prime minister Modi was declaring success in the face, Of COVID, it [00:11:00] wouldn't have been well received.

Um, I think that there was real mistakes made. You know, he declared that they were, they had had success. He opened up to, he was hosting himself, hosting political rallies, suppressing criticism of the government's handling of the pandemic. I mean, these are real issues and it certainly complicates any efforts, um, on behalf of the Biden administration to offer help or resources and I don't think that's an excuse, but I do think it's a really important reality to acknowledge 

Beth: [00:11:33] 100%. And the political reality here in the United States is complex as well. You know, I worked with someone once who I felt that this person never wanted to actually do work, but also didn't want anyone else to do it either in a way that that person might get credit for or get acknowledged for, um, or, or get a seat at the table different than this person, because they were doing the work.

And I think that we have that version of [00:12:00] things going on among lots of parts of the American population, because I think that president Biden knows and is correctly calculating that if the United States starts shipping huge quantities of vaccine outside of the country, even people who are never going to get it, maybe especially people who were never going to get it are going to have a political field day with that and that is a huge problem. You don't want it, but you don't want someone else to have it either. Um, and I think we need to talk directly about what's going on in our politics when that kind of consideration holds us back from participating in the world in this way. 

Sarah: [00:12:39] That political reality is also really applicable when we talk about vaccine hesitancy and the criticisms of the administration that they have not been promoting the vaccine enough. And I think the real difficulty in the same way that if the Biden administration had come out and [00:13:00] tried to take credit and put their name all over the American recovery act, that would have increased opposition from certain sectors of the American population, the same sectors of the American population, that exhibit vaccine hesitancy like would have the, you would have seen increased hesitancy, had the administration leaned all the way in to this sort of like public relations campaign to promote the vaccine. That's not to say that. I don't think that there should be any public health campaigns to decrease hesitancy, but I think that is a very, very hard needle to thread because if it becomes about the government is promoting this vaccine will then the same sectors that are hesitant to get it are going to become even more hesitant. 

And I think that's, that's really difficult. And I think, you know, focusing on this massive complex problem of manufacturer and distribution was easy in the face of dealing with this hesitancy, particularly as it exists in, in certain, [00:14:00] certain segments of the American population, like white evangelicals, like strong Republicans and I think that that's really hard. 

Beth: [00:14:08] And I think there is an element of recognizing one, the Biden administration is doing PR they're just doing it quietly and smartly and coordinating with local community groups and churches in areas where vaccine hesitancy is strong for reasons that they can understand and kind of get to rationally.

On a broader scale. It's like all public relations has that backlash element, right? Because even though you don't have the president necessarily every single day hammering home, that message and a strong, coordinated, you know, splashy way. I do think he's hammering at that message every day. Just not in kind of the way we might imagine that he coul., I've seen people on my timelines who are most aggressively against the vaccine. Very frustrated that Facebook has a sign up for the vaccine. Like there are just people who don't want to hear it from, from [00:15:00] anyone. Right.

 George W. Bush isn't an effective messenger anymore. The fact that Trump has gotten the vaccine seems to be kind of just, well, whatever, I still I'm still not going to do it. I mean, I, I don't know how you reach certain populations and then I don't know what you do with the fact that those populations still are going to be mad when the headlines come out, that we're shipping it worldwide. So it's a conundrum. And if you are moved by what's going on in India, I do want to make sure that we mentioned our longtime listener and friend Sivitha  has put together a very thorough list of reputable organizations to donate, to, to help the crisis in India. 

She has pulled out targeted ways to donate. If you're interested in helping with children or with food and water or interested in targeted relief for queer people, she has all kinds of resources. She's updating it frequently. So we'll put the link to her Google doc that she generously shared with this community in the show notes.

Sarah: [00:15:56] And on the topic of public health, we have a great [00:16:00] breakthrough for our moment of hope and today's episode, which is that the same team, uh, behind AstraZeneca's vaccine at the university of Oxford has released early trials that show a major breakthrough in the fight against malaria. They have developed a malaria vaccine that has proven to be 77% effective. You know, malaria kills more than 400,000 people a year, mostly children and so any sort of any breakthrough in developing a vaccine that could start to chip away at that massive global health crisis is to be celebrated.

Beth: [00:16:53] Next up, you're going to hear from Meagan Hatcher-Mays about DC statehood. Before we launch into that conversation, we want to be [00:17:00] honest and say that DC statehood in the Senate is a very steep climb. It's something that would likely require the filibuster to be eliminated. We're going to talk a lot more about the political landscape as we get to the hundredth day of the Biden administration this week, as we have the president's joint address to Congress.

So on Friday show, we're going to talk more about the filibuster, where should we be working toward bipartisan compromise? Where is it wiser for Democrats and Republicans to kind of go their own ways? That'll be on Friday, but for now, let's take a deep close look at DC statehood with Meagan Hatcher-Mays

Sarah: [00:17:34] we are thrilled to be here today with Meagan Hatcher-Mays, who is Indivisibles director of democracy policy and leading the organization's advocacy for democracy reform. She's previously served as an aid to washington DC's delicate and true I would say Washington, DC powerhouse, Eleanor Holmes Norton, just an American legend that one. 

We're so thrilled to have you here today. I'm particularly excited to have you here today because I live in Kentucky now, Meagan, but I lived in [00:18:00] Washington DC without representation myself for five years. So this is an issue close to my heart. So let's just start with that. Start with how the people of Washington DC are basically second class citizen.

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:18:13] Yes. Happy to start with that. I'm sad to start with that, but it's true. I think a lot of people have some misconceptions exactly about DC's status. In this country, you know, this used to come up all the time. When I worked for Congresswoman Norton, where we would get letters from DC residents, where they would show their ID and other States and they would say, where is that? Is that part of Maryland? Where's your Maryland ID? Uh, you know, that sort of thing. 

So just to clear things up, uh, the district of Columbia is not a part of Maryland. It is the nation's capital. It is not a state. Um, a lot of people think, you know, Oh, you get a bunch of money from the federal government though. That is also not true. And we get, you know, the same federal payments as other States, but we have no say over how our tax dollars are spent. We have a non-voting delegate in the house. That's my [00:19:00] former boss, Eleanor Holmes Norton. So we don't have any representation voting or otherwise in the Senate. 

So we don't have a say over who sits on the Supreme court or whether or not the country should go to war or any of those sorts of things we have no say. And the reason why is it's not that complicated. I mean, the city, the district of Columbia is for used to be known as chocolate city, because it was mostly black. The overwhelming majority of the people who lived here were black.

That's still true to this day. Uh, it's a plurality black jurisdiction, but it's majority people of color that live here. So it's mostly not white people who live in the district of Columbia. And that has been kind of explicitly the reason why we have been disenfranchised. So, you know, we, we do our best, but we have no say in our own country's affairs.

Sarah: [00:19:55] Well, and I think the, before we get to the history part, I think part of it is [00:20:00] people think, well, you've offered precedent. Yeah. Yeah, we do. That is true. But I just want to be like, I mean, how well do you feel represented when, especially when the president is not a member of your party, right? Like even when they are a member of your party, not having the ability to lobby a voting member of Congress is just so disempowering.

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:20:24] It is. And you know, it is true that we were able to vote for president and we have a couple of electoral votes, but that's not even always been the case. It wasn't until the sixties that there was an amendment passed that gave us a say in the electoral college and gave us a say in the presidential election. So that is a relatively recent turn of events. And, you know, it's, it's hard. I mean, because we are not a state, we, uh, are under kind of like the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and the, it means that the executive branch, so that would be the president and kind of do whatever they want in the district without asking for permission first.

[00:21:00] And so when the president is somebody like, say Donald Trump, or if Congress is controlled by somebody like Kevin McCarthy and the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world, they can do a lot of damage to the district, like to our local laws. So they have our final say over our budget, they can put what are called writers on our budget to prevent us from spending our local money.

This is our local tax dollars that are raised through local spending. The Congress can jump in and say, Oh no, no, no, you can't use that for healthcare. Or you can't use that to help, you know, immigrants in immigration proceedings. You can't use your money for that. Uh, and they've done it in the past. If Republicans are in control, we are at risk. And I think, you know, probably a lot of people saw last summer. There were a lot of, uh, Black Lives <atter protests here in the district after George Floyd was killed. 

Donald Trump sent the military and ice and federal law enforcement into the city to kind of shut down these otherwise peaceful protests. He was gassing people. So [00:22:00] that he could go to a park across the street from the white house for a photo op with a Bible in front of a church. That's not something that the president can do in the States unless he gets permission from the governor, but they can do it here in the district because we're not a state.

Sarah: [00:22:15] Well, and prevent the calling of the national guard on January 6th because the DC national guard doesn't have the same authority that other national guards have, because it's not a state. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:22:25] That's right. The mayor of the district of Columbia had attempted to call up the national guard because there's this, you know, insurrection going on, there's this, you know, violent mob, uh, walking through the city to get to the Capitol and she had called up the national guard, but all she can do is request the national guard. She can't. Require them to come, that she needs the president's approval to send in the national guard and Donald Trump didn't give it that day for many, many hours. 

Sarah: [00:22:51] The limits put on the commander of the national guard himself. Like previous, previous, like abilities he had had for rapid [00:23:00] response were removed from him.

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:23:02] Yeah. And you compare that to how, again, how Donald Trump responded to peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, you know, six months ago, compare that to a white supremacist mob, you know, trying to overthrow the government and there were nary a military person to be found. So, you know, very, obviously there was a huge discrepancy between how he responds to people of color protesting and how he responds to white people protesting. And there was a huge, uh, difference in the response there that led to five people dying that day on the sixth. 

Beth: [00:23:37] Whenever I read about your mayor, I think about what an odd position that must be, how, in some ways it is more like a governor than a mayor. And in other ways it's more like a diplomat than a governor and I wonder what your observations are about that role and the people who've held it in and that needle that you always have to thread. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:23:56] Yeah, it's, it's interesting. I mean, um, you know, for the [00:24:00] mayor, a lot of the, I think a lot of her day to day is a blank. Any other mayor, you know, you're taking meetings and your, your government, your administration is approving, you know, construction permits, or what have you, you met, you made sure the water's clean, you know, all that stuff.

But, you know, DC has a lot of, uh, situations where we have to provide services to the feds. Like, so speaking of water, DC water provides water to the Capitol. Um, you know, we sometimes, I mean, they pay for it, don't get me wrong, but you know, and sometimes, you know, our police officers have to provide, or our first responders, I should say, have to provide additional support for not just the presidential motorcades, but diplomatic motorcades that sometimes that's local first responders who have to be a part of those things.

You know, that's something that like a normal governor might not, or mayor would necessarily have to deal with. So it's kind of an odd position. So in a weird way, she's very powerful like, like a governor would be, but in other ways, she we're just like all of us she's at the mercy of what Congress decides to interfere [00:25:00] with and what they don't. So it's, um, it's you're right. It's a very odd kind of combination of authorities. 

Sarah: [00:25:08] I really liked the part of your piece in GQ where you kind of spoke a little bit to the role history has played in denying the district representation, because I think, you know, I've heard this before I heard this one. I lived in Washington DC from my family members in Kentucky, which is this idea of like, Oh, well, no, that's how they said it. It was never supposed to be a state. And so we've just, this was just really a real fair-minded decision made early in the forming of the United States. And so we just have to stick with it when the reality is the history is a much more complicated, it goes way past the founding and I thought the way you laid out, particularly like you said, the role racism has played in denying this district representation is really important for people to understand.

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:25:52] Yeah, I think, you know, it is true that, you know, there's a reason why there's a federal district. Right. And, um, you know, one of the reasons actually kind of [00:26:00] ironically, one of the reasons why we have this special carve out the special federal district is because there was an angry mob that went to the original Capitol in Philadelphia of these, um, uh, I believe it was revolutionary war soldiers went to get their pensions and because they hadn't been paid for fighting in the war and the Congress was denying them these benefits, and they locked all the members of Congress in the building. There's like a huge riot and just huge insurrection, basically. And the members of Congress said, Oh, we need to have a federal district that we have exclusive control over so that we can not be kind of locked inside of a capital inside of a state.

So then they kind of carved out a little plot of land using land from Virginia and from Maryland. And there was no intention for anybody to ever actually live here, but people do. So that's like the first thing people need to know is that the current form of the district of Columbia, I mean, if you were to bring Thomas Jefferson back to life and show him, [00:27:00] you know, the 700,000 people actually live here, he would be shocked because that was also never the intention of the founding fathers.

But as time went on, What happened was, you know, over the course of hundreds of years, more and more people started to come here and those were mostly black people that started to come here. Many of them were escaped slaves. Some of them had been freed and a lot of people don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the district of Columbia, about nine months before his federal emancipation proclamation.

So very quickly, the district became a place where freed slaves and escaped slaves would come to be relatively safe and they could be free and work here. So that's sort of like the origination of chocolate city, I guess you could say. So around that same time you have, you know, Southern conservative white members of Congress looking around and saying, you know, there are a lot of black people here.

We can not give people that live here political [00:28:00] power. You know, I'm paraphrasing, but that was somebody said that basically word for word, we can't, this is too many black people and we're at risk if we give them political power. And even though the language has changed over the last 200 years or so, the sentiment has not changed and as recently, as you know, the 1960s, you know, our mayor at the time sent up our budget to Congress for approval and the chairman of the committee that approved the budget, sent back a cart of watermelons to our black mayor. 

So now, you know, they don't come right out and say, we want to deny political power to the black people and the people of color that live in the district of Columbia. But, you know, you'll have people like Tom Cotton saying stuff like. Oh, well, you couldn't possibly make DC a state. There are no working class people in the district, which, uh, you know, for example, like Wyoming has miners and Arkansas has miners and DC doesn't have that. 

What they're really saying is DC doesn't have any white [00:29:00] working class people. When you compare DC to Wyoming you're comparing a plurality black jurisdiction with an overwhelmingly white jurisdiction. That's a choice that you're making when you make those kinds of comparisons. It's also, so what they're trying to do is two things, right? One to try and to paint DC as sort of this elite out of touch, land of bureaucrats, which is not true.

And two, they're trying to say that they're, you know, the working class, people who live here don't count, but they do. I mean, the working class, people that we have here are largely black and people of color. Many of them work at the Capitol. Many of them were, you know, charged with cleaning up the mess that was left on January 6th by this white supremacist mob. Those are working class people also. They're real Americans.

You know, we kind of get into this debate about what part of America is real every four years or whatever. So that's kind of how the dog whistle has changed over the course of time. It went from sort of explicit racism to, Oh yeah but there's no working class people here, which [00:30:00] is just kind of a different way of saying there are no white working class people. Like there are in my state who vote for Republicans. 

Beth: [00:30:08] What do you say to people who make a purely political argument about DC statehood? That it is, you know, a part of a democratic conspiracy because they can't win the normal way, you have power in the Senate, the normal way that they just want. Um, they want this for democratic control. Um, not for any other reason, grounded in actual representation of human beings. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:30:32] Right? Um, yes, they do say that Republican say a lot that it's a partisan power grab because the people who that DC would elect, they'd all be Democrats. Right. I mean, that's probably true. I'll I'll, we'll just be honest. A lot of Democrats live here, I think in the last election, I think Joe Biden got like 96% of the vote in the district of Columbia. So yeah, it's probably true that we would elect a couple of Democrats to the Senate if we were made a state, [00:31:00] that's just not a reason why you deny people access to democracy, though. It just isn't. I mean, it's rooted in the same thing. Like we're where we're seeing all the, this like spate of sort of racist voter suppression bills happening in Georgia and Arizona, Wisconsin, Texas.

It's all rooted in this thing of, if you're not going to vote for me, then you don't get to vote. And that's exactly where this is coming from with DC statehood. It's like, well, they're not going to vote for me so then they shouldn't get to vote. And that's just not. That's not what our democracy is supposed to be about, you know, and this idea that it's somehow a partisan power grab to give 700,000 people representation is bananas.

I mean, what do you call denying 700,000 people representation. Is that not a power grab? Is it not? You know, it is, it's just on the other side, but of course for them they feel entitled. You know, Republicans feel really entitled to power. So it's okay for them to deny us representation, but it's a partisan power grab if we're granted it. It's just a nonsensical, nonsensical argument, but, you know, [00:32:00] setting aside the fact that like every single state has been admitted to union for political reasons.

Sarah: [00:32:04] That what I was gonna say, we were admitting other States, because we were just feeling incredibly altruistic like every additon into the union has been political every single one. And I think the, you know, Heather Cox Richardson had a really good thing this morning about the addition of Maine and how, you know, the Missouri compromise and all that, like all of these decisions to add States has been political. To imply that like, well, because this is political, then we shouldn't do it is just, but I think we, because it's been so long, I think really that's the issue. It's been so long since we added a state that people, um, I mean, especially just like people who aren't alive, you know, and just it's become like, We got this nice round 50, it fits on the flag. We've never really, it feels like this is what the United States has always been, even though of course that's ludicrous. That people just can't get past it. 

[00:33:00] Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:33:00] Yeah. I think that's part of it. I mean, there's, you know, there's a reason why there's two Dakotas and not just one. I mean, it's all, you know, that's why that happened.

Sarah: [00:33:09] It's crowded. I'll tell you that. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:33:13] It, so that's a good point. I mean, I think that, yeah, that's part of it that there's this sort of like idea that the United States is, is done now. We're all done and so we don't need to add any more stuff. There is some consternation about what the flag will look like. I've definitely encourage anybody listening to look up a 51 star flag. You will not be able to tell the difference they look exactly the same. Um, but honestly, I mean, as a DC resident, myself, somebody may disagree with me about this, but I don't even care. I leave the flag the same if that's the issue. 

Sarah: [00:33:40] I don't want the star. I want a member of Congress.

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:33:43] I think that's right. I would like to vote in Congress. I do not care about the star. Yeah. But I think that's part of it. It's been a long time and it's weird to think of change happening. People also think, Oh, DC is so small though, or whatever you know. There's a hearing coming up next week. I definitely encourage people to listen if you have [00:34:00] any concerns about the health of a future state of DC. We're all set. We're good to go. We have budget surpluses. Roads are clean. We've got snowplows. It's all good. It's going to be fine. And you'll add a star to the flag and you won't even notice. I promise. 

Beth: [00:34:19] We were posting about the inauguration and sharing with people the story that, you know, the, the new president has multiple flags on the diocese to represent how many States were in the union at the time the president's home state was admitted to the union. And I thought about how little we noticed that and how it is kind of strange that we've adopted this posture of being done and I wanted to ask you in the vein of being done, how you view DC, vis-a-vis Puerto Rico and other us territories. And do you think that we need to kind of tie those issues together or is DC so [00:35:00] uniquely situated that it needs to be viewed differently? 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:35:03] Yeah, that's a good question. Um, you know, I think that the homework of statehood right, is self-determination, that whoever's lives in the place asking to be a state has come forward with, you know, uh, a chorus of the people that live there and say, this is what we want. We want to be a state. We've determined what status that we want. And we want Congress to recognize that status that we've selected for ourselves. And so DC has done that.

 DC is following what's called the Tennessee plan, which is when you get your whole, get your whole thing together, you like write your constitution. You figure out, you know, how you want to elect people to Congress. You figure out how many people you want, your state legislature, you do all that stuff, and then you take a vote on it. So we did that too. We took a vote on the state plan and I think over 87% of the people who voted on it voted in favor of DC statehood.

So the final part of that plan is to go to Congress and [00:36:00] say, we're ready. We all want to be a state. We're ready to be a state. And we have with the entire state package all ready to go. All you have to do is approve it. And so that's what the state could bill pending in Congress does. It approves what the people of DC want, what we've determined for ourselves, what we want. 

So if you compare that to like Puerto Rico and the territories that has not happened. That hasn't happened in Puerto Rico and it hasn't happened in the territory's. I think like, for example, the US Virgin islands, I think have only taken a vote on statehood once and it was in the early nineties and it's unclear how that turned out. It is true that Puerto Rico has taken votes on statehood in the past, but it's been very fraught and I don't presume to be an expert on Puerto Rican statehood, but there were boycotts of a vote. There was a recent vote where the pro state had candidate had it added at the last minute to try to goose turn out for his own reelection.

And so there, but there hasn't been this whole thing where they like have a commission that puts together a constitution that like decides [00:37:00] that they either want to be a state or they want independence or they want something else. That hasn't happened in Puerto Rico. There is a bill pending on Puerto Rican self-determination it was introduced by Nydia Velazquez and Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez, both of New York.

And that is a bill that I think is very worthy of supporting because that gets Puerto Rico into a very like comprehensive process where they can all speak together and say, this is what we want either. We want to be a state or we want some other status and then you kind of go from there. So I understand the desire to add more States, but we really need to listen to the people who are being directly affected and if they're not saying they want to be a state, that's like not something that we get to decide for them. 

Sarah: [00:37:44] Well, in the vein of, let's not lean on alturism or invent alturism where it doesn't exist. Like I think that it is important to discuss how we feel about the residents of Washington DC. But I also think there's an argument that this has beneficial for the entire country. It doesn't [00:38:00] have to just be about us all, you know, feeling altruistic towards the citizens of DC, which is the structural inequalities in the Senat. And you lay out a case that this, this doesn't just get at the right of self-determination of the people of Washington, DC, which truly should be enough, but let's just, let's, let's let's place in it for today and say that there's other reasons to add Washington DC as a state and one of them is the majority minority issue we have in the United States Senate. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:38:31] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it was designed to give a lot of power to States where very few people live. So that sort of inequity is baked in to the design of the Senate. So that's why you have California, which has like 55 million people that live there. It has the exact same representation in the Senate as Wyoming, which has even fewer people living it then the District of Columbia, they have like 600,000 people living there. And it was designed that way on purpose. It was, uh, you know, a [00:39:00] kind of a compromise to ensure that, you know, States that wanted to keep slavery would not be overruled by senators from more populous States.

So it's kind of rooted in white supremacy and that, that persists to this day, you know. The only way to fix it, the only way to make the Senate more representative is by adding more States and here you have a state ready to go. The District of Columbia, we're ready to go. We're asking. So it both has the effect of, of in franchising, the people of the district of Columbia, but it also has the effect of making the Senate more functional by making it more representative.

I mean, I think we're in a situation now where know, I think you kind of hear people say, Oh, the country is so divided. You know, I actually don't think that that's true. The country is not divided. We're all basically in kind of agreement within certain parameters of how we want the future of the country to work. Uh, it's the Congress that's divided. And the reason that Congress is divided is because of the way, you know, the way that maps are drawn, the way that the Senate is designed, [00:40:00] the Senate is 50/50 right now. Not because the country is 50 50, the Senate is 50/50 right now because the Senate is designed badly.

You know, Democrats get tens of millions, more votes than Republicans do every election and yet you know, the, the best we could do this, Congress was a 50/50 split. That, that wouldn't be the case if everyone who lives in the United States was actually represented, uh, in the Senate. 

Beth: [00:40:27] So Meagan, how can listeners who feel passionately about supporting DC, who don't actually live in the district, be helpful in DC's pursuit of statehood?

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:40:36] Yeah. Well, the first thing you can do is check and see if your Senator is a co-sponsor of the statehood bill. That's all online. Every Democrat supported it last time, except for a few, which were Joe Mansion, uh, Kiersten Sinema and Angus King of Maine. Um, so it would be great to get those three in support of DC stated this is a [00:41:00] really critical democracy reform and it's a racial justice issue and we have a trifecta now so we are running out of time to make this happen. It's kind of a once in a generation opportunity to make this happen. So check and see if you, if you're a Senator,

Sarah: [00:41:17] I don't need your out, but I appreciate it. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:41:21] And, and if, you know, there are a lost cause then, um, I think the best you can do is just keep talking to, you know, people around you about how important it is. A lot, a lot of people think it's kind of weird. Maybe some people still think it's kind of a fringe thing, but it's not. DC is a real place with real people that live in it. We're not all lawyers or bureaucrats or whatever, we're a bunch of different types of people. 

Sarah: [00:41:42] And even the poor lawyers and bureaucrats. I know as a former lawyer and bureaucrat that lived there, we still have the right to self deterimation. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:41:48] Right. I'm a lawyer too, and we still have the right to a voice in the Senate. Uh, so, you know, it's just an important, it's a super important issue, you know, and if your Senator is a, co-sponsor just call them up and thank them. It's just really important that people [00:42:00] know that folks are paying attention outside of the DC area and that it's important to everybody. 

Sarah: [00:42:04] Well, Meagan, I'm wondering as the director of democracy policy, if there's any other sort of democracy reforms, I'm very passionate about proportionate representation. I think that's, what's broken right now. I mean, if you are in Cal, this is my favorite statistic. If you're in California, And you have 40 million people in your state and you have 80 state representatives. That's not going to work or like, did you see the County of LA? One County commissioner per 4 million people? My guys, this 435 at the congressional level, like that's another number we need to release our death grip on cause it's not in the constitution and it's really not serving us. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:42:42] Yeah, I think people don't know, you can change the number of house members through legislation. You don't, it's not the number 435 is not in the constitution. So it's probably better to, you know, revisit that number. See if it makes sense. I don't think that it does. I think you're right. That, um, you know, I think [00:43:00] Chicago, the whole city of Chicago, which has like X million people that live in, it only have two members of Congress for like the whole city that doesn't make any sense.

It's, it's millions and millions of people that live there, you know, and they are dealing with the same amount of representation as much more sparsely populated areas. So that would go a long way too, of making sure that the set excuse me, that the house of representatives actually is representative of the country, because right now that that's not really the case.

So I think you need to do two things. One is, um, just like you say, provide more so called like multi-member districts, you'd have more than one member per district, but then you'd also need to increase the number of people, the number of members of Congress in the house. So that like no one state would get kinda the short shrift.

Sarah: [00:43:48] So we're not moving the same 435 members around. Exactly. 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:43:52] Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, there's that, there's lots of really good points here. 

Sarah: [00:43:59] Can we talk [00:44:00] about the one I love? 

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:44:02] Yeah, that's important. He, so I don't know that there is a bill pending on that. There is a bill pending, uh, or if there was last Congress, it was introduced by Don Buyer. At the time, it was called HR 4,000, which sounds super futuristic and very cool. Uh, hopefully he reintroduces it this Congress, and then we're hoping that some representative somewhere will be interested in increasing the number of uh, house seats too, so that we can kind of solve that puzzle as well as well.

Cause that's gonna become a bigger issue over, over time, as well as more and more people move to cities and the number of people kind of shrinks in certain States and grows. And other States, you just want to make sure that the representation is proportional.  

Sarah: [00:44:43] Well, thank you so much for coming on our show, Meagan. Democracy reform, DC statehood, the structural inequalities. Listen, it sounds weird to say like, those are our favorite things to talk about, but really they are because those are the reforms that matter. Those are the reforms. I think that could get really good at so many other issues. Like you said, like racial [00:45:00] inequality and income inequality, all these different issues, we all struggle with better representation starts to strip away at that.

Meagan Hatcher-Mays: [00:45:07] Yeah, I agree. I could talk about democracy for hours, so I'm happy to stop here, but thanks so much for having me on today. 

Beth: [00:45:17] Thank you, Meagan.

I'm so grateful that Meagan joined us. Outside of politics, we're going to talk a little bit about what's going on with our bodies and how we're thinking about them as we come out of this languishing period that we discussed last week. 

Sarah: [00:45:48] Yeah. I don't know if I'm coming out of it. I, I, I certainly hope so. The world seems to be pushing me out out of it, whether I want to exit the languishing period or not. Um, the pace of life is picking up and, [00:46:00] uh, spring is sprung except for the snow last week. And then to, tomorrow is like  80 degree. That's fine. Everyone's confused. But with spring and with sort of the fully vaccinated opportunities open to us and life opening back up, I think my husband and I are definitely looking to pay a little bit closer attention to our health. 

I also just think, um, So far behind on my COVID trends here, it is like a year out of lockdown and I'm buying my first matching sweatsuit and we finally caved and got a Peloton, which was really hard and we thought about it a lot. My husband was pretty opposed because it is a huge investment, but maybe my waiting a year to see how everybody, you know, how it played out with everybody in their Peloton paid off because I just felt like I was hearing from one person after the other, after the other. That was like, no, I really, I really do use it. I don't dry my clothes on it. I love it. It makes me feel so much better.

 I'm turning 40 this year. I know y'all have probably heard this from me once or twice. And I just [00:47:00] feel like my metabolism just needs a little, just a little shove, like a little, a little stepladder too. So we're excited. We're very excited that it's coming and, um, we both hope that it works the magic that it. It seems to be working in people's lives. I mean, I just had to order it and put it in my house. Right. That's it that's like the whole Peloton journey. I don't actually have to get on it, do I? 

Beth: [00:47:21] Don't think that that's how it's going to go for you, but you can let us know. 40 has been the catalyst for me to just I'm and as we've talked about before, I'm really thrilled to be 40. I feel very settled. I'm the happiest I've ever been. I'm so content. And so now I'm just kind of in the mode of thinking about how do I live this next half or hopefully a little bit more than half of my life well, as well as it is available to me, as we like to say here. Um, how do I have the most years that I can get within my control with my beautiful family and wonderful friends? 

And so I've [00:48:00] had a lot of blood work done lately to try to give me some clues on what changes I might be able to make to just increase my energy level and how I feel. We talked a lot about this on the Nightly Nuance last week and what I kind of wanted to share today is that, I mean, most of, you know, like I have been a large person, the entirety of my life. I am a plus size person. Um, I have had periods where I've tried a lot of dieting and a lot of different things, and I just kind of always settle back in on I'm I'm just a large person.

 It has been really transformative for me recently to think about my health, completely divorced from my weight, because I think I've gotten to a place where I look at my life and myself, and think if I am this size forever, what a wonderful life I've had. It doesn't take anything away from me at all to have been larger than the standard person and [00:49:00] larger than kind of the BMI that doctors always want you to handle. Like I fully am convinced that we have created a lot of suffering uh, by a relentless focus on weight. And I think the health at any size movement has been really important. 

Um, so for me, I am not interested in like generic weight loss. I'm interested in what are my particular risks, and what can I do to lower those particular risks to the best of my ability? And so for the next 30 days, I'm meeting completely gluten-free and dairy-free, those are the big changes. There are lots of smaller wins to just particular foods that I showed sensitivity to. I'm working with health professionals who I really trust in part, because they've told me none of this is magic or perfectly scientific.

It's going to be a lot of trial and error but our big focus for me is reducing inflammation. And I just can't believe how much easier it is to make these really significant changes in how I eat, [00:50:00] because I'm not oriented to weight loss in the process. It's been a major, major difference from even the last time you know, I tried to make a shift in my nutrition. 

Sarah: [00:50:10] Um, well I just think for me anytime there's a, just a mere hint of deprivation, my whole body is like, Oh, I don't think so. No, thank you. Um, and that's with exercise or with diet, like I just, I cannot orient myself that way. I think a lot about Gretchen Rubin like, are you a moderator or abstainer? I think that's like a really helpful framework and you know, I'm not an abstainer. I have to feel like I can do it if I want to. Um, I can eat it if I want to, you know, I can take a day off exercise if I went to, but w you know, as as exactly what you say. I'm so grateful for this body.

I want to take good care of it. And I think, you know, the older you get, the more care it needs and that's okay. That's totally okay. And I'm trying to like, have some real gentleness around, like it's okay. That I have to spend a [00:51:00] lot more time thinking about my body and caring for my body and, you know, paying attention to what works and what doesn't for me because I think it is a, it's an act of love, right? It's an act of gratitude and that's what I feel profoundly, um, for my body profoundly for my body and especially, you know, what, it's, what it's been through over the last 40 years. 

And so I just, you know, I think that's sort of why the, the Peloton became appealing to me is because it just felt like people were having fun. Like I read an article about it, like exercises, entertainment, like the new, the ne. Frontier of exercise is entertainment. And I thought, Oh, well, that's not how I've heard it written about before. And that seems really exciting. 

I mean, I saw that people were like really into it and did seemingly like have fun and got their instructors and were like really like hooked on certain people but something about that approach and just feeling like this is, this is a holistic and sort of integral approach to all facets of health instead of something we're just trying to beat into [00:52:00] submission, which not here for do not enjoy that orientation. It's just so it's really, really appealing to me.

Beth: [00:52:08] I've been looking for a walking partner I feel like for my whole life and one of my neighbors and I have started walking together now, and it is amazing to me how much farther I can go when I have a friend with me rather when I'm by myself, even if I'm listening to something great that I'm really absorbed in when I'm by myself, I kind of get to like, I'm hot. My back hurts. I'm ready to be done. When am I going to turn around? I think I'm going to turn around now and with my friend, who's going with me. It's just like, we get out there and we're just chatting. And all of a sudden we look at the, we look at our phones and they're like, Oh, we've been gone. Like two hours. We should probably turn around now.

 And it's really, really nice and I bring that up because I think that what I hear and people who really love their Peloton is like, they have a sense of other people are doing this with me. Yeah. I'm kind of part of [00:53:00] something that is really motivating. And I think that connection element feels like doing something good for your body to more than just the calories you burn or the flexibility or the strength that you're acquiring. That social input I think is really, is really important and especially important as we're getting older.

 So, you know, I don't, I do feel very gentle about this whole thing, but like you said, it also feels like a welcome moment to kind of shift my focus to my physical being, instead of, I love the Ted talk that says, um, that we treat our bodies like their taxis for our brains, that is a hundred percent what I've spent my life doing and it's good to shift that.

Sarah: [00:53:42] I love this because Ezra Klein had an expert on addiction and anxiety on a show, and I thought it was so helpful and he was talking about how, you know, there's three, there's three parts of the process when we engage in a behavior, it's the trigger, it's the behavior, it's the reward. And we [00:54:00] think we can intellectualize our way out of the trigger, like we're obsessed with the trigger. And we think that we can just think our way out of it. 

Like we have this con this, this idea of free will, which is silly at best, toxic at worst and he's like, the trigger is like the least important part. The Part is the reward. And so if you, especially like those walks that we were all, listen, still take, still love. Still love is Aaron Moons trademarks, stupid walk. Love it. Because there was, I was with my husband. We were engaging in like that was so being outside was incredibly rewarding.

I think the, the. Like being in your body and paying attention to how food makes you feel. Uh, he had a great conversation about pizza and how many slices of pizza like really feeling like was this pizza, this particular first slice of pizza better than how I will feel the next day was the second piece of pizza. I think just like being in our bodies and letting our bodies talk to us, instead of thinking, we're going to talk our bodies out of it, which I think is what we do. 

Beth: [00:54:58] We hope that in whatever way [00:55:00] you might be, um, emerging from languishing or languishing, um, but looking for something to be enriching as you do um, and thank you again to Adam Grant for that phrase that has resonated so much with everyone, um, that you're finding things that are really helpful and supportive. We'd love to hear about what those are on social media and Patreon and email, whatever way you like to communicate with us. We will be back in your ears on Friday to talk about what these hundred days of the Biden administration have looked like, and what we might expect from here on out. Have the best week available to you.

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

Alise Napp is our managing director.

Sarah: Megan Hart is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

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

Executive Producers (Read their own names):  Shari Blem, Martha Bronitsky, Linda Daniel, Ali Edwards, Janice Elliot, Sarah Greepup, Julie Haller, Helen Handley, Tiffany Hassler, Barry Kaufman, Molly Kohrs.

The Kriebs, Laurie LaDow, Lilly McClure, David McWilliams, Jared Minson, Emily Neesley, Danny Ozment, The Pentons, Tawni Peterson, Tracy Puthoff, Sarah Ralph, Jeremy Sequoia, Karin True.

Beth: Amy Whited, Joshua Allen, Morgan McHugh, Nichole Berklas, Paula Bremer 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