How to Hear California’s Warnings

unsplash-image-ofJ7pPG9KcI.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, subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, 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. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

Episode Resources

Transcript

[00:00:00] Beth: We kind of hold the need for global action and individual action together without thinking about all the layers in between. So I am going to recycle, I am not going to use XYZ product. I am not going to give money to X, Y, and Z corporation. And then I also want us to be in the Paris Climate Accords and those things.

And there's so much in between that also needs our attention. And that in between is where I think there's an opportunity to really embrace people who for whatever reason are culturally not going to be excited about that individual layer and the international layer.

[00:00:40] Sarah: This is Sarah 

[00:00:42] Beth: and Beth. 

[00:00:43] Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

[00:00:44] Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

[00:01:07] Sarah: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. Today. We're going to travel west. We're going to talk about the California recall. We're going to talk about the historic drought affecting not just the west, but parts of the Northern United States. And to close out the show, we're going to talk about what's on our mind outside of politics.

Before we get started, we have the most amazing community here. And we talk about it a lot, but it's hard to fully appreciate it without all the beautiful details that our team gets to soak up every day. And so we're going to try to start spotlighting our amazing community when we can. And the thing I wanted to share with you today is we have the most incredible listener.

Her name is Marjorie. She moved to Denmark several years ago and she always sends us the most insightful, enlightening emails. And some of you might recognize her name because she often shows up in our weekly newsletters where we highlight listener emails weekly. The best part is she signs every one of her emails "Fair winds", which I love so much.

It makes me feel lighter and happier. Every time I read it, I think it's such a beautiful little insight to Marjorie. So thank you Marjorie for being a part of this community for so many years. And Fair winds.

As many of you may have heard or honestly forgotten and not heard about it. There is a recall going on of the governor of California, Gavin Newsome, mail-in voting has already been. The official voting day is Tuesday, September 14th. The voters of California will see a ballot with two questions. Should governor Newsome be recalled?

They can vote. Yes or no. And the second question is if Newsome is recalled, who should be his replacement? The voters of California are currently presented with, wait for it. 46 candidates to replace Governor Newsome. Republicans, Democrats, and everything in between. There was lots of coverage of the recall race over the weekend because Larry Elder who's, one of the Republican candidates is currently first with about 23% in the polling.

And so people, particularly people and Gavin Newsome's camp are a little panicked about that. We wanted to spend some time on the idea of the recall generally. Beth, you texted me over the weekend and said, I don't think I agree with recalls. And my response was, oh yeah, no, either impeach or sit the hell down.

Like now this is such a bananas process to me. 

[00:03:44] Beth: That's pretty much where I am. The cost of California's upcoming recall election is going to exceed $200 million. That makes no sense to me. And... 

[00:03:58] Sarah: Is that the cost to the state or that's how much people are spending on them.

[00:04:01] Beth: That's the cost to the state because there's so many people in California having an election is an expensive proposition. And to your point, that doesn't even countenance what political parties and individual candidates and political action committees and federal parties are going to spend on the selection. And none of that makes sense to me. So I texted our friends, Savitha and Sabrina, whose voices you heard during the Infrastructure Series because they are two of my favorite Californians. And I said, I would just love to get your input on this recall election beginning with why is it happening? And there's not really an answer. People cite the French laundry incident where Governor Newsome had dinner with lobbyists in the midst of asking people to stay at home.

But this effort was underway long before then. And I think that what is happening. In lots of places. We saw this in Kentucky with an effort to impeach governor Bashir as well, is that people have decided. Every tactic is on the table for everything now. And so recalls of governors to me seem to be such a subversion of our democratic process.

Now you could say, well, it's a democratic exercise. The voters get excited. They put together a petition enough people sign it and we vote again. What's undemocratic about that. Well, what's undemocratic about that to me is that it's hard enough to get people to show up for election. Even when the president of the United States is on the ballot to get people to show up off cycle in an election that has two questions that are asked in a confusing way.

California's ballot is a good example. The first question on the ballot is, should we recall the governor? And then the second is who should be the governor? And the instructions say you can vote on both of those questions. So even if you say, no, we should not recall the governor, you can still vote for someone to be the governor in question two. And it's possible to win question two out of all of these people running 46 candidates with just a majority. So that means a very small number of people could support one of these candidates and they could become the governor. I just think the process is confusing. I think it is inflammatory. If you don't think he's doing a good job, like you said, Sarah impeach, or be quiet until the next election and beat him at the next election.

[00:06:24] Sarah: Oh, I promise you the second Governor Newsome was elected.There were people talking, planning a recall. There's like basically a cottage industry in California now of consultants and special interest. And let me be clear, Republican party players who want nothing, but to do recalls and waste the democratic party's resources, because here's the thing everything's on the table, especially when you can't win and they can't win in a general election.

That's not the makeup of California. And so this is what they do. Can trigger a recall election by collecting signatures. That's equivalent to basically 12% of the votes cast to the previous election. What exactly is democratic about that? So since they've started this in 1913, there have been 55 attempted recalls of governors in California.

Although only two have qualified for the ballot, but you know, 1913, this is where a lot of laws in California came from. And it sounds like such a good deal. Right? We want more participation. We want more democracy, but it's like the sunshine. There's a lot of things we did that sounded like a great idea that really just empower a small minority of people.

I love this word, Francis Fukuyama, who's a Stanford political scientist. She calls it a V talk. Prosy like they just can veto. They just, that we have empowered this tiny group of loud people to veto things. I mean, the public policy Institute of California found. That 54% of likely voters approved of Newsome's performance and 57% opposed recalling him.

But this loud 12% is all that's required, can undo a governor who is popular, popular with a overwhelming majority of voters in California. And so in this, in this ballot situation, it's this crazy. Asymmetry where he needs an overwhelming majority or at least a majority on the recall question, but his replacement doesn't need a majority.

Just like you said, like they can get a small percentage of votes from the small percentage of people who are paying attention, because it's like, there's like about 15% of people who would say they would follow the recall closely. Well, it's those impassioned loud minority. That's going to basically act as a veto on the majority of people who voted for Gavin Newsome and want him to stay in office.

[00:08:39] Beth: And as much as I would love to say, well, it's good for the people who are paying the most attention to have the most way. I do not believe that. And I do not believe it is a realistic ask to the citizens of a state to care about a gubernatorial election, more than once every four years. Yeah, that's too much of an ask.

I do not believe that citizens of a state are served by the turnover of that office more than four years, because you don't just recall the governor, you end up in that process. Recalling tons of political appointees to various positions. The ripple effects of changing out the executive are enormous and varied and there's no way any single citizen fully appreciates the consequences of that action. And I am not saying this because I am some kind of fan of governor Newsome. I have no feeling about him whatsoever. I felt the same way when there was this massive effort underway to recall governor Scott Walker.

I just think a recall is the wrong way to do this. If you are unhappy, vote them out next time. If you are unhappy express your unhappiness advocate for change, educate people on why you're unhappy, recruit people to run against them in the next cycle. But this idea that we stop midway, absent the kind of gross misconduct that impeachment warrants. We need to just keep things in place until the next election. And particularly when no one can just say here's what Gavin Newsome did that merits this. It makes no sense to me. 

[00:10:10] Sarah: Yeah. I think it's the reality that it's not necessarily even that these people. Care more. It's just there the constant presence of either organized interests, like lobbying groups.

And you see this with the proposition system in California, too, right? It's not necessarily this affected minority that really needs protection or majority. I mean, that's where a lot of these laws came from, right? The early 19 hundreds, you had railroads that had basically. Captured the process. And we passed a lot of laws and particularly in California, they passed a lot of laws to try to protect people in the process, but they they're not working.

They're just not working. This process has now been captured by money to interest. And I think we just need to acknowledge this and it's not just turn California. There's lots of places where laws we thought would have one impact on the citizenry are not having that impact because honestly the average person.

Doesn't want to pay attention to politics all the time. They just want their government to do a good job. And so what happens when you empower people with processes like that? It's not average citizens. It's organized interests, it's partisans because that's what you see and look, you know, I can make, I can understand that motivation because as a Democrat, I get that in California, the partisan.

Politics of the Republican party say we can't win because of the demographics of the state. And so this feels like fundamentally unfair, like elections aren't working for us. Now, I would argue to the Republican party, if you feel like you can't win, maybe make a better policy argument, but you know, in Wisconsin with Scott Walker, it felt like the process had been captured in a different way, right.

That you had state legislators who. If you wanted to depend on them for an impeachment process, we're using the levers of power and really unfair ways. As far as gerrymandering, we're seeing that in lots of places like this is, this is hard and complicated stuff. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying this, like, Participation is going to fix it all.

Like there's not working is broken. It doesn't fix everything. I read an interview with foci Yama, the political scientist, and she was saying the argument we've made on the, on the, about political primaries. She says, there's no question in my mind that the move toward popular primaries abetted the rise of extremism, particularly on the right.

I think we were better off with professional politicians in smoke-filled rooms, nominating candidates, but try to make that argument today and you'll get your head handed to you. I mean, I've made that up. You, and I have talked about that argument, like it's not working and it makes it's easy just because it's the easy argument to say.

We need more democracy that we have to acknowledge the unintended consequences like that we've empowered this loud minority to capture the process and just a different kind of way. 

[00:13:06] Beth: And we've talked a lot about being for systemic changes to work through that. I think in any system, someone is going to try to game it.

So as you said, Sarah, if you're a Republican. In California, why not take your shot at a recall, because maybe you could win that where you aren't going to be able to win state wide and other conditions. And then you know that you've got another gubernatorial election coming up next year. This person would serve one year.

And so you serve though as the incumbent going into that next election. And so that changes the tables and you serve knowing that going into the next election. You've depleted some money from the other party, they had to spend some money to stay just to avoid this recall. All of that said, here's a question that I have for you.

I think a lot of folks in California, and it sounds like the democratic party in California have looked at this and said it is not serious. It is a joke for a long time. And now they're looking at some of these numbers and getting panicked about it. I am struggling. And I think one of the major struggles for many of us as citizens right now is to know how much oxygen to give to things that seem like a joke.

We talked about this a little bit. When we talked last week about bananas bills that get proposed in states, they get proposed all the time. Someone always emails us about them. We are often saying that's not going to make it out of committee. Let's move on. When you get a recall effort like this, where 46 people are running, no one can articulate the rationale.

It's easy to say, well, this is just a clown car, like moving on. And also we've all been here for the last five years or so. Watching what happens when serious people look at something and say, well, that's not serious, so I won't take it seriously. And then suddenly it is quite serious fact, it occupies the overall.

And so I'm struggling with articulating a principle for myself about when something becomes serious to me. 

[00:15:13] Sarah: Erin Moon and her weekly newsletter included this tweet that I keep thinking about, and the tweet was outrageous, a poor substitute for work. And I think that was so much of politics and was so much of.

Some of these process stories, but also the bigger trends and issues that as you said, that we do need to pay attention to, even if they feel like a clown car, even if they don't feel like they're serious. And I think my principal is not to just fall into a place where outrage feels like I'm paying attention.

Like outrage feels like I'm doing something to know that. If it's important enough for me to work for, to work towards or work against, or that that's a good indicator, but if I'm tempted to just be outraged and post about it and rant about it, then it's either not my work to do. Or maybe I'm just feeding the monster, right?

Because the, the Vitara Crecy thrives on our outrage, the VITAS, you know, it would be a lot harder to run a party who central operating. Motivation is to own the libs. If the lib stopped reacting to every single thing, right? Like I just, there's a part of me that says with this, the current process we have, the important principle is to not feed the monster and to do the work, to change the process.

And I think that that's the two sort of. Operating objectives that I try to keep in mind, like, is there something for me to do to change this? I'm not a voter in California. There's very little I can do about the propositions and the recall and the way all of this works. And so I don't want to just feed the outrage of the by like getting up in arms all over social media.

About the California recall. I think, you know, learning as much as you can about it, talking to your friends in California is one thing, but it is, it's really hard to do when some of what's happening is happening at a state level, which still affects us nationally. If this person gets in, if a Republican gets in Dianne, Feinstein's 88 years old, this person could reply, could feasibly.

Appoint her replacement, but again, I don't live in California. I don't vote in California. And so there is a limit of what I can do about their except for maybe that's the answer, right. Is to say, if there's not a lot of work, you can do, at least you can bring awareness about the process problems and the reforms that need to be enacted as opposed to just outrage at the present situation.

[00:18:06] Beth: I think that's a good answer. And it's just helpful to me to know that sitting in Kentucky, my job isn't to decide how I would complete this ballot in California. I need not have an opinion on that. I do want to be clear about what the question is. And to me, if I were staring at this recall valid or any recall ballot, I would think to myself, not how much do I like the current office holder I would think is.

The turmoil created by a change in office holder worth it is that justified under the present circumstances. And for me, that is an awfully high bar and it's a bar that's so high that the correct vehicle really ought to be impeachment, not recall. 

[00:18:51] Sarah: And if I'm a Democrat. Particularly, if I'm a Democrat with political power inside the state of California, I would start thinking about how to make my case about this Photocracy to the voters, because whoever wins this recall whoever's the governor after this recall vote, Democrats still hold the state legislature in California. And I know that it's a hard case to make. We want to take power away from the people, but that's only if you let that be. The argument seems to me, this recall presents a really good opportunity to present to people. The reality much of this legislation in California is not about the majority and is not about democracy at all. And Democrats in California need to start having the political will and the political bravery to make that case. 

[00:19:36] Beth: It would be very surprising to me too, if you polled the state and found anything close to a majority of voters feeling comfortable spending this much money on this topic when California's needs are nearly limitless.

[00:19:51] Sarah: Or which, how many voters want to roll in with that like 50 page proposition book to review? I bet not many. I bet not many are like, oh yes. I love rolling through 85 propositions to do research on every election day. I think they might be surprised at the political will to reform the system inside the state of health. Well, we will follow the recall and be back here probably to talk about the results on September 14th.

We're not done with the west up next. We're going to turn to the historic drought affecting that part of the country.

So the west is currently experiencing a historic drought and we were talking about California, but honestly it's not just the usual suspects of California and the Southwest it's bad way beyond those regions of the country. Now it is bad in California, the reservoirs in the state hold about half as much water as usual for this time of year, but it's also the Pacific Northwest, the mountain west, even parts of the Plains that are experiencing drought conditions.

Now we usually think of droughts is just not enough rain and that's true. That's a huge component of it. But in the west they depend on snowpack that melts. To fill a lot of their reservoir and keep them with water throughout the year. But the problem because of climate change is that the snow packs are melting way too fast.

And so that water can't be available throughout drier parts of the year. Heat is causing water in reservoirs to evaporate more quickly. And then there are of course, bigger macro factors like population growth and the resulting demand on farming and what that industry requires as far as water. So there's a lot going on with this drought. When we look out west to that part of the country. 

[00:21:47] Beth: I read this morning that almost half of the contiguous 48 states of the U S are experiencing a year's long drought now. And. Significant rainfall, even in the form of something anticipated, like the monsoon that you typically see near the Southwest or Lanea, which they predict to form to the Pacific Northwest significant rainfall like that won't fix this.

It's it's going to be months, if not longer. To restore something that feels more normal to us. And we may just have to change what our normal feels like. And that, that is a big adjustment. When you're talking about something like lake Mead, being in a state that is an emergency state, really almost the entire state of Utah now is experiencing this drought.

It is really changing the shape of what. How people can expect to live in that part of the country. And that's, that's hard. 

[00:22:44] Sarah: My father lives in California. We had a conversation about this over the weekend and he as he often does brought up the Delta smelt. Now. So if you are trying to have conversations about this with family members or people in your life that usually disagree with you, you might hear this too.

 Trump has used this as an excuse for the drought in the west several times, especially during wildfire season. And just so you know, The Delta smelt is a tiny little fish, three to four inches. It's a blue fish that lives only in the San Francisco bay and the Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta, and they're really harbingers for the, the health of the Delta and the health of the water.

And they've been failing. Their population has been declining. They've been on the cusp of extinction because for decades, huge volumes of that freshwater are diverted for two aqueducts and canals around those Delta areas. Now, if you Google this, there is still this. Total bullshit article from the wall street journal in 2009, that comes up in the first results still out there living this life that says that this pumping the water is why there's a drought.

It's just not true. It's just not true. Like the draft, as we just said extends way beyond those two deltas. It's not that they're pumping fresh water in to protect the Delta smelt it's that they prevent some of that water and wrecked it farms and surrounding areas. All that to say that is. Diversion.

That's just a straw, man. It's not unrelated, but the huge factors that are driving the drought go so far beyond this tiny fish. And is that often happens when we talk about this stuff, there's always big groups at play. There are individuals. Actions and individual habits. Although I think with most of the stuff that is the, usually the smallest factor you have government and you have government policy. And then of course you have industry. And I think especially out west, the farming industry plays a huge role. 

[00:24:56] Beth: I noticed in preparing for this segment, how international media outlets were quicker to identify the conflict that is really generated when you have something like drought, just coincidentally, I was listening to a sermon this weekend at my church, where they talked about the prophet Elijah and how there was drought.

And so there was going to be famine. And so there was going to be war and it has been on my mind since reading about what's going on out west. So I read an article from Al-Jazeera about how difficult dairy farms are to think about in the midst of a drought. And that's very personal to me. Many of you know, I grew up on a dairy farm. Dairy farms use an awful lot of water for a huge number of purposes.

And we read about this in the big thirst that we talked about during our infrastructure series. Quite a bit, that farming is a challenging discussion when you're talking about climate because we need farming, we need food, we need people working our land. We need jobs for people in those images. And there are tons of jobs connected to agriculture.

And also when resources get scarce, people start looking around saying, do I agree with how you are using this water and how much you're using? I read a really fascinating article from the guardian about Northern California and a community, mostly of mung people who settled in the suburbs on land that people thought could not grow anything.

And they have made it very viable. Some of what is grown. There is marijuana and the drought has been an excuse for local law enforcement to go in and bulldoze those fields. And they're saying, listen, when we have scarce water, we cannot have water going to illegal marijuana plants. The conflict to me is the point that when these resources get scarce, we are going to have to understand.

All of the implications of those scarce resources and how they feed into some of our worst instincts. I think the Delta smell does a good example of this, where they feed into any kind of existing bias we have about the world. We are going to ramp way, way up when things we depend on for life aren't as abundant as we wish they were.

[00:27:10] Sarah: Yeah. I think that coverage in the United States has gotten a little bit better in pointing out that the narrative we had about climate change for so long is that, you know, everyone's at risk and it makes sense, right? We were trying to motivate people to understand like this is going to affect everybody, but the reality is it's going to affect some people way more than others.

And that it's in this battle for resources and this, these battles that are going to be created over resources. Some people are going to suffer more than others and you know, they talked about in Southern California because of the drought and the early aughts, like they built up, they built up huge reservoirs.

They have aqueducts and they've been storing water there for during wetter years so that they have some reserves. And now you have towns up in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest who it didn't usually have to suffer through drought that are near experiencing heat waves. Now don't have water. They, they follow this one time. Where they have to have the water trucked in at the cost of anywhere from 20 to 45 cents a gallon. And like the issues that this is creating. And I think the difficulty is not just the geographic debates that these create, but like you said, that the industries that have been affecting the water reserves.

If you read one thing in our show notes, read the article in the Atlantic we've linked to about well diggers and wealth fixers. They follow this one. Man who has been digging Wells for farmers for generations and is basically trying to sound the alarm that the underground water table is drying up.

There are areas where it's like the ground is literally sinking. He's building well, he's digging Wells. It used to would have lasted for 10, 15 years and they're dry and too. And when he tries to explain it to farmers, especially the people who have almond groves. Are notoriously greedy when it comes to water.

I read this article and thought I'm never buying a thing of almond milk. Again, as long as I live that it's just depleting these aquifers. And he keeps trying to say like, it's not going to be here. We're not going to be able to do this forever. And no one is listening and it's just, it's so upsetting. To realize that things are changing permanently that are sort of our individual responsibility mindset that so often we have in the United States is just not going to work for us.

And that in California, where maybe there would be relief come winter. And maybe that there would be some rainfall to refill these aquifers. Like it's not going to be enough recently. OSHA announced that the. Precipitation was going to be below normal through the winter in the fall. And that what they're really looking at is what science, some scientists call a megadrought in the region that is similar to, or perhaps worse than some that have occurred over 1200 years ago and lasted for 40 years.

So the idea that, you know, winter and fall is going to come, and this is, this is just the natural cycle of things is just no longer true. 

[00:30:29] Beth: And I think that is part of what makes having any kind of reasonable conversation about climate change difficult because at this point we are not only talking about climate change and the reality of human activity and its connection to the natural world.

We're also talking about disaster management. We're talking about. Forest fire management. We're talking about the maintenance of our infrastructure systems. As we discussed so much during our series, we're talking about some science and how we're going to try things. And some of those things are going to have effects that didn't work, even if they were done with the best of intentions, to try to combat the harmful effects of climate change.

There's a good artist. It's actually about coronavirus, but in the New York Times today called the US is getting a crash course in scientific uncertainty. It's by a poor of Amanda Vili and she writes about the way that science usually works when the whole world isn't watching it and how much time it takes and how figures the debates are over good science.

And I think that around climate change because it is so present with us now, the effects of it are so present. We are still kind of stuck in that mentality of, well, there are slight disagreements. Is it a megadrought or is it a regular drought? Well, there are a lot of different ways to measure a drought and all of those conversations that happen among scientists are really, really important.

I think the trick as a citizen and a person who doesn't have expertise in those areas, or a person who cannot affect what type of energy source is used in their state or any number of decisions that are coming to a head because of climate change. You can feel really stuck because we want to do something about it instead of just worry about it.

And while there are things we can do, a lot of those things feel like just the tiniest drop in a big ocean. And so finding that way of engaging with this without getting depressed or without trying to outperform everybody else in your commitment to the climate and actually be effective is just it's it's overwhelming. And I, I kind of feel like we're stuck in that overwhelm space right now. 

[00:32:47] Sarah: Well, we always talk about this, you know, over the weekend, there were some really terrible weather events. The Northeast was hit with tropical storm Henry. There was flash flooding in Nashville where over 20 people lost their lives and every time this comes up in the news, You know, we have a conversation between us.

Well, what else can we add? What can we say? Because so much of what we do here is, you know, we process the news. But when we talk about climate change and we talk about natural disasters, it feels like too much to process because we're not processing humans. Leadership to a certain extent, right? When those big things come in, it's not like we can break down and talk about like our anger or frustration towards Joe Biden's leadership in Afghanistan, or our anger or frustration toward mass mandates or the lack of them and the pandemic when it comes to a natural disaster.

Or a story that is affected by climate change. I mean, who are we going to be mad at? Right? Who are we, if even if it's the human race, well, we're humans. Who are we going to accuse of poor leadership? Or how long can we spend accusing people of poor leadership? Because there's plenty to go around. I think we have to learn how to do that.

We have to stay. And the posture we often advocate for, which is curiosity. It feels like there's nothing to be curious about when flash flooding hits, but that's not really true. Right? I mean, I think there's a lot of things that we can learn about and think about and think about how they affect our commute unity, but it is hard and it is ever-changing in a way that like pure politics isn't, right? I mean, pure politics is cyclical. It's something we understand. It's individualized in a way that I think is easier to talk about. Whereas this stuff is bigger and more existential and philosophical, and it's really hard. I read an article about a native of Portland talking about why they weren't going to move back to Portland, to their hometown as they were looking for a more permanent location.

They talk about the protest and they talk about the heat waves and they said, settling down means something different now because there is no long-term the best one can help for as a temporary pocket of equilibrium to be enjoyed while it lasts and then mercilessly abandoned. And I think that's how a lot of people feel when we talk about climate change in particular, there's been a lot of reporting about we're not going to be able to depend on things and everything we understood about how to live a good life and what it means to raise kids is changing. I think it's always been that way.

We in the United States, in particular, the 20th century in a particular subset of the population and the 20th century had the blip of stability, but most of human existence. Rested on a ground of equilibrium, right? There was not huge time periods of human existence, where the global population just felt really settled and safe.

Like that's just never been the reality. Human survival is a constant balancing act and it's a constant taking in of new threats and new concerns and new populations and the diversity of the human species and how that affects your people. I mean, it's just to me, The sooner we can abandon this idea that like we've lost this permanent way that human beings were surviving.

And now everything is different. The sooner we can find new and better ways to deal with it and think about it and talk about it because it just, that was never true. The human species is always been battling for its survival against different things. And this is just our thing. Again, survival. And, you know, even like just the big topic of a human species is a lot harder to talk about than the latest election or the latest politician or whoever you're mad at currently in the news.

[00:36:46] Beth: I think curiosity being centered here's really helpful. And, and the other thing I think a lot about is the tension, because I think those of us who care a lot about climate change, see the need for global action. And we kind of hold the need for global action and individual action together without thinking about all the layers in between.

So I am going to recycle, I am not going to use XYZ product. I am not going to give money to X, Y, and Z corporation. And then I also want us to be in the Paris climate Accords and, and those things. And there's so much in-between that also needs our attention. And that in-between is where I think there's an opportunity to really embrace people who for whatever reason are just culturally not going to be excited about that individual layer and the international layer.

But when you talk to people about floodwater management, you can have a conversation with someone, whether that person watches your news sources and would characterize these issues the same way as you or not. There are so many skills and talents and interests. Common need to deal with extreme weather events in our communities where everybody can be engaged and play a really positive role here.

And I worry sometimes that we are so caught up in the individual level fight and the global fight that we lose all the opportunity that exists in between those two spaces. 

[00:38:10] Sarah: Well, because used to. You know, I felt growing up when we were in college and when I was in my twenties in order to get to that individual level, it's like you had to get the person to agree on the global narrative that we had to do something preventative.

Like you have to trust me. The science is telling us where we're headed and we need to do something well, that ain't where we're at anymore. I don't need you to get up, to agree with me on some perhaps going to happen. Climate disaster, the evidence is all around us, right? And so for better or for worse, we've, you know, past the place where I felt stuck, a lot of my early adulthood is like I had to get them to, to see and agree with the science.

And now you just have to get people to see and agree on the reality. And I think that that is often where. The human species is right. I think that if you look back broadly over human history, it's where everybody could see the reality. And that's where we, we were able to sort of marshal the forces and get over whatever was dividing us in our local communities or bigger sort of geographic communities to, to fight the threat before.

So we're just always grateful that you're here as we work out these things, as we figure out how to process this, as we figure out to how to talk about together and with all of you, these bigger challenges facing all of us, be it natural disasters, be it drought as we work through those things individually, globally, and within our communities.

And as we talk hopefully more about we're all going to do it in our individual communities. We're excited to talk on Friday about tools of activism and what that looks like when they work when they're no longer working, how we move on to different strategies. And so join us for that conversation on Friday.

Beth, what is on your mind outside of politics? 

[00:40:13] Beth: I'm realizing that one barometer of what is going on in my interior life is how much time I spend with my planner. And I wanted to talk to you about this because I'm looking for all of the tips. Now I don't care about having a pretty planner. Okay. There is no washi tape in my planner.

I do not put stickers on particular dates. I have finally here in the year of our Lord, 2021. Just recently to write in my planner with a pencil, because things are going to change and we got to move on with those changes, just erase and go to the next thing. But in terms of just really looking at my time and thinking about where I'm spending time and remembering to factor in things like the fact that I still must feed my family.

When I, I know that I'm doing pretty well when I'm devoting time and energy to sitting down with my planner. And so if you have any hot tips about the way that you organize your time, that way I am all ears. 

[00:41:06] Sarah: Listen, the planners are a hot topic right now. I've had a couple people ask me this question recently. I spent so much of my life. Trying to perfect my planning process. I'm also like an over-performer. So when someone offers me a new way, a new app, I'm like, and they're like, this is going to solve all your productivity problems. I'm like, of course, it is. I will do all of it. When I look back over the last 10, 15 years at the amount of time I've spent like setting up new planners and particularly trying to like get a new to-do app set up and learn a new process.

It's truly shocking. All this is I listen, I've done the research. Okay. And here's where I've settled and have been for at least five years. I do not do a paper calendar for better or for worse. It just works best for me to do a digital calendar because I need those repeating. Calendar appointments specifically.

I need them for the weeks. That for better, for worse, I am too busy to sit down and like write out my week. Right? Like that's just inevitable. That's what I've had to learn, inevitably. No matter how well you start it. There will be a messy middle where you're like, I'm not, I can't, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not.

And I can't. And it's like when I would buy these expensive planners and there'd be like a month or weeks that were just empty. I just, it wasn't good for my self-esteem. So I do a digital calendar and I have been a bullet journaler for. Gosh, I think five or six years, because I definitely did it when I was running for office in 2016.

And the reason I like it is because the bullet journal flows with how engaged you are with your planner. There might be two weeks that I don't write anything in my bullet journal. And then there might be two weeks where I'm like mapping out my week and writing the cute thing. I also wouldn't encourage you to reassess washi tape. It's actually the lazy person's way to decorate and make your journal look cute. Cause you don't have to be able to draw you just stick a piece of tape, but whatever, that's neither hunter here. Neither here nor there. I like it because it's flexible and that's just, what I've learned is like there's not a process or a product that's going to keep you 100 Percent consistently engaged with your planner, because that's not how life works, right? Like it's the same thing with routines. That's what you were saying about school. Like we need a routine and I have to hold it loosely. I think that's the peace I have made leap finally made with my planner. I need one and I need it to be flexible and I need to hold it all loosely.

And so that's why I'm like, I'm full-in on the bullet journal. I like that I can like put meetings in there and I don't need a separate thing. I can make notes about my house. I can just. Quick jots here, quick jots there. And it's just all in one place. And also at the end, especially if you're like super flexible with what you put in it, it's like kind of a fun little memory book at the end between like all my notes or else did stickers from our travels in there.

And that is where I have finally settled. Digital calendar, bullet journal. 

[00:43:55] Beth: Well, I feel really affirmed right now because that's about where I am. I think I use my planner very much like a bullet journal. I put everything on a digital calendar. I never use my planner to schedule something. Everything lives in the digital calendar.

But I am living my best life. When on Friday afternoon, I look at the coming week and I put all of that in my paper planner, because then I think about things I don't think about when it's on the digital calendar, like, oh, do I have to drive to a place? And how long does it take to get there? And do I have to drive back from that place? So when I go through that process of taking it from digital to paper, It just opens my brain up in a different way and helps me get a better handle on the week. 

For a long time, my practice has been to write down three things that I have to do in a day. Just before I go to bed, these three things have to be done and they are expansive. So it's not just three work things. It is both work and life things. If I must fill out the field trip permission form today, before I go to bed, then it's one of my three things, regardless of how much work I have to do. Right now in my life, making the nightly nuance for our members is one of my three things.

Every single day, it's a significant chunk of my day. It must be done. And so it goes on my three things list. And I do take a lot of notes for meetings just right there in the planner. I always buy one with just tons of white space. I don't want it to be the boss of me. I don't want it to tell me what questions I have to answer or what blocks I have to use for things.

So I think that that kind of, yeah, I like that comparing it to my school routine, some structure, and some flexibility and we just hold them together. 

[00:45:34] Sarah: Yeah, no, I totally agree. I do love it when I have time to sit down. Now, I purposely moved to what my friend calls a seven-minute town because I am incapable of calculating driving time. It's just, I don't have that section of my brain because I drew grew up in a place where I didn't need that section of my brain, so it never got developed. And so the appropriate solution for adulthood was to move back to said place. So I don't ever factor in transportation time, but I will say of all my years of the other thing I was just thinking about of all my years of studying productivity things. And again, I did them all. You know, there was a year where like, is it the getting things done method? I think that's what it's called. And it was like super, super popular. And the other super helpful thing I've adopted from that technique. It's probably the only thing I kept his, his big thing is like, if it takes two minutes or less, just do it. Don't write it down.

Don't check it off, just do it. And that has been really helpful to me. Like, just, just, if it's a quick phone call, get it done, clear it. If it's something that takes two minutes or less than two minutes is not very long. I try to just do it because. There is a sense of like, sometimes I like quick and easy things on my to-do list, but often it's better if I can just stick to the bigger things that when I have a space of time open up and be like, okay, what's been bugging me. What do I need to knock off the list? And again, the bullet journal and I don't do like all the super bullet journaling things. Like I don't, my index is, is weak.

Just is, cause I don't spend a lot of time going, flipping back through my bullet journal. I'll do it occasionally, but not a lot. I just like, it's just that central location where I can do all the things I need to. 

[00:47:06] Beth: I also got the tip several years ago that if I move something from my to-do list three times tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, then it's gone.

Just do it, just get rid of it. Just get rid of it. Because if I've moved to three times, how important is it to me? 

[00:47:21] Sarah: That's how I used to. That's how I used to feel about my what's the thing you used to record stuff on your TV, not the VCR, but after the VCR, TiVo, TiVo, remember TiVo is still exists. Right?

I think some people still have TiVo. Well, I mean, cause streaming came along, but I just, that was used to be my role for TiVo. Like if I, if it's sitting on my TiVo for weeks, how badly do I really want to watch it to begin with? Right? Like if you don't like scoop it up, the second it comes out like Ted lasso, what cha even doing? 

[00:47:48] Beth: That'll helps me. And I do feel very healthy right now because I'm spending that time writing out my time. And it helps me remember when I'm not doing it. And that goes on for several weeks. I need to check in a little bit. Maybe Beth is not okay if I, if I'm not sitting down with my planner, maybe things have gone off track somewhere.

[00:48:07] Sarah: Well, productivity is my favorite topic. I'm so glad you brought that up for outside politics. We'd love to hear your productivity tips, maybe on Instagram or email us and tell us what really works for you. I could talk about this stuff all day every day, but thank you for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We will be back in your ears on Friday and until then, keep it nuanced y'all.

[00:48:37] Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. 

Alise Napp is our managing director. 

[00:48:43] Sarah: Megan Hart is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

[00:48:48] Beth: Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

[00:48:52] Executive Producers (Read their own names):  Martha Bronitsky, Linda Daniel, Ali Edwards, Janice Elliot, Sarah Greenup, 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, Amy Whited, Emily Holladay, Katy Stigers.

[00:49:21] Beth: Melinda Johnston, Joshua Allen, Morgan McHugh, Nichole Berklas, Paula Bremer, and Tim Miller 

[00:49:28] Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

[00:49:34] Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram @PantsuitPolitics. 

Alise NappComment