What Matters Right Now with David Leonhardt

Topics Discussed

• What’s going on in Ukraine and why you should care

• Distinguishing the interesting from the important with David Leonhardt

• Outside of Politics: What’s saving our lives right now?

If you subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions and haven’t shared your email address with us, please fill out this short form so we can make sure you get the invitation to our February 22 AUA event!

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss anything going on in the Pantsuit Politics world.

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it 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.

Sign up for our newsletter to keep up with all our news. 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 store or visit our merchandise partners: TeePublic, Stealth Steel Designs, and Desert Studio Jewelry. Gift a personalized message from Sarah and Beth through Cameo. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

Episode Resources

• Revealed: Credit Suisse leak unmasks criminals, fraudsters and corrupt politicians (The Guardian)

• David Leonhardt writing at The New York Times

• David Leonhardt Twitter

• The Morning Newsletter (The New York Times)

Transcript

David Leonhardt [00:00:00] Once a year, I write a newsletter where I look back on the previous year and talk about what I think I got wrong in the previous  year. 

Sarah [00:00:07] That's my favorite. So much trust built, so much trust built every year when you do that. 

David Leonhardt [00:00:11] And I'll be honest, that's not the most fun newsletter to write, because my preference would be to never get anything wrong. All journalism is coming to conclusions, and what we try to do is be transparent about that. Here are the conclusions we're coming to. Here's why we're coming to them. Here's what we're not so sure about. 

Sarah [00:00:36] This is Sarah Stewart Holland. 

Beth [00:00:38] And this is Beth Silvers. 

Sarah [00:00:39] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics. 

Beth [00:00:54] Hello, and thank you so much for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics, where we take a different approach to the news. We're going to try to bring that different approach to the news to talk a little bit about what's happening in Ukraine. And then we are very excited to have David Leonhardt of The New York Times here with us for a wide ranging discussion about news and COVID and trends that we think you're going to love. Outside of politics, we're going to talk about what's saving our lives right now. Before we do that, though, we are looking forward to getting together with many of you tonight with great anticipation. 

Sarah [00:01:25] Yes, it's it's 2-22-2022. It's a very big day. And in honor of that, and also just happen to coincide with this very cool date situation, we're having our live quarterly Q&A with our amazing premium community members. Listen, this Q&A, there's no boundaries. If you want an update on my Botox, ask. It's fine. I'll give it. I'm excited to talk about it some more. If you need to get some recipes from Beth, ask. If you want to know more specifics about Ukraine, ask. This is what the Q&A is about. It's just a free for all. We love it. It's so fun. If being part of events like that with us appeals to you, you can find the links to either subscribe through Patreon or Apple podcast subscriptions and join us tonight. Now, if you are subscribing through Apple podcast subscription or are already subscribed through Apple Podcast subscriptions, please make sure that you share your email with us. There's a forum linked in the show notes. In that way, Alise can email you the link for tonight so you get to come and join us. 

Beth [00:02:33] Sarah, I've been thinking a lot about the Super Bowl commercials. I know this is a strange introduction to the topic of Ukraine. 

Sarah [00:02:40] I definitely thought we're talking about Ukraine, but okay. 

Beth [00:02:41] Well, here's why I mentioned it. I've been thinking so much about how the Super Bowl commercials this year were a hard turn from the past couple of years in terms of advocacy and social justice and a hardcore like patriotism kind of theme. You could tell that there were deliberate decisions by companies to steer clear of anything political even around like things that are political, electric cars, cryptocurrency, like time was marching forward with these commercials. 

[00:03:16] But you could tell that they were really trying to just be funny or interesting and not touch hot-button issues. And I think that represents a clear analysis that the American people are fried. And that is what I want to connect to Ukraine because I think the condition of just being fried about hard things leads you either to be kind of panicked about the possibility of a world war or ready to just tune this all the way out. 

Sarah [00:03:50] Now, I might be ascribing more awareness and analysis than either the intelligence community or the Biden administration deserves. But it does feel like their current approach to the situation takes that into account. Right. They're not saying one thing, they're saying all the things. They're not saying at once, they're saying it every day. Like, you are not going to miss whether you're trying to tune it out or you're anxious or whatever, that the Biden administration believes that Russia is on the path to war. You're not going to miss it, they're not going to let you. I think some of this comes from the critique of Afghanistan that they let the situation sneak up on the American people, and they're not going to let that happen again. 

[00:04:27] But the reason I like it is because it feels like the chickens are coming home to roost for Vladimir Putin, who just lies. He just lies. He just lies constantly, indiscriminately on a world stage. Just really that is his M.O. and I feel like we've finally revoked this like, okay, you can do that, but we are no longer going to treat you like a world leader who we listen to and act like they're telling the truth. Like, I'm glad we've moved past that because that hasn't been the case like ever. And so, I'm glad that we are no longer operating under that assumption. 

Beth [00:05:03] As we are recording on Monday, I was just checking my phone because I have found Christopher Miller of BuzzFeed to be really the only Twitter follow that has helped me a lot. I've tried to avoid Twitter with respect to Ukraine because of what you were just saying, Sarah. There's misinformation deliberately swirling around this. We know that Russia always thinks of propaganda as a strategic advantage. Christopher Miller, I think, is a pretty clear eyed source with deep understanding of the region and someone who I've been following. And he was live tweeting Vladimir Putin addressing the Russian people about this situation. 

[00:05:40] And Putin was offering a complete rewrite of history that Ukraine only exists because of Russia, that the U.S. has funded every effort to overthrow regimes in Ukraine. That those efforts have never been about democracy. That Russia is the only place with the answer to a post communism for Ukraine. And so I agree with you that facing that as Russia's strategy head on, clearly, deliberately flooding the airways with State Department people is really great. And I also appreciate it. As a foreign policy shift that we've needed to make away from sort of World War II era because they've also been clear if you're listening, they've been clear that we will not be sending American soldiers to fight a war with Russia over Ukraine. 

Sarah [00:06:34] Yeah. 

Beth [00:06:36] So we're not going to use hard power. We've lost a lot of soft power in the world because of decisions that we've made that have been bad ones, because of leadership that we've put on the world stage that has not done a good job. And I think that this is President Biden's attempt to say we still have soft power and you're going to see what it looks like here. And we have modern soft power. So I really do appreciate the approach. I was very critical of President Biden's leadership around Afghanistan. I think that they are doing a good job here. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think they're doing a good job. 

Sarah [00:07:12] I want to acknowledge that this strategy comes at intense danger for the intelligence sources. You know, if you are an intelligence source giving information to the United States and you know they're going to broadcast it, and you know that Vladimir Putin is not going to like it, that's a very brave act. And I don't think people are their only intelligence source. Obviously, I think that there are lots of ways the intelligence community gathers information. But part of the reason that we kept this behind the curtain is because we don't want to increase the risk of revealing sources of putting them in danger. And so I'm sure that that has been part of the tradeoff. 

[00:07:50] But if you are a person who feels overwhelmed by this or anxious about this, I don't know if that's going to make you feel better or worse, but for me, it makes me less anxious to see Ukraine as connected to so many other stories and trends and events over the past. Like, it hasn't just bubbled up out of nowhere. There's been a lot of reporting you've done some really great work on More To Say, the last two days about some of the recent revelations surrounding John Durham's investigation. And look, I don't think we fully grappled with some of the choices made around the Steele dossier and the narrative pushed by elites inside the intelligence community by Democrats, by the Clinton campaign about the risk of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government or Russian oligarchs or Russian intelligence, whatever. 

[00:08:49] I don't think we've grappled quite with that we were saying things that probably weren't quite true, but I think they came from a place of sincere alarm, right? And this was what these sincere alarm was based on. That this exact issue that an emboldened Vladimir Putin would continue on the path he had already set for himself. And that the president, even in something as simple as a NATO's speech, could accelerate that timeline dramatically. And so I think that the Trump administration is hugely responsible, not solely responsible, but hugely responsible for what we're facing right now. I talked about this on Good Morning that the revelations about Credit Suisse and the Panama Papers, all this long line of disclosures about the level of corruption that flows around our globe through these financial institutions that protect authoritarians and oligarchs and human traffickers and and criminals. Like, that's related to this too. 

[00:09:52] Ukraine was like one of the main sources of that data and the new Credit Suisse revelations, that we'll link in the show notes, that came out in the Guardian. The reason it's important is that it's not just Ukraine. Ukraine is a manifestation of so many global issues that we have. And to me, that can feel like, well, that's even more reason to be concerned and maybe to feel like we have even less control. But to me, it's the more it's a manifestation of multiple things, that means the more multiple things can manifest itself on the situation, right? And that there's not one way out of this conflict. And I think you see that and you see that with the Biden administration's approach, you see that with Emmanuel Macron, who is hustling. That man is hustling. He is working the phones. He is doing his best to prevent this. Or you see it in the way Ukraine talks about what's happening. Is that this is a manifestation of multiple factors, and so multiple factors will be at play if we see our way out of this without violent conflict. 

Beth [00:10:58] I think that's all true and helpful. It's also really different than how I've been thinking about it because I worry that our foreign policy goes astray when we say things like, "Well, Ukraine isn't really about Ukraine, it's about NATO," or "Ukraine isn't really about Ukraine, it's about China and Taiwan." I worry when we lose the people who are at the center of the story being in the center of the story. So I have really tried to pull back from any analysis about the big picture here and dive into stories about people being evacuated from their homes. And what do people who have family members in Ukraine say about the situation right now? My mom was talking to me about something she read about Russian separatists and we were talking about what does that term mean? And and I told her, there's a part of me that thinks whenever you hear Russian separatist, a red flag needs to go up in your mind. 

[00:11:53] Because the big story that Russia wants to tell about this is that most Ukrainian people want to be part of Russia again. And that doesn't seem to be true. At the same time, there probably are people in Ukraine who for a huge variety of complicated reasons, have a connection to Russia and feel ways about this that are complicated and much more complicated than we can capture every day in American media. And so I really have tried to see the small picture. It reminds me of that poem about how the three things are. First, to just see a thing clearly on its own terms, and then second to see it as part of everything else, and then third to be able to hold both of those at the same time. Because I do think that's the challenge around a story like this. 

Sarah [00:12:36] Well, let me say, I absolutely try to keep that at the center of everything. Our book is published in two countries, the United States and Ukraine. And so the last week and a half, two weeks, I pulled it off the shelf and I've kept it on my desk, and I think I wonder where it is. I mean, I think it speaks to something that our book was published in Ukraine, that the book with the title, I think you're wrong, but I'm listening felt needed in Ukraine. And I think about the fact that it's out there, that it's in homes, I don't know what's happening to the people in those homes. And it's heartbreaking. And it's hard because it's like you said, both things are true, that there are individuals wrapped up in this global drama. That's always true. You know, there's some really heartbreaking reporting coming out of Afghanistan and the famine there and what role we played in it and heartbreaking photos of children starving. That it is both, though, that they're just individual children starving and that they're wrapped up in these global forces beyond their control, beyond many of our control. 

Beth [00:13:47] So as we wrap up here, Sarah, how are you as an American citizen emotionally managing your view of what's happening in Ukraine. 

Sarah [00:13:59] I understand the appeal of isolationism much like I understand the appeal of polarization. I just think pragmatically, it's harmful. And I think we can want it to be that way, but that doesn't make it true. And our interests and our responsibilities and our role as citizens in a democracy is at risk here. I don't know if risk is quite the right word I want, but it's at play. It's wrapped up in all of this. And I'd love to compartmentalize it and silo it, and there is a way to do that because the reality is, I'm not at risk individually, at least physically, I guess. And so I understand the draw of that compartmentalization, and it's a siren song on my own head, and I just have to remind myself wanting it to be true does that make it true. And this does affect me. And this will affect my life even if my physical safety is not in danger. And that we're sort of wrapped up together in this world and this sort of global political environment, and so I want there to be a peaceful resolution to this. I want it badly, and I want it for the people of Ukraine, and I want it for the people of America, and I want it for the people of France and Germany and UK and I want to for the people of Russia. Yes, I want it for the people of Russia. And so I think  trying to hold all that at once, I understand why in a moment where we all feel fried is very difficult. 

Beth [00:15:58] That's very close to where I am. I am not alarmed that we are about to have a world war. I really don't believe that we are. I think that if it comes to it, the bigger risk is that Russia does make some kind of aggressive move here, and it's not met with military aggression from other countries. So I think this is not about whether we're we're about to have another World War, I think it's about what it means in this phase of human history to draw borders and to have people consent to be governed. And to get to live the kind of lives that they want to live. And I think those are really hard questions and really important questions and that we are capable of grappling with those. 

[00:16:43] Because, listen, that's not different than what we're talking about when we're talking about the things that have fried us. When we're talking about COVID, we're talking about election integrity. All those issues are about people consenting to governance on terms that feel like they have some integrity. And so I think that  we are able to pay attention here without it adding to a sense of fatigue, and that we should. That's important to do that. Next up, we're going to share our conversation with David Leonhardt. It is encouraging, it is wide ranging, it is thoughtful and we so appreciate him being here and hope that you enjoy it. 

Sarah [00:17:31] We are thrilled to be joined by David Leonhardt, writer of The Morning newsletter for The New York Times. You started on April 30th, 2020. What a time to start. First, David, I have to tell you thank you. You are a member of what I call my COVID counsel. It's a three member body. It's you, [Inaudible] and Emily Oster. That's my COVID counsel. 

David Leonhardt [00:17:49] That is some great company. 

Sarah [00:17:52] Right? It's a good counsel, I think. Like many, many, people came to depend on all of you to help me interpret ever changing COVID regulations and guidelines. I did not get the booster until the three of you told me to. No pressure. No pressure. But stereotypically journalists are, you know, the sort of just the facts model. But when you took over in the spring of 2020, I've been a long time reader of The Morning and I noticed immediately. All of a sudden I was like, "Wait, who writes this?" Like, this feels different. And I can't tell you who was writing it before, but I noticed that shift in perspective, that shift to, like, let me help you interpret and not just report the facts. But I have to imagine that was intimidating. I mean, you've sort of become the story from time to time throughout COVID. And I wonder how you decided to make that change, how comfortable you are in that role. 

David Leonhardt [00:18:42] Thanks for that generous introduction, and thank you both for having me. It's really exciting to be here. So I've now been in the New York Times 22 years -- more than twenty two years. I started there in another century, which is kind of unbelievable to consider. And I have spent a lot of my time there at this sort of nexus between or among news reporting, explanation, analysis, and it's a space that I really like. And it seems to be something that a lot of readers want, which is I go out and I do reporting. As you know, since you're a regular reader, we show people a lot of graphs, you know, so we spend a lot of time giving people information. But I think people also want explanation along with that. All journalism is coming to conclusions. And what we try to do is be transparent about that. Here are the conclusions we're coming to. Here's why we're coming to them. Here's what we're not so sure about. Once a year, I write a newsletter where I look back on the previous year and talk about what I think I got wrong in the previous year. 

Sarah [00:19:49] That's my previous favorite. So much trust built, so much trust built every year when you do that. 

David Leonhardt [00:19:54] And I'll be honest, that's not the most fun newsletter to write, because my preference would be to never get anything wrong. But I think and it wasn't my idea originally, other journalists have done it. But look, everyone gets stuff wrong. And there's where you actually get something wrong, where we correct it. If I spell someone's name wrong, we correct it the next day. But I mean, errors of analysis or things you didn't expect to see coming. And my basic view is everyone comes to stories with perspective. It's important as a journalist to be a professional about it and not end your stories by saying this is the policy that I think should pass, unless you're in one of those jobs where where that's your job. But I still think it's important to say, "Look, this is the information that I'm basing the analysis on." And, hey, I have a lot of faith in you as the reader. Maybe we persuaded you of this, maybe we didn't. That's okay. As a reader, that's what I want. I read lots of people whose work I disagree with. And I read lots of people who are making arguments, and I think that's not quite right. But that person's really interesting and I learned something from it. So that's basically what we try to do. 

Beth [00:20:59] Sarah and I have the opportunity to speak across the country, and we often are answering questions about the distinctions that you just really made it there. When am I looking at news? When am I looking at analysis? When am I looking at opinion? And what we find is where there is distrust in the news or the media, it's often about curation. The elevation of one story over another. And we try to tell people, well, that's not falsity, that's just curation. There are judgments being made. And so I would love to hear how you choose what to prioritize every day as you're deciding what should matter to your readers. 

David Leonhardt [00:21:37] I think you're making a really important point there, which is there are rarely easy answers with with these things. And so I will answer the the direct question you've asked. But I also think there's an interesting, larger idea that we can come back to if you want. So I try to think about some combination of what's important in the world and what people are interested in. And those two subjects don't always overlap, right? If we are being honest, an American audience is less interested in overseas news than overseas news is important. And the New York Times has made an enormous commitment to covering overseas news. We have dozens and dozens of people stationed around the world. It costs us a lot of money. The only reason we're able to do it to have people in Afghanistan and have people this week in Ukraine and Belarus and Russia and people in Africa and people in bureaus all over the United States is because our subscribers subscribe and give us the resources essentially to send journalists around the world to represent them. 

[00:22:42] So we're not going to just do it based on what interests people. If we did it just based on what interests people, we would write less than we do about Ukraine. We would write less than we do about the Federal Reserve. But we also are going to take seriously what interest people. And I think the reason that COVID has become the dominant subject for us is, that it is the sweet spot between what is important and what is interesting to people. COVID is obviously important. It's been this horrible pandemic, the worst in the century. It also has affected people's day to day lives more than any news story in my lifetime. And to try to hammer that home a little bit, I am a New Yorker by birth. Third generation New Yorker. My grandmother and my dad were both born in New York as well. I lived in New York on 9/11. I was walking to work when I saw the smoke across the sky. I didn't know what it was. I thought it was a large building fire in the East 30's. 

[00:23:41] Of course, it was such a huge fire that it was actually many miles further from where I was than I thought. I thought it was a big fire, a half mile from me. Instead, it was a conflagration multiple miles from me. 9/11 was obviously a horrible event. For most of us in New York, we were back at something that looked like our normal jobs within a matter of a couple of weeks. COVID has kept people working in their homes, we're all talking to each other from closets and attics and and home offices for almost two years now. And so when you combine how important COVID is with how much it has dictated people's work lives, if they're frontline workers, they've had to wear masks, they've had to be exposed to danger. If they're office workers, they've been home. And it's disrupted kids' schedules. It's caused all these direct harms in terms of people's illness and death. It's also caused all these sort of second order effects in terms of society just not functioning well. And so we have devoted so much attention to COVID because it is both so important and also of such intense interest to our readers. 

Sarah [00:24:50] I'm interested at that delineation, especially because I know you've done a lot of work in sort of the next phase of news, right? How do we face this new digital environment? I listen to an interview with you where you describe the multiple front pages of the New York Times, the home page, the print, the daily, the morning. I thought that was such a good description of the news environment we live in. And I think what's hard about that distinction you're making is often people maybe don't prioritize it, but they know enough to know it's important. It's part of the ambient anxiety, right? Like COVID is affecting their everyday lives, but every time they open their phones or open their email newsletters, they see Ukraine. They understand why China is -- like they know enough to be anxious about it, but maybe are intimidated enough to not prioritize it in their lives because it's not affecting their everyday actions, I guess, is probably a good distinction. That's hard. 

David Leonhardt [00:25:46] Yeah. You're talking about stories like Ukraine and China, you're saying they know bout it.

Sarah [00:25:49] Yeah, it's like the ambient. Like, you know just enough to be anxious about it. 

David Leonhardt [00:25:54] Yes. And I think there is another issue there as well, which is I think often we in journalism don't do a good enough job of explaining things clearly. And we make people feel less smart than they really are. And that's actually not some deliberate thing we're doing. It's because when you go out and you interview experts, what you need to do to describe what's happening, the experts talk in a certain language. They have a jargon. 

Sarah [00:26:19] And they assume a knowledge base a lot of people don't have. 

David Leonhardt [00:26:22] And they assume a knowledge base a lot of people don't have. So it is actually hard to deconstruct what they are saying and bring it down to the building blocks of fact and logic. It is easier simply to use, I'll give you an example, the phrase for emergency use authorization, right? The fact that before the FDA fully approved the COVID vaccines, we were all able to get them. Emergency use authorization. But what does that even mean? It's like if people say, well, the vaccines weren't approved yet. Well, yes, they were like, I got the shots in my arm before they were approved. Someone approved that needle going into my arm and millions of others Americans. And so what I think often happens on complex stories is that people read a piece, and they're busy, and they don't have background knowledge, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to them. 

[00:27:18] It's like they understood each individual sentence, but if they had to turn around and explain it to someone else, they couldn't really do it. And one of the things that we try to do on Good Morning, and that I particularly enjoy, is when I read a story and I don't understand some aspect of it, which happens a lot, I basically have the attitude, well, I'm probably not the only person who didn't understand this. And then I go report out my confusion. And then if there's an interesting answer there, there almost always is, I basically take it to the readers, right? And an example of that uncovered was, I was reading a story about I think it was the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe, and in like the 20th paragraph -- the whole beginning of the story talked about how it was 70 percent effective or something like that. Then in like the 20th paragraph, it said, no one in the trial who got the vaccine had a severe version of COVID. None of them were hospitalized or died. 

[00:28:13] And I thought, what? How can it be the case that it was 70 percent effective but we just said that no one was hospitalized or died? Like from my definition, that's 100 percent effective. When it goes in the real world, it's not quite 100 percent effective. But that  fundamental confusion or lack of understanding on my part led me to go interview a whole bunch of experts, virologists, epidemiologists, and then led to this line of coverage where I said, "Hey, you know what? We are understating how effective the vaccines are because we are focused on this statistical definition, that I understand why the experts used, about how good it is at preventing infection." But that's not what we care most about, right? We all get infected with the flu and common cold and other things. What we care about with COVID is not have we ever been infected? What we care about is, is it causing real damage? And so that approach, I think one of the reasons why people often feel intimidated by stories, it's our fault, not theirs. To kind of be brief about it. 

Sarah [00:29:15] Well, I think what you said there, though, gets it. What we care most about. I mean, that's what we try to do here at Pantsuit Politics. We say we like, process the news. It's like therapy, right? Because often the answer is, we don't know. We don't know what the right answer is. We don't know what the best value in this moment is to use. And I think that's what's so hard is often to answer what we care most about is beyond the reach of, you know, just facts or just studies. That's a harder analysis. That's a harder interpretation. And as I read so much of your reporting, I know you come from economics and I think so much about behavioral economics, which sort of upended and said, "Hey, we don't always act rationally." And I feel like we need like behavioral public health or behavioral politics where we acknowledge like this isn't just about rationality. This isn't something we're just going to plug in the facts and figures and we're all going to reach the same conclusion. Because the factors, the motivations, the interest, the values of what we care most about is going to change dramatically, depending on who the person is and what their life is like. 

David Leonhardt [00:30:18] When you say that, Sarah, the thing that it reminds me of is I think it's a way in which the CDC, which has done a lot of great work, has really been ineffective at times. Which is they haven't thought in terms of behavioral public health, and they haven't thought how are people going to hear this? And that is absolutely vital. And so, you know, at first they told us not to wear masks. Then at one point they were telling us we need the masks outside. Both of those appear to be wrong. Masks can play a role. They're virtually useless outside. And what they would often do is talk in the terms of specific academic studies or research trials. And they weren't thinking about, okay, how does someone who doesn't have a Ph.D.,  how is that person going to hear this? And I think it's really important that is not about how smart the general public is, right? None of us is so smart that we can understand the language of every field of expertise. 

[00:31:20] It's really a failing on the part of of public officials to think about who their audience is. And it ends up damaging public health because people can't constantly be doing everything to reduce the risk of COVID. And I think a conversation where they said, "Hey, at these times, these behaviors really help. And these other things probably don't matter. I actually think you'd get more buy in then this exhaustion of I think that you see this in the Partisan fight out there, where one side sort of saying, you know, you don't need to do anything about COVID, which is clearly wrong, it is costing people's lives. And another side that sort of basically saying, we must continue to do everything. We need to mask. And if there's an outbreak in school, we should briefly shut it down and all these stuff. And it's not literally everything, but I actually think talking to people about here's what actually would help and here's what wouldn't in that behavioral public health way that you're talking about, would really lead to better public behavior. 

Beth [00:32:26] I like that you are emphasizing that we assume the public is smart. Because I think all of that context creation that has been missing can be done very poorly in a way that undermines trust too and has at points during the pandemic. It seems to me that the example of we don't mask and now masking is essential, has given rise to some of the biggest contentions in my community where everybody's kind of singing with the radio. Nobody can really explain it. The word mitigation never comes up. We're never talking about masks as a tool to reduce our chances. We're talking about they are essential to stopping it or they are totally ineffective infringement. It's like these folks are singing with the CDC radio. These folks have decided they don't like the song, so they're out. And we just can't seem to find that spot of telling people what they need to know with respect for them so that we can all make better decisions to mitigate instead of control. 

David Leonhardt [00:33:29] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I try to assume our audience is smart and has almost no background knowledge. And that's that's sort of my basic view of how most of us are about most stories, right? We can figure stuff out, but we don't come to the table knowing already what's going on. And I also absolutely agree. I mean, I think, Beth, your description of masks is where we are. And, look, some people would disagree with this. But my view of what the evidence is told us of masks are, they can make a difference in reducing the spread of COVID. And so there are real times where we should be wearing them. The reasons not to be wearing them at all times and maybe not to be wearing them now and for the immediate future are the following. One, a lot of people don't actually wear them well, right? They wear them to prevent themselves from getting shamed instead of COVID, right? Cloth masks help some but not as much as the other masks. 

[00:34:36] Kids are both particularly bad at wearing masks. They also, for young kids, are particularly unimportant as vectors of COVID. And then when you put all that together with the fact that masking has real costs, you know, as one expert said, it's like talking on a cell phone with weak reception. You know, it's not that pleasant for many people. I know some people don't mind it at all, but most people would prefer not to wear a mask, which is why we weren't wearing them before. It can be particularly difficult for people who are hard of hearing or people who have learning disabilities. Less importantly, but not nothing, it can fog people's glasses. It can get in the way of kids emotional learning. And so, to me, when you put all this together, what I would say is, in a lab, masks have an enormous effect. In the real world, they have a modest effect and they have costs. And so before we had vaccines, there were really strong arguments for masks. 

[00:35:32] Even with vaccines I think they're pretty good arguments for them in certain settings when cases are soaring. But when you kind of put it all together and say, "Wait, they have a modest effect in the real world. They have costs. We have vaccines. And right now at least this could change. But right now at least case loads are pretty low." Oh, and here's one more thing. One way masking helps. So if you are someone who's still not comfortable or if you or someone who has health vulnerabilities, you can really make an enormous difference by wearing a medical mask. One study suggests it is more effective for you if you're wearing an N95 or KN95 than if you just have two people both wearing a standard surgical mask. So when you kind of put all that together, to me, I don't think that people who are now arguing that we don't need masks, I don't think they're COVID denialists. I put them in a totally different category than people who doubt the vaccines. 

Sarah [00:36:28] Yeah. Well, and here's the thing. We're not just talking about transmissibility. Mask represents so much more than that, right? Like now they're starting to be stand ins for those values, for the motivations, for our personalities, for our Partisan identity, like, they're holding much like all of COVID way more than almost we admit when we talk about them, right? And I think that's what makes these conversations so hard. This reminds me of something else you've written about recently, which I want to pivot to. Now, I praise you for being on my COVID counsel, and I'm not saying you caused the fight between me and my husband this weekend. I'm just saying your newsletter about Democrats and the progressive college graduates who steer a lot of the conversation and the results in San Francisco and Eric Adams mayoral election and sort of this this conversation in the party, I'm saying it might have played a role in the fight. So you just take that for what it was. 

[00:37:19] But as we were having this conversation, you know, it's one thing to talk about this stuff with regards to COVID, which is this new situation. But in other areas that you're writing this analysis and you're working through these conversations, they're not new conversations. This is not a new conversation inside the Democratic Party. Like, do we need to be more moderate? Do we need to shift to more moderate policies to appeal to a broader? Or even like with Ukraine when we're talking about the shifts in the way we talk about war or the shift in the way that foreign policy is being conducted, these aren't new conversations in the same way that COVID is. And I wonder how you're shifting things when you're working through some of this analysis and sort of the tried and true areas. 

David Leonhardt [00:38:03] I think this whole question of where the Democratic Party is, is like a lot of political questions. I would encourage everyone to start by taking a deep breath and realize that every single one of us is biased and when political discussions -- 

Sarah [00:38:23] I was being very fair in the conversation, David, I don't like that. I don't like what you're implying here. 

David Leonhardt [00:38:28] I didn't hear the conversation, so I'm just trying to be self-reflective here. There's a name for it. Someone named it the pundits fallacy, which is the idea that whatever policies we happen to favor, we think are better political advice for winning campaigns than they actually might be. So whatever, it doesn't make your views right or wrong. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. But just take a minute and ask yourself, are they really as popular with other Americans as I think they're? And so an example of this is, for years a lot of people, a lot of journalists, a lot of people think tanks, a lot of people in business argued that what the Democratic Party needed to do was move to the right on economics. You know, be in favor of tax cuts and this and that. Well, be in favor of deregulation. When you look at the data, actually the American people are quite progressive on economics. They favor increasing taxes on rich people. They favor increasing the minimum wage. They favor all kinds of things that I think elites -- that's an overused word but it has some use, don't necessarily favor. 

[00:39:39] And I think a lot of the media's image of what a moderate Democrat looks like is socially liberal, economically conserved. The American people or the kind of bulk of them, as my colleague Ross Douthat, who is conservative, has pointed out, actually a better description of them is economically liberal and socially conservative, right? Or economically a little bit to the left of center and socially a little bit to the right of center. And so I do think the Democratic Party is hurting itself and hurting its ability to win elections by being to the left of the American public on a whole bunch of issues. But it's not the issues that you might think. I think, instead, it often ends up being this broad sense of social issues. And to be clear, the Republican Party is often way to the right of public opinion. The classic example is abortion. We could do this for immigration, we could do it for affirmative action, we could do it for Medicare, we could do for any number of issues. 

[00:40:30] But on abortion, a majority of Americans believe in relatively open access to abortion rights in the first trimester of pregnancy and relatively strict restrictions starting in the second trimester. Which is well to the left of where the Republican Party is and well to the right of where the Democratic Party is. And so I think that's part of what made San Francisco. Those were basically a lot of cultural issues, right? We're going to take George Washington's name off a school. Most Americans think that's crazy. Which isn't to say George Washington, who is a slave holder, didn't do some pretty terrible things, but to take his name off the school as the founder of the country is sort of applying the standards of one era to another. And most Americans say no thanks. 

Sarah [00:41:15] Well, especially in the broader context of schools still closed during COVID. 

David Leonhardt [00:41:18] Exactly. 

Beth [00:41:21] So to disclose my bias, I was a Republican when we started this podcast. I am no longer a Republican, but I am not comfortable anywhere. I probably am completely out of step with the majority of Americans. If Lisa Murkowski and Abigail Spanberger started a party, that's where I would be with like 20 other people. But what I wonder about, as I read this critique of Democrats going into the midterms, is whether it is not about one issue or another but about prioritization and volume. Because I do think San Francisco would look different if they had gotten kids back in school and then gotten to the naming. 

[00:42:00] And I think that the public's feeling about build back better might be different if we hadn't done COVID relief and infrastructure and build back better contains everything. It kind of is the conversation we were having about assuming that people are smart and also that they have no background knowledge. I feel like being a good Democrat requires an awful lot of background knowledge about everything right now. And that that that just -- I know I'm not saying anything groundbreaking by saying messaging seems to be the issue. But I don't know if we are -- I just feel like it's a matter of focus at a time when people's resources are really depleted. 

David Leonhardt [00:42:40] I mean, even if it's not, almost none of us say groundbreaking things, right? Even if you are not saying something groundbreaking, I think you're saying something profound, which is, of course, voters don't sit down and look at different white papers on tax plan or portion policy. 

Sarah [00:42:53] Behavioral politics. 

David Leonhardt [00:42:54] Behavioral politics. Exactly. What they do is, they form an overall impression of the party. And I think the overall impression that many voters have formed of the Democratic Party is, that's a party for college professors. And if I'm being honest, that's a party for journalists and that's a party for, you know, the Hollywood people. That's a party for basically professionals. It's a party that kind of worries about a lot of cultural symbolism that doesn't always feel that connected to my day- to-day bread and butter concerns. And that's not the only issue. I mean, I think it's really important to say that race and racism also play a role in politics. But I think the Democratic Party has sometimes made a mistake of casting everyone who votes or large numbers of people who vote against it as racists. And what I would say is, yes, there is racism in America. There are people who are incorrigible racists in America. You know what, they're probably not swing voters for the Democratic Party anyway. 

[00:43:54] There are a lot of people who are open minded, people who have complex views on lots of issues, including race, and who sort of see in the Democratic Party they're not really focused on the things that I'm focused on. And that is why, even though on a lot of economic issues if you go down the list, the Democratic Party positions are substantially closer to a majority of Americans in the Republican Party positions. Democrats have struggled to win a lot of these voters over, and what has been particularly interesting and worrisome for the Democratic Party is that in 2020, this phenomenon very clearly spread beyond white voters to include Latino voters, to include in California, at least, and probably other places, Asian-American voters. And while there isn't signs of any meaningful number of African-American voters voting for Republican, African-American turnout in 2020 did not rise as much as turnout of other groups did. 

[00:44:54] And so, the notion that this is just all about race it just can't be true. I didn't think it could be true in 2016, which Donald Trump says lots of racist things. By all evidence Donald Trump is racist. I'm very comfortable saying that. But that is quite different from saying that what drives his supporters is always that. I think it's much more complex. And I think exactly as you said, Beth, when people hear the message of the Democratic Party, the prominent parts of it, what they often hear is it doesn't sound like it's a party that's looking after my interests. That sounds like it's a party that's fighting over what to rename some school, even as the schools remain closed. 

Sarah [00:45:32] Yeah. I mean, I think it's that complexity. That's the thread through everything, right? I mean, we say this all the time on Pantsuit Politics. We are in this new experiment with a multicultural democracy. It's hard. It's hard what we're trying to do. 

David Leonhardt [00:45:45] It's hard. 

Sarah [00:45:45] It's hard to talk to the Democratic Coalition that holds everybody from people like Beth, who used to vote Republican their whole life to AOC. That's a big group of people that you're trying to talk to and speak to their motivations and speak to their complex concerns. I know you feel that at The Times you have a massive audience and you're trying to speak to, you know, everybody from someone who lives in rural America to a majority of probably people who live in more educated urban environments. I mean, when you did the polling on COVID, both of us represent sort of the the outliers of that poll. Like, right, been a Democrat since I was 18 years old, but I live in a red place. And I tell people like, it made me a COVID moderate because I knew people who took it too seriously but were still loving people who I wanted in my life. And I  I know people who did not take it seriously enough, but who were still loving, caring people that I wanted in my life. And I feel like that's unfortunately as we -- you know, I think you've written about this recently. As we we get bigger and more complex, we're also sorting in environments that do not allow us to take in that complexity. 

David Leonhardt [00:46:47] Yeah. I think what you just said about COVID and loving people in your life is really important. I've spent my whole life in a family that, you know, if there were an election, certainly my extended family includes more Democrats than Republicans, but it includes multiple Republicans. It always has. It includes a pretty big span of people on the left half of the political spectrum. And I think one of the things that's important is, you can have views about something but you can also just decide, you know what, I'm just going to do this to be a decent human being, right? I've been in settings recently where I didn't think wearing masks mattered at all. But I would have been the only person without a mask, so I put on a mask. It was fine, right? It's like, what's more important, making some statement about that thing or just kind of being a mensch?  

David Leonhardt [00:47:42]  Now, I don't think that means everyone should always wear masks. It doesn't default to that. You know, when the mask mandate in my community came off last time, and it's about to come off again, my attitude was basically, I'm not willing to be like the only person in the grocery store not wearing a mask. But once I saw three or four or five people walking around the store that day without a mask, I didn't think it was doing much of any good. I'm not going to wear a mask. And so I think just kind of thinking not only what are your views about COVID, but also how can you treat the people around you. How can you balance what you think is right and what works for you with what is comfortable and respectful of others? I think it's important to think about. And I hope this is clear, that doesn't mean we always default to absolutely the most restrictions because they have costs as well. 

Sarah [00:48:31] That's true for politics. That's true for foreign policy. The threat holds.  

Beth [00:48:37] Well, as we wrap up, David, I wanted to tell you that I was talking to my 11 year old this morning about what I was doing today, and I told her that we were talking to you. And she said, "The New York Times. Mom, like, that's the most important paper in the world." And I said, "It is, and I'm glad that you know that." But I was thinking about the fact that at 11, that's already her impression of The Times and the resources that you have there. And knowing that you work at like the most important paper in the world and can see so much, I wonder what is the most positive trend that you're aware of?  We are all sitting in a lot of anxiety about Ukraine, about COVID, about midterms. What are you really encouraged about? 

Sarah [00:49:18] No pressure. 

David Leonhardt [00:49:19] First of all, please thank your 11 year old. That's a very kind description. And we at The Times do not take it for granted. I think one of the reasons we're able to write about things that are not just interesting to our readers, but important -- I mean, not one of the reason is because of our subscribers. So for all your listeners who are subscribers, thank you. 

Sarah [00:49:37] I'm glad you got Wordle, for the record. Just so you know.

David Leonhardt [00:49:40] Thank you. 

Beth [00:49:41] I don't think it's harder at all. I'm sorry. 

Sarah [00:49:43] I think it's harder and I'm happy it's there. Just let the record show. 

David Leonhardt [00:49:47] I'm well aware that there are people complaining about it on social media. I also know how many people are playing Wordle and I am not worried. I am not worried about how most people feel about Wordle at this time. 

Sarah [00:50:00] Wordle can't be the positive trend, by the way.  

David Leonhardt [00:50:03] No, no, it's not. I mean, and I promise this is what I'm doing, the positive trend in media is people's willingness to pay for information that they trust. Unfortunately, that is not helping local journalism. But I'm going to go bigger than the media on this. And if you want, I'm happy to come back. We could talk more focused on the media. I think the most -- and like everything it, it has some aspects of it that can be tricky. And I'm not suggesting we just kind of all go in one direction with this stuff. But I think the most positive development to focus on is how much more respectful we have gotten of difference in our lifetimes in a short span of time. When I think about what it is like to grow up as a gay kid in 2022, to be clear, much harder than being a straight kid. Or what it's like to grow up as a kid with disabilities, physical or learning disabilities, or when I think about what it's like to grow up as a kid who's different from your community in some number of other ways religion or race, I do not at all want to suggest that any of those things are easy. 

[00:51:23] I am Jewish. There are signs, if you look out, of rising anti-Semitism. There are obviously signs and certain pockets of rising racism. But when you kind of look at the sweep of the last 20 or 30 years and think about what is it like to be a gay 14 year old today versus a gay 14 year old in 1987, which is when I was 14, I'm straight, not gay, but that's my point of reference. When you think about what is it like to be a kid with disabilities, how that kid is treated in schools, what is it like to be a kid who is different? What is our attitude toward bullying? And a whole bunch of basic things about what it is like to be different, particularly for children in society, I really view that as I don't take it for granted. Could it reverse? Certainly. Are there ways in which it's still really, absolutely unacceptable, of course. But in terms of the direction, I think it's really a positive. It's really a positive trend. 

[00:52:22] And it reminds me a little bit when former President Obama and I'm not remembering exactly what podcast it was, it was on a podcast, and he said, "Look, when I meet people who say that racism is worse than it was 40 or 50 years ago, I say you obviously did not grow up as a black person in the South 40 or 50 years ago". And there is a larger lesson there, and it's not to take any of this progress for granted, but it's also in the midst of this incredibly difficult time, as you just alluded to, Beth. Just remember that progress is possible and it requires really hard work and often political struggle and often more defeats than victories. But in the end, it's the victories that matter more than defeats. And so I would encourage people at this really difficult moment for the country in all kinds of ways, use that as sort of a reason to not get too down and not be nihilist about this. And recognize that nothing is guaranteed or foreordained, but that progress that improves people's lives in a meaningful way really is possible. And we've seen it in our lifetimes. 

Sarah [00:53:31] I love that answer because I think it illustrates exactly what I love about your writing. Which is  we can operate in this atmosphere of there a perfect place we should be and we are not there. Instead of saying this is where we were, this is where we are, that's better than where we were and this is where we want to be, like, to illustrate that perspective in that progress. And I just thank you so much. Thank you so much for coming on our show. Thank you for your writing on The Morning. I read it every morning, every single morning. 

David Leonhardt [00:53:58] Well, thank you. And thank you both for what you do. I think this kind of discussion where you're kind of exploring difference and talking about things in ways that are both high level and really intelligent, but also accessible to people, is just so important to our civic dialog. So, thank you. Hope we can do this again? 

Sarah [00:54:14] Yes, definitely. Thank you.

Beth [00:54:15] Thank you so much. Sarah, you suggested that we talk about what saving our lives outside of politics, and I was trying to come up with something that's like universally applicable or a recommendation that we can link in the show notes and people can click and they can have it in their lives be saved too. And I realized that the only honest answer that I have right now is that my husband, Chad, is saving my life. 

Sarah [00:54:46] That's a nice one. 

Beth [00:54:48] He really is. We have been married, it'll be 15 years in May. Together for 17 years. And I hate to use the word settled, but we have settled into such a lovely place in our relationship. There is an ease about it. We have learned how to maintain a sense of humor. We have learned how to argue. I was texting with our friend Dante the other day about this because he's celebrating an anniversary too. And I said, you know, we have learned how to suffer together. We have learned at this point how to get through things. And it not only helps me get through whatever else is happening. The fact that, you know, we have another four day school week and we're all exhausted with everybody being at home. 

[00:55:35] We're fighting about screen time or a relative is in the hospital, just all the things that happen. It not only helps me weather that stuff, but it removes what could be a source of real tension and what for many people is a source of real tension at home all the time. I'm just not worried about this home base that I have. And it's just such a lucky thing that I don't say out loud enough. I think part of that, like, wine mom culture that we're often critical of has an element of we expect to complain about our spouses all the time or our partners. And I really want to kind of say out loud, that is not my situation and I am enormously grateful for that. And I can't even put into words how much it buoy the rest of my life. 

Sarah [00:56:22] I mean, I was going to say white T-shirts, so that feels like a real weird thing. 

Beth [00:56:28] You can. People want to click and buy a thing that makes their lives better too. 

Sarah [00:56:33] I did and should have earlier learned about this white T-shirt situation from my husband. So I don't know if Chad does this, but like Nicholas just has like a drawer full of like white Hanes undershirts that he wears under everything. Always.

Beth [00:56:47] Chad's black, but okay. 

Sarah [00:56:47] Okay, right?  I went on this long journey with my friend Leslie to find like a really cute like white V-neck T-shirt. And I found many that I very much love, but I don't want to wear them under something, you know what I mean? Like, they're to be on display by themselves. Some of them I paid too much money for me to be wearing them by themselves. You know what I'm saying? 

Beth [00:57:10] Yes. 

Sarah [00:57:11] But if you you depend on like a regular T-shirt, often there's like a print in the way. You know what I mean? I don't own a lot of just like regular white T-shirts, even with print on them. I owe enormous amount of gray ones, but not a lot of white ones. But like in the winter, in particularly, I want something between me and the sweater. You know what I mean? 

Beth [00:57:32] Yes. And you don't want to wash the sweater off and like it gives you that protective layer for the outer shell. I get you. 

Sarah [00:57:39] Yes. And I was like, "Why have I not just replicated this clearly workable system my husband has been using for the entire, like, 20 years I've known him?" And so in all the white T-shirt research, Vera Wang is very into like the boys Hanks T-shirts. So I got on Amazon and I bought a pack of like 10. And it's amazing. I love it so much. I love it that I'm like every time I'm like, "Okay, here's my shirt." I put the shirt underneath it, it's like a protective inner shell. Like you said, you don't worry about your bra showing. Like, I'm just I don't know why it took me so long. Why did it take me 40 years old to just rip off what he was doing? 

Beth [00:58:21] Well, you know what, it makes total sense to me that you ended up buying T-shirts that are sold for men. Because I feel like even normal women's T-shirts, there is some pull to make them stylish in a way that makes them not workable and undershirt. 

Sarah [00:58:39] Yes. Yes, because they're like two fitted and they don't -- 

Beth [00:58:43] The neckline has been messed with.  The seams are weird. Something has been constructed for it to not be an undershirt. 

Sarah [00:58:50] Right, exactly. So this is what's there in my life right now. Again,  white T-shirts, we can call it my husband's wisdom. Oh, he'll love that. Especially since I called him out for fighting with me in the previous segment. I was totally right in that fight. I just want to put that out there. So, yeah, that's it. That's what saving my life. I love it. I don't know why it took me so long. 

Beth [00:59:10] Well, we'd love to hear what's saving your life right now. We'll try to make some space for you to share that with us explicitly, probably on Instagram later this week. We hope everybody has the best week available to you. We'll see you back here Friday. 

[00:59:30] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director. 

Sarah [00:59:35] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth [00:59:41] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Executive Producers (Read their own names) [00:59:46] Martha Bronitsky, Ali Edwards, Janice Elliot, Sarah Greenup, Julie Heller, Helen Handley, Tiffany Hassler, Emily Holaday, Katie Johnson, Katrina Zugenalis Kasling, Barry Kaufman, Molly Kohrs. 

[01:00:03] The Kriebs, Laurie LaDow, Lilly McClure, Jared Minson, Emily Neesley, The Pentons, Tawni Peterson, Tracy Puthoff, Sara Ralph, Jeremy Sequoia, Katy Stigers, Karin True, Onica Ulveling, Nick and Alysa Vilelli, Katherine Vollmer, Amy Whited. 

Beth [01:00:20] Jeff Davis, Melinda Johnston, Ashley Thompson, Michelle Wood, Joshua Allen, Morgan McHugh, Nichole Berklas, Paula Bremmer and Tim Miller.