Layoffs, Trump's Facebook, and Global Humanitarian Hotspots

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Classified Documents

  • Tech Layoffs

  • President Trump Returns to Facebook

  • Humanitarian Emergency Watchlist

  • Outside of Politics: Future Problem Solving

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, 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

UPCOMING EVENTS:

CONTENT RESOURCES:

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS

TECH LAYOFFS

TRUMP RETURNS TO FACEBOOK

HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCY WATCHLIST

OUTSIDE POLITICS: FUTURE PROBLEM SOLVING

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:08] And this is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics.  

Thank you for joining us here at Pantsuit Politics, where we take a different approach to the news. If you've been with us for a while, you know that we really prioritize a continued conversation about the conflict in Ukraine. We even named it as one of our biggest news stories in 2022, and believe that it will likely be an event that has the longest lasting impact on global politics. So we're working on an episode in February marking the one year since the initial invasion. Today, however, we wanted to take a step back and look at some other conflicts happening around the world. These are stories that also have immense value, but in a lot of ways they don't get the attention that they might have otherwise because of the war in Ukraine. These are stories and conflicts that have been exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. So we wanted to spend some time on those. Before we get to that, we're going to talk about several news stories that have preoccupied our screens and minds throughout the week. And we're going to end the show, as we always do, talking about what's on our mind Outside Politics. And this week, it's future problem solving.  

Beth [00:01:27] If you're new here, we make two podcasts that are for our premium community. One is Good Morning, where Sarah talks about the important headlines of the day. And one is a 10 to 15 minute podcast called More to Say, where I really dig into stories that might not be getting a ton of media attention but are very important. As we get into this conversation about conflicts around the world, we are going to discuss a bunch of countries and a bunch of complicated, seemingly intractable conflicts in those countries. None of that is going to sound new to our premium community because we are able in that daily space to cover things going on internationally pretty consistently and with a level of depth that we feel really proud of. So we would love for you to join us in that premium space. It is also where currently we're working through the January six report book club style. And I just have to say that I think it is surprisingly fun and entertaining as our premium spaces tend to be. It's also where you can get access to our quarterly live events, our Discord channel, early access to tickets for live shows. There's just a lot going on. So there are two ways that you can get in that premium space with us, and we would love for you to join us either through Patreon or Apple Podcasts subscriptions. The same content is in both places; although, Patreon has more community engagement options, including discussion threads for our episodes. The link to both of those are in our shownotes and we would very much love for you to join the wonderful group of people there exploring these issues together every single day.  

Sarah [00:02:57] Next up, we're going to talk about the economy and layoffs. We're going to talk about classified documents again, and we're going to talk about Trump's reinstatement on Twitter and Facebook. Beth, we ended this week with good economic news. The GDP, (the gross domestic product) a key economic indicator rose by 2.9%, slightly better than expected. We had Tesla reporting $3.7 billion in profit for Q4. Microsoft earned 52.7 billion in revenue for Q2. Just made a huge investment in ChatBot and yet, and yet, I feel like the news this week has been dominated by tech industry layoffs, Spotify, Microsoft. Everybody but Apple's out there laying people off.  

Beth [00:03:52] I feel kind of affirmed by the economic news and the brief conversation that we had about tech industry layoffs before, that I don't think this was ever about recession really as much as about a shift in where the industry is. These companies are maturing. You need a different team for a mature organization than a startup mode. You need a different team to maintain versus to develop and grow. This just isn't surprising to me at all. And once someone starts-- and I particularly think once Twitter became this bonfire, it created permission for other companies to follow suit. I think what's going on in media companies is a little different than what's happening in some of the tech companies, but this just didn't surprise me at all.  

Sarah [00:04:37] Well, listen, so many of these tech companies are, if not media driven, advertising driven. And they are seeing a recession because there was an explosion in media, in tech, money, investment, selling, staffing, all of that during the pandemic because we were all at home on our pelotons streaming stuff while we worked from computers. Not all of us, but you know what I mean. There was a huge explosion in that, so they poured all this money into it. And I think what was happening, honestly, is this hoarding of staff and expertise. I think they knew everybody was in demand and so even if they felt like this doesn't really support our bottom line and we're probably a little overextended, who cares? It's a spending spree right now and we don't want to lose people. And so once that shifted where they are in sort of a recessionary stance, particularly these industries, well then once the layoffs started you know there's enough talent out there. And I read a really positive spin on this that now other sectors, government, energy that couldn't compete for this talent during the spending spree of the early pandemic now can staff up, now can get some of these people. Because it's crazy, you see all these layoffs but the unemployment rate in places like San Francisco is not high. These people are finding other jobs. And I just think that that is important to keep in mind, because I think the high level economic analysis is so bad. It's just everything's bad because Microsoft's laying off-- no, I don't I think so guys.  

Beth [00:06:13] Well, you can test this against your own personal experiences. There have been a number of years in my adult life when I made less money than the previous year, and that doesn't feel good. No one likes to make less money this year than they made last year. And also I still made enough money and we were fine. And that's why I think the economic news is so difficult. You say recession. It sounds horrible, but if it means we were in this boom place and now we're not anymore, but people still basically have enough, these businesses can still thrive, people can still find employment, most people's quality of living has not decreased, that doesn't sound like the connotation of recession. We just need some more words, I think, to describe what's happening.  

Sarah [00:06:56] Agreed. And speaking of places where I feel like our analysis was a little prescient, both you and I, independently of each other on the News Brief and More to Say this week we're like, "Everybody go check for classified documents." Just everybody. Dianne Feinstein, barack Obama, everybody just go out there check your garages, call the DOJ if you need a little bit of backup because we had this breaking news about this 13 hour invited search of President Biden's home in Wilmington. They found more classified documents. And then we had breaking news that former Vice President Pence had also found documents at his home in Indiana. And so now we're not being flip and joking. Everybody, Jimmy Carter on, go check. Go through all your stuff. We want you to check because this is exhausting.  

Beth [00:07:44] You know how sometimes local governments will have like amnesty days? They'll be like, if you'll just come pay your fine or you can pay like a 10th of your fine today, we're just going to close it out. We want to move on. I just think we need that moment with the classified documents.  

Sarah [00:08:00] Well, and I think there are so many layers of this; one, stop writing this complicates the case against Donald Trump. It doesn't. The problem with Donald Trump is not that he is classified documents, the problem is that he wouldn't give them back. Let's keep our eye on the prize there. I really hate that analysis. I think it's done. And, two, I'm willing to have a conversation about overclassification. Is this an issue of overclassification? Is this an issue of these are documents that should not be out there and we don't have a good system when people close out their terms? I'm happy to talk about all of that, but I would very much like the compartmentalization of what's happening with Trump because it is so different than what's happening with everybody else.  

Beth [00:08:39] I think it is a reminder too when we elect people, we are electing them to be executives. They are running offices, they are building staffs, they are managing a huge amount of information. So it's not just about policy, it is about this set of skills. Can I operationalize an office through which very sensitive information is going to be running? I hate it when I read a story where someone suggests that this is a staff problem, that staff shouldn't have allowed this to happen. Okay, probably, but the principal is responsible for the staff, and the principal sets the tone for what is a priority. And the protection of information has to be a priority here in the year of our Lord 2023. This is really important. So I don't joke about it to be flippant, like you said, of the topic of how some of this information is extremely sensitive and secure and doesn't belong in anybody's garage. It is to say let's tighten this up everywhere, because it does seem to be a widespread problem and then let's have some attention to procedures and some more training. And whatever we can do to get this under control would be great.  

Sarah [00:09:50] I just can't decide if, as we often talk about, is this the real story that's going to define our political moment? Or 10 years from now are we going to look back and we're like, "Remember when we were obsessed with classified documents?" I can't decide this. Is this a real problem? And I probably do not have the capacity or experience. I never worked in national security to decide this. But there is a part of me that thinks, is this just the normal functioning and because of the bad behavior of former President Trump, it's coming to light in a way that is not helpful or informative of anything? Or is this an issue that 10 years from now we'll look back and say, well, this was the manifestation of a problem that had been going on for a long time, and this is when we finally paid attention and controlled it. And I don't know which one it is.  

Beth [00:10:37] I don't know either. A question that I am experiencing as I read these stories, is how does this read to our allies in Europe? How does this read to Vladimir Putin? How does this read in China? We aren't just getting this news here at home and wondering what the political impact of it will be. And I don't know. I don't have the expertise to answer that question either. I just know as an American citizen, I don't think it looks great and I don't love it. And I would like us to figure this out.  

Sarah [00:11:07] Beth, do you want to keep talking about Donald Trump?  

Beth [00:11:10] Well, you know it is my favorite topic.  

Sarah [00:11:13] Because Twitter and Facebook are giving us no other choice. So Trump has been reinstated on Twitter for a while now, Elon Musk made that call. But he's not tweeting, he's staying on Truth Social for now. This week we learned that Facebook is going to end his suspension. He seems a little more likely to come back to Facebook purely for the advertising potential. There was a great quote in Axios that said "Twitter was his megaphone, but Facebook was his cash register." And so it looks like we're going to have Trump back on some of the main social media platforms in the foreseeable future.  

Beth [00:11:51] The only thing that I think is really interesting about these stories is that when you have built your entire brand empire persona on being the best, the smartest, having people who are the most loyal to you, every new decision point spells trouble for you. Even being invited back onto these platforms is not vindicating for him, it is another place where he has a lot to lose. Because if he accepts these invitations, he's basically saying that Truth Social is not worth what he has said it's worth, that he needs these companies. He doesn't like to need anybody and doesn't seem like he needs them. And the stories are written as though he's having discussions with these companies that feel like being called to the principal's office. We're going to give you another chance, but these are the conditions. And that's bad for him. And I just think it shows that he is at this point in his life so backed himself into a corner that there can't be purely good news for him.  

Sarah [00:13:06] I agree with all of that. And also I just think about the people who are going to be inundated again with Trump advertisement, especially coming off that chapter of the January six report. I can get consumed with what this means for him, but I have to be honest with myself that I know there are people who are susceptible to repeated messages from him about Democrats and how bad things are and American carnage and firing up that very powerful advertising mechanism, particularly on Facebook, just makes me sad. They're going to get sucked in again. And I feel like his influence is fading because those messages aren't that steady drip all the time. It's not like people aren't on Truth Social, it's not like people don't get emails from him. But there's a big story in The New York Times about how the RNC is like, "No, thank you, please". In 2020 for Trump, I think a lot of people are, no, thank you, please. But I can't tell myself what I've told myself in the past, which is this stuff doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter. Because it is a powerful tool and it does impact people as much as I wish it didn't.  

Beth [00:14:10] And that doesn't mean that I even disagree with the decision. I understand it's complicated that we need to hear things to be able to assess them. That blocking him off forever was never an option. It maybe was never even the best option. I was thinking this morning about how pleasant it is that I don't know anyone in my real life who was actually upset about the M&Ms. I don't. I don't know a real human being who has any kind of feeling about the M&Ms. And if he were the president tweeting about it, I would know people with real passion about the M&Ms. I have enjoyed this break that we've gotten. So I don't know what he will choose to do or what the impact of it will be, but I think you're right that whether I ever agreed with these decisions, they have been very consequential to ban him.  

Sarah [00:14:58] Yeah. Speaking of consequential decisions, we are approaching one year since the invasion of Ukraine. And we realized that the conflict can absorb a lot of space and time in our national discourse. This week there were predominant headlines about tanks and the fact that Germany and the United States are now going to be sending tanks to Ukraine. But we wanted to take some time and talk about other hot spots around the globe and why we should also pay attention to those. We want to begin by saying most of our research for this episode was informed by the International Rescue Committee's 2023 emergency watch list. This report describes countries at greatest risk of a new humanitarian crisis. They put it together each year and it's IRC's way to prioritize its resources and energy, but it is also just an excellent analysis of conflicts around the world and how they are so often connected. Now, Beth, before we get started, I did want to level set just a little bit and give us some perspective. Now, the 20 countries on this watch list represent about 13% of the global population. And I wanted to emphasize that not because I think it's a small number that doesn't matter. Thirteen percent of the global population is millions and millions of people. And also I think it can be tempting when we start flowing through this list and we start talking about Syria and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Venezuela and Chad and all these countries to think the world is on fire. And there are parts of the globe that are experiencing enormous human suffering. And also there is 80 plus percent of the global population that is not living in this type of crisis. And I just think it's important to remember that, to not get in this space where we feel like the crisis is everywhere because I think that decreases our impetus to act. I think it's inaccurate, and I think that perspective is just really important to keep so that we don't devolve into despair and which ultimately deemphasizes the fact that these people are suffering and that these crises are important.  

Beth [00:17:20] It's almost a way of just orienting to the effect of our connectedness. I read this article this morning that's unrelated, but I can't stop thinking about it. It was from The Military Times, and it was about the importance of recruiting women into the United States Armed Forces. And people who study women in the armed forces are finding that once you get to a group within the forces that has about 10% women in it, then you start to see a culture shift-- a positive culture shift. And I was thinking about that, that one woman in a group of 10 can create a culture shift in that unit. And so here, if we're thinking about 13% of the world's population, it absolutely affects the entire world to have these conflicts happening. And that is our source of care and our call to action. It's not just over there, it doesn't affect me. And at the same time, keeping that percentage in perspective helps you focus on the resources that are available that we're reaching out to that one person instead of to the nine, right?  

Sarah [00:18:32] Right. The interconnectedness is a good way to start. The IRC's report really emphasizes three factors that come to play in these countries over and over and over again. Armed conflict, climate change, and economic turmoil. And we are talking about this sort of in relationship to Ukraine. But first of all, Ukraine is on this list and Ukraine comes up over and over again when we talk about other countries, particularly African countries, because if you're going to talk about economic turmoil, then of course you're going to talk about the food crisis that was set off by the fact that so much of the world receives grain from Ukraine. And so even as you get into this armed conflict that we're going to talk about first, you're going to see this interconnectedness. Well, this armed conflict came because this regional partner was set off by this refugee crisis, by this conflict and this, and so it's a cycle. This brutal cycle where individuals are caught in the crosshairs of this exposed risk and the institutions that they're depending on to help them through this exposed risk are getting weakened by these same factors.  

Beth [00:19:47] The most common form of armed conflict, as described by The Report, is intrastate conflict. International players get involved and these types of conflicts are lengthened and they become deadlier, but they begin as conflict among peoples sharing a state.  

Sarah [00:20:04] So we see this play out in Ethiopia and we see that interconnected of the different kinds of conflict. So Ethiopia is experiencing an historic drought driven by climate change and also had this huge conflict that you and I both talked about on More to Say and the News Brief between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray Liberation Front. So there was a peace deal struck in November and we have seen peace deals come and go in some of these other conflicts that we'll talk about. And so that's really promising, but because there's all these other complicating factors, it's not as simple like we struck a peace deal we're done because these intrastate conflicts are really complicated. And when international players come in even to strike a peace deal, it's not always the most sustainable or stable solution.  

Beth [00:20:52] Especially because you are dealing with armed conflict, plus climate, plus economic turmoil. So even states with very good intentions in trying to broker these peace agreements might not always understand all the factors that motivate the actors in these conflicts. I think a lot about this More to Say episode I did-- it's probably been a year ago now-- about the Nile River and about projections that climate change could make the Nile River not the source of life and water that it has been for so long and that you could see armed conflict arise because of that. I just think when you have all of these things happening at one time, the stakes become less clear to everyone. And so building a sustainable cease fire, it's just much harder. And those international actors are also bringing their own motivations to the table. And so how you build something in a situation like Tigray that lasts, I don't know.  

Sarah [00:21:57] Well, and I think the best analysis from this report is they talk about the international system treats these crises as though they're short term and they're all an exception, when we're just seeing the same things play out over and over again. The Democratic Republic of Congo is on this list. One of the big factors is they have a protracted regional conflict, these intrastate conflicts which began because there was a massive displacement from the genocide in Rwanda. The Hutus fled, they formed armed groups. And then the government, the local government in the Democratic Republic of Congo, was weakened by this conflict. They couldn't control the groups. And the international community is trying to bring a solution to Rwanda and was ultimately semi-successful. But it's like we brought a solution as if this conflict in Rwanda would not ripple out. Like we just want to say, like, "These two players had a conflict, we fixed it. Moving on." And you see that still playing out in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And that is a material-rich country. It's like that's not the issue. And so I just think that that is the additional complexity and the difficulty, because we have sort of dated ways to think about these conflicts that ignore the international repercussions both from the problem itself and from the solution.  

Beth [00:23:27] The Reporter describes the ways in which climate change is accelerating these conflicts. And it's important to remember that the countries on this list are not the primary emitters of carbon in the world. And often they are facing the results of those emissions without access to the financing they need to deal with those results. And that's what's happened in Somalia.  

Sarah [00:23:53] Yeah. Somalia, again very similar situation to Ethiopia, experiencing dramatic drought worse in 40 years. It has been exacerbated by the conflict between the government and Al-Shabab, which blocks access to aid, attacks convoys that are bringing relief. You have that intrastate conflict and climate change that creates the economic turmoil. And it's just this cycle. It's this really, really brutal cycle where people get caught up, mostly women and children. It's like the percentages in all these countries of the people displaced that are women and children is massive. So it's not just the populations that are affected by climate change, but it's like the displacement from climate change even further singles out the most at risk parts of those population.  

Beth [00:24:44] And Somalia is a place where if you follow any kind of national security reporting, you see that there is American military activity taking place around these issues between the government and Al-Shabab all the time. And how we have any clarity about those missions, I don't know. I hope that we do, and it's just not apparent to me. But the complexity of what's happening there, it is hard for me to imagine that if we were just writing on a blank slate, we would say, "Yes, let's definitely get involved."  

Sarah [00:25:15] That's interesting that you say that. I've been in a place where I've really been thinking about our involvement in foreign conflicts. One, because I think our involvement in Ukraine has gone about as well as can be expected, as evidenced by the fact that we are becoming more aggressive in our involvement in Ukraine. I was reading an analysis this morning of the tank situation and they're, like, this is a big deal because tanks are not defensive, takes are offensive. And I thought that was a really interesting way to think about it. And also because they were reporting that this was a difficult call for Germany because Germany has so little military spending for lots of reasons, most of them being World War One and World War two. But I thought-- oh, man, I hate to think about it like this, but there was some truth to Donald Trump's critique that there was so little military spending around the world. And I think sometimes the analysis in my own head when I'm looking at these conflicts and I'm looking at governments is, why don't they just do what we would do? Why don't they just shut it down. Why don't they use the force of their military? And I just think it's a reminder that we are the world's police or have acted as the world's police for so long because we're the only ones that can do that. We're the only ones that have that level of military might. Look at Russia in this conflict with Ukraine. We made a lot of assumptions about their military might that did not turn out to be true. And I think we get tied up in knots in this country about military spending. But you look at these conflicts and you look at the way that there is intrastate conflict that the government cannot get under control over and over and over again. They do not have the military resources to contain this real danger to their own citizens. And you realize we are unique and our military spending is not just important to the United States, it's important to the entire globe. And you see a place like Somalia or Ethiopia or Haiti, which is also on this list, where there is just no government. It has been weakened to the point of irrelevancy.  

Beth [00:27:25] And it's just hard to know when our involvement is a net positive for us and for the people most directly affected by it. That's what I think is so complex about these converging factors of climate, armed conflicts, and economic turmoil. Figuring out what creates a net positive for all of the constituencies affected is impossible.  

Sarah [00:27:47] Well, and I think that's this report's most consistent and most impactful critique, is that we continue to think about them as if there aren't these sprawling constituencies. We don't just talk about them as short, but we talk about them as really being state driven. Even the list is organized by state, right? But some of these are states in name only. Haiti doesn't have a functioning government right now. Lebanon doesn't have a functioning government right now. Syria has this protracted civil war that has decimated their health care system to the point where they barely have one. And so it's just like what are we even talking about? And I think especially when you talk about economic turmoil, we've talked about this before on some economic shows. You have central banks legally charged with protecting their nation's economic interests inside a global financial system. Ya'll, we've lost the plot a little bit. How is that supposed to work? And that's what happens, is economic turmoil ripples out because you have rich countries raising interest rates to protect the inflationary pressures inside their own borders but that doesn't stay within their own borders. What our central bank in particular does ripples. And so it weakens currencies. It pushes inflation rates in countries that are barely holding on even higher. And then you have a natural disaster by climate change. You have a conflict that's already going on and it just compounds and compounds and compounds.  

Beth [00:29:19] And you have most developing nations necessarily financing all of the work they try to do through the government via debt to other nations. And so as central banks are driving that interest rate up, it makes that financing even more elusive for the countries that need it most.  

Sarah [00:29:39] And we're talking about central banks, we're not even talking about things like sanctions. I mean, that's what happened in Afghanistan. We rolled in with sanctions and it just decimated something that was teetering on an edge already; 97% of the population is at risk for poverty in Afghanistan; 91% of the household money is spent on food. So these sanctions-- and I think we dialed them back. But then you look at a sanctions situation like Russia, where it had enormous impact and things that we couldn't have predicted like Europe turning from this enormous source of natural gas has played out in ways that are really beneficial that I think are a net positive. But when you look at a place like Lebanon or Syria or Iran and you have populations struggling under massive economic instability or just complete decimation and they're rising up and they're trying to do what, to overthrow an authoritarian dictatorship? It's so difficult to watch this web being woven and the people getting caught up in it and thinking how do we get out of this?  

Beth [00:30:51] That's illustrated through the tank conversation as well, because a lot of the commentary about the tanks today is like, finally, we've waited too long to send the tanks. And I keep thinking too long by what metric? I guess if you're talking strictly militarily, I understand that Ukraine needed these tanks yesterday to do what it's trying to do on the battlefield. But you cannot just isolate that variable. And certainly we've seen that in Afghanistan. We isolated a variable in order to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, and we have seen the effects of that and there are many. And, again, I don't know if until maybe 15, 20 years out we'll be able to say whether our withdrawal was a net positive or negative. In the short term, it looks pretty bad depending on whose perspective you're centering, because a lot of American families are awfully happy to have people at home. I think one important component of looking at these situations across the world, as painful as it is and as powerless as we can feel when we do it, is sort of training ourselves to think through all of these varying constituencies and all of the pieces that go into cause and effect as you think through what a responsive policy choice looks like.  

Sarah [00:32:14] Because here's the thing. I mean, again, the best part of this analysis is the IRC I think saying the risk are global, but the resilience has to be national. And that is disjointed and not working because when the response and the resilience is built on a global response, you see positive outcomes. We do broker peace deals. International parties come in and broker peace deals. They brokered one in Yemen. It has been allowed to expire, but when it was in place fatalities reduced dramatically. We went in to Afghanistan. I remember the rioting at the end of last year that we are going to have a massive crisis in Afghanistan. But we went in, the global community, with massive aid and massive nonprofit assistance and really prevented a famine for like 20 million Afghans. So I don't want to end this conversation saying this is ridiculously complicated and throwing our hands up, because when the global community responds and the resilience is focused on a global solution and sort of a national solution, but this idea that these nation states that are barely functioning at all have to be the source of the solution, that cannot be. That cannot be. Humanitarian crisis is to me are when the global community turns away because there's no real reality in which we globally do not have the solutions to at least humanitarian crises. We might not have the solutions to constitutional breakdowns or presidential gridlock or any of that, but humanitarian crisis where people are suffering because they don't have enough food, because they are in harm's way from armed conflict, we do have the resources for that.  

Beth [00:34:00] And I think that's important to talk about at a time when the term globalist is thrown out as a slur and as an accusation that your interests are not aligned with principled values or with patriotic ones. So what does it mean to care about cholera outbreaks and famine and refugees and armed conflicts where truly defenseless people are being slaughtered by authoritarian governments? How can you say the only response that will work is an international response and still be a patriotic American? And I think those two things are not at all inconsistent with each other. And that, again, is where I value the response that we've had to Ukraine. It does feel like a balancing of American interests with the power of the globe to step in in a situation that is truly a humanitarian crisis, that ripples out of Ukraine in so many respects, democratic, economic and otherwise.  

Sarah [00:35:10] Well, and look, it's hard because you look at this list and Ukraine is such an outlier. It's fueling so much of this, but it is different in so many ways. There's only one country on this list in South America, it's Venezuela. The majority of these countries are found in Western Asia and Northern Africa or Central Africa. And some of the same issues at play-- including the population, there's a race element here, obviously. And I think that complicates the conversation, but it need not end it. If Ukraine by exception illustrates so much of what we want to pay attention to or a different approach, this sort of different foreign policy approach, so be it. Because I think it is worth noting that as much space that Ukraine has occupied, Africa is coming to the table. There was an African summit with the White House. The Biden administration is really trying to prioritize this now. It's often reported in relationships to this internationalization of these conflicts which is, well, we have to step up so China and Russia don't. Which I really don't love that angle, even if it is true, this idea that patriotism and globalism are in some sort of inherent conflict when so much of American might was built on a global stage and to pretend otherwise is ahistorical. I'm ready for a new way to talk about all these. And I think that is why Ukraine is so magnetic as far as the narrative is because it does and continues to give us a new way to think through our response. Beth, I'm so glad that we picked future problem solving to talk about Outside of Politics. I know it is the Outside of Politics segment, but man, is it relevant to the analysis we just did in the previous segment. That could have been and should be-- they should put us in charge of some of these future situations they're giving these kids to analyze. Definitely could be one. Do you want to tell the people who don't know first before we launch into this conversation what feature problem solving is?  

Beth [00:37:23] Feature problem solving is an international competition that kids can participate in as soon as they're in fourth grade and continue to participate in all the way through high school. The international organization has a community feature problem solving program now that I'm interested to learn more about. I coached the elementary and middle school teams at my daughter's school because my husband is the big academic team coach for those teams, and future problem solving is one segment of what the academic team does. It is a two hour competition where a team of four students receive a future scene to work through. The first topic this year was digital reality, and the second topic is robotic workforces.  

Sarah [00:38:05] Those sound related.  

Beth [00:38:06] Those two sound related to me. I think the kids view that as related as well. I think the next topic is going to be on plastic.  

Sarah [00:38:15] Okay.  

Beth [00:38:16] So the future scene puts the students in the middle of a story. They have constituents, they have a timeline, and they have a situation that is fraught and they are asked to name 16 problems that they see connected to this situation. Choose one of those to focus on, then generate 16 potential solutions, and through an evaluation process determine which of those solutions would be the best action step forward. It teaches them to think in a really flexible way. It instills a lot of creative skills, but also project management skills. And it's just really fun. You and I both competed in future problem solving. I think it is the thing I did as a student that is more relevant to every job I've had than anything else.  

Sarah [00:39:05] Yes, I love future problem solving. Griffin is on the future problem solving team at the middle school. Again, back to our previous segment when I was reading the IRC and they were like, "This is the overarching issue here." I'm like, "You are speaking my language." I love that sort of high level macro analysis and I think I learned in future problem solving. Beth, don't worry, I got on the Internet and I looked up the Kentucky Governor's Cup State results for 1998 when we were competing against each other in future problem solving but did not know each other yet. Your high school, McLean County, was fourth. My high school, Heath, was fifth. Can you believe our results were so close?  

Beth [00:39:47] That's amazing! That's so fun.  

Sarah [00:39:51] Isn't it so fun that back in 1998, you and I-- I wish I could, for the life of me, remember what the future situation was at the 1998 State Governor's Cup future problem solving competition. First of all, obviously, we should have been first and second. We're just going to let that go. Whatever Bell County. But I love that we were so close in the results.  

Beth [00:40:09] I looked it up just now because I think this is so fun. It was nontraditional families.  

Sarah [00:40:15] Amazing.  

Beth [00:40:15] And the topic that got us to state was Women In The Workplace.  

Sarah [00:40:19] Stop. Stop it. I love this so much. I mean, truly, I really feel like so many of our episodes is just you and I working through the future problem solving process. What are the overarching problems we see here? What are some of the solutions we could work toward? What are some action steps we could take? I mean, this is basically an episode of Pantsuit Politics, is all I'm saying.  

Beth [00:40:43] I think the genius in the whole future problem solving process is the category list. Do you remember the category list?  

Sarah [00:40:49] Vaguely, yes.  

Beth [00:40:51] So the concept is you don't want 16 problems or solutions that are all about technology or all about financing, or all about education. So you use this category list and it impacts your flexibility score.  

Sarah [00:41:05] Love it.  

Beth [00:41:05] They want to see you talk about arts and aesthetics and ethics and religion and communication and transportation. And that to me has been one of the most fun things about making this podcast. I don't feel constrained in our conversations. I feel, in fact, welcome and encouraged to hit on those categories that seem unrelated. You know what I mean?  

Sarah [00:41:27] What does White Lotus have to do with the conversation?  

Beth [00:41:29] Exactly. Exactly. And I never even felt in the name constrained from bringing a topic in because I feel like we both have tried to teach ourselves to think through is there a fashion angle to this?  

Sarah [00:41:44] Right.  

Beth [00:41:45] Is there an H.R. angle to it? It's just been really fun to get to practice this as an adult the way that we did as students.  

Sarah [00:41:53] Yeah, I absolutely agree. The future situations, which we called fuzzy back in the day, which I think was a better name. Nobody asked me. The one I remember most vividly is homelessness. And I remember going through the idea that people didn't have a mailbox and they needed a way to apply to jobs and get responses. And the technology, I remember cashless society, which I pretty much live in now. And I remember climate change was one of the ones. Those were the ones I most vividly remember, and I think they were from my time as a middle school future problem solver, because I think that whatever you do in middle school is just cemented into your brain. And I just loved it. I love the idea that I could sit and think about these things. It makes me a little verklempt that somebody said, "Hey, sit and think about these really important problems in the world." It's really important that you just think about those.  

Beth [00:42:41] And also beautifully, sit and think about this with three other people, not by yourself. Sit and think about this with three other people in a team using a process. There's scaffolding. You don't have to create something new. Now, listen, I got a lot of criticism of the process. It was just not a perfect process. It is certainly not evaluated perfectly. But I love the idea that we can give you a framework and with other people, apply that framework to anything and generate something really positive and constructive from it.  

Sarah [00:43:16] I love that. Let's just make that our new tagline here at Pantsuit Politics and this ode to future problem solving.  

Beth [00:43:21] I love it.  

Sarah [00:43:22] We love that you guys engage in this process with us. Thank you for joining us for another episode. If you like today's conversation, don't forget these are the types of conversations we often have on our premium channels. And you can find out more about becoming a premium member through Patreon or Apple Podcasts subscriptions in our show notes. We will be back in your ears on Tuesday. And until then, keep it nuanced y'all.  

Beth [00:43:56] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.  

Sarah [00:44:01] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.  

Beth [00:44:07] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers [00:44:11] Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Helen Handley. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Molly Kohrs. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. Emily Neesley. Tawni Peterson. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Emily Helen Olsen. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh.  

Beth [00:44:50] Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller. 

Alise Napp3 Comments