The Gerontocracy at Home and Abroad

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • The End of Title 42 and What’s Next for Immigration

  • Policy and Gun Violence

  • The Coronation of King Charles III

  • Outside Politics: The Chicks in Concert

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the Pantsuit Politics world. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

THE END OF TITLE 42

POLICY AND GUN VIOLENCE

THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III AND THE GERONTOCRACY

THE CHICKS

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.  

Beth [00:00:25] Welcome to Pantsuit Politics, where we take a different approach to the news. Today, we're discussing the expiration of Title 42 and immigration and the deaths of eight people in a shooting in a Texas mall on Saturday. We are also going to talk about the coronation, but we're going to talk about it in the context of people in aging offices as they themselves are aging, and what that mix of experience and perspective and commitment to institutions looks like and means to us and what questions we're asking about it. And then Outside of Politics, we're going to tell you about seeing the Chicks in Las Vegas on Friday night.  

Sarah [00:01:03] First, though, we wanted to remind you that we are in the middle of our bi-annual premium drive. This is the time of year where we ask you to become one of our premium members through financial support. If you listen to this show, we have ads and that is part of the way that we support this show. But advertising is fickle. Global ad revenue is expected to drop even further this year, and we have experienced that drop in ad revenue here at Pantsuit Politics. That is why the dependability of your monthly support on our premium channels is essential. Without that stability, we could never have expanded our team and offered full time positions to Maggie and Alise. Every time Pantsuit Politics grows, it is because of our premium members. And so, we hope you will consider becoming one or increasing your support if you are already a member of this amazing community.  

Beth [00:01:52] Up next, we're going to talk about immigration and the expected increase in people attempting to enter the United States at the southern border. Sarah, over the past couple of years, we've talked a lot about Title 42. Just a quick review, that's a very old public health law that was used during the pandemic to quickly expel people seeking entry into the US. without having to consider whether they're eligible for asylum. And we've had conflicting court orders about Title 42. Some courts have said you must continue using Title 42, and some have said you were wrong to ever use Title 42 in the first place and you should stop immediately. So, it's been very controversial. It is expected to stop being used on Thursday as the COVID 19 emergency sunsets. And experts are saying we're going to see a huge number of people trying to come into the country, which we would see anyway because of the weather is getting warmer. That usually correlates with more people seeking entry. But this is happening against systems that are already strained and people do think it will be like an exponential increase in folks trying to flood into the country.  

Sarah [00:03:05] Yeah, the Biden administration is sending 1500 National Guard troops down to the border to try to deal with this influx of additional people. I read this morning, I think, that Krysten Sinema and Thom Tillis are working on bipartisan legislation to basically give the Biden administration another source of authority to basically do what Title 42 does. And all this is taking place amongst calls for help, not just at the border, but from other cities (New York City, Chicago) there's an influx of people across the country and it feels like a moment like this should open up solutions and open up a conversation. And, unfortunately, it always feels like the opposite to me. Like when the numbers surge at the border, it's like people get even harder, their positions get hardened. And we can't talk about the fact that this isn't working and we need a different solution because we're also stuck in our talking points.  

Beth [00:04:05] And we continue to work the problem from behind too. We're always in this responsive mode, right? We know there are going to be future events that cause people to surge. The administration says it's been preparing for a surge with the expiration of Title 42, but that's still behind the problem. I like these regional processing centers that they've set up in Colombia and Guatemala to try to say to people, "You want to enter the United States? Let's do it legally, let's start here. Let's do all of the paperwork and the vetting while you're still in your home country before you attempt this dangerous journey." I think that's really good. But the problem is people are coming from all over the world now. It's not just Mexico and Central America. They're seeing people come in from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. And we talked with Bethany last week about China. So, we just can't seem to get out of reactive mode to get into something that would open up those new solutions like you're talking about.  

Sarah [00:05:01] Well, and the administration has a limited toolbox when it comes to immigration. I mean, we need immigration reform that has to come from Congress. And I just don't see any reasonable movement on that. It feels like that this is a winning issue for the far right of the Republican Party and some moderates in the Republican Party. And it just feels like any agreement on any sort of moderate, centrist immigration reform is like in another universe of possibility.  

Beth [00:05:39] There are certain problems that occasionally there'll be an announcement that we're taking a whole of government approach to those problems. And I think we need a whole of government approach to immigration and have for a long time. I also wonder about a whole of the republic approach where more coordination with governors, more coordination with mayors starts to happen. I really feel for New York City and the strain on their shelter system that is being imposed. I feel for El Paso. There are certain places that have just either because of their geography or because of their politics and partisan targeting are really bearing the brunt of this crisis. And I call it a crisis, not because I think it has to be. We know that there are parts of the country that desperately need more workers, that desperately need younger people moving in. It's not like all of America is so overpopulated that we can't manage this, but we can't manage it because the overpopulation is going just to certain places. And I have to believe that if we all sit down together via legislation from Congress that gives people more resources and just some convening from the executive branch, we could figure out how to disperse people to places where they have connections with family and friends who can help support them, or the place itself is ready and willing to take on new population.  

Sarah [00:07:07] Well, and we have labor shortages and are going to continue to have labor shortages. I was reading a demographic write up this morning that as our population ages and continues to retire, we are going to continue to have labor shortages. Immigration is a solution to a labor shortage. Not to overstate the incredibly obvious, and we need that. It's important for our country. That is a reality that is crystal clear to other parts of the world. The other thing I was reading this morning is that a lot of the people crossing the border are not asylum seekers. They are seeking something, but it is a better economic outlook. And I'm not mad at that. But I also don't want to see this crisis exploited in ways that increases the human suffering from the people trying to get here. I don't care why they're coming. I care if they're coming to commit crimes, but if they're coming for a better economic outlook or they're coming to escape oppression, to me, I want that to happen in a way that is a net positive for our country that decreases trafficking and suffering and decreases tragedies like happened in Brownsville, Texas, this weekend, where you had somebody drive in to people waiting outside a homeless shelter, one of those many shelters that serves migrant populations. People were killed. And I just think situations like that where you see really heinous racism bubble up and people put at risk, we all want to see that decrease. We all want to see that end. And when we just are following and fighting around these surges at the border, that feels far away.  

Beth [00:08:45] It seems to me that we do have some consensus growing among people of different political stripes that an unmanageable number of people coming to the border is a problem. We do not have the resources that we need to safely decide whether people have legitimate claim to be here or not. We need humane conditions for people to be in while we're figuring all of that out. We need a process that allows us to keep track of the people who've entered the country. We need to vet people. I mean, it seems like we are coalescing around some pretty obvious ideas. I think everybody agrees we have a labor shortage. I think if you were to pick between being the United States, where lots and lots of people want to come in, and China where lots and lots of people want to get out, the vast majority of us would pick being in this position. This is a better problem to have. It's just how do we start to work that problem in some new ways?  

Sarah [00:09:40] Well, and I think there are people that don't agree with anything you said. They're just exceptionally loud in this debate.  

Beth [00:09:45] Well, Brownsville, Texas, is not the only part of Texas that experienced a real horror this weekend. On Saturday, a man killed eight people and wounded others at the Allen Premium outlets outside of Dallas. Shooter was killed by a police officer who happened to be there on an unrelated call. We don't yet know the motive, but we do know that investigators are looking at the shooter's interest in white supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs. And the shooter was armed with multiple weapons. Five additional guns were in his car. His tactical vest was packed with ammunition magazines. It's definitely looks like a person who was out to do as much harm as possible. And he did it. The people killed were between the ages of five and 61, mostly outside an H&M. It's like every detail that you uncover in this makes it more and more human and relatable and seem more and more present in your own life and community.  

Sarah [00:10:41] Yes. And I have to say, especially after just leaving Texas last week, there does seem to be something special about Texas. These are happening more often in this state with some of the highest gun ownership in the country and some of the most lax gun laws in the country. I think in an effort to say like this affects all of us, it is important to notice some of the differences state to state, because they speak to how policy can affect lives. And Texas prides itself-- I don't mean every person in the state, but the leadership prides itself on lax gun laws. I think it was in September of 2021, they did permit-less carry. So, you don't need a license to carry a gun in Texas. And I read authorities noting that time period as when they saw a dramatic increase in these types of shootings. When we go through and list some of the ones that have-- not even the 199, because who could list the 199 that are already taking place this year? But over the last several years, the mass shootings that gained national attention, so many of them were in this state. I love this state. I love every minute I spend in Texas. I enjoy it. It has grown on me. It just is heartbreaking because I think even the most conservative citizens are noticing something's got to give. And you have Greg Abbott going, No, we're not going to even consider gun laws. We're just going to really pay attention to mental health." It's ludicrous.  

Beth [00:12:08] I don't spend much time on Twitter anymore. I only open it up if I'm looking for something specific, which I was over the weekend. And in the course of that, I saw a tweet from Megan Kelly, the former Fox News host, and I'm paraphrasing here, but the tweet said something like Gun control advocates, you lost. So what other ideas do you have to stop these horrors?  

Sarah [00:12:29] What? Get out of here.  

Beth [00:12:32] That was my reaction too. And I spent some time on a walk thinking about what I would say to Megan Kelly if I were just to sit down with her to discuss this tweet. First of all, that is a very anti-democratic sentiment. Things aren't supposed to just be the same forever in a country where people vote in elections regularly. And I don't think that you would say to someone who's anti-abortion, like, well, you lost when Roe versus Wade was decided. Stop. I mean, things change dramatically.  

Sarah [00:13:02] Or when we passed the assault weapons ban, it's not like they were like, "Oh, we lost. Let's go home."  

Beth [00:13:06] Or two people involved in the civil rights movement or anything, right? We are supposed to always be working toward a better vision of society. It's not like an issue is decided. I also think that's not a fair characterization of how the American public feels about gun control. But more than that, I was really taken aback by the shifting of responsibility as though only one side is responsible for fixing this. Like if you have a gun maybe you've already done enough or something to protect America, and like the gun control advocates are the people who are supposed to come up with all of the ideas about how we stop this. I don't know people who think we need tighter restrictions on gun ownership who are also, like, definitely don't spend any more money on mental health. People are looking for layered solutions. People want to do whatever it takes to fix this problem. And I do think that if you are prominent in the Second Amendment advocacy space, then you have a unique responsibility to start to say, how should we fix this? If you don't think there are any restrictions on guns that are constitutional or effective, what are your ideas beyond you keeping a weapon to protect yourself and your family? If you find yourself in a position like this and do what statistics tell us or so unlikely that you in that awful moment are actually capable of stopping the threat. I mean, the whole framing of that seemed to me to be an encapsulation of why we're so stuck around this topic.  

Sarah [00:14:46] Even with this situation, the shooter was killed by a police officer. But you best believe that in Allen, Texas, on a Saturday, there were a lot more people carrying. Lots. And it was the professional who ran towards the gunfire and took out the shooter. So I just want to point that out quickly.  

Beth [00:15:04] As it should be.  

Sarah [00:15:06] Yes. Well, and I just want an assault weapons ban. I'm happy to have a layered discussion- I guess. I'm done talking about these assault weapons. We've done it before. It helped. I want to do it again. It's that simple for me. Do I think this is a complex problem? Yes. Mainly due to the Second Amendment. But do I think it's a complex like public health solution? No. We just need fewer guns. And I would sure as hell like to start with assault weapons.  

Beth [00:15:34] I think there is the public health dimension. There is the Second Amendment dimension. There is just the cultural dimension. And like I was really frustrated when we saw Guardians of the Galaxy this weekend. There was a scene where Groot pulls guns out of all of his limbs and looks very cool and powerful picking off the bad guys. And that particularly bothered me because my kids love Groot, and Groot is such a good nurtured, relatable to young people character. And I don't mean to go into an extensive discussion of a marvel movie here, but I just think our culture constantly reinforces the message that the powerful have guns and aren't afraid to use them and this is how we solve our problems. And so, there is a lot to deal with here. But the idea that we would just do what Greg Abbott and Megan Kelly and other people in that space say we should do, which is give up on the gun side of the equation, makes no sense to me whatsoever. It will take leadership and a willingness to change in multiple areas for us to live more safely and peacefully and to stop this awful loss of life. But that change is slow and it's hard. And we especially see that when we look at leaders and the offices they hold. We're going to consider leadership and how it looks to us when both officials and their offices are aging, up next. Sarah, the coronation was this weekend. We were traveling as it happened. Did you go back and watch it? How did you take in your coronation coverage?  

Sarah [00:17:19] No. I just watched highlight reels and read some articles about it. I'm not trying to watch all 2 hours of that. I get it.  

Beth [00:17:27] That's how I felt, too. We've learned from reports that about one in five Americans watch, which is much higher than I would have expected, honestly, and that the British were a little more ambivalent about it. Recent polling indicated that about 64% of British respondents had little to no interest in the ceremony.  

Sarah [00:17:46] I posted on Instagram a photo of Princess Kate looking particularly fierce in her royal regalia and said, "We crowned the wrong person." It just hits different. And it's this 70 plus year old man with all this history and baggage getting coronated. Then when you see the video footage of Elizabeth getting coronated over 70 years ago. I found myself really reacting to Camilla, who I've kind of moved on. I sound like I'm mad at her. But watching her be crowned was upsetting to me as a person who really loved Princess Diana. And it kind of brought it all back up to me, which was interesting when I was looking at American attitudes towards the coronation. She has the most negative ratings among Americans, especially those over 30. And it was interesting to look at the opinions of the British. They have the most negative attitudes towards Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, which I think is interesting and probably not that surprising. And it's so funny. It was like the words that came up over and over again were boring. With King Charles and Camilla and even Prince William. It's interesting to me that they have this consistent energy of like, the young people being like, what's the point? I don't care. But that it's just this sort of infrastructure in a way that it's a part of their culture. I do think it offers a nice distraction from time to time. I think that's definitely the appeal of the royal weddings. And I commend King Charles. I think he tried at multiple places to sort of indicate change and modernity. And this royal family in particular, which I think is why it's one of the oldest surviving royal family, is very, very adaptable. Not as much as Norway. Somebody sent me that Norway got rid of their coronation several years ago. They had one in parliament, was like, this is gross. We're not going to do this anymore because it is is just so much money. It's like $100 million to put this all on for somebody who's already a billionaire when there's a cost of living crisis in the UK. But I think it speaks to something beyond the sort of transactional way we talk about this. It's really not just about like we're investing money, we hope to get this money back. It's beyond the economics of it. It's beyond even the politics of it. There's a solidity there that I think is very reassuring to people that I don't think we quite understand here in America.  

Beth [00:20:17] I thought your post about Kate was interesting because I got stuck on the "we". We didn't crown anybody. Norway did. We're Americans. But even the British don't get to choose. I think the British probably would have picked somebody else besides King Charles out of the royal family if they were choosing. And for all of the attempts to modernize, this coronation still leaned in to what I have the hardest time stomaching just as an outside observer, and that is the religiosity connected to the royal family. I think if you really want to say, okay, we'd like a head of state that is symbolic, that brings in a lot of tourism, that provides kind of an ongoing soap opera that's equal parts entertaining and inspiring, great. I would love to see that unfolded from the church and from this idea that these people are divinely entitled to these positions forever. In all the coverage, I kept thinking about what it means for Charles and Camilla to be the faces of the U.K. and how I would feel about that if I were a British citizen. And Ellen kept popping over while I was working yesterday to get prepared for the week (my seven year old) and she looked at the screen and kind of went off and came back and stared at the screen. And finally she said, "How old is he?" I said, "Well, he's 74." And she was like, "Okay." And I thought about just what that means to just think about like he's beginning as king at 74. And I think about people in my life who are in their seventies and eighties, who are physically fit and mentally sharp and spiritually wise, and who I adore and value and appreciate, and I wouldn't ask any of them to start an endeavor like this at this point in life. That seems unfair to both them and unwise for all of the people who would be depending on their leadership in that role. So, that to me, as an American, watching an 80-year-old president run for re-election and thinking about Senator Feinstein, who's been off for more than two months now from the Senate because of health issues, and he was 89, so the oldest member of the Senate. Just thinking about both the monarchy as an aging structure and the people in all of these offices, aging, that's where my mind keeps going.  

Sarah [00:22:38] Well, I said "we" because the reason this is the most successful royal family. We've got other royals around the world. Can y'all name any of them? Because I can't. There's a reason for that. They are bigger than Britain. That's why they've been such a successful royal family. They are global celebrities. Now, I think they argue that they're not celebrities. And I think there's an argument there that they don't draw attention to themselves. They're trying to draw attention to other things around the country. They do charities and they do civil appearances and they do all these things trying to use the attention and directed other places. But as the celebrity culture grew, and then you see more attention to their personal lives. And I think that's what's so interesting when you talk about Charles's age, because he is coming to the throne not only at a more advanced age than his mother did, obviously, but with a decades long, very public journey with the British people who know a lot about him. And so, it's at tension with this religiosity that he's chosen by God. He's got to go behind this curtain and get annoyed by holy oil. It's wild, but then I think, well, that's true. And also the kings, particularly and queens, in Britain, it's not like we didn't understand their personal lives and their personal foibles in their journeys like King Henry VIII. We're all still talking about him and his wives. I just think that it is in tension, this humanness of their mistakes in their lives when we're supposed to believe this myth that they were chosen by God and they're not just another celebrity. I think that's what Harry and Meghan put in real tension for the British royal family. And I think they were ready and willing and probably excited for the coronation to put this emphasis back on, like, we are different. We are different. And I think it'll be interesting to see somebody at that age with as much life experience as he has, making that case in a different way. Where it's not just about youth and sort of somebody that looks like you and who you can identify with on such a tiny scale, which was always Diana's appeal, certainly is Kate's appeal, definitely Meghan Markle's appeal. And so, I think it'll just be interesting to see someone like Charles, who's lived his whole life understanding that people don't like him the way that they liked definitely his first wife and his sons and his daughter-in-laws. And will that be from a place of wisdom? Will that be from a place of insecurity? I don't know.  

Beth [00:25:13] I know there are lots of hopes that he will really modernize the family and the crown during his tenure, whatever it looks like. The coronation itself, as many tweaks as he made to it, still feels just tough. It's just tough when you know that most of the places still affiliated with the Crown around the world are actively looking at disaffiliating with the Crown. When you think about the sentiments in Ireland and Scotland, even the pro-Republican sentiments in Britain, watching the police response to some of those protests-- I mean, 64 people were arrested. Only four of them were actually charged. And there's real controversy as we're recording right now in the UK about the heavy handedness of the police response here. I just wonder how someone who had such a gold chariots head moment will then turn around and be the modernizer for this office that there are hopes he might be.  

Sarah [00:26:17]  I think he has shown an ability to do that and that is a priority of him. Even Kate's fierce look. I mean, she looked amazing. Charlotte matched her. That was, according to reporting, his idea. He didn't want them showing up in crowns or tiaras. He wanted a sort of more modern look, and it worked for her, let me tell you. And I think that he understands that the family drama over the last several decades has weakened the monarchy. That's why you see those protests. But there's a consistency to the protests that there is to the monarchy. They haven't really changed. The positions are sort of entrenched. Young people say they don't care. They protest, but it's never grown to like a fever pitch, except for when it was wrapped up in the drama of Princess Diana's death, which really was that an anti royalist sentiment? I'm not sure it was. And so, I think that speaks to our complicated views about leadership and what it gives and what it takes, particularly when it comes to the royal family.  

Beth [00:27:27] I think it's a lot about inertia too, and about how things have to get really, really bad before a huge number of people are motivated to enact change. I hear a lot of grumbling in my life right now about nobody wants a President Biden-President Trump rematch. And also, I don't think anything right now is bad enough for people to be hyper motivated to prevent that from happening. And you see that reflected in the polling that people are really losing it about. This morning, we've got this Washington Post ABC News survey, which I would like to know a lot about the methodology of the survey. It indicates that if the election were held now, it would be more of a 50-50 proposition. And in fact, President Biden trails former President Trump in the survey. And I think that just tells you that things are going fine enough that we look at someone whose office was all about chaos and corruption and then an attempted coup and say, oh, no, gas prices were pretty good then. The stock market went pretty well. Maybe we could do that again. And I think in the UK you are seeing probably more of a spotlight right now on the anti-monarchy sentiments, both because of the coronation, but also because of funding of the National Health Service and inflation and just generally the cost of living being so difficult for everyone. And I just wonder how intense do these problems have to get before what has been sort of a principled opposition becomes a more present focused advocacy movement?  

Sarah [00:29:10] And I just think I understand the critique, but getting rid of the royal family is not going to solve the cost of living crisis in the UK. That's not the cause. I understand the frustration, but I don't think there's sort of like a direct causation there. There's just a well-placed critique that it feels out of touch and that's just what I try to piece apart with my own critique of leadership in the United States. Am I critiquing it just because I'm uncomfortable with their age? There was a great piece in The Atlantic earlier this year, right before Nancy Pelosi retired, that was basically like, "You criticize during autocracy, but you're going to miss it when it's gone." That there was real political strength between particularly Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and President Biden, just the breadth of their experience and the years between them of understanding Congress and how it works and having the patience of life experience to see how things go, to see how people react, to understand that something that might seem like the end of the world, (like a stupid poll in May, the year before the presidential election) would be the end of the world, and to not react that way. I think you'll see that with King Charles. Lord knows he's been through it. He is going to have some patience and understanding.  

[00:30:35] And I think that was what Queen Elizabeth offered. You just felt like she's seen a lot and she's here and she's not freaking out, so maybe I shouldn't either. And there is an aspect of that. I just think the problem is as people get older, that sort of line between we are benefiting from the wisdom and the patience and the experience and the capacity has been reduced by such a dramatic degree that there's a risk here, is really fine. It just seems like the line was very fine with Senator Feinstein between contributing and now without the faculty to contribute. I don't think she should have run again. I don't think Chuck Grassley should have run again. They're the same age. They're both 89. But I just think it's so person to person and can be affected by so many outside factors. It's really, really hard. It seems silly to me that we would be having a conversation and you see these stark numbers around Joe Biden's capacity when Donald Trump is only, what, four years younger than him. But then maybe that speaks to how people feel like, that the line is pretty fine. I just think it's difficult, if not impossible, to know when someone else has crossed it.  

Beth [00:31:54] It seems to me that the fact that we are in numerous conversations about age and leadership, that there has to be a structural component to this. I think it says a lot about our elections and the power of incumbency that so many people are motivated to say someone who's 89 should seek another six year term in the Senate, or that someone who is 80 the year before the election should seek another four year term. I know that there is a fine line between an honest, open critique of people in positions of power at advanced ages and just outright ageism. And it is not my intention to cross into a territory where we say these folks have no role or no value because their age is not how I feel about it at all. In fact, I think that the wisdom and perspective of people with life experience is invaluable, and I wish that there were more opportunities to take advantage of that wisdom and experience without it having to be competitive as almost all of our systems require it to be. And these roles reduced so much to being about a singular person who is a brand in the public eye that we can't start to do better succession planning. I think we've created a lot of risk for ourselves as countries by having so much wrapped up in one person that you don't have-- I mean, it's kind of funny to be saying this as we're talking about the coronation, because there you have succession done in a way that I would argue is anti-democratic and very toxic, but we lack any kind of mechanism for real succession. Absent very strong, healthy parties in the United States for these positions. And it's tough. It's harmful, I think.  

Sarah [00:33:44] I think the through line for me is something that Franklin articulates in that Atlantic piece, which is are you consumed with holding on to your own power? Are you consumed at that sort of advanced age with your legacy? I think that people who are concerned with their legacy-- I think we've articulated this on the show before-- and particularly this was like next level to me, consumed with the legacy of the institution. That's where I think sort of the juristocrasy really shines. When you've lived inside the institution, you understand its weaknesses and its strengths, and more even than your own legacy, you want to leave that institution stronger than you found it. Then I can be persuaded. Then I'm interested. Then I don't just think youth and an ability to communicate in a new media environment is all that matters. Because I do think that sort of the undercurrent is like, well, good leadership knows how to communicate in this new media environment. And I don't think that's necessarily true. And I think that's what this sort of advanced leadership currently in power-- particularly Nancy Pelosi. I know she's retired now, but she was not a great speech of fire. She was not charismatic in that way, but she was insanely good at her job. Just the doyen of legislative accomplishments over there. And I just think, to me, that's where you see a difference. That's what I want to see. Because I think that's when you understand if I stay too long, I'll weaken this institution and that's what I care about. I mean, that's not going to be present in the royal family, but I do think that King Charles is interested in strengthening the institution for lots of selfish reasons, obviously. But overall, that does seem to be important to him-- not more important to him than moments of his own personal fulfillment. And I'm not mad at that. I think the best argument to get rid of the royal family is that it's a human rights abuse for the people inside of it. But I do think you see that sense of can we leave this better than we found it? Can we help it adapt in ways that strengthen the institution and not just reward us  

Beth [00:35:52] I think the trouble is that we get stuck around the definition of what strengthening the institution means when people stay in power for a very, very long time. Mitch McConnell is very committed to strengthening the judiciary as he sees it, and he has done that. He has fulfilled his version of what it means to strengthen the institution of the judiciary. And I would argue that it has come at a massive cost to the institution itself and to Americans trust in it. But he has patterned his legacy and a whole generation of people coming behind him around one idea of what the institution means. And that's the trouble. Even when you go in with a motive that is about something bigger than you, if you stay so long and become so insulated from what everyone else thinks needs to happen with that thing that is bigger than you, at some point that becomes fundamentally at odds with the idea of living in a representative society.  

Sarah [00:36:58] Yeah, I think Mitch McConnell is the fullest representation of being consumed with your own power and not your own legacy, not even the legacy of the institution, particularly the Senate. I think it'd be hard to argue many people have damaged the institution more than he has, and that's what's always confused me about the way he operates in the world. It's this sense of shredding something he seemingly cares about. But I think it's just the consuming with your own power and not with the greater impact of how that power will act inside the institution itself.  

Beth [00:37:30] But I don't think he sees it as shredding. And that's the trouble. There are strong perspectives about what the Senate is supposed to be and do. Strong perspectives about what the Supreme Court is supposed to be and do. Strong perspectives about what the monarchy is supposed to be and do. And when power is held in the hands of so few for so long, we don't get a lot of opportunities to meaningfully challenge and reshape and evolve. Up next, we are going to completely lighten it up and talk about our experience seeing The Chicks in Las Vegas this weekend. Sarah, we had a wonderful time with Crowded Table in Fort Worth. We got to meet Jen and Lori, a couple who just came up with the idea post-pandemic of trying to gather people together in person to share meaningful parts of their lives and connect as a community. And that has just grown and grown into the public event that we were part of, along with the Secret Sisters, who are incredible musicians and lovely people. And then we flew to Las Vegas for a lot less than 24 hours in order to see The Chicks at Planet Hollywood. So, how did you feel about the concert? You've seen them a number of times. Where do you put this one in sort of your The Chicks concert lineage?  

Sarah [00:38:58] Because I have seen The Chicks seven times. I first saw them in 1999 in Lexington. I saw them again before I graduated from college. I saw them on the Not Ready to Make Nice tour. I've seen them with the Eagles. I've seen them many times. The Not Ready to Make Nice tour is probably the strongest performance I've ever seen of them. It was pretty early in the tour. Natalie was radiating rage in a way that I will never forget. And it was interesting because after this concert I read an interview with them with the L.A. Times, and she talks about like, "I used to sing that song, and I was so mad." And I thought, oh, girl, I remember. But she's like, "Now it's just another song. It doesn't affect me that way." And that overall is how I felt watching her, because I perform many songs from Gaslighter, which is the album that really is about her pretty acrimonious divorce from Adrian Pasdar and her son is on stage with her. But I felt a real sort of, these are songs now. She was not radiating the emotion that you would expect from a divorce album. So, I'm hoping that she's feeling better and happier and not as torn apart as you could clearly hear when that album came out. But they were great. She is still an incredible vocalist. I love to see them together. I thought it was so cool that their kids were up there. They played around a lot more than I've seen them in previous tours. The acoustic set was really playful. They played the Beyonce song they were famous for. They played a Miley and Dolly song. And so, that was kind of fun to see them do a few more covers than they usually do. But, listen, I've loved them since I was 16 years old and I will never stop being affected and impressed and just completely in love with them as a musical group.  

Beth [00:40:46] This is my first time seeing them and I really enjoyed it. I think their musicianship is so fun to watch- all of them. Natalie's vocals, the fiddle and banjo, I mean, just everything that they do musically has always been impressive to me, but seeing it in person made it even more so.  

Sarah [00:41:08] Yeah. When you see Emily basically pick up a different instrument, piano, banjo, you name it, she makes it up and plays it well.  

Beth [00:41:17] And it was so fun to watch Marni because my daughter Jane plays the violin and loves it when they get to do fiddle pieces. And so, I tried to take lots of pictures of her and get lots of angles so that Jane could kind of be inspired by her. And she is incredible. Because radiating rage is not really my speed, I think that I find Natalie even more enchanting and almost otherworldly now that she isn't, that she's singing these really powerful songs with really powerful vocals. But it is a very focused power, and you could tell that she intended everything that she did on stage. And there's like a little bit of defiance infused in everything she does. Even when she's dancing in kind of a funny way, there's a defiance about that, and it's a quiet and harnessed defiance. But that perspective that The Chicks have kind of always had, like, we're going to say what we mean even if you don't like it. We're going to play the way we want to play, even if it's not what you expect of us. And now I think the way she delivers some of these lyrics, there's just that resistance in all of it that I thought was very, very powerful to be in the presence of.  

Sarah [00:42:38] Yeah. I think that's definitely what I have adored about her from the very beginning. I love her voice. I love her. And the more you learn about them and their history-- highly recommend the documentary, Shut Up and Sing-- it's pretty consistent. She's always been like that. She was political and kind of pushed people in Lubbock, Texas, when she was growing up and has never really lost that. In that same interview in the Los Angeles Times, she talks about being canceled the way they were after her comments about President Bush freed them. I think particularly her, I think she was ready to move past country music in a way. And she comes from a long line of women, I think, in country music that both love country music and also do not want to be harnessed to it, do not want to be controlled by it. I'm so excited I finally got the book Her Country and can't wait to read about this sort of history and participate inside the structure. And she just vocalizes that through her voice in a way that has always, always, always just been beloved. I don't know another word for it. I have the little cassette tape of wide open spaces that I bought in high school. I still own it. It's like one of two cassette tapes I still own because that music and the way she sings and the way they back her up has just always been so powerful to me. In the same way I think I always loved Julia Sugarbaker, this sense of like, you think one thing about me, but I am more than that. I am powerful. I can be pissed off. Even like the silly songs: even ready to run, I don't want to be in love, wide open spaces. I got to go make my own mistakes. Even before the cancellation. I think their lyrics and their music. Not to mention Lorde. Goodbye Earl, which is hard to believe was sort of controversial at the time. Like was just always speaking almost a different language then. So much of music, music, particularly made by women and for women, was speaking. And I think I've always sort of loved that and connected with that, and that's why I'm so completely devoted to them.  

Beth [00:44:44] I will say that it felt a little in-congruent to me to be doing Goodbye Earl with like confetti cannons and stuff going off. 

Sarah [00:44:52] It's a finale.  

Beth [00:44:53] I get that it's fun, but it is dark. It is still so dark. It strikes me as even darker the more I listen to it. I do love the friendship in that song 

Sarah [00:44:58] Yeah, [inaudible]. 

Beth [00:44:59] But we're still talking about killing a person and putting him in the trunk.  

Sarah [00:45:03] It doesn't feel dark to me anymore. This has happened with a lot of music from The Chicks for me. I just have wrung every bit of emotional resonance out of it. I've listened to their music so many times. I listen to songs when they play them live and my mind just automatically goes to the next song on the album. It's like rote memorization. And Goodbye Earl, the more I listen to it, the more it's really about Mary Anne and Wanda, way more than it is about Earl. Listen, I had an Earl's in the trunk bumper sticker on my car when I was a teenager, even though I was a super evangelical. And I'll never forget my aunt being like, "Isn't that advocating murder?" And I was like, "No, it's advocating not beating your wife." But the playfulness that they brought to light-- I mean, it is about murder, no doubt about it. But the Secret Sisters said at their life performance, every good country act needs a murder ballad. It just has to. It's part of the genre.  

Beth [00:46:04] Now, I will say not about The Chicks, but about the venue. I probably am not going to jet to Las Vegas for another concert because it felt almost too comfortable in the room for me. The seats were nice and comfy. There was lots of room to kind of move in and out of the aisles. You had a holder for your beverage in front of you and that just felt very not concert vibes. I'm used to concerts being like, here we all are kind of stuck together in this little tight, uncomfortable space for the music, and it makes it somehow like more intimate to me. So, just being in a room that is like sometimes The Chicks and sometimes Cirque du Soleil or whatever, that didn't work for me.  

Sarah [00:46:46] Well, I don't love Vegas. It's not my favorite. This the first trip back since I was 16 years old. It's just not my vibe. We had an amazing meal there. But the thing to me is not necessarily about the comfort of the venue, it's just that many people are there just because they're in Vegas and this is the show they decided to see. It's not that they're there to see The Chicks. You just go and you're like, "Oh, well, this is the show available and I'll go check this out tonight." And that's just a really different vibe than if you're seeing someone on tour where you are there with other fans. It's just a very different vibe to me. Also, my throat was on fire the entire time I was in Vegas. I think because of the cigaret smoke. I felt very seen by the fact that Natalie had this like-- you guys, it was wild. It was like this little-- it looked like a microphone stand. It was like about the same size as a mic, except it was shooting water vapor the entire time. I'm just assuming it's to protect her voice because it's the desert and everybody can smoke. Although, that was so interesting. You and I were like , man, maybe we need one of those too.  

Beth [00:47:47] I would love to have just a little mini humidifier, right? Yeah.  

Sarah [00:47:50] Yeah, just right there. 

Beth [00:47:51] [Crosstalk] spit and stuff out around the microphone. Well, it was really fun trip. I am beat. I am so exhausted from this trip. It was our last one for a while. So, The Chicks were a super fun way to kind of put a bow on our first half of the year travel. And we are so appreciative of the folks at Crowded Table, Fort Worth, Jen and Lori for being such gracious hosts, and all of you who made the trip to Fort Worth to see us. And thank you so much for listening today. If you are not already, we would love for you to come even closer to our community by becoming a premium member through either Patreon or Apple Podcasts subscriptions. The support of our premium members sustains what we do and means so much to us, and we would love for you to be part of it. We will be back in your ears on Friday. Until then, have the best week available to you.  

[00:48:53] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.  

Sarah [00:48:58] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.  

Beth [00:49:04] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers 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 Olson. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Danny Ozment.   

Beth Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.

Maggie PentonComment