Trump’s Trial, OJ’s Legacy, Iran’s Attack, and Cowboy Carter

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Trump Hush Money Trial Begins in New York

  • OJ Simpson’s Death and Legacy

  • Iran Attacks Israel

  • Outside of Politics: Cowboy Carter

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 world of Pantsuit Politics. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

Democracy in America (Bookshop.org Affiliate Link) and Reading Schedule

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

TRANSCRIPT

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

Beth [00:00:09] This is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:12] Where we take a different approach to the news.  

Sarah [00:00:30] Thank you for joining us today. We are thrilled to be back together after our respective spring breaks, and there is a lot to catch up on. So it's what we're going to do today. We're going to talk about the trial of Donald Trump. We're going to talk about the death of OJ Simpson, and Iran's attack on Israel over the weekend. Plus, stick around because at the end of the episode, we finally have our long awaited conversation about Beyonce's new album, Cowboy Carter.  

Beth [00:00:54] Before we get started, did you think that we were done with book clubs? You would be wrong. We are not. We are book club people here. Sarah is especially a book club person because she insisted, and I agreed to do a slow read along of Alexis de Tocqueville classic, Democracy in America, and we are in the midst of that right now.  

Sarah [00:01:14] Yeah, I mean, to Beth's eternal credit, I was like, “How about another book club?” She was not like, “Get a grip, crazy lady. We have enough book clubs.” But, listen, I have wanted to read Alexis de Tocqueville classic, Democracy in America, for so long. So let's just talk about it for a minute, because I'm a political science major and I just assume everybody knows what I'm talking about. But picture it, Beth. You're a 26-year-old French man. You're an aristocrat. Your parents were jailed during the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. But you're also a political theorist. And the French bourgeoisie have returned to power under the rule of Louis Phillipe in 1830. And you're like, what? What is going on with this whole democracy thing in France? Maybe I should take my wife, who is also a researcher, and we'll go to America. We'll see how it's going over there. We'll go check out America in 1831. How's their democracy holding up? If we're struggling with it in France, we'll go check out America. Then we're going to study the penitentiary system. But they ended up traveling all over. They stopped in on Andrew Jackson said, "How are you doing? Can we have a little visit?" And he was like, sure. They were appalled at how early we ate breakfast, which I think is hilarious. And so, through the course of their travels, Alexis de Tocqueville has some observations about more than the penitentiary system. And he writes Democracy in America, widely regarded as one of the most important texts on democracy ever written.  

Beth [00:02:41] And that is why I did not say, "For God's sake, Sarah." I may have thought it, but I didn't say it, because what is interesting to me here is less reading this classic text-- which is a beast, by the way. We're reading a really specific copy of it and certain sections of it. We're not trying to tackle the whole thing. But it interests me because at this moment when our democracy feels like it's going through a stress test, it's helpful to see similar themes being discussed at length by an outside observer in the early 1800s, and I find myself thinking often about what De Tocqueville observed, and what we're observing now, and what questions we have answered in the intervening centuries and what questions we have not answered. And it's just very grounding to me to go back to this text at a time when you just have to flip on your TV to hear someone being like, is democracy over? It's grounding. And so I enjoy it. Please do not be intimidated by the read-along title here. You don't have to read anything. If you just want to tune in and hear our conversations about what we've read and how we see that connecting to what's going on right now, we welcome you to do that.  

Sarah [00:04:03] But if you love a deadline, we do have a paste out schedule, so we're not tackling all of this at once. This is my favorite way to read dense texts. It's just a little bit under deadline over the course of the year. It's how I read Brothers Karamazov last year. So we are reading a very specific copy and the link is in the show notes. We have already discussed part one, and we're going to put that in your feed tomorrow so you can check that out, because we will be discussing part two, book one, on April 26th. So make sure and join our premium community so you can participate in our slow book club. Up next, we're going to talk about Donald Trump and O.J. Simpson.  

[00:04:39] Music Interlude.  

[00:04:47] It has begun. We made it. We are going to prosecute a former president of the United States. Well, we, as in the state of New York. The Trump criminal prosecution begins. Well, it began yesterday, on Monday with jury selection. But it's happening. Felt like he's never going to go on trial, but he's going on trial. It's going to happen. It's happening right now.  

Beth [00:05:08] And it's happening in spite of many, many, many attempts on the part of the former president to delay this proceeding on numerous grounds. But the judge in this case, Juan Merchan, has been diligent, thorough, insistent that this thing is going to move along.  

Sarah [00:05:27] I've got nothing but praise for the state of New York. Between Letitia James and her civil prosecution, and this one, I mean, they're just doing-- the judges there and the prosecutors, I just feel like they got no fools. They're like, listen, we have a focus. We're doing it. This is a thing. We're happening. I mean, look, it's a big state. They deal with a lot of stuff. They've got a lot of practice, and they're ready to just stick to it and make it happen.  

Beth [00:05:52] I notice in the coverage of all of Trump's proceedings, that there is a tendency to cover what is bad for Trump or what is too good for Trump.  

Sarah [00:06:05] Yeah, I hate that.  

Beth [00:06:07] Like what's happening in the Florida case with Judge Cannon?  

Sarah [00:06:09] Yes.  

Beth [00:06:10] I would like to talk for a moment about Judge Merchan and his attempts to safeguard the rights of the defendant in this matter, because that is happening too. It is not just Trump loses these motions. Trump goes under a gag order. Trump moved to dismiss this entire case on a variety of grounds. And I want to tell you about an important decision that went for Trump in those motions. So if you cannot keep track of all these trials, you are not alone.  

Sarah [00:06:40] Good for you. Yeah. You're a normal person. Congratulations.  

Beth [00:06:43] This trial is about falsifying business records in order to cover up payments made via Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels. And the state of New York is prosecuting this as a felony, which means they have to show not only did Trump's company falsify business records, at his instruction, but also that they did that in furtherance of another crime. So when I've talked about this on our premium show, More to Say, I call this the plus one. You have to falsify the records, but it also has to bring a date of intention to commit another crime. And the prosecution had four theories about what that other crime might be. One of them is a violation of federal campaign finance laws. One is a violation of New York campaign finance laws. One is a violation of tax laws. They paid Michael Cohen all this money, but then they paid him extra money so that he would be whole after he paid taxes on the money that he got for acting as this go between to Stormy Daniels. And all of those theories will get presented to the jury in this case. The judge found that they are legally sufficient to go to the jury and have the jury make what it makes of them. But the fourth theory will not go to the jury. The prosecution wanted to say that some of these business records were falsified in order to falsify other business records. And that judge Merchan says, does not work. He could not find any basis in the law for that. And I think that's important because if you just watched the headline news coverage of these trials, it plays Trump's game. That this is all about him, that everything is lining up to be a persecution of him, or in the instance of Florida, that there's this Trump appointed judge that cuts him every break. And that is not how our system is functioning. I don't want to be obsessed with these trials, but I want to be in the details enough to understand that the system continues to function normally under these incredibly abnormal circumstances.  

Sarah [00:08:51] Well, and the problem is, the system does not function in pursuit of clear and consistent communication to the public about what's going on. The system is built for the system, it's not built to convey it to the American populace at every step of the way about what's going on. Put a pin in that. I'm going to come back to that when we talk about the death of OJ Simpson. So that's what's happening, right? I mean, it is confusing to say the falsification of business records, because I think that draws up Leticia James civil prosecution, where he was falsifying all these tax records and estimation so that he could over inflate his properties worth. Really a better way to describe it as falsification of campaign finance records, because that's really that central premise that's underlining those other three. He was falsifying the business records because he was trying to cover up a campaign donation, because that's basically what that was. It was a donation to Stormy Daniels from campaign funds so that she would not tell her story, because they thought that that was going to really affect the election post access Hollywood video leak, which I think was a probably pretty safe assumption.  

Beth [00:09:51] And that violation of federal campaign finance law is the crime that Michael Cohen pled guilty to and served time for. So there is a plus one crime here. The question is whether it is a crime as to Trump, and if it can be married to the charge of falsifying business records in this case. It's complex. The other thing is, if this were all a political witch hunt, a coordinated, vast attempt to get Trump under any circumstances, this trial would not go first. It's confusing. It's technical. It is based on a set of charges that a lot of the public has blown off. If you really wanted to do something to influence the election and everybody, all the Democrats, were working together to get him, we would not start with this trial. This is a tough one.  

Sarah [00:10:45] Well, and I just think that the fact that Michael Cohen has been convicted already is probably the foundation of the judge's decision. Like, these are workable plus ones because they've already been established. You're asking us to pick a plus one that hasn't even been established or prosecuted, that's a tougher one. And I think it is an easier, less confusing argument to say, look, Michael Cohen has already been convicted of this. We have this right here. You want us to just play the trial transcripts? That's what we have. And based on my experience inside previous presidential campaigns, if this had been any other normal presidential campaign, I would worry. I really would. I would worry about the connection between Trump and Michael Cohen and this argument they're making. But knowing what I know about the 2016 Trump campaign, what a fly by night tiny little team it was, not professional really in any of even the best of circumstances, I got a lot of faith in their ability to connect these dots.  

Beth [00:11:44] I think the toughest thing about this trial is that you have a whole bunch of unreliable narrators. You've got a bunch of witnesses, all of whom are going to be tough to take as fully credible. And that's hard. But our system will test those witnesses. I am frustrated by this headline question, and this is just because there's nothing else to write yet. Jury selection is beginning. They're expected to take about two weeks. But I'm frustrated by this question. Can we possibly impanel an impartial jury? Of course we can. Of course we can. If I think about the people in my life, even the people who most despise or most love Donald Trump, I cannot think of a single person who I would not trust to hear and weigh evidence in a specific criminal matter. It's sobering to walk into a courtroom. It's sobering to receive instructions from a judge, to know that a person's liberty is in your hands. I think people will take this seriously and do their duty. This is not a matter on which the average person has expertise. You're going to have to pay attention as a juror to even understand what this case is about. So I really lament the lack of faith that we have come to have in each other. If it is an unfair venue because this state mostly votes for Democrats, then we got to erase the jury system. This doesn't work anymore. If we believe that you must be, I guess, politically independent, never vote again to make a credible decision in our court system, we are in bad trouble. And I just don't think that's where we are.  

Sarah [00:13:21] Yeah, I don't love this either. I definitely could serve on a Trump jury. Pick me. I could do it. I could be neutral. Because I think what we've decided that you need to have never heard anything about the case, this needs to be all new information to you. But that's not how this work. What do you think they did in mob trials, guys? Everybody seen The Godfather. They still went forward and somehow found a way to prosecute John Gotti. I think we have a real mis-perception of what that means. I do think we've decided you can't have any opinions, political or otherwise, about the person, about the crime or previous experience with anything related, including the person or the crime. And that's just not what that means. It means you can be a grown up and follow the rules and not lie and listen to the instruction and apply it fairly and accurately. And I think most adults can do that, even when it comes to Donald Trump. Now, I think that there are people on the far ridges of both sides of our political spectrum. But, honestly, when you're that much of an ideologue about Donald Trump or anything else, you're going to struggle on any jury because you're going to have really, really impacted ideas about our systems, about justice itself that's going to influence you. So, yeah, I would eliminate those people, but I think otherwise most people can just be a grown up in the room and be on a jury. I would love the chance. I feel like I'm never going to get to serve on a jury because I have a law degree, and maybe I would have had a shot when I lived in Washington, DC, because there's just so many lawyers, they can't eliminate them all. But now I live in Paducah and I'm just never going to get to do it. And it makes me sad because I think it would be the funnest.  

Beth [00:14:57] We have a lot of rizz in a political podcast.  

Sarah [00:14:59] We're never going to get to serve on a jury. 

Beth [00:15:02] We're never going to get to. And I think I could be 100% fair. I think I can completely separate my feelings about Donald Trump as a political figure from the feelings that I would have about him as a defendant. I'm totally confident in that, and I have that same confidence in my fellow citizens. I think this is a silly question that I am anxious for us to move beyond. What I worry about more is the security of this jury. And I am glad that Judge Merchan has shown a fearlessness in saying, "I will protect this jury. I will protect this jury to the point of not giving you access to some very basic information about them, defendant Trump, if you cannot do better in terms of the way you talk about this trial on social media and otherwise." I think that making sure that this group of people is insulated from the vile response of the extreme Trump online mob is critical. And I'm glad that we have a judge who seems capable of going as far as he can go to do that.  

Sarah [00:16:06] I don't know if it's just because O.J. Simpson just died, but I really do see a lot of these, like, connection points between this sense of the jury owes us something, we are entitled to criticize or go after the jury or the judge or anybody. This is a system that is inherently rigged. There's no real sense of neutrality or professionalism. I got to say, I think a lot of this started with the O.J. Simpson trial. I think there's a lot of those connecting points between how we talk about the Trump prosecutions, how we talk about the justice system overall with that Seminole American experience in 1995, when he went on trial for the murders of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman.  

Beth [00:16:52] As much as I would find it fascinating to watch this trial unfold in New York, thinking more about O.J. Simpson's death in that trial, I am relieved that this trial is not televised. I think that that was a moment of real education for the American populace about how quickly we can turn anything into entertainment. And how much we turned witnesses, lawyers, the judge into sort of celebrities to work out our stuff on instead of people who, just by happenstance, were called to that moment in history. And we will do that some because of tweets and cable news coverage to the figures in this trial in New York, but not to the extent that we would if it were all televised.  

Sarah [00:17:42] Well, and I think the defense attorneys in the O.J. Simpson trial used all that to their advantage. They set a playbook that Trump's defense attorneys are absolutely going to use. I won't say they're the first. I'm not a comprehensive legal historian, but I do think it's interesting that so often you will go back in American history and they will speak to some trial of the century. And I have no idea what they're talking about. Never heard it mentioned, never heard it brought up. They fade fast, these scandalous trials. I don't know if O.J. Simpson's 50 years ago will people still talk about it or think about it? Or will it go into the annals of these trials that were a big deal at the time that no one remembers? But I don't know how you feel about O.J. Simpson, Beth. For the most part, I subscribe to a Nancy Pelosi. We don't say hate, but I hate O.J. Simpson-- hated. Not sad at all that he's gone. I found him to be a despicable human being because-- really not even the crime itself, which is heinous, but people commit heinous crimes and I don't hate all of them. It was the sense of entitlement. And it was definitely the "if I did it" that sent me right over the edge, to where I have such disdain. Again, I'm going to have to adjust my verb tense, but had complete disdain for O.J. Simpson. And I think it was not only a tragedy of the highest proportions what happened to those two people, but it was just such a damaging experience on so many levels, on so many different systems and ideas inside American culture that I just look at it and think it was just a slow rolling tragedy. And I hope with his death we can sort of process it in a productive way. I'm not sure if that's available to us, but I feel like we need it. I did feel like the documentary helped a little bit. O.J. Made America is fantastic, but still a lot of work to do, I feel like, around O.J. Simpson and his life in that trial.  

Beth [00:19:43] No question. And no question that it was a heinous crime. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that he did it. All I have really been able to think about since learning of his death, is that almost every aspect of the 90s looks different to me today than it looked to me in the 90s. If today a well known football player were accused of murder, I would instantly think what damage to this person's brain has been done by the game.  

Sarah [00:20:15] I was so bummed they didn't give his body to an autopsy. 

Beth [00:20:19] Me too.  

Sarah [00:20:19] I was so sad to hear that.  

Beth [00:20:20] I don't understand that decision and the subsequent behavior by O.J. Simpson. All says to me something was deeply wrong here, and I didn't ask that question in the 90s. I just thought, well, he did this and the cops were terrible. And what we got was a trial that was more about the treatment of black Americans, especially in Los Angeles by police officers, than about O.J. Simpson. And I don't think any of it would look that way to me today. I think it would have seemed a lot more complex today. I think all the time about Marcia Clark and Chris Darden and what it must have been like to have those facts, have those cops, have the heinous actions by police that were exposed. But also to know that you have the right guy and you have the evidence for it to be incapable of compartmentalization in that way, it is no wonder that it captivated America the way that it did, because it was a container for so many things. And in the 90s, we didn't even have all the things we would add to that pile today to say this is a container for it. So I don't know. I do hope that people who needed a sense of closure in a very personal way around O.J. Simpson have as much of that as is available to them now. And I hope that in the long haul, we will learn what we can learn from that experience and move forward. I thought Jemele Hill's piece about this in the Atlantic was excellent and eye opening for me. She wrote over the weekend about how the black community was not attached to O.J. Simpson the way white people talked about them being attached to O.J. Simpson. That he said, "I'm not black, I'm O.J." that he worked so hard to kind of leave his blackness behind. And so the, the jury nullification, which I think everyone agrees is what happened in that trial, was not on behalf of a black superstar. It was on behalf of a black community that knew these cops too well. And I thought that was it's exceptionally written. We'll link it in the show notes, but I think that's a helpful perspective on what occurred.  

Sarah [00:22:39] Yeah. I mean, there's just so much on that. I mean, so many parts of the 90s too. I remember Nicholas reading a book about the trial probably ten, 15 years ago, and they were just talking about even the DNA evidence. People heard a 99.7, they're like, well, there's that point three? Now we understand that, no, that's not how DNA evidence works. But it was so new at the time. And then, of course, you have the infamous tales of Johnnie Cochran going and taking out all the pictures of OJ Simpson with white celebrities and replacing it with all this sort of black community memorabilia for the jury going through his house, which why the hell were they going through his house?  

Beth [00:23:17] So many things.  

Sarah [00:23:19] So weird things that happened. Like, why were they doing that? That should not have happened. That's weird. I mean, there's so many parts of it that are just weird. And I think just for me even though I can see that about, like, the risk of CTE and all that exposure, I remember watching O.J. Made in America and they talk about how in the late 60 early 70s, his father was out and gay and everyone in the community knew it. And I thought, oh, well, that was a piece of the puzzle that makes O.J. Simpson make a lot more sense to me, because he had this sense of, like, she deserved it. I mean, that's basically what if I did it is. Well, yeah, but she kind of deserved it. Once I explain to you that she really deserved it, you'll understand why I did it. And Rogers was there. it's just that sense of entitlement and just zero remorse despite raising these children. I just couldn't. I can get there and be more empathetic and sympathetic to people who don't have access to privilege and power and end up in a situation where they do something terrible, but O.J., I just couldn't.  

Beth [00:24:28] And let me be clear, I don't have an understanding yet of how CTE-- if that's what happened, of how that sits alongside culpability and personality.  

Sarah [00:24:43] That's a tough one.  

Beth [00:24:44] I don't know what level of responsibility an individual has in the face of something like that. So I'm not saying that to give him a pass in any way. I'm just saying that is a question I would undoubtedly have today if this happened with a modern football star.  

Sarah [00:25:02] Well, and let me just tie this up for us in a neat little bow.  

Beth [00:25:07] Can you do that? That would be amazing.  

Sarah [00:25:08] I do, actually. I think I might have it here, guys. We've had a nice long break, and I've stored up some good ideas. I just think that when you say about the Trump trial even, we can do this, we can be neutral, this is what our system is built on, that's all true and I agree with you. I don't think we had an answer in 1995, and I sure as hell don't think we have an answer here in 2024 to that more difficult culpability question, because CT is not the only complicating factor in why someone does something terrible. And we know so much more about that now. And I think that's where we all kind of struggle when we talk about juries and judges, because we understand so much more about human psychology and trauma and the influence all these things have on us. I always think about the lead paint example. That we know a child exposed to lead paint is going to have prefrontal cortex problems. So what does that mean when they commit a crime. What does it mean? What do we do? How do we handle that? We don't have an answer to that. And maybe that's why we struggle so mightily with articulating our concerns about judges and juries, be it O.J. Simpson, be it Donald Trump, because I don't have an answer for myself. I think I could serve on that jury, to be fair. Sure. But how do I hold all that complexity around human behavior and actions and consequences and culpability and transparency and accountability? I don't have an answer for that.  

Beth [00:26:37] I want to make sure that I'm not giving the impression that I believe people can be neutral about Donald Trump or O.J. Simpson or anything else. I don't believe we can be neutral. think we do not have it in us to even understand all the forces that work on us. How much of ourselves do we see in the defendant or the judge or a particular attorney in a trial? I think we're always running a million processes in our own brains, most of which are invisible to our conscious selves. What I think we can be is serious, and I think we can attempt to be as fair minded as possible. And I think that we are capable of asking the kinds of questions that you just posed. And doing our best with those questions out on the table, doing our best to say, "On behalf of society, what is fair in this complex mess?" Because every criminal trial from the beginning of time has been a complex mess. There are so few straightforwardly evil acts where you can say, well, that person is just bad and chose to be bad and knew the impact of their actions and doesn't care. Maybe there are a handful of those.  

Sarah [00:27:50] I feel like O.J. Simpson is one. That's what makes it so hard.  

Beth [00:27:54] Well, but I look back and say, I'm not sure. So I think we are capable of making judgments and choices from a serious place, doing the best we can with what we know at any given moment. And I just want to dispute and disrupt this constant bombarding narrative that Americans have lost the plot in every way, that we are incapable of being competent or serious or thoughtful or fair to one another. I feel like that's the message almost everywhere, and especially around the Trump trials. I think it's important to say, no, we have a lot of adults here in the United States, and we can deal with these very complex questions.  

Sarah [00:28:43] Well, and I think that's what's hard. When I look back on the O.J. Simpson trial, I don't think we didn't take it seriously. We took it very seriously. Yes, I think that there were probably late night show jokes you could make a montage that we would all cringe at. But my remembrance of it, even as a teenager, is it was a big deal. The adults were consumed with it. We were all watching it. We wanted justice to be served. Two people had died in truly heinous ways and we were trying to have that trial answer some also really difficult, serious issues with the LAPD. We were still not that far out from Rodney King and all that. So I don't feel like it was that we weren't taking it seriously. I'm not saying you're arguing that. But I'm like it's just the entrance of celebrity. It's the entrance of fame. True for Trump too. That all of a sudden it's like we think it's not serious or there's just an entertainment component. Or maybe it's just that we all think we have to have an opinion and we do not have all the information. I keep thinking about the fact that people spend more time in the New York Times up in the game tab than the news tab now, and that's really kind of getting to me. So that's where I can't quite tease out, like, where do we lose it? We understand this has stakes. And we understand that whether we're talking about Trump, even with paying off Stormy Daniels, that's a serious thing. Obviously the death of two people in this heinous way is a serious thing. Where does it become something different? And I do think maybe it's just that we all think we have to have an opinion, but we don't actually have the time, the energy or the professionalization to take in all the information. Sort of like back to what we said, if you can't keep up with this, great, you're a normal person. So that means maybe that you're not going to understand it completely. Maybe it's just a refusal to acknowledge, even if it involves a celebrity that gets a lot of news coverage, that we don't understand it completely. Like the DNA, that we were supposed to comprehend that this very new technology, this very new understanding, that we could all read a couple news articles about it and get it.  

Beth [00:30:52] Yeah, I think roles are important. And understanding that I'm not a juror is important. So I don't have to have an opinion. Or understanding that right now my primary role in life is teaching school, and so I just cannot be an expert on the 34 counts at issue in this Trump trial. That's fine. A general awareness is different than a solid unchangeable point of view. And I think that we have a lot of incentives to either stay completely out of something or to develop that solid, unchangeable point of view. And there's so much freedom in being somewhere in between and just accepting I can care about this, I can observe it, I can think of what it means for me in terms of my civic life. And also it's not the focal point of my existence, and I am open minded about it.  

Sarah [00:31:48] Maybe the ultimate conclusion is that a serious person or serious people take this process and the professionals inside of it seriously. We trust them. We're going to trust that the judge is going to do the right thing. We're going to trust that the juries are doing the best they can. Even the jury in the O.J. Simpson trial. There has to be a moment where we say, I can't nor do I want to gather all this information. I'm not a part of the process. Just because I can gather some information doesn't make me an expert. And so at a certain point we have to trust the professionals inside the systems. And I think that was a lot during the O.J. Simpson trial. And a lot of trust was lost in a lot of different directions. And maybe we're still trying to build that wall back. But I think saying this is serious, it's not just entertainment, and there are actual professionals, even if we see them on TV sometimes, there's still professionals that we have to let work inside this process.  

Beth [00:32:43] And trust doesn't mean we believe them to be infallible. They will get a lot wrong. The system gets a lot wrong. There are places to try to catch that and right the wrong. And in the criminal justice system, there are a lot of wrongs that are never righted. And so the question is not only how do I trust the system to an appropriate extent, but how do I critique the system appropriately? How do I focus on the critiques that are the most salient, instead of buying into the nihilistic interpretation that Donald Trump advances, which is that if the system ever gets anything wrong, then we hate the whole thing and we throw it out. Because I continue to believe that although our system is deeply flawed, that it is our best attempt and that we keep trying to work to make it better. And I don't want to give up on that. That's what's so dispiriting to me about Donald Trump as a political figure. I find that sense that everything is terrible to be so destructive and a lie. But it is why I think I could serve on his jury and treat him as a defendant inside a system I know to be very difficult for defendants, and to look at him fairly and to take seriously that his liberty is at stake and to want to do justice under those facts.  

Sarah [00:34:03] Well, let's move to another serious topic where I think several of these names are also present. We're going to talk about the attack from Iran on Israel over the weekend.  

[00:34:11] Music Interlude.  

[00:34:20] Beth, we haven't talked about the conflict in Gaza in several weeks. There's been a lot of major developments, including this weekend seeming escalation from Iran with an attack on Israel. But we haven't talked about Senator Schumer speech calling for elections in Israel. We haven't talked about the tragic death of aid workers inside Gaza and the resulting conflict between President Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu. And then, of course, we have the events this weekend. I think all of that, to me, is at play while also holding what you just articulated, which is we don't have to have an opinion on everything. We are not experts. We couldn't get all the information around this topic if we wanted to. And also that there are people that are arguing that it's broken, throw it out. Very nihilistic ideas around this conflict. And so trying to wade through all of that is really difficult. But I think it's important and related. I think this shifting posture from Schumer, from Biden, primarily the Democratic Party, towards Israel held in contrast or aside the sense that we did show up and say, okay, Iran telegraphed very clearly, we're going to respond to this attack that killed one of our generals. This is what's going to happen. So the United States and several other allies helped Israel intercept that attack. And so it's like you're holding all of this at the same time that this relationship is strained. But when push came to shove, we showed up and protected Israel from this attack and also telegraphed ourselves, we are not looking for further escalation. We will not support any offensive move towards Iran. There's a lot of moving pieces.  

Beth [00:36:16] If we try to trace back in time to the last time you and I discussed this war, from the perspective of Iran and its growing coalition with Russia, with China, with North Korea, you see an isolation of Israel because of its failure to protect citizens as it pursues Hamas in Gaza. You see Senator Schumer, in a move that made me pretty uncomfortable, in a speech on the floor of the Senate calling for elections in Israel. That's a big deal. You see the Democratic Party putting increasing pressure on the white House to cut support and funding and the provision of weapons to Israel. You see a Republican Party that talks a big talk about Israel, but has failed to pass funding. And actions by a number of countries in the United Nations. A vote for a ceasefire in Gaza. And so that International board looks right for Iran to do what it has not done before, which is directly-- instead of acting through its proxies-- attack Israel.  

Beth [00:37:36] And this is why I have struggled so much every time we talk about this, because I hold alongside the truly awful gut wrenching reality for civilians in Gaza. With the truly awful, gut wrenching reality that Israel, a nation state that is about the size of new Jersey, is surround by people who not only want to take something from them, but people who want them not to exist. I think about what would it be like for new Jersey if Vermont and New Hampshire and New York did not want it to exist at all? And the type of pressure created through that geography and through that history and layers of ethnicity and sectarianism and real differences about how their faiths connect to places that they view as holy, it's so much. And so I do not think Netanyahu has handled any of this ethically. I am sympathetic, though, to the larger forces in Israel that say we have to go on offense because we have been on defense the entirety of our existence, and we will stay on defense the entirety of our existence if we don't stand up and say, you cannot do this to us anymore. Now, I don't think that that leads to a realistic place because as I've said too many times now on this show, I don't think anyone can win a modern war. I think it always leads to some sort of terrible moment of attrition. But I truly don't know what Israel should do now, even as I wish in my heart for the path that the administration has outlined de-escalation, diplomacy, a discussion about how now more players in the region can come to the table to say, how do we end this in Gaza, free the remaining hostages and get to some new baseline of deterrence for everyone to escalate?  

Sarah [00:39:56] Yeah, we haven't talked about it recently on the show, but I'm having a constant conversation with my 14- year-old son, Griffin, about this. And it's impossible. I think that back to the nihilistic point of view that we were talking about with Trump, it is also present on the American left. And the sense that basically all war is genocide. That's a conversation Griffin and I have had a lot. Like, if this is a genocide, then every war is a genocide. Or maybe it is. Hell. Maybe if that's the conversation that the new generation is presenting is that there is no winnable war or is only ever a genocide and annihilation in a way. And I think that's true for a lot of places in the world right now that are experiencing conflict. What does that mean if that's what we're trying to say? And for that reason, I was delighted to hear Senator Schumer speech, because I agree with a lot of people on the progressive left that I'm tired of hearing, "We're asking them strongly, we're really encouraging you to protect civilians." It's starting to sound empty, and that's a problem. And that's not a problem for us. That's a problem for Israel. Netanyahu is a problem for Israel. I have no concerns about criticizing him because I don't need to be told how I feel about Israel. I know how I feel about Israel, and he is bad for Israel. He's bad for Israelis. They are protesting him in large numbers. And so my concern with the Iranian situation is don't give him a win. Don't give him away to escalate, to draw out this conflict that is not producing much as far as outcome except for weakening Israel spot in the international community because of the tragic loss of civilian life. Don't do that.  

[00:41:53] I thought Iran the way they sort of projected exactly what was going to happen and the way this all went down, I'm like, talk about a war game. You have 300 missiles and 99% interceptions. No death. What was that? What are we doing? What just happened? And I don't necessarily feel the same way as far as sympathetic to we can't just be defense because I don't think that's where Israel was October 6th. They were not on defense. They were on offense. They were taking territories. Netanyahu had used the Abraham Accord to basically erase the Palestinians from the negotiating table. And they were getting close to a situation of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. They had diplomatic relationships with countries for the first time in decades. They were making progress. Has that been largely erased now? Yeah. Now they're going to be in defense for a long time, I think, unless there's some sort of diplomatic miracle, which I don't think is off the table. But I don't know. I just think that with Netanyahu in power, what's happening is not about Israel. It's about him, and it's about him keeping power. And you have an incredibly right wing, powerful bloc inside Israel that are hawks, and in an arguably in some of their language, worse than hawks. And I think we just have to acknowledge that. And I think I don't have any problem saying that, because I think that is important to the Israeli people. I think you will hear people inside Israel articulating exactly what I just said. And so I just think don't give him any more wins, Iranians. That's not what we want. I'm happy. And I want more pressure from the American government on Netanyahu. I want more support for Lapid. He's got to go. He's got to go for the Israeli people, much less the Palestinian people. Do I need opinion that is American? No. But I have one, so there you go.  

Beth [00:43:56] Yeah. Let me try to be as specific as I can about my own sense in response to what you just said. When I say on defense versus offense, I mean as to Iran, not as to the Palestinian people. I completely disagree with the situation that has been been unfolding for years in terms of the West Bank and Gaza. I think that a path forward that involves Israeli occupation of either of those territories is wrong. It's the wrong result for everybody in the region. That is my personal belief, and I think it is backed up by a lot of expertise in history. As to Iran and Hamas, Hezbollah and a number of proxy forces operating in the region on Iran's behalf, I can understand an Israeli desire to say, "You cannot play war games with us like this." I worry about this attack and especially this sort of casual commentary about it, because everything was intercepted-- almost everything was intercepted. Because it is easier to do what you have done before. And Iran doing this from Iran in its own name makes it easier to do it again. And I'm not a military expert, but everything that I have read and my own instinctive read of the situation, is that it is easier to be the person lobbing the missiles than the person defending against the missiles. In the long run, it is cheaper to lob the missiles than to build the defensive system that intercepts them. You have to be less tactically organized. You have to have fewer allies. So if this becomes a situation where Iran is mowing the grass with Israel the way that Israel used to mow the grass with Gaza, in terms of we casually do something every now and then to keep you down, the long term harm of that, I think, is enormous. And I don't think that Iran will be satisfied with that approach or contained in any way.  

[00:46:20] And, again, I don't know what the answer is. I always prefer diplomacy. When you have actors like Hamas that are just not interested in a rational solution, but have explicitly said, "What I want is annihilation of the Jewish state," I don't know how diplomacy works. And so then you say, well, what about things like sanctions? And I think that with both Iran and Russia, we're really reaching the end of the road on what sanctions can accomplish. And we see that those sanctions have a backfire effect as well, because the Iranian people are not the Iranian regime, just like the Russian people are not the Russian regime. And the more we economically isolate countries, the more I think we turn their populace against us and into the arms of the dictator. I think it is not always having the opposite effect of what we intend. And maybe over time it will change, but it's just complex. I just don't have any easy answers here. And I don't want to have like a knee jerk reaction on what Israel should do post this attack by Iran because I don't know what Israel should do. I don't know. I think this is extremely hard. I also don't know what Israel should do with Hamas. I know that it should work harder to protect civilians. I know that Hamas makes that almost impossible through its own behavior. I think all the options here are terrible. And I wish for peace without having any idea what the path to peace is.  

Sarah [00:47:56] It is an interesting experience to feel like the Iranian military is being more forthcoming and realistic than the Israeli military, which is an experience I've had several times reading the news. When Iran has been communicating as clearly as it can over and over again, I don't want an escalation. We don't want an escalation. We do not want an escalation. We have to do something, but we don't want an escalation. Versus Israel that seems to be blind. I mean, the Israeli leadership, I mean Netanyahu. Blind to the complete eroding of international support, which is a massive weakness if you are Israel and you have the reality that you just articulated that you are surrounded by differing arrays of basically enemies. And so there's just a part of me that's like, it started complicated, and now you are on your heels in so many ways. In Gaza with Hamas, in the West Bank, in the surrounding region, in your relationship with the United States. What part of this is hard to understand? To me, there are lots of complexities in this region, but Israel's standing in the international community and its strength is not one of them. You are struggling. You have over responded with regards to civilian deaths. What would we even be arguing about at this point? When you had that U.N. vote, was everybody not just like holy crap. Because that's how I would be if I was in the Israeli military cabinet. That's a big deal. We abstained and we let that vote go through, and it just feels like there's just no acknowledgment or awareness of that. And I think that's because it's not about Israel. It's about Netanyahu's political survival.  

Beth [00:49:55] I think many of Netanyahu's, if not most, of his actions are motivated by his political survival. And it is both easy and I feel kind of rich to sit in the United States and see it so clearly. We absolutely have disproportionately responded to smaller things than October 7th. And I feel that that's the connection that President Biden has tried to emphasize with Netanyahu. Listen, this was terrible. You have a right to respond. And if you go too far, you will learn painful lessons that we have had to learn as a nation. And you will do it in a much thornier situation than we have. At the same time, there are maybe lessons that you just can't be told by someone else. What sense of responsibility would I have were I the Prime minister of Israel right now? I can't fathom having that job. I can't fathom the calculus of hostages being held versus trying to prevent Hamas from invading my country again. I can't fathom telling my populace, well, yes, 300 plus missiles were just aimed at our country and fortunately this time our friends were here for us and we had the technology to disrupt them, but I don't know if we will every time. That wasn't a guaranteed outcome even this time. But we're just going to have to tolerate it because Iran says it's done now. So we're going to say it's done now, too. That is hard. I think it is clear that much of the international community is outraged by Israel's operations in Gaza. But I do not think the next steps for Israel are clear, even in the face of that reality.  

Sarah [00:51:45] Well, because it's not just the international community. It's also Israelis themselves who are protesting and saying, "We don't want this. We just want the hostages back," in large, large numbers. And so to me, yeah, that's hard and that's difficult. But the Israeli populace is well oriented to hard and difficult foreign policy strategies and diplomatic realities. And so I think they're up for it. I just don't think he is at the end of the day. And my instinct tells me it probably is happening, that there probably are more intense conversations and exchanges, not just this is what we'd like you to do that we hear about in the press conference. Because if the reporting on a conversation between Netanyahu and Joe Biden reaches the public, and the reporting is it was a tough conversation, well, then that's the iceberg. And there's an ocean of reality that we don't see going on behind the scenes between our two countries. And let's just hope and pray that it leads to less civilian death, peace, negotiations, hostage release. That's what we all want.  

Beth [00:53:06] Yeah. So let me say something besides just I think this is really hard, because I know that's not super interesting to listen to. If I were in the United States Congress right now, when I think about what is America's responsibility here, my interests would be (a) ensuring that Israel understands that it is our law that aid provided by the United States for weapons requires that those weapons be used in accordance with international law. And so anything we provide Israel to be used offensively, must be used carefully and without worsening the circumstances for civilians in Gaza. That's tricky, but I would be pressing for what the specifics around that look like, and saying we will cut off offensive aid if this does not improve. I would be pushing for more defensive aid to Israel in light of Iran's attack, because I think that is in US interest. And I think it is critical to the stability of the region. And I would stay out of political matters in Israel. I think you're right that the Israeli people are up for dealing with their political house there. And I would not want to exacerbate any tension whatsoever or be seen as exploiting any tension whatsoever around Netanyahu. I think that is a matter for the Israeli people to deal with, and I would keep my mouth shut about that piece of it.  

Sarah [00:54:36] At this point, I would say you have violated the agreement on offensive aide. You have not kept up your end of the bargain when it comes to offensive weapons. I have a hunch that when Joe Biden says we are not going to participate in any escalation with Iran, perhaps that part of the conversation has already taken place. Like, it's too late. You have not shown yourself willing to meet the requirements of offensive aid from the United States when it comes to civilian deaths. We're done. And with the Gaza Israeli politics-- go with me here. I had a friend in college, whose boyfriend cheated on her all the time. And I would say constantly you should break up with them. You should break up with them. It strained our friendship. Without a doubt, it strained our friendship. But when she was ready to leave him, she knew that I was all on board. And I think in the past our diplomatic approach has been more active, like, we were trying to break people up. We were going in there and we were fomenting coups. I don't think the overcorrection is to say we stay out of other countries politics. What we've learned from these sanctions is that everything is interrelated. In that, we thought we were the big dogs, and we were going to lay down these sanctions. And then China came in and said, I'll buy all your shit; I'll take your oil and I'll give you some stuff in return. And so, to me, then we need to acknowledge that. Okay, so we are nation states and we don't foment coups in other countries, but we are interrelated. And so I'm going to tell you how I feel about it. You can take with that information however you'd like, but you're going to know how I feel so that maybe when the day comes and you are ready to break up with Netanyahu, you'll know we have lots of support inside the Democratic Party. So I feel like there's just a sense of we are exploring new ways to influence each other. So let's explore them and let's not pretend that we don't, because we do influence each other. And it does matter to America who is the prime minister of Israel. Not as much as it matters to Israelis, but it matters a hell of a lot. It matters to every citizen of this globe because we are an interconnected populace at this point. So I just think that's probably where I would end up.  

Beth [00:56:45] I think we telegraph that in not so subtle ways. I mean, the vice president met with Yair Lapid. There's a message in that. I think that is a more appropriate way to do it than taking to the Senate floor and saying Israel should have elections and fire Netanyahu, essentially. Because I think a lot about that Matt Iglesias piece that we've referenced a few times in these conversations where he says America kind of over identifies with Israel in ways that have been bad for Israel as well as the rest of the Middle East. And so, in my mind, the more we kind of make this Democrats are with Yair Lapid and Republicans are with Netanyahu, I don't like that in either direction. And I think that increases the heartbreaking antisemitism that has grown in our country like a wildfire and has been exposed and fueled since October 7th. I mean, we've gotten some messages from listeners that will just make you weep about what they experience in their own neighborhoods as Jews living through this, as Jews who are very much with you, Sarah, on how they feel about Netanyahu, about how they feel about the violence in Gaza. But still as Jewish people who are shocked by the casual cruelty of their neighbors in discussing the Jewish people because of all of this. So I think that that's one we could approach with a lot more care.  

Sarah [00:58:19] Yeah. With that Matt Iglesias piece, it's hard because they are different. Israel is different. It's certainly different in its relationship with the United States. And because of the global Jewish population and because of the foundation of anti-Semitism upon which so much of far right politics is built, but also not absent from the far left either, it makes all of this so much more complicated to talk about. That's why I'm so particular in my language, and I really just try to say, Israelis, we are talking about a nation of people. It's not unconnected from the Jewish populace. It makes it very, very different and very, very difficult. But at the same time, we do have to talk about the nation and the policies of the nation, in a way that makes sense, in a way that moves the conversation forward. Because I do think that so much of it gets stuck too. I think that Netanyahu uses that strategically to say like, well, we're different. Why do we get treated differently or treat us differently? It feels like sometimes the message is different depending on the day. And I think that does no favors to anyone involved here, in particular the Israeli people. And I think that in the same way we talk about the shifting politics inside other racial identities, ethnic identities in the United States, we have to acknowledge that shifting too and Jewish Americans are not going to be in lockstep with one party or the other. And I think identifying with one side or the other based on your party identity, I don't know, there could be worse things.  

At least we understand there are two different sides, that there are two different perspectives in a country. Sometimes Americans don't get that far with their foreign policy, but they can't identify one leader, much less two different sides of the argument. And back to the serious people, I don't feel like the Republican Party is serious right now and their position with regards to Israel or much else. And so I think that's the real hard part with regards to forming an opinion as an American right now. I wish they did. I don't think they do. I think there's actually something beneficial in seeing Israeli politics through this party lens and understanding that it's different. And I think that Ezra Klein has articulated so well the generational change in the way people think about Israel and the lack of acknowledgment that the politics of Israel have changed, and the makeup of their parliament and their party identification is different. That's worthwhile. That's worthwhile examining and acknowledging that maybe the reality has shifted. And as a result, maybe the reality will shift with American politics. I think that's okay. I think that that's just something we have to live with and acknowledge. I don't think any group- American Jews, Black Americans, Latino Americans, should be assumed as a monolith on how they vote, that is not racial progress. That's not political progress. That's not anything that we should want to mirror or keep going. And so I don't really have a huge problem with that. I think the less that we can tie identity to this unchangeable political partisanship, the better for everyone involved. And so the more we can acknowledge that shift in Israeli politics and how that affects our politics and acknowledge the complexity and the reality and remove it from just Jewish identity, the better. Particularly with regards to this nastiness that we see in this hate directed at Jewish people everywhere.  

Beth [01:02:06] Absolutely. Good foreign policy depends on a Congress that includes people of very different identities who are serious about representing constituents of very different identities, and who have very different feelings about American aggression in the world and about American responsibilities across the world. We need people who are pacifist, and we need people who are hawks, and we need Jewish members of Congress who feel very differently about this issue themselves. And we need people who are Palestinian in this in terms of descent, who are Muslim, who understand what anti-Muslim hatred looks like in the United States, who represent communities of people with family members in Gaza. We cannot have a reasoned foreign policy if everything comes down to what could easily be discerned from your resume as a member of Congress. It is really, really important that all of those perspectives get amalgamated in determining what America's responsibilities here are and then how we fulfill those responsibilities. And it's also equally important, maybe more important that we figure out in setting our foreign policy what we are not responsible for. And I think that's what I'm always trying to sort through when I look at the situation and what people are saying about it. What are we not responsible for here? This kind of ties back to our first discussion on the trials. When I feel obligated to have a hard point of view, I forget to ask what is not my responsibility. And especially as the United States, this incredibly wealthy, large, powerful nation, it's really hard to ask what we're not responsible for.  

Sarah [01:04:07] I honestly I'm not sure that there is much. When you see the loss of life that we've seen in Gaza, I want every citizen of the world to be wrapped up in that. Because of the reality of the Jewish population in America and abroad and the relationship between that Jewish population and Israel, then there is a massive responsibility. And because of both of those things, because of the loss of life in Gaza, because of the identification with the Jewish population in Israel, that makes it a political reality for basically every American politician, particularly Joe Biden, particularly in a presidential year, particularly when you're trying to keep this Democratic coalition together. And so it's like it's all wrapped up and the stakes are high politically, much less to the absolute tragedy. And the stakes are getting higher with the famine and with the just tragic reality on the ground that we only barely understand from where we're sitting safely in the United States. And I just think, though, holding all that is the responsibility of all of us, whether you're a political podcaster or just a citizen of the world. And we always appreciate every single message we get after these conversations and that no matter your opinion or experience, continue to stay with us and stay present with us and stay in conversation with us and with each other about this reality.  

[01:05:48] Music Interlude.  

[01:05:57] Beth, we did it. We made it to Outside Politics. We've had to delay this conversation until we're both present. But the one and only Beyonce has produced a new album it has called Cowboy Carter. Go.  

Beth [01:06:17] Everything that I loved about the Renaissance documentary is present in Cowboy Carter. Beyonce's attention to detail. Her obsession with pushing boundaries and saying, I do not want to be easily categorized. I do not want to surround myself with people who are easily categorized. I want to give everyone freedom to define themselves in new ways, and not to even settle on a definition. And her increasing willingness to give us a tour of her life, the more I listen to Cowboy Carter, the image that comes to me is of the kind of collages that I made a lot of in high school and college, where I would just rip things from magazines that appealed to me, or that spoke to me in some way and have this board of things that are in some ways seemingly unrelated but you could find the threads. And I love that she has given us that sonically. That she has said, here are influences throughout my life that I love country, gospel, blues, pop, rap, and I am just going to put them all together and I'm going to tell many, many stories through it of my own, and I'm going to tell stories about other people who I don't think you know enough about yet. And I think the fact that she made that and it is so artistically interesting and also fun to listen to, is an incredible achievement.  

Sarah [01:08:00] So I still have not seen that dang documentary. I really need to get on that because I have such enormous respect for Beyonce. I mean, she's a 1981 baby. I've been listening to her music basically my whole life. Say My Name got me through my very first heartbreak. So I feel like with it, with her-- what can you even say about Beyonce? It's like when I have to write how I feel about a classic book. What am I supposed to say? Pride and Prejudice is great. Well, yeah, I think we've established that. And what are we even talking about right now? Beyonce. I find the whole conversation about, like, is it country so uninteresting.  

Beth [01:08:46] I do too.  

Sarah [01:08:47] You guys if that bullshit they put on from the country Rose belongs on country radio, then this sure as hell belongs on country radio. Get out of the way out of here with that. But I wouldn't call myself a member of the beehive. I don't listen to her music regularly. And I was thinking about that because I see what she's done here. I think it's so important. And so what she does-- well, like you said-- platforming other artists, pulling people from history, saying you need to remember these people. She's also showing off some mad vocal chops in this album, I think. However, I wouldn't call it artistically interesting to me. I listen to it all the way through. I didn't fall in love with any song. I was thinking about why, and I have a theory. Because after Say My Name, the next album of Beyonce's that I was obsessed with, and the only song since then that I played on repeat and I know every word to is formation. And which I would like to argue is the best actual country song she's ever recorded. I was listening to it again and I was like, this is a country song. This is the song that should have been played on country radio. And the story she's telling-- which is so important when you're doing a country album, right? It's all about storytelling. It's all about songwriting. And I felt bad. I was like, am I not seeing anything? Do I not understand what she's doing here? But then I read Tressie McMillan Cottom's piece about this album, and she talks about she's not a strong songwriter. And I was like, okay, I feel better that I thought that and she confirmed that. But that's not true for Lemonade, and it's certainly not true in Formation. Because I think there's just so much depth in that songwriting on that particular song. And I was just thinking about like when she says, "I'll take his ass to Red Lobster, and then I'll put him on my chopper," I'm like, yes, I believe you.  

[01:10:50] When she says on YA YA, which I think is a great song, and I'll probably listen to it a bunch of summer. So fun. It's such a great song. But when she's like, you're tired of working hard for half time pay or whatever the lyric is, I'm like, I don't believe you. That doesn't hit the same way. It's not quite there. And I'm not mad. I don't think it's bad. It just didn't hit me the way Formation did. Because I think Formation is like an incredible whatever new form of country that she is inventing, because that's what I think she's doing. I just think about how formation starts at that twangy open and the things she's referencing. I think she's saying I belong here, lots of people belong here. And it might sound and look differently because that's what genre should do. I think that way she uses that quote of like, what even is a genre? Well, it's not a static thing. And country's biggest fault for lots of racist, sexist reasons is that it's wanted to stay one thing and it's not. No genre is. And so when I listen to Formation, I'm like, well, you were inventing something new all the way back then. But this one where the central story of my husband cheated on me and how I got over it, that is some country shit. But I got left out of an awards program, which felt like a little bit of the central synopsis of this album, I was like, I don't know. Babe, I don't know. It's not that I disliked it, but it didn't hit the way that I was really excited for it to hit. I guess that's probably what it was.  

Beth [01:12:27] It hit for me. I've listened to it probably 10 times straight through. I love the transitions.  

Sarah [01:12:34] I love the radio stuff. Yeah, that radio stuff is so fun.  

Beth [01:12:37] I think she's telling us that she's inventing something new, especially by that sort of synthesizer pop at the end of most of the songs, that sort of unexpected ding at the end of Blackbird, at the end of Jolene, at the end of American Requiem. I just think it is musically fascinating. I love Daughter and the use of Caro Mio Ben in the middle of Daughter, which is an Italian aria that every vocal student ever has to sing at some point. I auditioned on that song for a music scholarship at Transylvania University. It is such a classic piece, and it really ties to my favorite point from Tressie McMillan Cotton's piece that you referenced, that a lot of what she's saying here is I deserve some respect. I can do a lot of different things. My voice can be anything. And it can. Her voice can be anything. With excellence, the control on display of her voice in this album is otherworldly. The way that she pulls in that growl all the way through the technically beautiful aria included here. I think it is masterful from start to finish. I think that there are moments of pure fun in it. I don't care that Texas Hold'em is not a beautifully written song. It's fun. It's a bop it. It draws you in, it gives you a little break. It's some relief. I think the way that she has Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton's sort of stamp of approval throughout, just the way that she is communicating through every mechanism available on an album. I belong wherever I want to belong, and I belong in places that you haven't thought about yet, I love it. I agree with you that it doesn't hit when she is trying to channel an experience that is not hers. That's part of what I love about Daughter. When she talks about the beginning of Daughter, the blood stains on her custom contours, and the bathroom attendant letting her in because she is a big fan, those are the pieces to me where I am just on the edge of my seat because that is a little window into the Beyonce life experience that rings really true.  

Sarah [01:15:06] That's why I think Formation and that album are just incredible, because you're hearing her story and it has some real depth to it. I think this is like the fastest. I feel like a turnaround on an album she's had in a long time. And maybe that's what I'm reacting to, is it doesn't have that sort of depth-- not of production. And I agree that she's showing off her vocals and she deserves all the accolades for that. And I'm not even mad that she's mad. I bet they treated her like shit at the CMAs. It looked terrible from the TV, so I bet living it was like next level. And I think that's the interesting question for me. Two things. One, what is country that's not every man country sound like? Because these bozos on country radio are singing about experiences they don't live in. Ain't nobody driving around the pickup truck with the cut off jeans are all millionaires. So what does that look like? And I think you have some artists that are doing that. And I think Taylor Swift's one of them. Who's like, I'm going to tell you about my life, even though it's not like yours anymore. Karma's the guy on the screen coming back home to me. Like, there's a way to do that. And I think that's so interesting and I love it. And I think that the other interesting thing that I hadn't really thought about carefully until [inaudible] piece put it in perspective, which is she doesn't talk to her fans anymore. She is this fan base that is so involved, but she only produces things. She doesn't do interviews. She doesn't write captions. She's only communicating through her art, and this documentary. And that is new and different and endlessly interesting to me because we are reaching a point where we don't know Beyonce. We only know Beyonce the artist.  

We know almost nothing about her as a person. And I think that's neither good nor bad. I just think it's fascinating what she's doing and the decisions she's making and how that plays out in the way we take in her art. And what does that mean inside the context of country music? I am such a songwriting person. The Secret Sisters have a new album, came out the same day as Beyonce, and I loved it. It is so beautiful. We got the honor of listening to a song from this album months ago before it came out, and it is a song about like what it's like to be in a marriage after you have a baby and just like can you just give me some time? I'm here, I'm still here with it, but I'm-- I'm tearing up right now talking about it. I'm just so overwhelmed I can't be touched or talked to anymore. Can you just stay with me? It's the most beautiful song. But I think country music when it can grab that and speak to it and-- even Kacey Musgraves has a new album out that I really, really love. I have not loved her last few albums, but this one is great. And so I'm just happy. I'm just happy that all these amazing female artists are coming from it, from such different angles, but that people are talking about it through the lens of country music. I'm happy about it for them. I'm happy about it for country music, because country music has been in desperate need of sort of a revolution and an upset and-- I don't know-- just more women for so long. And it is a genre however you want to define it, that means a great deal to me. And so I'm just happy. It feels like an embarrassment of riches.  

Beth [01:18:46] That's why I don't agree at all with Tracy's observation that Jolene is forgettable, because I think to take a song like that and have-- even though it is still a sort of blame the other woman versus the man song, I don't know how much you can mess with that setup in Dolly's format. But to embody that woman in a powerful way instead of oh, please, please, please, Jolene, like I'm the worst, you're the best but just move on, I think that is a big deal for country music. And I think the way she does that, not only with her lyrics, but with her vocals, with that millisecond before the beat that she comes in with the Jolene, like, there's so many little decisions in the way that she sings that song. I love it. I think it is a big, big step forward for what it means to be a woman in country music. So I'm in awe of what Beyonce has done here. I cannot wait for act three. I listened on our road trip this week to Renaissance all the way through, and then Cowboy Carter all the way through, and I just thought like, what is the third piece of this going to sound like? I can't wait for it.  

Sarah [01:19:57] Well, since we're already at like two hours, I will say I don't love the Jolene cover. I agree with Jose because I think the songwriting jujitsu of Dolly Parton is that she empowered the other woman. Where the story was you're stealing him, don't. She was like, no, you are in power here. Not the man. He's not choosing between us. You're stealing him. You have all the power to do that. That songwriting jujitsu and to create a perspective that had been not very present, I thought it was so brilliant. And I think that some of Beyonce's songwriting about protecting her family, particularly on Lemonade, like, is the best out there and fascinating and important and interesting. I have also been with the same man since I was 19 years old, so I would listen to her talk about... So I'm not mad at it, I just thought that the way that that's what made Jolene special was that it was vulnerable. And so, I don't know, I like the original better.  

Beth [01:21:05] I think it's vulnerable to say I raised this man, I raised his kids. I know him better than he knows himself. It's a different kind of vulnerable. It's a more powerful, embodied vulnerability. But I love Dolly's version and Beyonce's you don't have to pick. 

Sarah [01:21:17] You don't have to pick. So true.  

Beth [01:21:19] I think it's a renovation of that song. There's a faithfulness to the bones of it, but a modernization of it and I thought it was just a fantastic choice. And I think it's what Dolly wanted too. I think Dolly wanted that song to be renovated, and I love how Beyonce did it. Since we're already two hours, I will save my feelings about Kacey Musgraves new album, but they are quite different than yours, so we're just in different places about the music right now.  

Sarah [01:21:46]  Clearly, we are all over. But there should be space for that inside country music and all genres for people to feel differently about things. All right, we did it. Clearly, we've missed each other since we've been here for so long. We hope y'all hang with us. We will be back in your ears on Friday. Thank you so much for listening today. Do not forget to head to our premium channels to join us and our slow read of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. And until Friday, keep it nuanced y'all.  

[01:22:28] Music Interlude.  

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

Beth: Alise Napp is our managing director. Maggie Penton is our director of Community Engagement. 

Sarah: Xander Singh is the composer of our theme music with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima. 

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

Executive Producers: Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. The Pentons. 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. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago. Becca Dorval. Christina Quartararo. Shannon Frawley. Jessica Whitehead. Samantha Chalmers. Crystal Kemp. Megan Hart. The Lebo Family. The Adair Family. 

Sarah: Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.

Maggie Penton6 Comments