The Vice Presidential Debate

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Vice Presidential Debate 

    • War in the Middle East

    • Hurricane Helene and Climate Change

    • Immigration

    • The Role of the Vice President

    • School Shootings

    • Child Care

    • Abortion

    • January 6 

    • The Moderators

  • Outside of Politics: Containers and Boundaries in Modern Life

Want more Pantsuit Politics? To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter on Substack 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. To search past episodes of the main show or our Premium content, check out our content archive.

EPISODE RESOURCES

We are thrilled to announce a joint live show this November with one of our favorites, Vanessa Zoltan of Harry Potter and the Sacred Text! Join us in Boston vis live stream on November 7 - for a fun night among friends.

THE VP DEBATE

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.  

[00:00:14] Music Interlude.  

[00:00:29] We're so glad you're here with us as we consider the debate between vice presidential nominees J.D. Vance and Tim Walz that took place last night on CBS News. There's a lot to say about the debate, and it brought up a lot for us about some of the current events discussed during that format. So we're going to dive into all of that. And then Outside of Politics, I don't know, I think we're just going to talk about the struggles of modern life and what happens when everything bleeds into everything else and how we wish for maybe a little bit more compartmentalization, but also greater connection and also lower expectations. It was helpful to me, and I hope it's helpful to you.  

Sarah [00:01:07] But first, we wanted to make an exciting announcement. We will be in Boston for a live show on Thursday, November 7th with Vanessa Zoltan of Harry Potter and the Sacred Text Podcast. Yes, November 7th, as in two days after the Election Day. We think it will be the perfect time to come together and join our really unique blends of insightful political commentary with a deep, reflective lens of HP ST. No matter the outcome of the election, it's bound to be a fun and meaningful night with lots of laughter and community spirit. If you can't get to Boston, don't worry, there's going to be a livestream option that's on sale starting today as well. If you are a premium member, we sent out a code last night for $5 off the tickets that are on sale now and we'd love to see you there.  

Beth [00:01:48] Let's talk about the debate.  

[00:01:49] Music Interlude.  

[00:01:57] In the lead up to the vice presidential debate and then again in the aftermath, so much is discussed and written about whether this matters. And I would like to make a motion that we expel that analysis from the conversation because I have just felt, especially since Covid, we don't know what is going to matter or how it's going to matter or when it's going to matter. And so I just kind of like to release that question.  

Sarah [00:02:27] Well, the more accurate statement would probably be everything matters. What do we do with that? Because in an election this close, everything does matter. Paradoxically, to some people, nothing matters because they're not going to change their opinions no matter what about Kamala or Donald. I'm trying to be consistent in whether I use their first names or last name. And so I think that that's what we're struggling with when we have endless doesn't matter. Is because we are stuck in between everything matters to one group of Americans and nothing matters to another group of Americans. And we don't know quite what to do with that.  

Beth [00:03:10] And watching a debate is no longer a shared experience because so many people take in clips. So you can't even really tell much from viewership whether something matters and how many people watched it, how many of those people were actually undecided and this impacted their decision. I think the way that it echoes and gets repackaged and distorted and amplified around social media for some truly unknowable period of time. I mean, my personal algorithms seem so divorced from the present in terms of what they show me and when they show it to me; it's just really hard to say anything very conclusive about the effects of these performances.  

Sarah [00:03:54] I was thinking a lot about that as I watched the debate, which, listen, you do have a shared experience if you're a member of the Pantsuit Politics Premium Community. We have so much fun chatting on Patreon and Substack with everybody as we're watching, which is such a great experience. Because the big analysis from this debate felt like we were time traveling back to the good old days because it was policy rich and pretty civil, just not two terms we use a lot during this Trumpian era of American politics. So that part was refreshing. And I was thinking, well, this is how it used to be, though, right? And even before social media, because everyone up there was a professional, you were waiting for that sort of one breakthrough moment. It was George H.W. Bush looking at his watch. It was Nixon sweating. It was Reagan saying, "I wouldn't hold my opponent's youth and inexperience against them." Even before Facebook and TikTok, that's how we knew. Because it's so interesting. I really have been trying to deconstruct this because I totally agree with you.  

[00:05:07] It feels like we're not sharing anything. It feels like it's all a processed through social media. But at the same time, it does feel like even in the midst of this media upheaval, the media sends these signals, even if everybody's not watching, like, this is what matters. This is a moment where they're going to be maybe TikTok moments. Do you know what I mean? There still feels to me like the media, the legacy media sends us this vibe or signal like, okay, everybody, you don't have to watch the whole thing but this is the moment. So I think this like 60 minutes interview she's going to do that he's refusing to do is like the next one. Even though we're not picking up the news or watching CNN or watching the 5 O'clock news, it still feels like there is a road where walking down together, is the best way I can describe it. You know what I mean?  

Beth [00:06:08] And I do think that's the job of the legacy media, to point out-- the metaphor that's coming to mind for me as imperfect, but landforms. If we're walking a road, it's the job of the legacy media to say, there's a lot between this mountain and the next one, but you should be aware of these mountains. I think that's fair. I'm really struggling with the notion that this debate was a return to a more normal era of politics, that it was so civil, that it was so polite. I keep thinking about the song from Into the Woods, where a little Red Riding Hood says nice is different than good. It's bothered me so much that this morning I looked up the Latin root of civility, which means befitting a citizen. Because while I am also grateful for handshakes and chit chat on the stage and a lack of name calling, I think that the fact that we took this debate in as an example of civility and an improvement also demonstrates how much Donald Trump has shifted everyone's expectations.  

[00:07:24] I don't think of someone being calm as necessarily being civil. J.D. Vance, in every answer, said something that is demonstrably false and that he knows to be demonstrably false. And the level, the pervasiveness of that falseness, that dishonesty, to me is as troubling as Donald Trump being unhinged on stage. There are different flavors, maybe different fruits of the same poisonous tree. But I have a hard time saying, well, that was awfully civil when in the era pre-Trump, we had candidates spin and contort and change their minds and flip flop. But the level of blatant dishonesty from Vance I think is pretty new and is facilitated only by the Trump era. And it worries me that we're kind of like, well, at least at least they didn't yell at each other.  

Sarah [00:08:35] I cannot believe you are not convinced that Donald Trump tried to save the Affordable Care Act and that that was not wholly and completely really perspective shifting for you. No, I mean, I agree; but here's what I kept thinking about how does this feel? Does it feel like we've gone back in time? Because Griffin was watching with me and he was like, is this what it used to be like? And I'm like, yeah, kind of. Because yes he lied, 100 percent, but there was just a real Deja vu for me of like, yeah, I remember this. I remember the twisting and the shifting to make it sound like Democrats have created every problem and they are the problem. We don't really have a solution, but they're the problem. That to me is a throughline. That was how it was to watch George W Bush get up there and say that John Kerry's the flip flopper. And that's the real problem here. That's what it was like to watch Mitt Romney and Barack Obama get up there and debate something that Mitt Romney proposed in Massachusetts.  

[00:09:46] As far as health care reform, there was-- I'm not comparing J.D. Vance to Mitt Romney. I understand that they're massively different. But the smoothness and the way in which I thought, well, this is what the Republican Party's just going to go back to being, because that to me, it was a full time experiment. It was like both a time travel and also a time forward, which I think is actually where I totally agree with you. To me, it just felt like this is how they're going to pick this up and carry this forward. Probably more blatant lies, but still the same thing, which is a lot of critiques but no solutions. Because when your critique is always less government, you don't have a lot of solutions about how to solve people's problems. So I think we've had a lot of conversations about like, well, what comes next? And I think J.D. Vance put on a real dog and pony show about what comes next for the Republican Party after Donald Trump is no longer on the scene. And it was pretty slick. And there's a lot of it that I thought, yeah, I recognize this as I've seen this show before.  

Beth [00:10:49] I don't feel that way at all because I don't feel like it's a less government solution in any respect. Tariffs are not less government, it's more. J.D. Vance said, and I agree with him on this, we need to spend more money on child care. He said we need to reshore American jobs. There was no one proposing free trade on that stage. So, yes, I think Republicans in the past certainly have said Democrats are the problem. We have to get them out of office to have any chance at a solution. I think that's a clear through line. But what that solution is or even the outlines of it or the philosophy behind it, I think is totally different. I think there's almost nothing recognizable in the old Republican Party with what J.D. Vance represents. And I think JD Vance represents something quite different from Donald Trump. The takes that I have valued most in reading about the debate today are the ones that have said Donald Trump might be kind of unhappy with what happened last night, because this for J.D. Vance was very much about J.D. Vance, not about Donald Trump.  

Sarah [00:11:49] Well, no, I totally agree with you because I was like, well, where are the new signposts, where are the new cornerstones, and all the censorship stuff that he was really staking his January 6th rewrite on, and the populous thread of the tariffs and we're going to get everything to be more affordable to you? To me all that means is tax cuts. I think that they have a big talk, a big game. And I even include the Josh Hawley's. But I think when it comes down to it, it's just going to be more tax cuts. I don't really think they have any other ideas. I think they'll try with this tariff thing. And I was super fascinated about how often he would link tariffs to something. I know that there's a big macro take that he's slick, but there were a couple times (and I consider myself a close listener and a smart person) that I thought, I don't know what he just said. I don't understand the policy proposal he's making because I don't think he was making one. Like about tariffs and immigration and wages, I was like what are you talking about? And I'm pretty well versed in your dark right wing seed oil corners on the Internet. And I'm like, what was that? So to me that's the same thing. It's the twisting and spinning until you can't really track the through line because there isn't one. Because there isn't a proposal there except for they suck, trust us.  

Beth [00:13:28] I had that same experience of not being able to follow a lot of where J.D. Vance was going, so I read the transcript this morning.  

Sarah [00:13:35] Okay. Did that help?  

Beth [00:13:37] To the extent that there were big themes and big ideas permeating what J.D. Vance had to say, they were we need less immigration. And what I hear is both legal and illegal. Just less immigration, period.  

Sarah [00:13:52] Got that one. Definitely, that one came through. That one I understood.  

Beth [00:13:56] We need to bring much more manufacturing to the United States and we need to produce more energy. Conveniently leaving out how much energy we are producing now and that it is the most that we've ever produced. The one thing that he said on this that I was happy to hear someone surface is nuclear energy. I agree that we need nuclear energy.  

Sarah [00:14:16] Everybody in my chat was thrilled for you. Just thrilled.  

Beth [00:14:19] I just think it's really important especially if we're just going to keep letting the AI people do what they do. The amount of energy that that requires, we're going to have to have nuclear energy. I don't think there's another path. So I thought that was good. And then the third piece that he kept coming back to without actually saying anything concrete is we have to be more pro-family in every way. We have to support IVF. We have to support child care. The answer to these abortion restrictions is helping women trust that they'll be okay if they get pregnant. So he continues to want to have that conversation on the old turf. And this is where I thought Tim Walz could have been a lot more effective.  

[00:15:02] Instead of reciting the names of women who spoke at the DNC about abortion and retelling Amber Thurman's story, I think he should say directly, "You keep wanting to have a conversation about abortion that is only about women who become pregnant and don't want to be. But these laws that Trump's Supreme Court have allowed all over the United States that result in death, have nothing to do with that. You are not keeping up here." You know what I mean? The struggle for me when I read the transcript again was that I could pick out some themes from J.D. Vance. I don't think they're good themes or themes that I necessarily agree with. I could not pick out a lot of themes from Tim Walz. I felt like he was very stuck in trying to adhere to what he and Kamala Harris have decided their proposal is on each issue, but unable to tie it to anything else that was going on in the debate.  

Sarah [00:16:01] They adjusted expectations for Tim Walz before this debate for a reason. It's not his strong suit. If America wants more "regular people" and less lawyers, then that's what they're going to get on a debate stage. So I just want to say that up front. If everybody wants our government to be run not wholly and completely by lawyers, then they're not all going to be debate superstars like J.D. Vance, Yale Law School graduate, okay? That's fine with me. I'm happy to have someone that's a little clunkier on a debate stage. Because I do think that Tim Walz was the strongest one. It was just his lived experience. When we got into January 6th, when we got into Congress passed in the ACA, when we got into what he's done in Minnesota, he was really strong.  

[00:16:47] Coming out the gates with, like, would you bomb Iran for the governor of Minnesota? Well, that's a tough one and that's fine with me. That's okay because I think that that is to be expected if we want people with different types of backgrounds running for these jobs. And also, I can't judge Tim Walz because also when I get going real fast I drop sentences and pick them up in other places, which he did a lot. I was like, man, is this what I sound like? Because I do. You get in front of yourself and you have to slow down and be like, wait, I better complete that thought before I move on to the next one. And you could tell he did that so often.  

Beth [00:17:25] I don't know that it is fine with me that neither of them had much to say about Iran when it was obvious that that was going to come up at this debate yesterday. I totally agree with you that we need people in government with lots of different skill sets and experiences and that that's going to change what these debates sound like if we actually get there. And I think that's right. And I think it's an argument for changing how debates are conducted generally. We've talked before about how this format isn't very illuminating anyway. So I don't mean to be too harsh about Tim Walz. What surprised me is that I think at every moment since, it's become clear that Kamala Harris would be the Democratic Party's nominee, she and her campaign have been so clear about what the objective is at every single appearance. Every single appearance that she's made, it seems like they know exactly who they're talking to and what they want to say.  

[00:18:25] And I did not understand what Tim Walz believed his assignment was during this debate. He got this position by being the fiery, fun, worked up, normal guy governor of Minnesota who called JD and Trump weird. And on this stage, I think he was trying to slot into more of a different posture. I especially didn't understand the strategy of constantly saying, "I agree with J.D. about this," or "I believe that you do care about this." Again, I think that's nice, but I think nice is different than good. And I think connecting with Trump voters or people who are inclined to vote with Trump and Vance is different than making J.D. Vance seem like an average guy with whom he disagrees. Because I don't think that's what's going on with J.D. Vance.  

Sarah [00:19:18] I have a theory and it gives me a lot of sympathy for Tim Walz, which is, would you have predicted that J.D. Vance was going to go out there and play Mr. nice guy, too? I wouldn't have. I would give anything to know what Pete Buttigieg thinks post-debate, because I think it if you gained it out, yeah, maybe this is one scenario you could have applied. Okay, J.D. Vance comes out here and doesn't do what he does in almost every other interview, which is tap the deep wells of weirdness in the far right Internet. Instead, he comes out here, plays Super Mr. normal, twist Donald Trump's positions into moderate positions and agrees with Tim Walz. Yeah, I agree with you. Yeah, I think that's a great idea. I mean, I wouldn't have predicted that. I knew J.D. Vance was going to be good because for all our critiques of him, he's not a stupid man. But I thought what he did was really, really savvy. And I think it probably threw Tim Walz off his game. I wonder if he was prepared for an aggressive going after Tim Walz military history, personal attacks, MAGA balls to the wall J.D. Vance. And that's not what he got. I mean, that's my guess. I have no idea. I wasn't at the debate prep, but that's my guess.  

Beth [00:20:34] I think the trouble with J.D. Vance (and it's a credit to his intellect and his particular sets of skills) is he can just be who he needs to be in a moment. He can do a Sunday show appearance differently than he does a right wing podcast appearance, differently than he does a debate stage appearance, differently than he acts on the floor of the United States Congress, which is different still yet than he acts when he's in Ohio. He is a person who I think doesn't really know who he is, and that allows him to just transactionally be whoever he needs to be. And so I do think that they should have been prepared for a Vance pivot to the center for Vance trying to be the superstar of the Trump- Vance ticket.  

[00:21:20] I think it was totally foreseeable that he would use this opportunity to flip the script on himself as a disastrous choice because he, like Donald Trump, is a survivor. J.D. Vance was not going to go down over the cat ladies on the couch jokes. And so I do wish that that Walz had more of a focused strategy. And the thing that is appealing about Walz-- and again, I am less sold on him than a lot of our audience. So I have to reach to see this, but I think the thing that people find appealing about him is that they think he is genuine, that he's the same guy in every space. And so it was just surprising to me to see that he couldn't handle that shifting from Vance a little bit differently and a little bit more effectively.  

Sarah [00:22:11] Yeah. I think the problem with someone who can shift into a bunch of different forms is he got to prep for all of them. There is so much time in the day when you're running for president on a very short campaign schedule. So I have a lot of sympathy. This is a tough format. And I don't think he bombed. I really don't. I think J.D. Vance was slicker and better, but I think the moment that will bubble up and go viral and be the one people process is the January 6th moment. And I know we're going to get into the specifics up next.  

[00:22:44] Music Interlude.  

Beth [00:22:52] We alluded to the opening question about foreign policy because Iran yesterday launched 180 ballistic missiles at Israel. This comes in a week when Israel had started ground operations in Lebanon for the first time since 2006. Sarah, I don't want to get too far away from the debate, but I read a really interesting piece this morning from Will Selber about how Israel has for years been preparing for a ground war with Hezbollah, that they gave Hamas short shrift and that is why October 7th was able to happen. That Israel's intelligence forces were much more finely attuned to Hezbollah, that all of their preparations were for the geography of that northern Israel southern Lebanon area and not the tunnels of Gaza, and that Israel is now shifting to the war that they've planned for. And I think you can see that. We haven't talked a lot about the exploding pagers, but you execute something like causing the pagers of Hezbollah operatives to explode shows years of preparation and operations. And so we're just in a different phase now. The moderators of the debate positioned it as on the brink of all-out war. The New York Times this morning, David Sanger wrote it's here. This is the longer feared wider war in the Middle East. And both Vance and Walz seemed very unprepared to me to acknowledge that shift or talk about what might come next.  

Sarah [00:24:28] This is another place where the paradox is evident but hard to name in a presidential debate, in a podcast, in a TikTok video, in an editorial. Doesn't matter. I've been thinking a lot about this conflict. Mainly because in a very short amount of time I heard both Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates, two people that I have enormous respect for, talk about their travels to the West Bank and they both use the term it seemed like the Jim Crow South to them. That there were two distinct levels of existence between the Palestinians and the Israelis who live in the West Bank, as evidenced by this missile attack. The only person killed was a Palestinian because, as reported on NPR, they don't have the same level of protection as far as bomb shelters as the Israelis do. I've been thinking that a lot about the disappearance of a left or a center left from Israeli politics. And I've been thinking about this argument that we are attacked, we attack back. Where this small force outweighed by this big threat of Iran and how Israel uses that narrative to say these are the proxies.  

[00:25:44] And this is not untrue. This is accepted reality that Iran has these proxies in Hezbollah and Syria and with Hamas. And also, at what point do we say in your ability to exhibit strength, because we acknowledge that there is this power that with all these surrounding proxies that are such a threat to you, when you are so successful, (which they have been) do we acknowledge that maybe this threat that you are using to justify all these attacks is not the threat you or the rest of the world understood them to be? I think that's what I'm sort of seeing with this back and forth with Hezbollah. They took out Hezbollah in a way that I think even surprised them. The lack of pushback from Iran I kept saying, well, it's going to escalate. Everybody, it's going to escalate. I take David Sanger's point, but this is not what we expected. Iran is not the militarily military strength, which means they are also not the military threat that we have based so much of our understanding about this region on. And I think that this shift is like just almost-- generational seems like a throwaway word, but just seems like a dramatic moment. And as we come on the anniversary of October 7th, where our understanding of Israel, the region, Iran, these proxies, the shift, not to mention the shift of these people around has got to change.  

[00:27:39] On October 7th, we were all like, well, this happened on Netanyahu's watch. He's done well. He's only stronger. The understanding that Iran was this threat, they'll retaliate, they'll wipe out Israel. And Israel is the opposite. Israel is wiping out Hezbollah, it's wiping out the proxies. So it's just like it's this moment where it's so hard especially if you've been in this and had an understanding of this region for a long time to wrap your head around the changes. And so to throw this to J.D. Vance and Tim Walz and be like, what would you do? It's such an incredibly complex region of the world that is shifting dramatically. I think everyone's understanding of the reality on the ground is shifting so dramatically and has been since October 7th. It's one of those moments in a debate where you're like, how could you answer this? But any answer is going to inevitably leave out just massive amounts of nuance and complexity. So I'm worried about my own talking about it on our podcast, much less on a debate stage where they're being timed.  

Beth [00:28:51] I think that's really fair to say that it's an impossible question especially as it was constructed, would you support preemptive strikes on Iran? I think that is impossible for the two of them to answer and not the role that they're auditioning for.  

Sarah [00:29:03] We had some real confusion about the role. There's another macro thing we're going to hit a lot.  

Beth [00:29:08] Yeah, let's come back to that. I do want to just finish this thought that the two of them don't have all the information that they need to be able to answer that question. It would be unwise for them as a sitting senator and the running mate of the sitting vice president to do that anyway. What I do think Americans need to hear from these campaigns is an overall philosophy about foreign policy. We have heard from Vice President Harris and Walz tried to do this, I think, in his response that she just wants to see diplomacy in this region. And I think that's really all she can say about the specific conflict. We also, though, are having this conversation against a multi-year shift in Americans willingness to put our troops in any combat zone, and a fatigue with war and an understanding that we are in many ways unprepared for future combat.  

[00:30:03] The Biden administration's policies have really placed America in the position of trainer, financer information sharer, but not active combatant. And I think we need to know if that's the continued direction that these campaigns believe that we should pursue. I think we need to know even outside of what's going on with Israel and Iran, outside of what's going on with Ukraine and Russia, which was not discussed at all during this debate, what is your philosophy about when American troops should be engaged in active combat zones? What should we be doing in terms of American troops that are still on the ground now in very dangerous places, just trying to mitigate the threat posed by terrorist groups? What do you think about America's place in the world? I think that's the question that could have been gotten to in connection with this crisis.  

Sarah [00:31:05] I agree. And I think you see that shifting understanding of our role in the world in the response of Tennessee National Guard members being deployed to the Middle East in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. The answer is I don't know what Americans want. I don't think either of those men is going to exhibit the kind of leadership you and I are looking for on that question. It's a real moment where Americans, because of the actions of previous administrations, are exhausted rightfully so. I was opposed to the invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter. And also, I think the idea that, as a result, we should draw back troops from everywhere in the world is a bad idea because it's not going to end the way we think it is. It's not going to end with us safely ensconced in the United States and the world is falling apart while we complain about immigration. Does anyone see the connection there?  

[00:32:16] I saw this tweet where it was like if you ask any member of the military intelligence community, this is what keeps them up at night. And it was a drone display over China, just these swarms of drones taking off and flying on these formations. And I was like, why? And they're like, because those could be bombs. And I'm like, okay. I just think that I would really love to hear not just an articulation about our presence in the world, which I think is more you just got to lead people through it when we need it. Don't give him a heads up on the debate stage. I know that sounds terrible. As I'm saying, I can hear how it sounds, but I'm sorry. People are not going to be like now that you've explained it to me really calmly and lead me through it, I'm cool with it. It's just going to have to be sort of a case by case basis. But I do think they could have done what you've talked about a lot previously. War is changing. The way we fight wars is changing. And this has got to be something the American people are aware of, are informed about, are being engaged with because it matters and we're getting left behind. And that matters to our security, particularly if all you want to do is talk about China.  

Beth [00:33:31] These are all domestic issues, too. The mental health of people who have served is a massive domestic issue. The opportunity economy does not exist without the military in our country. And who joins the military and who is asked to sacrifice in connection with military service is a massive domestic issue. Defense manufacturing is an enormous part of everyone's plans for the economy that we don't talk enough about. So I think they could have pivoted in a thousand directions to say something of substance, even though they could not say, "Hey, I think we ought to go engage directly with Iran." Which let me just say really clearly, I do not think that we ought to go engage directly with Iran. I think you're right, that our understanding of this region is going to have to change. I don't know how Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons plays into that shifting understanding, but there's a lot at work here and I just don't think our country has the will to fight another war right now. I think we probably have the will to continue to exist defensively. But this is the problem with the way war is changing and we see this in Ukraine as well. The line between defense and offense is eroding along with the changing nature of war.  

Sarah [00:34:52] The problem is the world has to believe we're willing to.  

Beth [00:34:58] Yes.  

Sarah [00:34:58] Often, we don't have to. They just have to believe that we will. They just have to see us as a threat. As like you pushed too far, we'll show up. And I don't think for a lot of reasons, including that the American people are definitively and emphatically saying we don't want to show up anywhere, there's just a lot of bad guys around the world that go, okay, well, this is my moment. They're not going to do anything. That's what's happened in Sudan. Everybody was like, I don't have any taste for this. I don't have any appetite for this right now, so let's go for it. And that's what happened and it sucks. I don't like it. I think we should go back to the other way, just being honest.  

Beth [00:35:39] And it's tough because this is one of the things that J.D. Vance most effectively says on Donald Trump's behalf. If I paraphrase, it's he's crazy but he's our crazy guy. And there are a lot of crazy guys in the world. And when there are a lot of crazy guys in the world, you need your own crazy guy who makes them a little bit nervous, too. I find it mystifying that people trust Donald Trump on some of these issues. But I do think that Vance makes the most effective case he can make that there is some deterrence in the unpredictability of Donald Trump.  

Sarah [00:36:09] Yeah, but I love that Tom Walz was like, yeah, but he makes all the wrong people nervous.  

Beth [00:36:14] It's true.  

Sarah [00:36:14] He doesn't make Putin nervous. He doesn't make Xi Jinping nervous. He makes NATO nervous. That's not what we want, it's the opposite. It's the opposite. He makes all the wrong people nervous with his unpredictability.  

Beth [00:36:26] And I wish he could have paired that with what I thought Vice President Harris said so effectively in her debate with Trump, which is the people that we are most worried about, our adversaries, see these traits as easily manipulated.  

Sarah [00:36:40] Yeah.  

Beth [00:36:40] Let's talk a little bit about Hurricane Helene, which has come up a few times and has been on my mind for days and days. I thought it was a good bridge to climate change. And I thought that it was deft of the moderators not to open a debate about whether climate change exists, but just to say what is the responsibility of the administration towards climate change as we see these devastating effects throughout the country?  

Sarah [00:37:05] Did you find an answer in the transcripts from J.D. Vance?  

Beth [00:37:09] What I learned from the transcript is that he believes that because America has the capacity to manufacture in what he would describe as a cleaner, more ethical way than China, the answer here is just more manufacturing and more energy production in America. Now, he doesn't seem to grapple with the type of energy production or the type of manufacturing. He certainly doesn't use the word green. He certainly doesn't talk about alternatives to fossil fuels. He just thinks bringing everything back to the United States is the path forward here.  

Sarah [00:37:42] Now, what's so interesting is maybe it is. It's all just make America great again. Like that's just still the consistent message despite the fact that we tried four years of that. And at the end of the first Trump I did not feel, in the middle of a global pandemic, that America was great again and that the president is actually in charge, not the vice president. So, yeah, I thought this was a really important moment. I was really happy they put this question so early into the debate because I do think in this weird online media environment there's been so much chatter about the people of this area are being ignored or uncut. Like Joe Biden didn't get there within 12 hours. It means he doesn't care. I was pleasantly surprised that J.D. Vance did not pick up and run with that particular argument because I think it's stupid and not true. But I think that what this named, which is another thing I've heard so many people talk about, is that there is no climate haven. That this was considered a part of the country that was "safe" from these threats.  

[00:38:50] I wouldn't put Asheville at the top of my cities at risk for a hurricane or a tropical storm. I'll be honest with you. And so I think naming that, I wish we could spend a whole debate on the way Americans refuse to grapple with this reality that they use products or air conditioner or God knows what else to move to areas of the world or areas of the country at threat or think they're escaping those areas and just really struggle with the fact that we are all in this together. And even if you live in a climate haven, let's say there's a couple that exist and you live in one, the impact of these disasters on our country economically, people's perception of the governments, they're voting habits, all of it, it all matters. And it's so frustrating that they feel like one-offs to people. Although, I will say that Hurricane Helene does feel different to me. It feels like it's getting people's attention because it's not an area usually so impacted because the impact is so enormous and heartbreaking. It does feel different even to the fact that it was so early in the debate that we were talking about this. Because I don't feel like climate change came up at all at the last debate.  

Beth [00:40:16] And it, too, illustrates how much is connected. So if you take the Vance approach, if you truly believe that in America we can keep our standard of living exactly the same or improve it by just making more stuff here, and that that's a real answer on climate change-- which I don't think it is-- I don't know how you square that with the Trump fans position on immigration. Because we don't have enough people to build all those manufacturing facilities and then run them. We just don't. And we are not going to without significant immigration coming into the country.  

Sarah [00:40:56] Yeah, I think there were a couple of moments that Tim Walz could have said, you want families. You clearly have concerns about this demographic challenge. We're not going to get there on the backs of American women pumping out a bunch more babies, especially as you put reproductive health care in such a precarious position that women don't trust that if they have a pregnancy they want they will get the care they needed to save their lives. Because that wears me out- the immigration. The way he would just go back to it, I kept thinking, Lord, I hope this gets through to people that everything is just immigration. You could tell there was even the moment where he got the pretty tough question about the fact that he called his running mate America's Hitler and he was, like, let me tell you about Kamala Harris and immigration. I was like, okay, good talk, friend. Because it's the way that they blame everything on her as if she, the vice president, is running border control is wild to me. It's so detached from her job and reality, even though they did put her in charge of immigration from South America.  

[00:42:04] And migration from South America, which I think she did as much as she could, it's just so hard. But again, I know this is a theme I've hit on here, but it's like this paradox because they both want to say-- I think this is why both the immigration and this vice presidential roll situation is sticky and hard for them to handle because they both need to say the experience she had as a vice president is important experience that gives her knowledge and skills and capacity to be president. And also, she wasn't president. The same sticky situation that you want to run on the successes of the Biden administration and you don't want to be weighed down with the liabilities of the Biden administration. That's why Tim Walz or anybody else can't quite get at this attack because it's a tough one, although it's the same one they should be under because he was president.  

[00:43:00] It's not like he's this new outsider for the love of God. But it's a sticky one. It's a hard one to explain without telling Americans you misunderstand this. Isn't that probably what we get to so often in these debates and in these campaigns? It's like there's just a certain points where you want to say, “Y'all don't understand this. You got this upside down and inside out.” But you can't really say that to a voter. Although, I really feel like they should say that to more than 50% of people who support mass deportations. Wish somebody to have the guts to be like, well, those Americans you polled are wrong. That's the wrong thing to do.  

Beth [00:43:33] No, I think that's right that leadership is critical. And the willingness to tell people what you think about that is not true. J.D. Vance talked about common sense a lot, and it kept making me think about Einstein quote, that common sense is the sum of prejudices that you developed before the age of 18. And often it's incorrect. It sounds right. It feels right. But if you have any experience putting it into action, it's wrong. And it's absolutely wrong at the scale that the president has to operate on. So we've gotten a lot of questions about the job of the vice president. And the truth of that is even worse than we all misunderstand it. Because I think the truth of it is it's different for every single vice president. Constitutionally, the vice president is there in case something happens to the president, and that's about it. The other role is to be president of the Senate and to cast tiebreaking votes and to certify the election on that January 6th kind of moment. But other than that, the job of the vice president is other duties as assigned by the president.  

[00:44:40] Vice President Harris has been involved in the Northern Triangle countries, trying to get at the root causes of immigration from those countries. She's been involved on reproductive rights, on gun violence. She's met a lot of world leaders. So you don't want to diminish those accomplishments. As you said, she has had experience in this role that prepares her as well as maybe one can be prepared to be the president. It's a tough job to prepare for, though, because every president's presidency ends up having to be responsive to the demands of the moment. Donald Trump, if he is re-elected will be different the second time necessarily, because the world will be different and he will have to respond to it in some way. I think he'll do that less effectively than other people do.  

[00:45:25] But if Joe Biden won a second term, there's only so much you can take from what somebody has done before from their record. That's why I struggled with how much Minnesota came up. I understand that's what Governor Walz has to talk about. And I think he does have a good fine record there to run on. But who knows what the universe will deal to the next president and vice president that they'll have to be prepared for? And who knows how the two of them will sort those responsibilities out amongst themselves? I certainly don't think, especially after that debate performance, that Donald Trump would give J.D. Vance much to do at all, because I think he would feel enormously threatened by the skill and confidence that J.D. Vance brings to the table in terms of how he talks about himself.  

Sarah [00:46:09] I almost feel the opposite. I feel like J.D. Vance is going to be a much more active vice president than Mike Pence because he's good. He's also clearly good at playing Trump whisperer and doing just enough and then acquiescing if he hurt his ego. I think that he clearly has a skill set in the Trump universe and I think he would use it as vice president. I think he has big plans. And so I think he would worm his way in there and the second it got too hot he'd say whatever he needed to calm Donald Trump down and get out of there. And that he would be working behind the scenes with the bureaucrats and appointees to achieve something. What? I'm still not 100 percent sure. I'm still not 100 percent sure on the overall political philosophy of J.D. Vance and what he wants the government to do and not to do. That gets a little fuzzy for me. But I think we have to be careful, too, because isn't there a way where you could just be like, okay, well, then who knows? Why are we voting at all if once they get in there who knows what they're going to do? Who knows how they're going to respond, which is 100 percent true.  

[00:47:26] Like the lesson of the George W Bush presidency. Mr. compassionate conservative domestic policy and then he gets September 11th. But to me, with Trump in particular, we know what he got. He got a pandemic and he failed miserably because he doesn't trust people. He certainly doesn't trust experts. And he wants to make it all about himself. And I am confident that whatever the universe throws his way in a second term, those three things would remain the same. And so with Tim Walz and the Minnesota part, I just say, okay, well, when I get hard things sometimes I screw up. I listen to the experts. I try to do what's best for the American people. I try to get the outcome in which people can continue to live freely and thrive generationally. And that's what I want to keep doing. Okay, great. Sounds good.  

Beth [00:48:20] And I think what we know about J.D. Vance is that he'll take the temperature at the moment and go with what he feels like is the temperature of the moment. He's told us that. He told us that about Mark Robinson when he was asked directly about the story of lieutenant governor in North Carolina who's running for governor. Do you support this? Does this seem okay to you? Do you believe him? JD Vance His response was, "We'll just have to see how this plays out in the court of public opinion." And I think that's the most telling thing about him. That's what he did on Springfield. He has no responsibility for the truth of it. Someone told him this and so he can make it a story. And he's right to make it a story, by the way. I mean, that's where his skill set comes. And he can justify whatever he's done in the name of the court of public opinion. So I think we do know a lot about how J.D. Vance and Donald Trump would approach these problems versus how Vice President Harris and Governor Walz would.  

Sarah [00:49:13] Yeah. They do it all the time. He did it so many times with abortion and school shootings. Like we can fix anything. Until it's a tough nut, guys, and what are we going to do? We're limited. We can solve the global economy. We can solve inflation. We can take everything back from China. Make China do everything we want them do. We can make Mexico do whatever we want to do. But our kids getting shot at school is a tough one. Probably should to just make sure the doors lock better. I mean, give me a break.  

Beth [00:49:48] Doors and windows. Yeah.  

Sarah [00:49:49] Listen, my husband texted me and he said Markus is the new Ken Bowen. Have you seen Markus yet?  

Beth [00:49:57] I haven't seen Markus.  

Sarah [00:49:58] I don't know what channel he was on. He was on some cable news channel. He was a college student and they were like, Markus, what do you think about the situation about like if she'd done it, why hasn't she done it already? And Markus is a genius.  

Gary Mosher [00:50:11] The vice president being in office for these last-- see he's already upset about it. The vice president being in office for all these years and not being able to make the change was the allegation from J.D. Vance. You said to me, "I've been to high school civics class." Why did you say that?  

Markus [00:50:24] Because if anybody took high school civics class, they'd know what the vice president can do and what the vice president can't do. I want to make a quick point. Neither candidate on that stage talked about what executive action they're going to take on day one to do what they want, nor were they asked. Because they know that they can't. That's not how the vice presidency works. You don't get to do what you want. You do what the president delegates you to do.  

Gary Mosher [00:50:49] One day Markus is going to be all of our teachers in civics class guys.  

Sarah [00:50:53] The reason they're not asking them what executive actions they're issuing already is put Markus in charge. It's so true. Such a good way to put it. We're not talking about the executive actions. I watched him also said that. I wish him also said, can you tell me the executive actions Kamala Harris issued that you have a problem with? No, because that's not what she does as vice president. It's not what you would do either. But again, that's a nuanced one. We're debating being the vice presidents because it's so important. We have to weigh these guys, especially J.D. Vance, because his running mate is old as hell. And also their capacity is limited. I think what you said is true. It depends on the personality and the partnership. But I also think Marcus makes a really strong point, and you can see the way that J.D. Vance worms his way out of that with the abortion and the school violence questions.  

Beth [00:51:48] I was a little frustrated here that Tim Walz gave so much credit to J.D. Vance, too. Because while I think it's true that J.D. Vance does not want school shootings and that his heartbreaks for every life lost, I think it's fair to say then what are we going to do about it? And this really isn't a conversation about differing paths to the same result, because schools all over this country have taken dramatic steps to harden their campuses. Dramatic steps. So much money has been spent on this. And we could spend money until the end of time hardening our schools. We could make every school afford and that doesn't tell us what we're going to do for recess or pick up and drop off or kids who commit suicide. At some point, your care has to translate into some willingness to compromise anywhere. And we're talking about really reasonable steps. Why can't we come to a compromise around red flag laws and background checks?  

Sarah [00:52:53] And this is where one of his lies made my head turn around backwards a couple times-- probably at least five. The idea that guns are coming from Mexico made me want to scream. Americans are not grappling with this.  

Beth [00:53:12] That we export violence.  

Sarah [00:53:14] We export guns and ammunitions, massive amounts of them.  

Beth [00:53:20] And our gun culture.  

Sarah [00:53:21] And our gun culture. We want to play the victim on Fentanyl, and in a lot of ways we have a right to. We want to say the only thing bad that happens in America comes from other places. And that is so ridiculous and shortsighted and selfish and lame. We also send bad things out there. The fentanyl wouldn't be coming so freely if they could not prop up their cartels with our weapons and ammunition. The New York Times had such a good piece on the externality of the fact that we have so many guns. That was one of my favorite moments with Governor Walz when he was, like, sometimes it's just the guns. You want to talk about crime? Which I know is it did not come up very much for Mr. Vance.  

[00:54:09] The fact that we can't recruit police officers is not just about some of the rhetoric around 2020 and defunding the police, it's because it's freaking dangerous now because if you're a police officer, you have to assume that anyone you encounter is packing. Same for teachers. Part of the reasons we have trouble recruiting teachers is not because of-- I don't know, whatever reason he brought that links that to the voters somehow too-- is because you have to assume that you're going to be the victim of violence. That Is the externality. This fentanyl crisis a part of this is because we export weapons. There's no limits on how much ammunition you can you just drive over the border in Texas, pack up and pack right back into Mexico. That's absurd. And we as Americans do not grapple with that enough. We do not grapple with the fact that we're not just victims, that we are also perpetrators. Sorry. It just infuriated me.  

Beth [00:55:04] It's absolutely right. I did an interview with John Lowry for one of our recent episodes, we'll link it in the notes, about how the government of Mexico is suing American gun manufacturers for flooding Mexico with weapons. And they're telling knowingly flooding Mexico with weapons made here in the United States. So that was just a heinous shifting of responsibility for this problem onto other people when this is our problem. More than anything, these mass shootings and the gun violence in our country is our problem.  

Sarah [00:55:41] I mean, between that and the energy exports, I have some real concerns that the guys that really want to play around with tariffs don't understand what we actually import and export. I got some real just plain old pragmatic concerns about that.  

Beth [00:55:54] I was happy that child care came up. I was not satisfied at all with the discussion on that. I was very bummed that in what should have been a home run for Tim Walz, we got kind of a garbled answer when he was asked about paid family leave. And then what we heard from J.D. Vance, I had to go to the transcript on this one too you because I thought, what is he saying? And the transcript didn't help me much. I did get to we are going to have to spend more money. But he said one of the reasons that child care is so expensive is because we have too few people providing child care services. And I just think that's not true. I think the reason child care is so expensive is because child care, like elder care, like hospital care, does not scale. When you're talking about taking care of people-- he's right, we do need more people working in child care, but more people working in child care will not make it less expensive. It is not that people working in child care right now are so scarce that they can demand amazing wages. That's not what's going on out there. There are people who worked in child care for 40 years making barely $19 an hour. It's not that the labor supply is driving the cost of child care. And I think what J.D. really means is that more people need to care for their family members without being compensated for it. I think that's his real answer to the child care crisis.  

Sarah [00:57:17] I saw Jill Filipovic say the fact that he articulated this as his wife's challenge has everything you need to know about J.D. Vance and his perception of child care and the challenges of a child care situation within a family that is just really so hard. His wife had this hard job. You are also their parent. You brought them up a lot. I know all their ages now by heart. So why isn't it this also an issue for you, friend? It's because J.D. Vance has a very traditional conservative, and I would argue, minority held opinion about gender roles inside the family and outside the family. And Tim Walz, I'm surprised you listed this because I felt like a lot of times he was like, not our job. Congress’ job, local officials’ job. Stop pretending like we can wave a magic wand. Some of this is other people's jobs. I feel like he named that a lot, but it's so many of the top concerns for Americans are either solely in the purview of local governments and state governments or a really complicated mix. And we could get some leadership from the federal government, but at the end of the day it's going to come down to some other people.  

[00:58:29] I would like to encourage the Democratic Party, particularly local leaders, to get in front of an attack. I expected J.D. Vance to say, which is if you want to build, go to a red state. It's a lot easier to do there. So I would like for some of our blue cities and blue states to get in front of that critique before they figure it out. Because if we're going to be the Democratic Party that's really trying to bring the price of homeownership down, which I think has shit to do with people being outbid by illegal immigrants. What the hell is that about? Then we need to talk about it. We need to talk about it really, really quick and get in and acknowledge where we've fallen short and get better at it. I mean, for all his sort cross talk around abortion when he said they don't trust us and we need to work on that, it's good to say that. He's right. There's no shit he could do about it. Once you overturn Roe v Wade as a primary objective of the Republican Party for 40 years, I think it's going to be hard to untie that knot, but whatever. At least naming it in the same way-- feels like he stole that right from Nikki Haley-- is helpful. And so before they figure out they can name that about blue states and blue cities, I think we should probably get in front of it.  

Beth [00:59:36] It's not just overturning Roe versus Wade either. It's that state legislatures have acted with complete irresponsibility in the wake of the overturn of Roe versus Wade. That in Arizona they reinstated a law from the 1800s. that that we have not had any red state legislature seriously grappling with what the responsibility ought to look like after Roe versus Wade was overturned. If you want to run on this theory that states have different perspectives, values, resources, etc., then you need your state legislatures to go to bat after and show their competence and show their adaptability and show their willingness to be in the present, taking these issues seriously. And they cannot run on that record because it does not exist.  

Sarah [01:00:27] All right. We saved the best viral moment for the last just like the debate did.  

Beth [01:00:31] I do think that Tim Walz found his voice at the very end, and that it was the clip that will make the rounds the most. If something is persuasive to undecided voters, I hope that this is it.  


Sarah [01:00:45] Well, and I think that you can find the pattern in other moments in debates. It's when they step out of their predetermined, what they practiced, and they have a little bit of an exchange. That's where you get the moment. And this was the moment for this debate.  

JD Vance [01:00:59] But we have to remember that for years in this country, Democrats protested the results of elections. Hillary Clinton in 2016 said that Donald Trump had the election stolen by Vladimir Putin because the Russians bought like $500,000 worth of Facebook ads. This has been going on for a long time. And if we want to say that we need to respect the results of the election, I'm on board. But if we want to say, as Tim Walz is saying, that this is just a problem that Republicans have had, I don't buy that.  

Norah [01:01:28] Governor.  

Tim Walz [01:01:28] January 6th was not Facebook ads. And I think of revisionist history on this. Look, I don't understand how we got to this point. But the issue was that happened. Donald Trump can do it. And all of us say there's no place for this. It has massive repercussions. This idea that there's censorship to stop people from doing, threatening to kill someone, threatening to do something that's not censorship. Censorship is book banning. We've seen that. We've seen that brought up. I just think for everyone tonight-- and I'm going to thank Senator Vance, I think this is the conversation they want to hear. And I think there's a lot of agreement. This is one that we are miles apart on. This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump's inability to say, he is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election?  

JD Vance [01:02:22] Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?  

Tim Walz [01:02:30] That is a damning non-answer.  

JD Vance [01:02:33] It's a damning non-answer for you to not talk about censorship. Obviously, Donald Trump and I think that there were problems in 2020. We've talked about it. I'm happy to talk about it further. But you guys attack us for not believing in democracy. The most sacred right under the United States, democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there's no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let's persuade one another. Let's argue about ideas and then let's come together afterwards.  

Tim Walz [01:03:13] You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's the test. That's the Supreme Court test.  

JD Vance [01:03:18] Tim. Fire in a crowded theater. You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddler should not wear masks.  

Norah [01:03:24] Senator, the governor does have the floor.  

JD Vance [01:03:25] That's not fire in a crowded theater. That is criticizing the policies of the government, which is the right of every American.  

Norah [01:03:32] Senator, the governor does have the floor for one minute to respond to you.  

Tim Walz [01:03:34] Please. Yeah, well, but I don't run Facebook. What I do know is I see a candidate out there who refused-- and now again I'm pretty shocked by this. He lost the election. This is not a debate. It's not anything anywhere other than in Donald Trump's world. Because, look, when Mike Pence made that decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage. What I'm concerned about is where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall? If he knows he could do anything, including taking an election and his vice president's not going to stand to it. That's what we're asking you, America. Will you stand up? Will you keep your oath of office even if the president doesn't? And I think Kamala Harris would agree she wouldn't have picked me if she didn't think I would do that because, of course, that's what we would do. So, America, I think you've got a really clear choice on this election of who's going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor Donald Trump.  

Sarah [01:04:38] He's focused on the future, Beth.  

Beth [01:04:39] He's focused on the future, but also the past because of the censorship on Facebook during Covid.  

Sarah [01:04:44] I mean, the Facebook ads. I loved it when Tim Walz was like, I don't really think January 6 was because of Facebook ads.  

Beth [01:04:51] I don't think it was either.  

Sarah [01:04:52] This is a confusing argument to me. I thought it was so great when he just said, did he lose? I'm focused on the future. Because that's how you get someone who is as practiced and slick as J.D. Vance. And look, it's hard. It's hard to do. I was on moot court, guys. It's hard to do, okay? You have to be not nervous, which, of course, he was and had every right to be. You have to have had a lot of experience of noticing it in the moment because it's not to be noticed. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to hide what they're saying. And so to catch them and to use that slickness as a tell, as a way to say, see, that there's no there-there. And so often you're 100 percent right. There was no there-there. Was there? Was lies. So often with J.D. Vance. And so I think that's why that moment hit is because he caught him and he used the slickness against him.  

Beth [01:05:53] I think so, too. And I am glad that Walz was able to make the case in that moment. I felt like he couldn't tie threads together the rest of the night, and I was really frustrated. But in that moment he tied the threads together. This is the job of the vice president. This is the thing. This is the thing where you need to be sure that the person that you're voting for will respect your vote. That the person you're voting for will respect other people enough to do what is in the interest of the country, not in their personal interest. And the choice is really clear between the two of us on that. I thought that was far and away his best moment.  

Sarah [01:06:30] Yeah, I loved it. I thought it was a great ending. And I do think just like with all the other debates, it's like that moment where people feel like they can see clearly what's being debated is always the one that will survive. And I think that's going to be the moment that survives. I hope it's that and Markus. I really do. I think more people should listen to Markus. I think it'll be helpful on lots of levels. And so I definitely think that was the moment, if there was one. I think X really like the "You told me you weren't going to fact check." I think that will get a lot of play in circles on the left because it was, again, very revealing when you're complaining that they're fact checking you. How did you feel about the moderators?  

Beth [01:07:13] I thought they were fine. But honestly, my overall assessment of this debate was that everybody was fine. I thought Tim Walz was fine. I found him disappointing. I found myself thinking a few times, it's curious to me that there were lots of people auditioning for this job who could do this part a lot better, that this is where we landed. But I thought he was fine. I thought J.D. Vance was fine in that he is very talented and skillful, but also a liar. Which is actually not fine to me. But if I'm just grading his performance, I would land at about a C because he really worked with the terrible material that is his platform.  

Sarah [01:07:55] Right. 

Beth [01:07:56] And I thought the moderators were fine. There were moments where I thought they lost control and moments when I thought they reeled it back in. I thought the questions were mostly good and appropriate in that they hit on the right topics. I thought the framing of some of them was weird, but that's okay. That's okay too, because one of the skills of a debate and of a president is to be able to talk about what you want to talk about, not what somebody else wants you to talk about. So overall, I thought it was fine. What do you think?  

Sarah [01:08:22] Yeah, I agree. I was happy with the questions. I felt like I didn't leave that debate thinking, man, there was something that's so essential to either my global concerns or my domestic concerns or the things that people list as their domestic concerns that was completely neglected, which was nice. It's a good feeling. Maybe that's what people are trying to name when they're saying they feel like it harkened back to a better time.  

Beth [01:08:47] Maybe. And look, I am for progress toward a better time and I will take the ones that we can get. I just am alarmed by how low our expectations have fallen of these events.  

Sarah [01:08:59] Are you after nine years of Donald Trump, doesn't that seem right? Doesn't it seem we'd come back with some low expectations?  

Beth [01:09:05] It seems both predictable and disturbing as I think about how long it's going to take us to recover from this era of our politics. Well, that's a cheery note to end on. So we're going to go Outside of Politics up next.  

[01:09:20] Music Interlude.  

[01:09:28] Sarah, you and I had a conversation this week that I thought maybe we could continue here on the show. We were just talking about how in life we really need some containers. I think this started with child care. I was saying to you that I do a lot of work with my church's child care program. And what I realized is that the program itself really has to have a lot of containers where we protect the children, where we protect the employees, where we protect the overall risk of the operation. We have to put a lot of things in containers. And because of that. Our parents have to pick up any slack. So the operating hours being really set is necessary, but that imposes so much stress on parents. If you're late, if there's a car accident on the interstate, if somebody's sick, if you get a flat tire, the stress of the child care center is about to close and I need to go pick this kid up is enormous. And I just feel like there are lots of parts of life right now because so many of us work from home, because so many of us work where email and text are a big part of our day. There aren't containers for many things, and I think that we're not experiencing many moments of relief that something in our life is on somebody else right now.  

Sarah [01:10:53] I can't get out of my head the framing of  Four Thousand Weeks that we wanted freedom and flexibility and now we're all, like, I don't like this. I think we wanted freedom from oppressive marriages, many of which were harmful. And now we are worried that it's too easy to enter and exit a marriage or just not to get married at all. And we wanted to be able to move and see the world and live in other parts of the country and live away from our families. And now we're like, I don't know. We wanted to leave the office. We wanted not to be tethered down. We wanted to leave churches. We wanted to leave civic organizations. A lot of people want to leave public school. And because rightfully so, there were critiques and oppression and restrictions; I just think maybe at the end of the day, though, we overcorrected it. And that the idea that we wanted no containers, which I think is a perfect word for it, we wanted no place that said this is it. There are some limits here. Because I think we need limits.  

[01:12:08] That's why rich people are miserable, guys. It's because they don't have any limits. You have to have some tension, some friction in life. There was a great conversation between Jia Tolentino and Ezra Klein. They talked about pleasure, but with a little bit of friction. You want to be able to pursue who you are and your individual identity. That's enormously important, that sense of purpose and passion and drive inside individual’s lives. And also, we need some containers because frictionless pursuit of our own individual pleasure, I don't think it has made us happy. I don't think it's made us happy. I think the reason that everybody was like, oh my God, please talk about overconsumption is because the only container we have right now is buy something to fix it. Be a consumer. You're always right. Consume your way to happiness. Consume your way to this freedom and flexibility, when really I think people want some containers.  

Beth [01:13:04] You mentioned Four Thousand Weeks. So I just want to note that that's a book by Oliver Burkeman that we both read recently and talked about on our premium show More to Say. And it was an excellent read in large part because it said life has a container in that you will die. And so we've got to always be cognizant of our own mortality when we're thinking about our time and what we're doing with it. This is coming up a lot for me as I read about the battle over banning cell phones in schools. I really deeply appreciate that I do have a container during the school day. My kids cannot text me. They do not have phones in their classrooms. Phones at my elementary school are prohibited, and at the middle school they have to stay in the locker all day. They cannot be seen or heard until the kids are on the bus. And so during that period of time when my kids are at school, they are at school and somebody else has them for that period.  

[01:14:02] Now, that doesn't mean that I'm totally free of interacting with the school. I got a lot of responsibility to the school system and a lot of responsibility to my kids about what happens during that period. But if they were texting me in the middle of the day, I forgot this, I need you to pick me up at this time, somebody just hurt my feelings, I got a B on this test, whatever, that is that is another like spillage in a world where everything seems to be spilling all over everything else. It's so difficult to carve out any time where you say this is just what I'm focused on for this time. I have an hour. I have a real hour just to think about this one thing or to execute this one task feels nearly impossible to me.  

Sarah [01:14:53] I do know because my youngest child is struggling at school right now, so I get spillage and it is enormously stressful. Stressful is not really a big enough word for the effects this has on my mental health because there is a lack of control. I'm not there. I don't know what he's doing, but I get all the blowback and the phone calls and the discipline consequences. And it's a little bit breaking me right now if I'm being honest because the container is spilling over and it is really, really hard. But I also want to say the containers-- man, paradox is my word today. Paradoxically, they're like strainers. There's holes because the containers are inevitably a human institution. I was talking to my friends, I'm like, I think we name this freedom and flexibility we all want; you know what words I never used to describe my church congregation? Freedom and flexibility.  

[01:15:53] So I think we have to understand, too, that we can't treat these containers, these institutions, other people like we treat everything as consumers, as if it's a transaction that will fix it. It's just going to make it hard in a different way, but I think it's just a hard that we need. I mean, capitalism tells us that there are no limits, that you're never going to die, that you can capture youth and freedom and flexibility if you just buy the right thing. And I just think that that is the main narrative because of the predominance of social media, which is primarily an advertising device that is filling our heads and that we're not hearing enough you are limited, you're going to fail, other people are going to disappoint you and that's the stuff of life. That is how we live fulfilled existences. It's getting wrapped up with each other in ways that are often disappointing and frustrating. Our goal isn't to be happy. Happiness is an elusive and often toxic goal. And so I think that that's what's so hard, is that you also want to say the containers don't fix it either. It's a different set of problems. I just think it's a set of problems that our brains are highly evolved to deal with as opposed to the problems of modernity, which I think our brains are not very evolved to deal with.  

Beth [01:17:12] I really like your framing of very plainly saying social media is about advertising because how often would we choose to sit down in front of the television to watch commercials and endless stream of commercials? But that is what we're doing on social media. I'm doing it. I say this with no judgment. I'm doing it. I opt into those commercials when I have any pocket of time throughout the day and often when I don't. I think caregiving and just caring for people, just being in relationship is always going to have that strain or quality. And I wouldn't want to fully separate myself from anyone. I was thinking, as you were talking about, when I was studying for the bar exam, I volunteered with hospice and I would go in and do respite care. So I would just sit with someone who was dying while their loved ones went to get groceries or went to a movie or just had a couple hours to themselves. And it was that shared sense of responsibility. I'm still responsible for this. I still love this person. It's not like I get to fully take a break. You're right. I don't zip the container up and it's sealed, but I do know that somebody else has it for a minute.  

[01:18:23] And I feel like that's a relief that is hard to find right now in anything, with work or life or any type of responsibility. The more connected we are and the easier it is to dash off a text or make a call, the less I feel like, well, somebody else has this right now. And I feel that with church too, honestly. There are not many things where I feel like, well, somebody else totally has that. That call to action is not for me. That volunteer need is not directly coming my way. And some of that, I think, is because post-COVID, all of our relationships have really shifted with institutions like church or community groups that I think those of us who are still really involved are taking a lot of what's there because were aware that not everyone is. And so I'm really watching for and seeing more ways in which people just never feel a moment of, like, I'm off duty right now in any respect.  

Sarah [01:19:32] Well, I just wonder if that's the existentialism, though. Is that just because we want to control because we know we're going to die and we don't want to face it? Is it just a sense of I have to be on call because that's how I assert or calm down the side of my brain that's, like, it's the chaos lottery, it could pull your ticket at any minute and there's not shit you can do about it. I just think that that's the tough one. I understand with school my hardest moments is when I feel like if I am not paying attention to everything that happens to every decision made around Felix at his school, it's going to go in a way that I think is harmful to him. That's why people leave the public school system, is because they feel like if I'm not a number one advocate every second of every day, things are going to happen that I don't like to my kid. And that's a tough one. That's a tough one to sit with because the truth is lots of things are going to happen to your kid that you don't like and can't control. It sucks. I don't like it, but it is the reality whether you homeschool or not.  

[01:20:32] And the sense of someone else has got this I think that's an evolved place to be that's difficult. And maybe it's not the sense of control. I think what we don't name a lot in this space of modern life where we're trying to figure out why we're all exhausted all the time to your point, is it's just the expectations. I don't know if it's that we feel like someone's got it. It's just that the way we've defined got it has really, really shifted and changed. The got it of my mom's understanding of what would happen in a school day is probably really different than mine. The sense that no one would ever get their feelings hurts. No one would be bullied. No one would have their hands or feet on someone else. I don't know if that's how it would go- the expectations. It's like that thing that's like women work more, but they spend more time with their kids than the ladies in the 60s and 70s that stayed home. I think that's maybe it.  

[01:21:42] I mean, maybe it's less a sense of control. And the got it is just informed by these insane expectations where we want institutions that never screw up or never even oppress. Is that a reasonable expectation? I'm sincerely asking. I don't know if it is. I don't know if it's reasonable to say human institutions will never X, Y, Z, whatever it is. I'm not sure that's reasonable. I wonder if just our expectations of what humans are capable of in an institution, in a relationship has just gone off the rails-- with good intentions because we don't want to hurt each other and we want to reduce human suffering. You know what I mean? I wonder if that's the issue. It's like our expectations have just skyrocketed.  

Beth [01:22:35] And I think that intersects with how we want to reduce human suffering on a more massive scale than in the past because we have more information about the world. We've done this work of understanding privilege. And so any time you're feeling stressed-- at least for me, anytime I'm feeling stressed I also have a conversation with myself about how I'm not really entitled to feel this stress because of how much better my life is than the vast majority of people who've ever lived and lots of people who are currently living. And so actually, why do I need to charge my batteries when what I should be doing is giving my power to everyone else? There's just a lot wrapped up in it and we're not going to be able to tie a bow around that today, but would be really interested in places that you're finding any kind of relief for that sense of someone else has it and how that works and what we can learn from it.  

[01:23:27] Thank you all so much for being here with us today as we have a long discussion about things that are important to us. That's my favorite part of making the show. It has been the whole time we've been doing it. That we can sit down and have what we hope is a different conversation about the debate and about life than you're hearing elsewhere. Don't forget to check out the link in our show notes for tickets to our upcoming live show in Boston. It's going to be a great night, a great way to process the election. We hope to see you there in person or online. And we'll be back with you again on Friday. Until then, have the best week available to you.  

[01:24:00] 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. Emily Helen Olson. 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. 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. Genny Francis. Leighanna Pillgram-Larsen. The Munene Family. Ashley Rene. Michelle Palacios. 

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

Maggie PentonComment