DiscoverThe Argument
The Argument
Claim Ownership

The Argument

Author: The New York Times Opinion

Subscribed: 23,195Played: 640,728
Share

Description

The other side is dangerously wrong. They think you are too. But for democracy to work, we need to hear each other out. Each week New York Times Opinion columnists David Leonhardt, Michelle Goldberg and Ross Douthat explain the arguments from across the political spectrum. Their candid debates help you form your own opinion of the latest news, and learn how the other half thinks. Find the best ways to persuade in the modern search for common ground.

75 Episodes
Reverse
How is coronavirus — and President Trump’s response to it — hitting blue states and red states differently? Ross, Michelle and David debate. Then, how should Joe Biden change his campaign strategy around Trump’s coronavirus fumbles? Frank Bruni joins in the argument. And finally, a bittersweet goodbye. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
As the coronavirus pandemic sends financial markets into a tailspin, strains gig economy workers and threatens the survival of businesses large and small, the columnists debate what policymakers should do to avert a virus-induced economic recession. Ross shares his own account of an increasingly American experience: feeling sick and waiting days for the results of a coronavirus test to come back. And an escapist recommendation worth a binge. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Coronavirus is causing change in daily life all over the world - but what should we be doing? And how long is this going to last? Editorial board health writer Jeneen Interlandi joins David and Michelle for a conversation about best practices amid the pandemic. Then, how do you hold a presidential election in the middle of a public health emergency? The columnist duo discuss voting in the time of coronavirus, and David recommends you give your future self the gift of recollection. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Is President Trump's underreaction to the coronavirus a reason for more draconian measures to lock down the pandemic? Would more efforts to control the spread by the Trump administration help or hurt the country's preparedness for the impact? Ross Douthat and David Leonhardt debate this, and Western society's descent into dangerous decadence, in this live podcast recording at The Times Center in New York City.For background reading on this live episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
How Biden Came Back

How Biden Came Back

2020-03-0539:585

Super Tuesday has left the Democratic primary race with two clear front runners: Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden. The columnists debate how we got here, and what this week's voting results mean for the rest of the 2020 race. Then, as the coronavirus epidemic approaches pandemic status, how alarmed should we feel and what can be done to limit the spread of the disease? Plus, Michelle suggests you walk through fire.For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument.
Trump Emboldened

Trump Emboldened

2020-02-2733:137

Less than a month after the end of his impeachment trial, are we witnessing an emboldened President Trump? The columnists discuss Trump’s cascade of norm-breaking following his acquittal by the Senate — and what it portends for the run-up to the November election. Then, would a proposed executive order aimed at “making federal buildings beautiful again” be an aesthetic win for democracy, or mark a descent into architectural kitsch? Plus, feeding cheetahs. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument.
Michael Bloomberg’s 2020 presidential candidacy is getting a boost from massive ad spending, but has it successfully hacked the attention of voters and the media? Will his newfound ascendancy survive a fuller airing of his record? Opinion writer Charlie Warzel joins Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt for the discussion. Then Charlie offers a grim explainer of (and some hopeful solutions to) the death of personal privacy in the digital age. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument.
Is Senator Bernie Sanders on an unstoppable path to the Democratic nomination — and if so, can he defeat President Trump in November? The columnists discuss the results of the New Hampshire primary and what they portend for the next contests in the race. Then, should Valentine's Day be canceled once and for all? For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargumentEditor’s note: For full transparency, Michelle Goldberg’s husband is currently consulting for Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign.
What does the debacle of the Iowa caucuses mean for the trajectory of the 2020 Democratic race? The columnists discuss the Democratic electorate's neat split on the ground in Iowa, Bernie Sanders's path to the nomination, and whether the Hawkeye State still deserves its first-in-the-nation status. Then, how worried should we be about the Wuhan coronavirus — and what does its spread say about China’s global standing? For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
President Trump hasn't tried to mount a logical case against removing him from office. But what if they did? Ross Douthat channels an argument the White House could instead be making instead. Then, Ezra Klein, the founding editor of Vox and author of the new book “Why We’re Polarized,” joins Ross and David to discuss the roots, implications and future of America’s current era of partisan polarization. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Which 2020 Democratic contender would be the best nominee to take on President Trump? The New York Times editorial board gave its endorsement to two candidates -- Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar -- and the columnists disagree with it. Katie Kingsbury, who leads the editorial board and hosts "The Choice" podcast about the endorsement, joins the columnists to make the case for the dual endorsement. Then, David pitches his colleagues on an unorthodox thought experiment meant to help deflate America’s partisan tensions.
Since 1860, the New York Times editorial board has been endorsing a candidate for president (they went for the tall Republican that year). Historically they've made their decision after off-the-record interviews with the leading candidates, followed by intense internal debate over who would make the best leader for the era's particular needs. But this year the board is breaking its own rules and showing the work behind their endorsement. They're sharing all the conversations that led them to make their decision. "The Choice," a limited-run daily podcast from The New York Times Opinion section, brings you inside the boardroom every day for a different primary candidate's endorsement interview. You'll also get a daily bonus episode of the board's deliberations after the candidate leaves the room, and go deeper into a different key issue in the 2020 race. In our series finale, you'll hear the board debate all the candidates and make their final decision. Host Katie Kingsbury will join the columnists on "The Argument" next Thursday to make the case for the candidate the board endorses. Until then, tune in to "The Choice" to help you make your own. Produced by At Will Media.
Has Bernie Sanders been woefully underestimated? The columnists discuss the Vermont senator’s rise in 2020 polling, his current spat with rival progressive Elizabeth Warren and whether Sanders has been given short shrift by Democratic Party insiders and the national news media. Then, as Michelle talks through the next column she's writing: Technology was supposed to solve the world’s problems, but it seems to have made more unsolvable ones. Is tech why the future looks so grim? For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
After an American drone strike killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran and heightened tensions in the Middle East, does President Trump have a plan for what comes next? The columnists discuss the nightmare phase of the Trump presidency, an ominous turn in modern international conflict, and the potential for relative stability. Then, the political scientist Lee Drutman joins the columnists to make the case for how America can and should move past its two-party political system. And Ross visits a pet store with a pro-family policy. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
In the last "Argument" of the year, the columnists gather 'round for a little holiday self-flagellation. After a look back on their biggest pundit mistakes of 2019, we hear from listeners about their political New Years' resolutions, and share some of our own. Then Michelle convinces Ross to give Damon Lindelof a second chance after all those hours he wasted trying to figure out "Lost." For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Impeachment Edition

Impeachment Edition

2019-12-1935:557

After weeks of public hearings, debate and charges against President Donald Trump at long last, has impeachment actually changed anyone's mind? This week on “The Argument,” the columnists talk polling, persuasion and public opinion on impeachment. Then, what do the results of last week’s British elections portend for Democrats in the U.S. — and what does Brexit mean for the future of the U.K.? For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
The Democratic Party’s electorate is highly diverse, but its top-polling presidential contenders are all white. What gives? The columnists talk Kamala Harris’s exit from the race, Cory Booker’s failure to launch and the polling ascendancy of their white opponents. Then, “ok boomer” is more than just a dismissive meme. From culture to politics, the columnists talk why we can’t escape the baby boomer generation. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Should College Be Free?

Should College Be Free?

2019-12-0534:407

Should public colleges be tuition-free? Should student loan debt be forgiven? The columnists discuss Pete Buttigieg’s criticisms of his more liberal Democratic rivals’ plans to reduce the costs of higher education, and debate the cost and funding of higher education. Then, birthrates around the world are falling. Anna Louie Sussman joins the conversation on the causes and implications of what she defined in her recent Times op-ed, “The End of Babies.” For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Are the impeachment hearings moving the needle on public opinion? Times columnist David Brooks joins Ross and Michelle to discuss the Democrats’ impeachment strategy so far. Then, is America’s tipping system immoral? The columnists discuss a recent column of David’s that takes issue with how gratuities impact service workers. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
Why are Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick flirting with jumping into the 2020 presidential primary this late in the game? The columnists debate what the pair’s maneuvers say about the state of the race and whether either stands a chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Then, the anonymous author of a controversial Times op-ed is out with a new book about the resistance inside the Trump administration. The columnists discuss whether that resistance has been effective in constraining the president. For background reading on this episode, visit nytimes.com/theargument
loading
Comments (160)

Cheryl Barr

In times of under certainty we should plant a vegetable garden if you have land it will provides you with some food and could be calming to your metal well being !

Mar 22nd
Reply

Mike Brennan

I realize that it is a burden to folks to be restricted to their tiny apartments in the megalopolis, unable to sample the pleasures of cosmopolitan living. But could we have, for the love of God, a moment of humility and gratitude that your solitude is supported by heating, air-conditioning, refrigeration and internet connectivity in a fashion that is not enjoyed by most of the rest of the world and was not enjoyed by citizens of any previous civilization ever? The whining is deafening.

Mar 20th
Reply

Peter DeBoer

Get timing for a live show.

Mar 12th
Reply

Philly Burbs

Biden's win was RIGGED Pete & Amy was paid off. I have no idea what they promised the idiot in Texas. I can go into it but will get upset. he has dementia. he can be controlled. The DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP. AFTER 45 years I have given them thousands of hours of Free Time, I quit. I thought we were better than them.

Mar 11th
Reply

Philly Burbs

Biden's win was RIGGED I can go into it but will get upset. he has dementia. he can be controlled

Mar 11th
Reply

Balitong

There's a term for countries where leaders are not accountable under the law: banana republics

Feb 29th
Reply

Linda Susan Erickson

Michelle's hyper-hysteria to the point of slander compromises the informational value of your program! Thank goodness that Ross countered her some in this episode. 😐

Feb 27th
Reply

Gwendolyn S

They lost me when they claimed that comparing Bloomberg to Trump was a "maddening argument." How can two rich 1 percent individuals, both willing to pander to a political party, while spend copious amounts of money to win an election, both with a history of misogyny and racism, while being out of touch with the everyday people of this country maddening? If they don't see the connection they are doing a disservice to women, minorities, and the working class.

Feb 26th
Reply

Tos

Well I'm really glad you guys had this episode. I used to wonder if the Board was acting like typical biased novice journalists who can't make a decision, or who would focus on the minor, and ultimately unimportant, talking points while ignoring the really substantive issues. But now I'm convinced that I was correct. I wonder no more. Thanks.

Jan 27th
Reply

Tony Zac

SMH

Jan 23rd
Reply

Tatyana Noyb

No, no, and no. 1) voters do not need ny times to know who to vote for, it makes me angry you think people are confused or stupid. I'm sure some are, but this opinion board has no right to try to influence voters without having the guts to take a stand OR shut up. "voice of God, Michelle?!" 2) i fear this podcast just like the times represent the establishment AAAAALLLL the way 3) in fact, I've accumulated enough anger with the NY times stance where it was the last drop, subscription canceled.

Jan 23rd
Reply

Tatyana Noyb

Meh, I liked Warren till I learned she voted gop most of her life. I like her even less now after latest debates, a knife into someone's back with a sneaky face. Not because of gender or electability. Yes yes we vote for and support whoever the nominee will be, but until then, we will vote for who we really want to be president. There's only one person that never changed his tune out of convenience or for corporate money. Principles and honesty. And a vision. After changing opinions through debates, new info, and behavior observations, I've joined Bernie's supporters a couple of weeks ago. I CAN imagine a better future. :)

Jan 16th
Reply

Robert Somerville

garbage

Jan 13th
Reply (1)

William MWestcott

This guys argument that only recently have we become a monolithic two party is completely flawed as shown by things such trumps nomination this past year and the partisanship during the Nixon administration and the partisanship during fdr and the partisanship during Rutherford Hayes and the partisanship during John Adams etc etc etc. dumbass thinks what’s happening now is new. Now I’m not against ranked choice voting but this guys argument is ahistorical so he should leave that part of his argument out if he wants to be persuasive.

Jan 9th
Reply

Tatyana Noyb

Yay an argument on The Argument! :) I would be a democratic socialist, bring it on :) i do like the idea if only because it's entirely tiring to watch leaders worry endlessly about "conservative democrats" who are democrats in question of affiliation. MORE HAMSTERS!

Jan 9th
Reply (3)

Steve Hoshor

First off I want to say I have no problem at all with young people rolling their eyes at me and my generation. What's surprising is that everyone is making such a big deal about it. I think one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the boomer generation is that it departed so absolutely from and had very little respect for the generation that came before it. "Don't trust anyone over 30" was the mantra in the 60s. We spat on virtually all the norms our parents held dear. We grew our hair long! That alone was unthinkable to our parents. So what surprises me is that this little phrase "OK, boomer" is considered such a transgression. It suggests to me that millennials must actually have a modicum of respect for us if after all my generation's pontificating about millennials' myriad shortcomings their retort is a politely sarcastic, "OK, boomer". I think it speaks very highly to young people that rather than burn the place to the ground they consider the source, roll their eyes, ponder the terrifying future we've bequeathed, rush off to their job at Starbucks even though they have a college degree and post a funny meme about a generation that should be able to take some ribbing.

Dec 13th
Reply

Darcie Harris

Enough Boomer bashing. I'm a member of one of the largest Democratic women's clubs in southern California and fully 80% of the members are Boomers. We're the ones organizing the women's marches, canvassing, calling our legislators, showing up at town halls, recruiting voters and recruiting candidates for down ballot elections. Where are the GenX and Millennial women? Boomers don't just sit home and complain; we stand up, speak, march and work for what we believe in. I'd be more than happy to take a break and will gladly do so when the next generations put down their iPhones and step up to do what's necessary to protect our democracy.

Dec 12th
Reply (3)

yakurbe 0112

how about that Yang guy tho?

Nov 19th
Reply

Mariejose Monsalve

Nobody would have any issues with how much space people take in their airplane seats if the seats were made to accommodate average size people. It is about time we stop airlines from treating people like sardines.

Nov 10th
Reply

Daniel Haug

As an Iowa caucusgoer vacationing in California, I thought this would be an interesting episode. Sadly, it is several levels removed from a useful perspective. Instead of opinions about Pete Buttigieg from people who have scrutinized his proposals and experience, it was mostly opinions about the prospects of the Democratic field based on national polls taken months before the first primary. Instead of opinions about the causes of and solutions to California's wildfires from people with some knowledge or first-hand experience, it was opinions about the plausibility of attacks on west coast liberals made by east coast conservatives.  The hosts (especially Michelle Goldberg) are sharper and more aware of their biases than the average pundit, but it's still a waste of your time.

Nov 10th
Reply
loading
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store