Claim Ownership

Author:

Subscribed: 0Played: 0
Share

Description

 Episodes
Reverse
If you’re confused about the current state of the economy and where it’s headed, you’re not alone. The United States is experiencing inflation at the highest rate since the 1980s, and most Americans generally feel as bad about the economy as they did during the Great Recession of 2008. At the same time, unemployment is low and wages are rising.On today’s episode of “The Argument,” host Jane Coaston consults two economics reporters to break down these conflicting trends in the economy and to ask the question so many people want answered: Are things going to get worse before they get better?Peter Coy is an Opinion writer for The New York Times. Alexandra Scaggs is a senior writer at Barron’s, where she covers bonds markets. Both have different takes on how the Federal Reserve can try to bring inflation down without long-term repercussions, including a recession. “There are people who would say, well, fine, that’s what needs to happen, if that’s what it takes to extinguish this high inflation, so be it,” Coy says. “And I’m just saying, I’m not willing to go that far.”Mentioned in this episode:“Unemployment Is Low. That Doesn’t Mean the Economy Is Fine.” by Peter Coy in The New York Times“How Should Democrats Respond to Rising Inflation and High Gas Prices?” by John Cassidy in The New Yorker“Making Sense of a Complicated Economy,” EconoFact Chats episode from EconoFact(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
May is chock-full of primary elections, and they are starting to provide a picture of how deep the G.O.P. is entrenched in Trumpism. J.D. Vance, the 37-year-old venture capitalist and author of the acclaimed memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” won the Republican Senate primary in Ohio — with the endorsement of Donald Trump. The rise of Vance paints a telling portrait of how the G.O.P. is evolving in its appeal to its conservative base. Vance eagerly sought Trump’s endorsement and praise. Does it mean that the party is becoming a “populism of tribal loyalty,” as suggested by one of today’s guests?Today on “The Argument,” host Jane Coaston wants to know what this month’s Republican primary elections can actually tell us about the future of the G.O.P. and if it signals more Trump in 2024. She is joined two conservative writers, David French and Christopher Caldwell.French is a senior editor of “The Dispatch” and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. Caldwell is a contributing writer for New York Times Opinion. “I don’t think anyone disputes that there’s a wide open lane for populist incitement,” French says. “I think the issue with J.D. Vance and the issue with the Republican Party in general is this move that says, we’re going to indulge it. We’re going to stoke it.”Mentioned in this episode:“The Decline of Ohio and the Rise of J.D. Vance” by Christopher Caldwell in The New York Times“What if There Is No Such Thing as ‘Trumpism'?” by Jane Coaston in The National Review(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
It was a historic twist in an already historic case: A draft opinion of a Supreme Court decision overturning two landmark rulings — Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — leaked to Politico, which published the 98-page document on Monday night. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the draft opinion was authentic but that “it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”Even with that caveat, it seems to be a sign of where things are headed — the end of abortion rights as a constitutional right in America.On today’s episode of “The Argument,” Jane Coaston is joined by the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg and editorial board member Jesse Wegman to discuss the implications of the draft opinion and the future of abortion rights in America.What is your take on the Roe v. Wade draft leak? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts on The New York Times website once you’ve listened to the episode.Mentioned in this episode:Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson Supreme Court caseGriswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court case“The Next Frontier for the Anti-Abortion Movement: A Nationwide Ban” by Caroline Kitchener in The Washington Post“Thoughts on a Post-Roe Agenda” by Patrick T. Brown in National Review(A full transcript of the episode is available on The Times website.)
Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, states barring transgender athletes from participating in sports and censoring school curriculums around queer and gender identity — a wave of anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation is spreading across the country, sustained in large part by the political right. According to the Human Rights Campaign, this year alone, more than 300 anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills have been introduced in state legislatures.Why has this issue become the focus of the Republican Party? And how is the way society treats individuals who identify as L.G.B.T.Q. changing?In today’s episode, Jane Coaston convenes her Times Opinion colleagues, the columnists Ross Douthat and Michelle Goldberg, to debate this issue. Ross brings his conservative lens to the topic of L.G.B.T.Q. issues and Michelle shares a more liberal outlook. In the middle is Jane, who brings a deeply personal perspective to the table: “I think that a lot of these bills seem to spring from what I would say, a willful misunderstanding of how people like me became ourselves,” she says.What are your thoughts on the recent anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on The New York Times website once you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:“How to Make Sense of the New L.G.B.T.Q. Culture War” by Ross Douthat in The New York Times“Gender Unicorn” from Trans Student Educational Resources(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
From Amazon and Starbucks to large media companies, unionization has become a siren call for workers — white- and blue-collar — fighting for rights and fair wages. But in 2022, after two years of a pandemic, how have our ideas about unions changed? And are Democrats, the so-called party of the unions, still allies in the fight for workers’ rights?On today’s episode of “The Argument,” Jane Coaston asks two leading labor voices in America to debate the current role of unions, how the watershed vote at an Amazon warehouse is changing their work and whether Democrats have failed workers.Liz Shuler is the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Jane McAlevey is an organizer and a campaign strategist and the author of the recent book “A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing and the Fight for Democracy.”“People used to say, ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ It’s the base, stupid, in my argument,” McAlevey says, emphasizing the need for unions and large organizations like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. to learn from Amazon and focus on bringing more workers into the fold. “If we don’t return to bottom-up organizing, we’re simply not going to have the political muscle to force Democrats and Republicans to do that which they must: to honor the essential workers coming out of this pandemic.”What’s your take on unions? How do you think unions should capitalize on this moment? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on The New York Times website once you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:“Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell)” by Jane McAlevey“The People, United, Must Fight Hard or Be Defeated” by Binyamin Appelbaum in The New York Times(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
President Biden has described the world as being in a “battle between democracy and autocracy.” And Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s recent victory in Hungary, especially, has marked it as a country in pursuit of what Orban calls an “illiberal democracy.” So what has happened to liberalism, and why is it so deeply challenged today?On today’s episode of “The Argument,” Jane Coaston brings the Vox senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp and the Times Opinion columnist Bret Stephens together to debate what’s gone wrong with liberalism. Both take vastly different positions on what the biggest challenge to liberalism is today and how to approach it, but they agree on one thing: Western liberalism is in danger, largely in part from what’s happening abroad.“I think liberalism is under profound threat in the United States, even more so in states in Europe, and the person who is effectively the global champion of that illiberal worldview right now strikes me as Vladimir Putin,” Stephens says.In January, Beauchamp posted on Twitter: "The biggest challenge for liberalism today is the use of its own key features against it: free speech enabling the spread of authoritarian propaganda, democracy empowering illiberal leaders, markets producing an unresponsive oligarchic class."How do you think liberalism is being challenged today? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on The New York Times website once you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:“Europe’s Other Threat to Democracy” by Zack Beauchamp on Vox“The Anti-Liberal Moment” by Zack Beauchamp on Vox“America Could Use a Liberal Party” by Bret Stephens in The New York Times“The War in Ukraine, Explained,” Part 1 and Part 2, on the “Vox Conversations” podcast with Zack Beauchamp(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is entering its sixth week. Atrocities committed by Russian troops have reached new levels; in Bucha, recent photos show dead, unarmed civilians lining the streets. The harrowing scenes have prompted NATO leaders to consider taking new measures against Russia, namely to equip Ukraine with more weapons and impose more sanctions on Russia.But will those measures be enough? With President Biden now calling the atrocities “war crimes” and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland “acts of genocide,” what more should NATO do to help protect Ukraine and its sovereignty?On today’s episode of “The Argument,” host Jane Coaston calls upon the former NATO top commander Gen. Philip Breedlove to give context and answers to these large questions. Breedlove is now the distinguished chair of the Frontier Europe Initiative at the Middle East Institute, and he has a lot to say about the alliance’s approach to Russia. “There are people in our government and people in NATO that believe if we keep doing nothing and we just keep doing what we’re doing, supplying them, that the risk will not grow. I’m here to tell you the risk is growing every day,” he says.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
Technology defines nearly every facet of our modern world. It almost feels that to exist today in the Western world, one has no choice but to engage in it. As a result, Big Tech holds an incredible amount of power — power that continues to play a role in the Russia-Ukraine war.As the war has intensified, tech companies have been forced to take a side. It’s become what the Times reporters Adam Satariano and Sheera Frenkel described as a “defining geopolitical moment for some of the world’s biggest tech companies.” Spotify decided last Friday to suspend its services in Russia because of recently enacted Russian legislation that restricts access to news. Apple Pay also suspended services for Russia’s Mir cards, the country’s largest card payment system.It’s clear Big Tech companies hold big power. But should they? And do their moves in Russia highlight that they have too much influence in some countries? Is it time to finally reconsider tech regulation, and if so, who should be responsible for determining regulation?This week, Jane Coaston brings together two writers who spend their time reporting on the role technology plays in our lives. Charlie Warzel is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and writes the newsletter “Galaxy Brain,” about tech, media and politics. Robby Soave is a senior editor at the libertarian magazine “Reason” and is the author of the book “Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future.”Mentioned in this episode:Charlie Warzel’s newsletter, “Galaxy Brain,” for The AtlanticRobby Soave’s YouTube show, “Rising”“Ukraine War Tests the Power of Tech Giants” by Adam Satariano and Sheera Frenkel“TikTok Was Designed for War” by Chris Stokel-Walker in Wired“Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future” by Robby Soave.“Sway” episode with Jeffrey Sonnenfeld: “The Corporations Passing — and Failing — the Ukraine Morality Test”(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
How should America respond to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? This week, Jane Coaston sought out perspectives of a particular group on this complex question: conservatives. The group has long been divided on foreign policy and, more recently, over Putin and Russia. Could loyalty to Donald Trump lead some Republicans to support Putin?In today’s episode, these questions are tested by two conservative writers — and their answers are far from aligned.Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review. He feels strongly that the United States and NATO should avoid further involvement in the conflict and argues that a declaration of neutrality by Ukraine would be a good path forward. “I think neutrality is a real strategic position that can help some countries remain independent, sovereign and avoid war,” he says.David French is a senior editor at The Dispatch. He sits on the opposite side; He is for NATO expansion and believes the United States should further help to defend Ukraine. “It’s so necessary for the West — without risking nuclear conflict with Russia — to demonstrate for a generation, if possible, that this form of aggressive warfare is going to cost far, far more than anything that Russia will gain,” he says.Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, independent or none of those, we want to hear from you. What’s your take on Ukraine, and how do you think the Republican Party should be reacting? Share your thoughts in the comments on this page after you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:“My Father Left Me Ireland: An American Son’s Search for Home” by Michael Brendan Dougherty“The French Press” newsletter by David French“Divided We Fall: America’s Succession Thread and How to Restore Our Nation” by David French“The War in Ukraine Is a Blow to the Nationalist, Postliberal Right” by David French“Wartime’s Macabre Predictions of a Populist Defeat” by Michael Brendan Dougherty in National Review(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
This week, an antiwar protester interrupted a Moscow broadcast with a sign in Russian reading: “Stop the war. Don’t believe the propaganda. They are lying to you here.” With the Russian government promoting propaganda on news channels and most recently passing a law to punish people spreading “false information” about the Ukraine invasion, it’s been hard to distill what is actually going on in both Russia and Ukraine right now. The confusion has resulted in what Masha Gessen recently described as parallel realities transpiring in Russia and an outright denial of war in Ukraine.So how can you make sense of what is true in our world of information, especially when anyone can use propaganda not only to change your mind but also to overwhelm you?Jane Coaston talks to the Soviet-born British journalist Peter Pomerantsev to talk about propaganda and how those in power — and the everyday person — use it to undermine the fabric of society and our collective understanding. Pomerantsev is a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University and the author of the 2019 book “This Is Not Propaganda.” He talks to Jane about Vladimir Putin’s mythmaking and propaganda machine and how we as information consumers can make sense of what we know as truth.Mentioned in this episode:“Ukrainians Find That Relatives in Russia Don’t Believe It’s a War” by Valerie Hopkins in The New York Times“Putin No Longer Seems Like a Master of Disinformation” by Farhad Manjoo in The New York Times“This Is Not Propaganda” by Peter Pomerantsev“Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible” by Peter Pomerantsev“The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays” by Siegfried Kracauer(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
We’re headed into the third year of pandemic life, and one thing is clear: We’re all exhausted from Covid. Virus caseloads are waning across the country, masks are coming off, people are traveling more, and office workers have new return dates. Does that mean the pandemic is over? Maybe. And maybe not.On Feb. 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relaxed its guidelines on mask wearing and social distancing, saying that 70 percent of Americans no longer need to heed those recommendations. But for a lot of people, like parents of kids under 5 and those who are immunocompromised, this presents more challenges. It’s clear the burden of managing Covid risk increasingly rests on the individual, so what are we supposed to do now?It’s a lot to contemplate. So on today’s show, Jane puts that question to two experts to help the rest of us.Dr. Monica Gandhi is an infectious-disease physician whose previous work on H.I.V. informs her assessment of public health messaging during this pandemic. Dr. Aaron E. Carroll is the chief health officer at Indiana University and has spent the pandemic thinking about how to keep his community safe. The good news? Both of them think we’ve got the tools to move forward safely.Mentioned in this episode:“Overcaution Carries Its Own Danger to Children” by Monica Gandhi in The Atlantic.“Why Hospitalizations Are Now a Better Indicator of Covid’s Impact” by Monica Gandhi and Leslie Bienen in The New York Times.“Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant” in The New England Journal of Medicine.“To Fight Covid, We Need to Think Less Like Doctors” by Aaron E. Carroll in The New York Times.“Immune Cells Mean Omicron Won’t Swamp Hospitals in Vaccinated Areas” by Michael Daignault and Monica Gandhi in The Washington Post.“We Need to Talk About Covid” Part 1 and Part 2 from “The Daily.”(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
It’s been a week since Russia invaded Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled Ukraine and Russia continues to target major Ukrainian cities with powerful weapons. And amidst the chaos of war – President Biden held his first State of the Union address. Yara Bayoumy, the world and national security editor for Times Opinion, and the columnists Thomas Friedman and Ross Douthat joined Lulu Garcia-Navarro, a Times Opinion podcast host, to discuss what could happen next.Listen to Jane's interview this week with retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman here. 
In the days since Vladimir Putin ordered Russian forces to invade Ukraine, its citizens have taken up arms to defend their borders and their right to self-determination. Where is the rest of the world in all of this?To help understand the current situation and how we got here, Jane Coaston talks with Alexander Vindman, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who was the director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council from 2018 to 2020. Vindman was also a key witness at Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, having listened in on the notorious 2019 call in which Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Vindman says of the Western response to the invasion, “We need to drop these incremental approaches that are intended for a kind of peacetime environment,” because “we’re in a new Cold War.”What is your take on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on The New York Times website once you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:Alexander Vindman’s book, “Here, Right Matters: An American Story”“America Could Have Done So Much More to Protect Ukraine,” by Alexander Vindman in The Atlantic“Not One Inch: America, Russia, And the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate,” by M.E. SarotteAn interview with the historian Serhii Plokhy in The New Yorker: “Vladimir Putin’s Revisionist History of Russia and Ukraine”People to follow on Twitter, as suggested by Alexander Vindman: Igor Girkin, Michael Kofman, Rob Lee, Michael McFaulThe Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society’s Ukraine crisis response fundThe MOAS humanitarian relief effort for Ukraine(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
An American flag, football, the national anthem, “Make America Great Again” — all of these can be symbols of American patriotism, but to whom? In 2022, the notion of being a patriot is complex to say the least, and in a divided nation one might ask: Who gets to be called a patriot, and what does patriotism really mean in America?This week, Jane and her guests dig into how each of them feels about patriotism and how our two dominant political parties use the idea to their own ends.Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser from 2009 to 2017, posits that a fundamental sense of patriotism still holds in America today. “This has always been about the story we tell about ourselves and that we don’t live up to,” Ben says. “I think patriotism is basically about the effort to live up to the better version of the story that America tells us about itself.”Jamelle Bouie is a columnist with Times Opinion and resists the idea that it’s possible to forge a unifying sense of patriotism across the country. America is simply too large and too diverse to unite on a baseline of meaning. Patriotism, he argues, rests at the individual level: “I think all you have to do is identify what are the things that are valuable to you? What are the things that are important to you? And you pursue them,” he says.What does patriotism mean to you? Would you call yourself a patriot? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on The New York Times website once you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:“After the Fall” Being American in the World We’ve Made” by Ben Rhodes.“This Is No Time for Passive Patriotism” by Ben Rhodes in The Atlantic.“After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division” by Samuel Goldman.“The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life” by William James in the International Journal of Ethics.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
The U.S. State Department recently ordered all nonemergency diplomats and embassy employees to leave Ukraine, signaling that its personnel believe a Russian invasion of Ukraine may be imminent. Such a move by Russia would be the most consequential invasion in Europe since World War II.If Russia acts, what is America’s responsibility to Ukraine?Two of Jane’s Opinion colleagues, Bret Stephens and Farah Stockman, join her to tackle that question today. Both Bret and Farah have reported on foreign policy. Bret, a columnist for Times Opinion, told Jane: “I think Ukraine ought to be what Ukrainians want it to be. Vladimir Putin is unwilling to let Ukrainians decide their own future.”Farah, a member of the Times editorial board, sees wars as dirty pursuits that are often antithetical to democracy and freedom. Farah argues that America needs to focus on its own battles before engaging in international conflicts. “We need to do a better job picking our battles, we really do, because we have to protect ourselves and our own democracy first,” she says. “We cannot help anyone else if we’re in disarray. And guess what? We’re in disarray right now, we really are.”Mentioned in this episode:“Bring Back the Free World” by Bret Stephens.“Putin’s Pickle” by Julia Ioffe in Puck.“Stop asking what Putin wants and start asking what Ukrainians want” by Mychailo Wynnyckyj
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases, one involving Harvard and the other the University of North Carolina, that could reshape college admissions. Both schools are being accused of race-based discrimination in their admission practices. In the coming year, the court will examine whether it’s lawful for college admissions offices to consider a student’s race.These cases and others have brought into focus the role affirmative action plays in higher education, and whether it helps or impedes the overall goal of achieving racial equity on college campuses.So the question Jane debates this week is: Should we end affirmative action?On today’s episode, the Opinion writer Jay Caspian Kang sets the stage by sharing with Jane his view that affirmative action policies merely make for “cosmetically diverse” campuses, rather than contributing to broader social justice initiatives.Jay and Jane’s conversation is followed by a debate between two guests with starkly different views. Ian Rowe, the former chief executive of Public Prep, a nonprofit charter school network, believes that race-based affirmative action needs to be retired in favor of class-based solutions. Natasha Warikoo, a professor of sociology at Tufts University, believes affirmative action is worth saving, and we should find ways to reframe it.What is your take on affirmative action: end it, or keep it? We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments on this page once you’ve listened to the debate.Mentioned in this episode:Jay Caspian Kang’s newsletter on politics, culture and the economy.Natasha Warikoo’s book “The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions and Meritocracy at Elite Universities.”“The State Must Provide: Why America’s Colleges Have Always Been Unequal — And How to Set Them Right,” by Adam Harris.“Can Affirmative Action Survive?” by Nicholas Lemann in The New Yorker.“Affirmative Action Shouldn’t Be About Diversity,” by Kimberly Reyes in The Atlantic.
With the midterm elections just nine months away, the Democrats face some hefty existential questions that need answers: Who are they in this post- and possibly pre-Trump era of American politics? Are they simply the anti-Trump party? Or are they the party of progress? Who are the voters they need to turn out in November? Should they excite the base by building a coalition united against white supremacy, or should they moderate their message to win over Republican-defectors?This week on “The Argument,” Jane Coaston brings together two voices that represent the factions in the Democratic Party’s existential struggle. Lanae Erickson is the senior vice president of social policy, education and politics at the center-left think tank Third Way. She argues that Democrats need to make their platform as broadly popular as possible in order to bring more voters under the party’s big tent. That’s the way to win, and then enact progressive policies.Steve Phillips disagrees. He’s the founder of the political media organization Democracy in Color and author of the book “Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority.” He counterargues that the Democrats must run and win as the party united around a vision of a multiracial, just society, unapologetically calling out racism on the other side of the ticket.The two political strategists strongly disagree on what the party needs to do to win in November, but they agree on one thing: Democrats are afraid and need to answer the question of who they are, fast.Mentioned in this episode:“The Argument” episode debating the future of the Republican Party: “Can the G.O.P. Recover From the ‘Big Lie’? We Asked 2 Conservatives”“The Ezra Klein Show” episode with Ron Klain: “What Biden’s Chief of Staff Has Learned, One Year In.”Joe Biden For President first campaign video: “America Is an Idea.”Steve Phillips’s book “Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority” and his forthcoming “How We Win the Civil War: Securing a Multiracial Democracy and Ending White Supremacy for Good.”Steve Phillips’s podcast, “Democracy in Color.”
A year into the Biden administration, most of us can agree on one thing: The United States remains a deeply divided nation, with polarizing opinions on all sides. But what about the voices from the middle, the independents? Swing voters are arguably one of the most consequential groups for the midterm elections, so we wanted to hear from them about how they view President Biden’s first year and the current state of American democracy.So this month the veteran G.O.P pollster Frank Luntz convened a focus group of 14 self-identified independents and moderates to get their perspectives. And there seems to be a striking theme: They’re exasperated. As Nick from Pennsylvania put it, “We’ve been promised a lot by past politicians, and it just seems that nothing ever changes.”This week, Luntz debriefs Jane on the group’s findings — namely, that independents are very disappointed and don’t see much hope for either party. His takeaway? “Independents are simple rejecters. They reject both the left and the right. They reject the past president and the current president. And in some ways they’re actually even more negative because they don’t see a way out.”Mentioned in this episode:“‘The Lowest Point in My Lifetime’: How 14 Independent Voters Feel About America”“Why Republican Voters Think Americans Have to Get Over Jan. 6”“‘We Barely Qualify as a Democracy Anymore’: Democratic Voters Fear for America”Sign up for one of Frank Luntz’s focus groups
2022 is a big year for supporters of Supreme Court reform. Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gave women nationwide the right to have abortions, might be overturned, and the debate around changing the way we structure the bench — in particular, packing the court — is getting only more heated.The past decade has brought a shift in the makeup of the court — from Brett Kavanaugh, appointed despite sexual assault allegations, to Merrick Garland, blocked from confirmation, and Amy Coney Barrett, rushed to confirmation.It’s the culmination of decades of effort by Republicans to make the courts more conservative. And now Democrats want to push back by introducing some radical changes.Today, Jane Coaston brings together two guests who disagree on whether altering Supreme Court practices is the right call and, if yes, what kind of changes would make sense for the highest judicial body in the nation.Russ Feingold is the president of the American Constitution Society and was a Democratic senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011. And Russ Miller is an attorney and law professor at Washington and Lee and the head of the Max Planck Law Network in Germany.Mentioned in this episode:“Americans No Longer Have Faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. That Has Justices Worried,” by Russ Feingold in The Guardian, published in October 2021.“We Don’t Need to Reform The Supreme Court,” by Russ Miller in Just Security, published in February 2021.“The Future of Supreme Court Reform,” by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman in Harvard Law Review, published in May 2021.
There’s a divide in the Republican Party between those who believe the ‘Big Lie’ — that the election was stolen from President Donald Trump — and those who don’t. But which side is ultimately the future of the party?That’s the question Jane Coaston poses to Charlie Sykes, a founder and editor at large of The Bulwark, and Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review.Sykes and Lowry discuss what the G.O.P. has learned from Donald Trump’s tenure as president and what Glenn Youngkin’s gubernatorial victory in Virginia might mean for the Republican midterms playbook. They also debate whether it’s Representative Liz Cheney or Marjorie Taylor Greene who’s a harbinger of the party to come.Also, if you’re a Republican, we want to hear from you. What do you think of the party right now and where it should go next? Would you be excited to vote for Trump in 2024? Or if you’re a former Republican, why did you leave the party? And who would you rather vote for instead? Leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324 and we’ll share some of your responses later this month.Mentioned in this episode:“Against Trump,” editorial in National Review“Trump: Maybe,” by Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review“The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism,” by Matthew Continetti“Blunt Report Says G.O.P. Needs to Regroup for ’16,” Times report on the G.O.P. 2012 autopsy
Comments (284)

andre dixon

This podcast episode drove me nuts. No mention that the economic policies supported by Sanders and justice Democrats etc are popular across the political spectrum. No mention of corporate money special interest money and how it muddies the process. Jane Coaston should really have progressive voices like krystal ball and brihana joy gray on to properly articulate this point

Feb 2nd
Reply

Andi-Roo Libecap

This interview was supremely enlightening and extremely depressing. I have little patience for middle-of-the-road voters and nothing I heard here has changed that perspective, but it did teach me that there are more of them than I realized -- and it appears these swing voters are more likely to move Right than Left. Not cool! Personal aside: I appreciated that Jane addressed the "cutting people off is wrong" argument which I'm so tired of hearing. It's tantamount to calling me an asshole for not wanting to hug a Nazi. I'm sure a Nazi and I have things in common (maybe we both like ice cream and enthusiastically collect stickers and have a childlike fondness of sharpies) but I'm not trying to find middle ground with a racist piece of shit! Moreover, while using it as a "teaching moment" is fine for some people, not all of us are cut from the same cloth. I'm not a teacher! I'm more of a shouty, ranting, rabble rouser. It's not my job to educate people. I didn't sign up for that. My husband, bless his heart, has the patience to take on this kind of challenge, but even he is exhausted from this bullshit. The reason we're so polarized now is because all the cards are on the table and there's no more pussyfooting around anymore. There's no middle ground between vax versus antivax, or pro-choice vs. anti-abortion, or racist vs. ... NOT racist. You're one or the other and that's the way it is. Fence-sitting is just another word for "privileged" and "can't be bothered" so, like, miss me with that shit.

Feb 1st
Reply

Nic _

I feel like a fair question to be asking here is also can the Democrats and Democratic _li beral_ media _ news information distribution conglomerates recover let alone face similar grievances for the overwhelming amount of "critical" headline world shaking reports prior to his presidency, Andddddd down right underwhelming amount of actual truth and or veracity to the claims (And again the shocking? amount of those are which proven false other is proven irrelevant and further some hahaha this is an interesting trend for another time). lol this argument is just funny. I feel like Jane and the editors are not being let's say very fair over the past few actually episodes really

Jan 13th
Reply (1)

Andi-Roo Libecap

Fantastic discussion -- another fruitful exchange. Well done, Jane!

Jan 9th
Reply (2)

Nic _

bro are you kidding me?? no arguments against the points for Jan 6th, shit was crazy and stupid and they are weirdos. but that line (and general Outlook) that if reps don't win, they call foul ---- uhhh, 2018_2020 (and I'm being generous) was full of deflated arguments against Trump by Dems?? I'm not arguing for either side here but wtf was that Jane

Jan 5th
Reply

Richard Fisher

she being 'Michelle' btw

Dec 30th
Reply

Richard Fisher

bizarre. she speaks of Trumpism and is totally blind to the Swamp Monster of Shitshow Joe Biden as though there aren't issues on the Left. im in the Left and see them and want to fix them so we can win. is this person a plant? stooge? enemy asset? like just ignore the identity and critical theory and metanarrative post modernist left. not remotely relevant...🤦‍♂️

Dec 30th
Reply

jonathan

this lady is disgusting. so divisive.

Dec 23rd
Reply (1)

Voltaire Rothschild

His arguments where so bad that I stopped listening 12 minutes in. She completely eviscerated him on the genocide and hate speech on Facebook and his best argument was to look at 4chan and duck duck go for alternatives??? Why is this even an episode? A brick wall would have made better arguments than this guy.

Dec 1st
Reply

Death Doula

Radical empathy for another is a luxury - you don't have to be there. #exhausted #safespace #empathyisnotendorsement #noclapbacks

Nov 26th
Reply

Death Doula

No such thing as a bad actor. #ad

Nov 25th
Reply (26)

Death Doula

Should I be convicted for loving 'true crime'? That was 'stupid', sorry. 🤥

Nov 25th
Reply

Douglas Van Aartsen

I'm worried about this podcast. The reason that I subscribed years ago was so that I could hear people who disagreed talk about something they disagreed about and still talk politely and make good points. It seems lately, that the argument is mostly not an argument but a podcast which talks about a topic without any disagreement. you can get that most anywhere.

Nov 25th
Reply

Paulo Lavigne

I love true crime podcasts, but it's really hard to come across really good ones. Very few hosts are able to narrate the cases in a way that imparts a sense of mystery and suspense to the stories.

Oct 27th
Reply

ncooty

Too much gravelly vocal fry for me.

Oct 7th
Reply

Jane Smith

Press releases, notifying family, etc is not about making it a show. It's about transparency. When they start executing people without telling anyone, we have a problem.

Sep 27th
Reply

Jesse Lopata

When this show was first published I tuned in because I thought it would setup thoughtful debate from opposing sides of difficult arguments... in effect helping me to see a more well-rounded perspective. I only listen to a couple of episodes back then. Fast forward to August 2021, I had forgotten why it was that I tuned out. As a parent with kids in public school, the topic of this show caught my attention and I decided to give the score another shot... again hoping to expose my thinking to a new perspective. Unfortunately, what I've found is a show host who announced her allegiance out of the gate before the conversation even started. She also proceeded to cut off the participant arguing in opposition to the idea of critical race theory... clearly intending to undercut his argument before he could complete it. This was less a respectful and balanced debate than it was 2 progressives falling into the trope of "leftist elitism". Please note that I am myself rather progressive and I stand in favor of expanding the history & civics curriculum in public schools to include ideas of critical race theory. I was just hoping for a more balanced debate about the merits of all sides of the argument. This is why I will once again tune out from this show.

Aug 25th
Reply

Andi-Roo Libecap

I cannot believe how civil and respectful this conversation was. Very impressive -- well done, Jane! This episode regarding critical race theory is a must-listen. 👏🏻

Aug 24th
Reply

Andi-Roo Libecap

such a fantastic, illuminating episode! really appreciate the open dialogue here.

Aug 17th
Reply

Andi-Roo Libecap

As a spiritual atheist, this episode made me really uncomfortable. I don't like religion and morality being legislated. I don't want churchy people dictating women's health issues -- particularly when most of the legislators are MEN who know nothing about women's bodies! This is not a slam against men in general -- there are plenty of men who DO understand women's health. Sadly, they do not hold government positions. Anyway, that bit toward the end about Catholicism being "the One True Faith" and then getting all concerned about each other's immortal souls -- just NO. I did not sign up for vacation bible school. Do not use this platform to proselytize. Ugh. Grody to the absolute max. Barf.

Jul 20th
Reply
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store