DiscoverThe Politics Guys
The Politics Guys

The Politics Guys

Author: The Politics Guys

Subscribed: 12,755Played: 123,256
Share

Description

Tired of liberals and conservatives screaming partisan talking points? We were, and so we created The Politics Guys as a sane and civil alternative. Each week, a liberal and a conservative talk *to*, not at each other, in an attempt to better understand the week in politics & policy. We're not about scoring cheap partisan points or preaching to the ideological choir. We reject the notion that people who see the world differently are either stupid or evil. Our mission is to promote a shared, evidence-based understanding of American politics and policy. We hope you'll join us.
395 Episodes
Reverse
Kristin & Mike Take a Test

Kristin & Mike Take a Test

2019-07-1700:46:58

Now for something a little different and fun – Mike and Kristin take a test! Before they take the Pew Research Center’s Political Typology Quiz, Kristin responds to a question from listener Martin about why she plans to vote for President Trump in 2020. After that, Mike and Kristin get right down to business and take the test, which consists of choosing between a series of two statements on a variety of issues. They discuss the binary nature of the test and both feel that it’s important to choose the statement that is closer to their beliefs. They run into trouble with a few questions and the phrasing, but have a great time discussing each and challenging each other’s positions along the way. To hear the results, where each host fell on the ideology scale, and to take the test right along with them, be sure to tune in until the end! Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Mike and Kristin kick things off by discussing the latest twists and turns in the Jeffrey Epstein case, new sex trafficking charges, and his former friendships with high-powered political types. They agree on the reprehensible nature of the charges and discuss the idea that money can “get you out of trouble”. Both say that there is obvious disparity between rich evil-doers and regular folks who do evil. Also, they get into the resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Next up is the fact that Mexico seems to be stepping up their efforts at the border, as per their deal made with the U.S. government last month. Both Mike and Kristin raise the point that while this is promising, it will take time to see more data. If there seems to be a trend towards fewer border crossings, this might be a jumping off point for discussion once again. Then, the British Ambassador to the U.S. has resigned due to leaked memos he’d sent previously to London, which contained disparaging remarks about Trump. Trump went on the offense and, after some barbs traded, Ambassador Darroch stepped down. Both Mike and Kristin agreed that stepping down was the right thing to do. Kristin made a point about this being symptomatic of our increasingly polarized atmosphere, and Mike emphasized that this is nothing new in the Trump Era. An Appeals Court ordered the dismissal of the Emoluments Clause case against Trump, citing that the Attorneys General who brought the case lacked standing. This ruling made sense to both Kristin and Mike. Mike hopes that this is actively pursued, perhaps by Congress. Kristin mentioned that she feels this is mostly politically motivated, another “proxy battle” between Left and Right. Finally, the big, headline-making battle within the Democrat Party was on everyone’s minds! Kristin was curious to see what Mike had to say, citing that it brought back memories of the Tea Party infighting within the GOP and that many prominent Democrats had taken to blasting the more progressive congressional freshmen for making wild claims against Pelosi and company. Mike found that he was more intrigued by this story than he thought he would be, and sided with Pelosi, though he said that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and company may have valid points buried in the back-and-forth. Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.  
Mike welcomes George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen back to the show to discuss his latest book, Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero. As you may know, Tyler is a very busy guy - in addition to his academic position, he runs the Marginal Revolution blog  and Conversations with Tyler podcast. He's also regular contributor at Bloomberg Opinion and has written multiple books, including two Mike previously spoke with him about on the show: Stubborn Attachments and The Complacent Class. Topics Mike & Tyler discuss include: fraud in the business world if big business is more honest than people in non-business settings why top CEos may actually be underpaid work vs leisure monopolies, with a focus on Facebook, Google, and Amazon problems with the finance industry crony capitalism how much political influence big business really has why we personalize big business, and why we shouldn’t follow Tyler Cowen on Twitter Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Trey and Mike open the show outlining the latest developments on the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Trey focuses on the larger picture that an executive order circumventing a court order would mean for presidential power. Mike considers the actual immediate policy implication and sees it unlikely that an executive order is feasible. Next, they turn Trump’s push for lower drug prices. Mike argues that President Trump is looking for a win for 2020. Drug prices are an easy potential win, but it certainly isn’t a free market position. Trey agrees that President Trump generally is not a free market individual, but sees this as normal Trumpian policy. The pair also address President Trump’s tweet on using an executive order to lower drug prices. After that they turn to the controversy surrounding a private Facebook group titled “10-15” for current and former border patrol agents. Trey sees the issue as one where the nexus of public and private speech of blended. Social media creates the ability to know more about people than we ever dreamed possible — even things some of us thought were not as mainstream as they are. Mike argues that the investigation should move forward, but that human nature might suggest being faced with an insurmountable problem we can at least, intellectually, understand the frustration of border patrol agents. They close the show by returning to what, until recently, seemed a 1970s era policy question: school busing. Trey asks if this is really just an issue of whether or not former Vice-President Biden is “woke” or not. Mike makes the liberal argument against busing and challenges policy makers to address residential segregation. Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
In this episode, Mike & Jay respond to listeners on: whether changes to the Democrats’ superdelegate rules will have a big impact on who their 2020 nominee will be what Democrats can do to win back the Midwest if Joe Biden is out of touch and past his prime if the Politics Guys are out of touch and past their primes story selection bias in the mainstream media Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Jay and Mike open the show with a discussion of the first two Democratic presidential debates. Instead of looking at the debates in terms of ‘winners and losers’ they step back and talk about the nature of the debate format and the sort of qualities it rewards and punishes. Mike lets loose on his general disgust with these multi-person debates, and while Jay isn’t quite as impassioned he agrees that they’re far more spectacle than substance. Next, they look at a trio of major end-of-term Supreme Court decisions, starting with gerrymandering. Jay feels that the majority got it right and that gerrymandering, while a potential danger to democracy, isn’t something that the Court can fix. Mike disagrees but feels it’s a tough question and understands why some may not be able to accept the social science view of how much partisan gerrymandering is too much. After that they turn to the Court’s decision on the Trump administration’s plan to add a citizenship question to the Census. Mike thinks that Chief Justice Roberts and the Court’s four liberals got it exactly right - while the administration can add a citizenship question, they have to provide a reasonable explanation for why they’re doing so, as opposed to the after-the-fact rationale the administration provided. Jay is somewhat disappointed with the outcome, but joins Mike in his respect for Chief Justice Roberts. The final Supreme Court ruling they examine received less coverage than the others, but is on a topic - administrative discretion - that’s near and dear to both Mike and Jay’s hearts. Jay feels that the Court’s ruling to keep in place a narrowed doctrine of deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of their own rules is reasonable, though he argues that the narrowing of that deference is part of a larger project to restrain the administrative state - something he’s very much in favor of. Mike agrees with the outcome and argues that the four dissenters seem to want to replace agency discretion with judicial discretion, which he views as unacceptable judicial activism. They close the show with a look at the humanitarian crisis on the Mexican border. Mike & Jay agree that the system is currently overwhelmed, and that Congress did the right thing in putting aside at least some partisan differences and approving some desperately needed emergency funding. Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Mike talks with Helena Rosenblatt, a professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York about her latest book, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century. Topics Mike & Helena discuss include: the meaning of liberalism in ancient Greece and Rome liberalism as an aristocratic virtue the connection between liberalism and education the Catholic Church as an historical opponent of liberalism classical, ‘laissez faire’ liberalism progressive Republicans, Wilsonian Democrats, and 20th century American liberalism how mid-twentieth century totalitarianism affected liberalism the key challenges to modern liberalism Helena Rosenblatt on Twitter Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
  Will and Brian begin with a discussion about Trump’s official re-election announcement. Both agree that Trump has better odds than the average pundit gives him to keep his position, but they differ slightly on why he could win. Will argues that the base will be enough to see him through while Brian posits that Democrats could likely unseat him if they spent less time debating one another and instead focused on a concentrated campaign against Trump. Ultimately, Brian argues that his base sees him as Teflon Don and that his control of the media is underacknowleged by political opponents. Will argues that with the economy doing well and no actual military conflict, Trump should be able to keep America great. Next, they turn to Hope Hicks’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Neither Will nor Brian are surprised that Hicks has not been willing to discuss what Democrats want to hear about, but they both acknowledge Democrats will keep trying to find information to help make a case that Trump has obstructed justice. Brian sees this as essential to preserving democracy as we understand it in America while Will believes Democrats are costing themselves time and resources by focusing on an already galvanized issue rather than going after the president on policy grounds. In the end, they both wonder what utility Democrats will ultimately gain from this and what could be accomplished if efforts were devoted to other areas. They then turn to discussing the Eddie Gallagher trial currently underway. Both believe this is an issue that merits an investigation, but they differ on culpability. Brian finds the alleged actions reprehensible while Will believe Gallagher needed greater support prior to being sent back into a combat zone. While neither excuses his alleged behavior, Will finds the testimony of a medic to raise serious questions. Both believe this is reasonable doubt, but Will points to the immunity granted to the medic as a potential sign that the government was looking to muddy the waters and avoid President Trump having to ultimately pardon Gallagher for his crime. Brian agrees and adds that if we want to improve our image abroad, avoiding allegations of incidents like this would be a great first step. Lastly, Will and Brian conclude with a discussion of recent activities in Iran, focusing on the Revolutionary Guard’s decision to shoot down an American drone this week. Will is perplexed by the response to last week’s cargo ship bombing allegations and the announcement this week that it must have been a mistake to shoot down the drone. Brian is concerned about maintaining territorial sovereignty while also protecting national interests. Both agree that a war with Iran would not be a useful endeavor given the lack of an endgame. Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Mike talks with University of Missouri St. Louis economist David Rose about his book Why Culture Matters Most. Topics they discuss include: why democratic capitalism is the only reliable way to achieve mass flourishing the relationship between culture, trust, institutions, and mass flourishing small group vs large group trust the role of religion in building a high-trust society why trust in the system has been in such steep decline how limited government helps to maintain trust in the system what we can do to increase trust and strengthen our democratic institutions Panel on Capitalism & Poverty (YouTube) Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Mike and Kristin begin with a discussion about the recent immigration agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. They go into some depth about the details of the agreement, President Trump’s stance, the concerns about the short timeline for Mexico, and some of the larger issues that the U.S. may face down the road. Both agree to take a “wait and see” approach. They also question whether it would be wise to add a “sunset” provision to executive orders so that Congress can assess crisis situations with a more flexible timeframe, but without necessarily hindering the President’s ability to act quickly. Next up is another geo-political topic that picked up steam toward the end of the week – escalating tensions with Iran. This week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed the finger at Iran for involvement in attacks of tanker vessels in the Gulf of Oman. Mike wonders if this is something the U.S. should approach with “muscle”, essentially backing Iran into a corner, and whether that is a wise move. Kristin brings up historical context and the importance of unifying allies to address Iran’s aggression – as was the case under President Reagan. Mike also brings up questions about the connection between this and possible arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Turning to domestic issues, Mike and Kristin discuss the disagreement surrounding the citizenship question on the 2020 Census, as well as the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s vote to hold AG William Barr and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross in contempt for withholding related documents. Both Kristin and Mike surmise that there is more here than meets the eye, as the actions seem politically motivated on both sides. They discuss their views, and Mike brings up an interesting idea regarding the timing of the Census. Finally, Mike and Kristin wrap up with a discussion of some personnel changes and issues coming out of the White House, including White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her departure, as well as issues surrounding Top Aide Kellyanne Conway’s violations of the Hatch Act. Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
loading
Comments (51)

Zac Zalles

Some weird audio jumping around the center/end of this one. Watch out for that

Jul 3rd
Reply

Robi

Check out the research done by Fairvote for a lot of information about multi-member districts and rank choice voting.

Jul 1st
Reply

Diane Dvorak Griesenauer

I could not listen to the whole thing. The sound quality was really bad, and both men seemed so out of touch.

Jun 27th
Reply

Chelsea

You guys are so disconnected and keep asking obvious questions that you wouldn't be asking if you were in touch with the true electorate and especially with your views of the economy. You sound like old out dated news.

Jun 24th
Reply

Michael Baranowski

Chelsea Thanks for taking the time to comment! I'd love to know what questions you feel we should be asking, and possibly ask and discuss our answers to them on an upcoming episode.

Jun 24th
Reply

Autumn Skeen

At last! Intelligentsia that isn’t snobbish or anti left, anti right, anti religion, anti anything other than anti morality.Thank you

Jun 20th
Reply

Michael Baranowski

Autumn Skeen Thanks much for the comment!

Jun 24th
Reply

Odin

Sounds like it was recorded underwater with a potato

Jun 14th
Reply

Odin

Michael Baranowski Haha, thanks for the reply. I'll be sure to check out some more episodes.

Jun 14th
Reply

Michael Baranowski

Odin Sorry about that - a one-time glitch that we've fixed. (But I loved your description!)

Jun 14th
Reply

Bonnie Taylor-Warren

mandatory

Jun 13th
Reply

Brian Brussard

I was really struck by Alexandra's comment(and I agree that it is truthful)"Leaders encapsulate the identity of the party." In relation to her attack of the vapors, and her apocalyptic pearl clutching, by AG Barr deciding to stand by his CIC..... ...one can only wonder how she remains oblivious to the Trump Executive merely being the continuation of the equally(I generously give the benefit of the doubt here) lawless Obama Executive? If she wishes to seem anything other than the uber partisan hypocrite her screed shows her to be.....she can post links to show her taking the Obama Executive to task for destroying our democratic norms when Obama refused to obey laws and took extra constitutional actions as she has done here with Trump. Just to get started.. here are some actions she can address..... https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2013/04/eric-holder-im-still-the-presidents-wingman-160861 "I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy." https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988 "The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official. The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder." In the likely event that she in particular, and the program in general, fails to offer any such links....we will have no choice but to see her as she portrays herself here...as an uber partisan hypocrite. OTOH.....Please, please, please prove me wrong, and address this glaringly obvious dichotomy!

Jun 10th
Reply

Rex Drexler

Love the show. Thanks for all your efforts! However, in my opinion, you guys totally missed the boat in regards to the Apple issue. Your analogies about flags and Singapore don't address (what in my mind) is the central issue, namely that their is no alternative to iTunes for Apple users to buy their apps. Imagine if you bought a computer from Dell and found out that there was software on the computer which prevented you from installing any software except those programs which you could buy on the Dell website. I tend to feel like once I buy my phone, it should no longer be Apple's right to tell me what I can or can't install on it. Much like an auto manufacturer can't tell me what after-market extras I can use on my new car. Placing software in the operating system which prevents app developers from selling their wares directly to Apple phone users and forces users to buy them through the company store is unquestionably (in my opinion) a monopolistic practice.

May 22nd
Reply

Kimberly Nicole

TRUMP 2020

May 9th
Reply

Terry W

At least Ben Shapiro is capable of talking about leftist without ANY name calling. I'm guessing its because he's an adult.

May 8th
Reply

Terry W

Rene Vargas Thank you, I think I will.

May 27th
Reply

William M Westcott

Terry W Yes because hiding your inane comments behind self fulfilling generalizations is so very adult. Allows you the constant room to backtrack.

May 27th
Reply

Terry W

This is not an equal 50/50 left right discussion. This is a leftist podcast with a few token comments from the right. The leftist host can't even have a discussion without name calling. The right side can have an entire discussion without calling anyone a single name. The left loses ALL credibility in ANY argument when they are unable to call someone a name. Talk about uneducated and childish! Buh Bye.

May 8th
Reply

Terry W

William M Westcott Does your mommy or daddy know you are on their computer?

May 27th
Reply

William M Westcott

Terry W Also almost every episode has a cultural conservative or a libertarian on it. Sometimes both. I know leaving your Breitbart bubble can be tough at first Terry, but push through. You can do this.

May 27th
Reply

Jay Carson

LIVE SHOW! BigTech won't let me join live!

May 4th
Reply

Terry W

Jay Carson you aren't missing anything

May 8th
Reply

Jay Carson

So, I'm here. But nothing happening on the live end.

May 4th
Reply

Shane Septon

Oh my god, empty talking around homelessness. It shows the disconnect on the topic has that has Progressives upset. Clearly they missed the point. I love you guys, I truly do, but the disconnect from the information that shows that fighting homelessness is good business and then the basic human decency aspect as well.

May 1st
Reply

Michael Baranowski

Shane Septon Thanks for commenting - I'm hoping that Jay and I can discuss this on our next show.

May 1st
Reply

Brian Brussard

Sadly, my previous go-to political program for well over a decade, NPR's "Left Right, and Center" descended into insanity, delusion and rampant in-your-face unthinking, unreasoning bias after the election of Orange Man Bad, and forcing me to flee the rampant vitriol and hatred they unceasingly spewed. Since then I have been looking for "civil" political discussion based in reality and fact rather than hatred, emotion and delusion. I stumbled across this program and the description had me excited! After listening to episodes 363 through to 370....I will have to resume the search. The description of the program is quite misleading. If you are looking for a program where the host very clearly has an ax to grind with Trump, and instead of in-your-face incivility....resorts to stating things that are clearly uber-biased, unproven or outright lies shrouded as "civil" debate....then look no further! This is your show. However, if you are, like me, looking for a program where the fact that Trump is a douche, and a horrible person....while unequivocally true.... can rightly be compartmentalized and be kept out of policy and governmental discussion...keep looking, you have not found that yet. This, like NPR's LRC, is just more ultra partisan mewlings posing as civil discourse.

Apr 23rd
Reply

Brian Brussard

Michael Baranowski Mike, can you give me a couple of specific examples of positions that the Republicans have abandoned and the Democrats now hold to reinforce your point? I agree with you that there was a hard leftward lurch during the FDR years, but I would submit this lurch was merely a continuation of the Wilson administrations lurch to the left. Recall FDR was Sec. of the Navy under Wilson and was his protege for years in politics as well as ideology. As an aside... I have always been astounded by the Progressive Left and their adulation of FDR. The man was an absolute monster! Putting aside his dubious distinction of being one of only two CIC's to ever suspend the Right of habeas corpus to US citizens, his outlandish persecution of the homosexuals under his command, during the repugnant Newport Scandal, should rank him among the intolerable in the annals of history. Yet the Left reveres him, and Wilson(shockingly enough,) to this very day. Go figure! While you are correct that we all benefit from infrastructure, unfortunately we must part ways at the fact that that not everyone pays for that infrastructure. In fact, a very large portion of "us" do not join us in paying for "their fair share." What percentage of peoples money do you feel government is entitled to take( yes this is how we should look at taxing issues...and most certainly the words we should be using in the discussion, as anything else is word games designed to obfuscate the very intent of taxes[and, incidentally, IMHO....why you chose to back away from that phrase in the previously referenced episode...as you rightly saw how phasing it this way may affect how they view the issue.] to pay for the "common fund?" I also agree with you that civil discourse, most particularly with those who hold differing viewpoints to our own, is crucial to the health of our Republic. One of the signs that said health is deteriorating is the shocking and distressing lack of diversity of thought in the halls of our Academia. Those not worried by what we see on our campuses today are not paying attention.

May 16th
Reply

Michael Baranowski

Brian Brussard Hi Brian - thanks for that great response! The research on ideological change over time almost always finds that it's actually the right that's moved further from the center than the left. You can see this by examining what were fairly mainstream Republican positions in the 1960s and 1970s, and how they've become mainstream Democrat positions. Essentially, from the 1980s on, the whole field has shifted to the right. Now, that was in response to a previous major shift to the left dating from the FDR days, which is something that too many people on the left don't mention when talking of modern Republicans as 'insurgent outliers'. As for my comment on taxes, you're correct that I meant what I said. I understand and can respect the libertarian view of 'it's my money'. My view is that nobody succeeds on their own, not really. There's a vast network of infrastructure, programs, protections, and services provided by government that are instrumental in the success of almost everyone. From that premise, I conclude that taxation is simply contributing to that common fund that helps everyone (or at least it potentially does). That's not a very individualist philosophy, which I get. And I understand that people starting from different first principles are going to disagree with me on this. That's okay - in fact, I'd say it's more than okay. Healthy, civil airing of alternate viewpoints is, in my view, crucial. One final thing - I totally agree that some on the left have gone *way* too far. While they don't represent the majority of us, they're the ones who get the most media coverage. It happens on the right as well - the loudest, most extreme people attract the most attention, even though they're not a fair reprsentation of the vast majority of Americans.

May 15th
Reply

Linda Susan Erickson

Thank you, Jay, for pushing back on Mike's religious intolerance. 🙂

Apr 19th
Reply

Chris Nigro

As a registered Democrat, this is one of the worst podcasts I’ve ever heard.

Feb 16th
Reply

Linda Susan Erickson

And I think that Nancy Pelosi is only interested in Democrat power and therefore, is a tragedy for our country. Jay, will you please give me e Mike some decent push back! 😐

Feb 3rd
Reply

Samuel Honeycutt

Can you tell me what crime was broken by the Trump campaign that was not broken by the Clinton campaign? If the trump campaign was trying to get opposition research what difference was there from the Steele opposition research?

Jan 30th
Reply
loading
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store