I wish we were pounding beers at a Notre Dame football game.
That's where I'm going this weekend, by the way.I'm going to a Notre Dame football game this weekend.
I wish this were a Notre Dame football podcast, but it is not.It can be.Those are my plans for next year.I put that in my goals, my performance review.From New York Times Opinion, I'm Carlos Lozada.
And I'm Ross Dowson.And this is Matter of Opinion, where thoughts are always allowed.For now. So we are back again with a second episode of Moo this week.You just can't quit us.
When we spoke in the hours immediately after the presidential election was called, Michelle and Ross and I focused mainly on the Trump side of the story.What does Victory tells us about American politics, about America, period.
So today, I want us to focus more on Kamala Harris and what her defeat means for the future of the Democrats and for the future of the left more broadly.Who better to join us in that pursuit than our dear founding friend of the Moo, Lydia Pilgrim.
Lydia, welcome back, Lydia.
Are you saying I'm an expert in losers?Is that what I'm to understand?
If that's how you interpreted this, Lydia, I don't know.That wasn't what I was saying.
It is wonderful to be back with you guys.I wish it was under different circumstances, but here we are.
You mean like not on a podcast, just like hanging out?Totally.There would be more alcohol. Lydia, so when Ross and Michelle and I met earlier this week, we started off by giving just some instant gut reactions to the results of this election.
You have had an extra day of digestion.So maybe now you can give us your gut reaction.What happened here?
You know, my mind always goes to the kind of the rest of the world and what America can learn from the experiences of other peoples.
And when the sort of dust settled and the scale and scope of Trump's victory was clear, I thought of something that my friend, the journalist, Indian journalist Mahir Sharma wrote after Narendra Modi, who was the prime minister of India, won a second resounding victory, which was like the death knell and horror to all of the good liberals in India.
And he wrote that we do not live in Modi's India.We live in India's India.And the reason that so many Indians adore Modi is because he represents their preferred conception of the Indian state and the Indian nation.
No other explanation for these results is as compelling.And I guess that's my takeaway.You know, the people have spoken and this is what they want.And there is literally no arguing with that.So, yeah, we live in America's America.
It's not Trump's America. He heard the call and the people have answered it.That was a bit of your column, right, Carlos?
Oh, I don't know.That was like days ago.You're expecting me to remember?Well, yeah.I mean, I think part of what I was getting at is that for nine years now, this sort of cry on the left, on the kind of well-meaning, self-involved,
good people of liberal America is that this is not who we are.This is not normal.And now, guess what?It is.And sort of wishing it away is probably not a great strategy.Speaking of good or bad strategies, you see what I did there?
I want us to hit three things in our conversation today.First, what it is the Democrats got wrong Second, how they might try to set it right.And third, maybe we can flick at what kind of leadership they might need to do that.
So I want to start first on just one maybe minor thing that I've been a little fixated on, and that is the popular vote.We don't have final numbers, but Trump seems close to four or five million votes ahead in the popular vote.
We're not going to get California for like 16 years.
But that means we have weeks to just say whatever we want about it.
We have weeks to say whatever we want, but it is important to stress that Trump's lead will narrow.
I think this is a useful thing for listeners to know about, especially since, you know, in the unlikely future event that some election comes down to California, that is actually when the American Republic will collapse, because California is incapable of counting votes.
There's a lot of people in California.
So I will say the golden state addendum, and that is that Trump looks on track to win the popular vote.This would be the first time that the Republicans have won the popular vote since George W's election in 2004.
And for many years, even when they lost, say, you know, Gore in 2000, Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democrats have consoled themselves with the fact that more Americans have in fact voted for their candidate for the White House.
And, you know, you could say, well, that means, you know, the problem's not really the message, it's this arcane electoral college system that's holding us back.
That is something that they will not be able to tell themselves this time if indeed Trump has won the popular vote.I'm wondering what you all think of what it means for the Democrats, symbolically or practically, to lose the popular vote.
I mean, it means they'll have to do a gut check, right?I think I have heard a million times exactly what you've just mentioned, which is that, oh, it's so unfair.It's just the system.
And we need to change the structures of the electoral system, whereas this doesn't let you duck that the message was preferred by the majority of voters. So, it's time for a bit of a gut check and a little less whining about the Electoral College.
Matthew Feeney Yeah.I mean, I think you can't understand almost anything about what liberalism did and thought and argued about in the first Trump presidency if you don't remember how easy it was to argue that liberalism hadn't really lost.
And it wasn't just the electoral college, right?It was also the Russia narrative.It was, you know, the New York Times putting Jim Comey on the front page in the waning few days.
I mean, there were a bunch of large and small things that were invoked to emphasize unfairness and flukishness and so on.But the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote was sort of held up above all.And that in turn
just created a dynamic where certain kinds of reckoning that normally happen after shocking political defeats, they happen to some degree but not in the same way.
Now, I should stress, I mean, it is in my interests as a conservative obviously to encourage the deepest soul-searching, the harshest possible reckoning among liberals.I would say though that liberals were always
kidding themselves a little bit about the idea that they had the majority and conservatives did not.If you look at the 2016 election overall, Republicans won a majority of votes for the House of Representatives.
If you add up the third party candidates, the Libertarians and the Greens to that election, the Republicans plus Libertarians exceeds Democrats plus Greens.Republicans won a majority of the House popular vote in 2014 and 2022 and so on.
So there are ways in which This is not quite as epic a repudiation as some liberals are feeling right now, but that's partially just because they were always in denial.
They've always been.No, I mean, look, well, it's it is still a 50-50 nation.
Well, well, I mean, the one caveat that I put into that is that, you know, one does have to consider gerrymandering, which tends to be more aggressively done by Republicans than by by Democrats.
The New York Democrats, man, I sure wish that they would be better at gerrymandering.
But to the broader point, I think that my diagnosis is that the Democratic Party, for all of its shouting about, you know, we need to restore democracy and so on and so forth, like the call is coming from inside the House.
The Democratic Party has not had a truly open competition to choose its nominee since 2008.And to varying degrees, the competition to lead the Democratic Party and to lead the ticket has been stage managed.
And so they have literally cut themselves off from the opportunity to listen to what people want and to choose leaders based on what people want.
and have substituted for that their own preferences, their own elite peccadillos and concerns, and we're seeing the results of that, which is, you know, an absolutely catastrophic loss that will shape our lives until we die.
Oh, I'm not even sure I need to sign in after that one.
All right, so we're neck deep into reckoning territory here.Sorry.So, Lydia, this may be the first time you've heard this, you know, structured in quite this way, but what you just said reminded me of Bret Stephens' column this week.
Our colleague Bret Stephens, who wrote a column about how the Democrats lost because they were a party of prigs and pontificators telling voters that the things that they felt
about the economy, about the pace of change, about Joe Biden, that those things were wrong and that that's not a way to win elections.
Is this largely a matter of Democrats not listening to the sirens like the ones that are in the background of our own conversation, you know, both in the process of selecting its own leaders, but also once you're running a general election and listening to the larger electorate beyond the Democratic Party?
Yeah.I mean, I think that's absolutely right.Look, the reality is that the Democrats do not have a story.Right.Donald Trump has a very clear story.It's, you know, make America great again.
We're going to take you both back to some sort of mythic time when America was great and also, you know, something, something, something Elon Musk rockets.And that's the future.Right.So it's a flim.
No, it sounds great to you.
In the 1990s, plus Mars, right?
Yoss could not be happier.But I think it'll look less like SpaceX and more like Twitter.You know, if it were to look like SpaceX, we might be able to get excited about that.
But I imagine that what's going to happen if you actually put Elon Musk, Donald Trump's new best friend, in charge of the future, that the future of our government will probably look more like Twitter, which is like a giant cesspool.
We're talking about the Democrats.
Let's get back to the Democrats.
But I think I guess that like this is the point that I was trying to make before I digressed into talking about Elon was that ultimately politics is about selling some kind of vision or story that taps into what it is that the populace is thinking and feeling at any particular moment.
And what I am seeking is someone who has, on the center-left, or even, frankly, the center-right, a theory about the future that is not merely amelioration of the existing order.I mean, there's got to be something that is not reactive to
the sort of libidinal freak-outs of the right, but is a positive affirmation or theory about what progress looks like in the 21st century and what the human future looks like.
And, you know, it could be something, something, something Mars, which is what Trump and Elon Musk are selling, plus a side of, I don't know, 1950s social mores.
But I think there is a market for something different from that, and I would love to see somebody articulate it.
Didn't they try to, I mean, the Democrats offered, you know, you talk about something, something long ago, plus Mars, like maybe the Democratic message was abortion, abortion, opportunity, not Trump.Right.And there was a story.Right.
It was a story about freedom.I mean, like, what is it that failed about what Harris and company were offering?
We are not going back is not a complete sentence.
It doesn't tell you where you are going.And this was a change election.And Kamala Harris did not put forward a compelling vision of how she was the change candidate.
She was in this awkward position, lashed to a very unpopular administration, and she just didn't have the political skills to come up with a narrative of her own that When you're talking about change, that's by definition scary.
I mean, so much of what we've been talking about with Trump is that he was the rare combination of a change candidate with a nostalgia candidate, which is basically what you're talking about, Lydia, which means you take the scary out of change.
So when you're looking for candidates who are going to give you a compelling vision of tomorrow, you still have to find a way to make that not scary to the legions of people who feel that things are changing too fast.And that's just really hard.
And she was not quite up to that task.
again, continuing my, you know, defenses of of liberalism here.I mean, you can afford to be magnanimous now.I'll be I'm being magnanimous.No, but I mean, part of the issue is that
The normal way that liberals and progressives promote a broad positive vision of the future is by promising new ways to spend money, to say, here are the new things that in our richer country, we can afford to have government do to spread the wealth around.
Maybe you wouldn't use that phrase, but, you know, build a new foundation of prosperity and so on.Right.
And that was, you know, to go back to 2016, when there was sort of a contested Democratic primary, that was Bernie Sanders's very effective message.It was that the Democrats are being too timid about spending money.We have money to spend.
We can have public health care that looks more like Scandinavia.Let's do it.That's really hard to do under inflationary conditions.
And I know inflation has come down but you still have this sense that like there isn't a free lunch out there in the same way that there was when Sanders style socialism sort of burst onto the scene. core issue for Democrats.
You know, when when it comes time to articulate that forward looking vision that I agree with with all of you that, you know, Harris didn't have.
It's just hard to do it when the main thing people have been suffering is not, you know, my health care plan isn't good enough, but groceries cost too much and the government has put too much money into the economy.
And inflation is is just a killer for, you know, ambitious welfare state liberalism.
And so the solution to that is to raise prices on bananas.I mean, I don't disagree on a factual basis with your analysis.Right.
But clearly, voters are not looking at that and being like Trump's policies are going to bring down inflation because, you know, his policies will actually, if he's successful, like massively increase inflation.
In fact, you know, Elon Musk said there's going to be a lot of of short term pain and sacrifice if Trump's economic agenda is enacted.Right.
So I agree with you that those programs, I think, are hard to justify if you feel tethered to any thing resembling reality.
If you can just, you know, make shit up and your voters aren't actually going to hold you accountable, then, yeah, anything goes.
Well, but I mean, again, we're we're officially not talking about Trump.Right.
But part of what I'm saying is that is the Democrats can't lie.
But part of what Trump had going for him was that he had been president before and he had presided over an era that had the kind of economic conditions that voters want right now.So, yes, Trump's tariffs are not a cure for inflation.Absolutely.
And there is a weird dynamic with Trump that where he gets away with a bunch of things because people just don't take his policy promises that seriously.
But it's not just that Trump was like, oh, you know, he gets to bullshit and say whatever he wants.He could say we didn't have inflation before you guys came in and then we had inflation.
And yes, that's a very simplistic argument, but it's more potent than just like, oh, Trump gets to lie and we don't.
Trump inherited an economy that was created by the presidency of Barack Obama, right?And then he's once again going to inherit an economy created by the presidency of Joe Biden, right?And he will absolutely claim credit for that.
And that will be his sort of like, look at this amazing economy I created that like literally fell in his lap.
If we're talking about the Democrats, one of the biggest problems the Democrats have is that they act like grownups and they actually fix things and try to make the world better.
And then when they lose because Republicans believe lies, then the Republicans who get elected based on those lies are like, oh, my God, look at how amazing our economy is.
Kamala Harris didn't run saying that. Joe Biden and I created this awesome economy for you.And now we're going to just like take that puppy out for a spin.She ran saying, we know costs are too high.We know there's a lot of work to do.
You know, she was apologizing for inflation.I mean, this gets back to the question of like, are you going to listen to voters or are you not going to listen to voters?Voters thought the economy under Biden and Harris was not great.
And yes, maybe you can say legislatively they set in motion many things that down the road will create a much stronger, firmer footing for the American economy.I get that.
But when it comes time to voting, I can absolutely say that I worry about what Trump's policies will do to prices in a future forward-looking sense.
What I can say with even more confidence is that if you look at inflation under the Biden administration, it was high.
You know, even Kamala Harris ran on the notion that the economy was a problem and now I'm going to create the opportunity economy and I'll bring costs down with my like anti price scourging initiatives.Right.
She wasn't making the case that you are making.And maybe maybe that's maybe that's the problem.Maybe I think that was a problem.
I think that's the problem.
I mean, the stroke of genius of Donald Trump to put his name on the stimulus checks, he knows that like, you know, branding, that putting himself at the center of this emotional place and responding to the emotions that Americans are having is great marketing.
I mean, this is a guy who knows how to connect with people.
So my complaint about the Democratic Party is always that it tries to lead people by their heads.And the Republicans are much better at leading people by their guts.And being a salesman and a branding genius is part of the job of being president.
Now, do I think policy ideas that he's floated are what people are voting for.No, I do not.I don't think America can tell you what a tariff is or what it does.They vote on their feelings.They just do on presidents more than anything else.
And Trump is just better at that.
This is the job interview where, you know, you are asked what your defects are and you say, I just I just work too hard.You know, the I think I think so.Lydia says the Democrats are too honest.
Michelle says they think too much with their heads, you know, like like what I'll say.
Let let me let let me let me suggest.So I think there are areas where. the Democratic Party, especially in the Trump era, does feel sort of, it's the party of the intelligentsia.
Most policy wonks and, you know, professionals who care about sort of the federal budget and so on, nowadays, are Democrats of some sort or another.And so inevitably, that does create a sort of tether
to study says this, projections say that in the Democratic coalition that's weaker in the Republican coalition.I will concede that point.
I think on a lot of other issues, anything related to race, sex, culture, and history, the Democrats have spent the entire Trump era in a mode of gut level You know, we are being dragged back into like reconstruction.
We are being dragged back into the patriarchal family of 1940.You know, we are being taken into the Republic of of of Gilead.
To school board meetings, Ross.
And we'll see.There you go.Right.
You think that these school board meetings where in as happens throughout all of American history, people have often uninformed arguments about what books should be on reading lists and in libraries are the equivalent of what?
Going into the Republic of Gilead and dressing women in red.
What I'm saying is both teams do that.
OK, but you were just talking about the limits of the Democrats head first heart later strategy.I'm saying there's been plenty of like we are trying to stir a mood of deep alarm on the Democratic side.
And I think, yes, one weakness that the Democrats have. is that part of the Republican coalition now very clearly does not want to go back to the 1950s.It really does just want to go back to the 1990s, which we'll call it the Joe Rogan constituency.
Joe Rogan and like the bro podcasters are not trying to rebuild the world of Father Knows Best. They're trying to smoke a little weed and have freewheeling discussions where they say politically incorrect things on their podcasts.Right.
That's the world of 1997.Maybe it's the world of 2007.And that really helps the Republicans when there's a perception that when the Democrats are saying, you know, you guys are trying to build the Republic of Gilead and Donald Trump and J.D.
Vance are hanging out with Joe Rogan.
Those things don't match. So two things one in 1997 I had a roe versus wade protection.
So I would be happy to go back to at least that Two i'm not suggesting that democrats do well By aiming for the head with their politics what it does is it fuels a little bit of what you're pointing to which is that they come across as hectoring condescending telling people that they
should know better than XYZ.You know, it's a little bit the whole, if only you knew what was good for you, you'd vote for us.So, I think there has been a misunderstanding of what I mean.I'm not saying they're thoughtful.
I'm saying that this is a shortcoming, and it plays into the broader shortcoming of they are the prigs that Brett is talking about. Ross, I am not dissing the culture war.That is kind of the opposite of my complaint.
So maybe I'm saying I want them to culture war a little more.
I agree that abortion is a good issue for the Democrats precisely because it's a place where if you go back to 1997, Roe v. Wade is on the books, right?
The world of the 1990s includes abortion and to the extent that Republicans are seen as rolling things back further, that is a weakness for the Republicans, yes.
Look, as much as I want to believe what a Connecticut Yankee tells me, who doesn't go out and report, like Michelle and I do, about the state of America, I just want to say that identity politics is alive, well, and really the main driving force, not for the Democratic Party, but for the Republicans.
White identity, male identity, this was all over the Trump campaign.So I think that culture war identity, that's really at the heart of it.
that I'll say is, like, just to Carlos's point, I don't think that this is us being complimentary of the Democrats or puffing them up or saying they're too smart or too this or too that.What I'm saying is that they are too arrogant and nobody.Yes.
All right.Well, that's that's the first time either of you have used that word.So I will take that.
Condescending is my preferred, but... And nobody represents that more than Joe Biden.
This is the man who, you know, after all but saying that he was only going to run for one term, in his infinite wisdom and total frailty, decided that he was going to go for it again. And the people around him let it happen.
And so the Democrats were deprived once again of the ability to have a real Democratic conversation about who they are and who would best represent them.
So, you know, I think this lies at the feet of the total and complete arrogance of Joe Biden and the people around him.And those are the people who have been running the Democratic Party literally most of my life, if not my entire life.
Okay, blame Biden.Yeah, the TLDR.So that seems like a good moment to take a break.Now that we've established all the mistakes the party has made, when we come back, let's turn to the solutions.
Our conversation so far has reminded me of the famous autopsy report that the Republican National Committee put together after Mitt Romney lost in 2012.It was their big soul-searching moment.
They basically said the party was risking its future if it didn't do a better job of appealing to black voters, to Latino voters.
The irony is that 2016 seemed a repudiation of that thinking when Trump leaned so heavily into sort of the white working class.But of course, now he has succeeded in broadening the party's support.
So if you're sitting in a room with those Democratic Party leaders, Lydia, that you have so chastised, what does the 2024 version of a similar exercise of an autopsy report look like for them?What does it contain?
I think that that I think one of the things that I take away from this moment right now, and I that I hope that the Democrats are thinking about very, very seriously in this autopsy or ultimately whatever it is, is that there is there's something very positive that has happened, which is we are witnessing a depolarization around some of the most difficult divides in American society.
Right. geographic depolarization, ethnic depolarization.I would put a pin in in the sort of black-white depolarization.
I think that the black voter thing has been somewhat oversold, and I think that the sort of generational black American, meaning people who are descended from enslavement,
are a separate story that we should just kind of put off to the side for just a moment.
But I think that this idea that immigrants are automatically just kind of filter into the Democratic coalition, I think has just been absolutely and completely disproved.
And I think the opportunity that that creates is an opportunity to think about sort of redefining what the core values of the Democratic Party are in this new era.
And I think one of the things that really needs redefinition is what is the working class?
And Joe Biden is like the worst messenger for this because he's, you know, Scranton Joe, lunch bucket, white guy without a college degree is what he imagines is the working class.
But we all know that the working class in America is female care workers.You know, they're people who are working in nursing homes or are, you know, in the service economy in a variety of ways.
And really thinking about a politics that is built around lifting up a version of the working class that actually represents what the majority of the working class in this country really is, is just an enormous opportunity for the Democratic Party to build a cross-racial coalition around that, a broad geographic coalition around that.
That's just what's out there waiting.
I would broadly endorse much of what Lydia just said.
I would also note that it's in slight tension with the idea in that you expressed Lydia just a little earlier in our discussion that you have to understand the Republican Party as being primarily about
identity politics, male-white identity politics, and I as a Connecticut Yankee am underplaying that.
I think that you can come to Connecticut, the lovely state of Connecticut, and do exactly the sort of racial, ethnic, democratic soul-searching that you described.Trump improved dramatically in Connecticut.
My suspicion is that he improved dramatically in old industrial cities like Waterbury and Danbury that used to be lunchbucket working class cities and now are, you know, Brazilian and Guatemalan immigrant cities.
And those are the kind of Hispanic, Latino voters who carried Trump to one of the best, probably, again, Penndale exit polls are provisional, right, but one of the best Republican performances with Latino voters in the modern era.
But that reckoning, I think, requires putting aside a little bit the comforting notion that Republicans are just doing identity politics.Republicans have a more multiracial coalition.
The people I talk to in Connecticut who are Trump voters, it really is a different cross-section than it was in 2016 when it was fair to say.
that Trump was sort of squeezing the sponge of white working class voters to barely eke out an electoral college majority.It's different now and that difference I think is where any kind of democratic autopsy should start.
Whether that survives Trump, I think, is a big question that we should ask.We're talking about the Democrats, I know, but I do think that absent the person of Donald Trump, a J.D.
Vance or a Vivek Ramaswamy represents very, very different pathways of like where this could go.
Well, that's one of the things that I'm fascinated with, Lydia, like talking about Texas Republicans.They have taken Trump's opening and just hit the ground running with Latino voters.
They have been down at the border in those border counties that have been blue since God was a boy and just work in the local races.And if you look at like, say, so take Ted Cruz's victory this time. In 2018, he lost Latinos by 29 points.
This time, he won Latinos by six points.That is a big swing, and it is in part Trump opened the door and created what Carlos loves to call a permission structure.I know you love that term, Carlos.
But then they have really worked at playing on the knowledge that one, Latino voters tend to be more conservative than a lot of the activist base in the Democratic Party.
And two, when I go down there, like when I was reporting in Texas this last time, I would talk to a lot of Latino voters who really, really, really absorbed the Republican message that immigrants are a problem.
They told me my family came in here illegally.This has changed.I don't think this is fair.So these two things are going to resonate, I think, even beyond Trump.And the Democratic Party is going to have to do a lot of soul searching on that.
If only we had a Latino man on this podcast. who could, you know, share.
Well, you know what, Ross?Carlos loves to be put in identity boxes.That's his favorite thing.As the economist.As much as he likes being called an economist.
Speaking as a Connecticut Yankee from my position as a Connecticut Yankee.
In King Donald's court.Yeah.No, so let me let me skip right past that.And I want to ask you guys something about the Democrats moving forward, because the response to Trump's victory in 2016 on the left was, you know, hashtag resistance.
It was activism.It was marches.It was taking care of each other, retrenching into certain communities.And Hillary Clinton was to establishment and the Trump effect was to kind of radicalize the left and elevate the voice of the activist.
And I wonder if in hindsight, you feel that the party since then has been too driven by activist positions, which in some ways turned off the mass of voters, not just white voters, that eventually became Trump's winning coalition eight years later.
Like, to what extent does the party need to be more selective or perhaps jettison the influence of the activist base?
Yeah, I mean, I think like being laser focused on the things that are going to demonstrate to the constituencies that the Democratic Party should own, aka the working class and working people, the ways in which a, let's call it what it is, a Trump-Musk administration, you know, is going to... Do we have to call it that?
I mean, I think that's threatening me with a good time.
I think that's what we're going to see.But I mean, I think I think what does that mean?That means Medicare and Social Security cuts are off the table.So they're coming for expanded Medicaid.
They're coming for that two trillion dollars that is basically greater than the discretionary spending in the entire federal budget.Right.
I really think it's about like these are the ways that they are going to give tax cuts to Elon Musk and his friends and make it so that you can't get access to your blood pressure medicine or see a doctor under expanded Medicaid that you had when a Democrat was president.
I mean, I think they just need to get down to brass tacks and simple things like that.This is how your life is being damaged by these people who are in charge right now.And I think that's the simple politics that works.
I should say I agree, I agree, and I think that basically to the extent that ... Again, I'm joking a bit.
I do not have any idea what kind of actual influence Musk will have on a Republican administration, but to the extent that if Trump-Muskism is seen as just austerity politics for the lower middle class, it will prompt a backlash of the kind that Lydia is suggesting that will give ample opportunities to Democrats.
All right, we have attempted. to look at what the Democratic Party got wrong, what it might want to do next.And of course, we have this mythical figure of the generic Democrat.
Kamala Harris tried as hard as she could to be the generic Democrat in this campaign.But very briefly, I want to ask you, someone's going to have to run for president in four years for the Democrats.
What are the qualities that you think can bring these issues and these approaches to the floor?And dare I say, is there a person that you think embodies them? Just quick, quick, quick.
I always want I always want the good communicator.Always.That's just my bias.
I don't think it's any of the people that people were wish casting in in the last go around.
And I think the quality needs to be an electric connection with some deeply felt and aspirational idea that's oriented to the future that is can be kindled within the American people.
She's always more uplifting than I am.That was so eloquent.
She's so poetic.An electric connection.Kinetic.Okay.How about you, Carlos?Yes, Carlos.Me, I don't know.I wanted to know what you all thought.Don't duck us.Tell us.
Don't be a baby.Just because you're moderating, you're ducking my demands.I've been ducking the entire episode.You've been ducking the entire episode.
What do you want?It's good because I've been aiming all my fire at Ross.It's because I know he can take it.He can.He's tough.
I think, I mean, I get sort of like communication and I get, you know, this visceral connection, but like, what is being communicated and what is being connected?
Like, I know I posed the question about the leader, but I think that the seductive aspect of the Trump era is that it's made us think that it takes a singular leader, but I think it takes a singular message and I think the mix of nostalgia
and scapegoating, and I need one that's less negative.
Techno-aggressive, patriotic techno-futurism.
Oh, right, right, Musk, right, right.Sort of the mix of like nostalgia and retribution and futurism ended up being a thing, ended up being a thing that seemed appealing.
So I think we lionized, you know, the great communicator and, you know, as if politics were purely about PR.It's largely about PR, but not solely. Ross, what are your qualities?
Yeah, I mean, I think I'll tie it all together and say everybody, everybody is correct. Which means no one is a true unifier.I'm a man of I'm a man of consensus.No, look, Lydia is correct.
You cannot lead a modern political party without having some kind of electric connection to some of the party's core impulses.Right.You can't lead a modern political party just by stiff arming its base.
And, you know, even Bill Clinton, who is remembered as this great triangulator and compromiser, I, you know, I was 12 years old.I remember the 1992 election and liberals were very excited about Bill Clinton.
So you need a way to get your party excited. You need some charisma.You need to be able to give a good speech.But then you also need to recognize some key area where your party has lost touch with the middle of America.
And I think this is the deficit that the Democrats have, is that their desire is what you saw in this campaign to sort of mute They're more radical ideas, but not ever say, here's our explicit policy compromise pitch to the center.
And so you need a leader who's able and willing to do that, to say, here are the couple of things we were getting wrong as Trump did.
You know, with the Republicans, when he took over the party, he said we shouldn't be cutting Medicare and Social Security.That was big.That was a big part of his success.I don't know what exactly the equivalent of that is for the Democrats.
And I'm sure you guys wouldn't want to take advice from me on it.But you do need some version of that.
All right.That's a good place to take a brief break.When we come back, we're going to offer you a variant on our traditional hot cold.Doesn't mean it's lukewarm.It's just something a little different.
We'll be right back. Okay, so we're back.We've all been on our phones and our various devices a lot during this election, getting every last update, parsing every last poll.
Now the election is over, we're gonna offer some suggestions for a screen-free, an analog way to get through your day and distract yourself from what used to be your daily dose of doom scrolling.So quick, Lydia, first, what are you doing?
Lydia. Last night I saw Toshi Regan, one of my favorite singers, perform at a live venue here in New York City.Go to a live performance.It's incredibly rude to look at your phone while someone is singing their heart out on stage.
So use that social prohibition to protect yourself.
Yeah, my kid, when he comes home for Thanksgiving, I've got him Googling right now for all the live events, like concerts and whatever's that he wants to go to.
But I'm going to offer something that's much more mundane, and you guys probably know this about me already, but when I need to de-stress, I paint rooms in my house. I know that's really messed up.I get thousands of color swatches.
I have ladders and infinite numbers of paintbrushes and rollers, and I just start.
So the family is accustomed to coming home on any given day over the years to find like one purple wall in the dining room or a hallway that used to be blue that's now orange.
God, please come to my house.Ross?You know, go to church.
Sorry, just- But you're on brand.
Would I would do that anyway?More than once a week, Ross?
More than once a week?I mean, I'm- Daily mass?I'm Catholic.8 a.m.?
Are you a Wednesday mass Catholic?
Yeah, I know, I'm asking.You got a lot to confess, Ross.
All right, last- God.Okay, let me just state for the record, this has been a harsh on Ross day.Only four years to go, guys.Maybe it's richly deserved.What I will say, and I mentioned this before in our conversations, lap swimming.
There is nothing more unplugging than lap swimming.I can't tweet or scroll, and I can barely think because I'm not a naturally good swimmer, so I have to focus on my strokes and my breathing.
And there is nothing more relaxing and kind of brain erasing for me than lap swimming.So, there you go.Love it.Lydia, thank you, thank you, thank you for coming back.Thank you, Lydia.
We're all going to go erase our brains and come back next week.
All right.So great to be back with you guys.
Thank you so much for joining our conversation.Please give Matter of Opinion a follow on your favorite podcast app and leave us a nice review so you can let other folks know why they should be following along.
Give a question for us based on anything we talked about today or what we should be talking about.We want to hear it.Share it with us by voicemail by calling 212-556-7440. and we just might respond to it in an upcoming episode.
You can also email us at matterofopinion at nytimes.com.Matter of Opinion is produced by Sophia Alvarez-Boyd, Phoebe Lett, and Andrea Betanzos.It's edited by Jordana Hochman.
Our fact-check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Original music by Isaac Jones, Efim Shapiro, Carol Saburo, Sonia Herrero, Aman Sahota, and Pat McCusker.Mixing by Pat McCusker and Carol Saburo.
Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samuelski.Our executive producer is Annie Rose Strasser.
Sign in
