Podcast Summary
The distrust of mainstream institutions among conservatives: Conservatives' distrust of mainstream institutions, particularly the media, is largely justified due to perceived bias and suppression, according to Mary Kathryn Hamm, a conservative journalist.
The collapse of trust in mainstream institutions, particularly among conservatives, is a significant factor shaping the modern Republican Party. This distrust, according to Mary Kathryn Hamm, a conservative journalist and writer, is largely deserved due to the ways these institutions have failed Americans. Hamm, who has a long family history in journalism, criticizes the media for bias and suppression, particularly during the COVID-19 era. She sees a lack of introspection in the industry and believes that attempts to address past mistakes have been short-lived. Hamm also sees the 2016 election as a turning point, not because of Donald Trump's actions, but because of the media's inability to provide accurate and unbiased coverage. Overall, Hamm's perspective, though differing from Ezra Klein's, is worth considering as it represents a dominant viewpoint on the American right.
Maintaining Trust in Media Amidst Mistakes and Biases: Acknowledge mistakes, seek diverse perspectives, engage in good faith disagreements, and critically evaluate the implications of engagement.
Trust in media is complex and personal. The speaker acknowledges having made mistakes in election predictions but emphasizes the importance of owning up to them and maintaining trust through transparency. They suggest that people often selectively trust media sources based on their biases and agreeable narratives, and recommend actively seeking out diverse perspectives and engaging in good faith disagreements. The speaker also touches on the concept of "platforming" ideas, questioning whether engagement implies endorsement, and advocates for critical and thoughtful engagement with a range of perspectives.
Engaging with Controversial Figures and Ideas: Context Matters: It's crucial to engage with controversial figures and ideas, but providing context and comparing to history is necessary for understanding their significance. Avoiding engagement doesn't prevent harm, while endorsing crackpottery isn't informative.
While there should be wide latitude for adults to engage with various ideas, it's important to draw clear lines when it comes to extremist views that harm or deny historical facts. The speaker supports engaging with controversial figures and ideas, but believes that context and comparison to history are essential for understanding their significance. They argue against the notion that providing context makes one a "sellout" or a "booster," but rather, it informs the public. The speaker also acknowledges the market for controversial figures and the media's incentives to cover them, but emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between engaging with and endorsing crackpottery. They suggest that the parameters for what is considered acceptable should be wide, but not at the expense of historical truth and factual accuracy.
Historical context of distrust towards institutions: Question the information you receive, test its accuracy, and maintain skepticism towards all institutions to avoid falling into cynicism.
The current political climate is marked by a widespread distrust of institutions, including the media. This distrust stems from a history of being misled or lied to, leading people to question the truth they are being presented with. The speaker argues that this distrust is not new, but rather a response to the historical context of institutions, such as the media, not accurately representing or covering important stories that impact marginalized communities. The rise of the internet and access to primary information has given people more tools to parse information and form their own opinions, but it also comes with the challenge of building and testing filters for accurate information. The speaker emphasizes the importance of skepticism towards all institutions, including those on your own side, and encourages the testing and questioning of information to avoid falling into cynicism.
Rebuilding institutions without a central governing body: Cultivating a cultural understanding of free speech and debate is crucial for rebuilding institutions like media and education without a central governing body. Trust towards federal institutions like the Department of Education is decreasing, fueled by distrust and frustration from parents during the pandemic.
Rebuilding institutions, such as the media or education, without a central governing body, requires fostering a cultural understanding of the importance of free speech and debate. This understanding seems to be waning, particularly in elite educational institutions. The distrust towards federal institutions like the Department of Education is not new, with Republicans expressing a desire to shut it down since the 1980s. Reasons for this distrust include a libertarian ideology that favors fewer federal agencies and a belief that orders from the federal government may not be tailored to individual schools' needs. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures have fueled a new wave of distrust and frustration from parents, who felt adversarial treatment from school boards when advocating for their children's education.
Loss of Trust Between Parents and Education System During School Closures: The closure of schools during the pandemic led to a significant loss of trust between parents and the education system, particularly for those on the left. Essential workers and their children were most affected, and the reluctance to reopen schools eroded the generational advantage for Democrats on the education issue.
The closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant loss of trust between parents and the education system, particularly for those on the left who believed schools would eventually reopen. This mistrust was fueled by the inconsistency between the priority given to teachers for vaccines and the refusal to reopen schools. The consequences of school closures were felt most acutely by essential workers and their children, who were forced to seek alternative care solutions. Despite early data suggesting that children were not major vectors for the virus, there was a reluctance to reopen schools, leading to a loss of faith in the education system and a generational advantage for Democrats on the education issue eroding. Looking forward, flexibility and creative solutions, such as intensive tutoring and homeschooling, are needed to help students recover from the damage caused by the prolonged school closures. However, the scale of the challenge is daunting, and there is no easy fix.
Public schools and the role of parental involvement: Public schools must prioritize the needs of all students and bridge the gap between parents and teachers for effective education and advocacy for disadvantaged children.
The public education system plays a crucial role in caring for children who may not have the support of their parents. However, it has been shown that many public schools have not lived up to this expectation. This has led to frustration and a call for change, with some advocating for more privatization. However, there is a risk that this focus on parental involvement may leave behind children who are already disadvantaged. To address this, it is important for public schools to use the resources they have to prioritize the needs of all students and for there to be meaningful parent involvement from those who are able and willing to advocate for the education of all children. Additionally, efforts should be made to bridge the divide between parents and teachers, recognizing that they share a common goal of caring for and educating children.
Communication and Understanding in a Divided Society: Engaging in respectful and meaningful dialogue is crucial for bridging divides and promoting understanding, especially in the political sphere.
Effective communication and understanding between individuals, particularly in the context of free speech and political discourse, has become increasingly challenging. This issue is not unique to any specific conversation but rather pervades many interactions in American society. The speakers in this conversation agree that there was once a cultural understanding that allowing diverse viewpoints to flourish was beneficial for society. However, they also acknowledge that this era of understanding was not without its flaws and that the incentive to find disagreements and eliminate opposing viewpoints has increased. They believe that engaging with each other's ideas, even if they disagree, is crucial for productive conversations and for building bridges rather than walls. In the political sphere, this dynamic is particularly relevant as the GOP primary for the 2024 election approaches, with candidates vying for the chance to win a national election and avoid a dramatic loss. Ultimately, the speakers emphasize the importance of engaging in respectful and meaningful dialogue to bridge divides and promote understanding.
Balancing appeal to Trump voters and offering a viable alternative: Candidates must strike a delicate balance between appealing to Trump supporters and presenting a distinct vision to win the Republican Party nomination.
Winning the presidency in the Republican Party requires a delicate balance between appealing to Trump voters and presenting a viable alternative. Candidates must not abandon or criticize Trump too harshly, but also find a way to distinguish themselves. Trump's confidence and results-oriented approach have resonated with some voters, making it a tough act to follow. Ron DeSantis, for instance, is seen as a potential contender due to his populist appeal and successful handling of the COVID-19 crisis. However, whether the electorate is ready for a more policy-focused approach remains to be seen. Ultimately, the key to winning the presidency under the Republican banner is to offer a compelling vision while acknowledging the importance of Trump's base.
The Republican Party's Contentious Debate Over COVID-19 Policies: The GOP primary electorate continues to debate the merits of former President Trump's COVID-19 policies and the role of individual freedoms versus government intervention.
The debate over COVID-19 policies during the 2020 election and its aftermath remains a contentious issue, particularly within the Republican Party. Some argue that former President Trump's emphasis on individual freedom and keeping schools open was a winning stance, while others criticize his lack of a clear plan for making it happen. The lockdowns and school closures were seen as a major civil liberty issue, with some arguing that the swift implementation came with little process or consideration for individual freedoms. Despite expectations of a red wave in the 2022 elections due to Democratic COVID policies, the public's focus on moving on from the pandemic has made rehashing these issues a challenge for candidates like Ron DeSantis. However, there is still an appetite for this debate within the GOP primary electorate, who see DeSantis as a conservative they understand and who has implemented conservative policies throughout his career.
Understanding the changing conservative electorate: Ron DeSantis' success is due to his conservative record, fundraising abilities, and ability to connect with voters on key issues. However, his approach may not be universally appealing and is calculated to win over specific voter bases.
The conservative political landscape has evolved since the 2016 election, and some candidates, like Ron DeSantis, are effectively adapting to the changing electorate. DeSantis' success can be attributed to his conservative record, fundraising abilities, and his ability to connect with voters on issues they care about. However, his approach, which includes appealing to the anger of certain groups and taking hardline stances, is not universally appealing and may be a calculated move to win over specific voter bases, such as in Iowa. The discussion also touched upon the importance of understanding the electorate's desires and the need to adjust messaging accordingly. The failure to do so in 2016 resulted in the rejection of good conservative messengers and ideas. Overall, the conversation emphasized the importance of understanding the electorate and adapting to their needs while staying true to conservative principles.
Understanding the role of suburban voters in winning the presidency: Securing suburban votes in major metro centers like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia is crucial for winning the presidency. The definition of conservatism has become unclear, making it a challenge to understand its true meaning.
Learning from this conversation with Mary Kathryn Ham is the importance of suburban voters in winning the presidency. Ham emphasized that winning the presidency requires securing the votes of suburban callers in major metro centers like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, especially in Georgia. This is a challenge that most primary candidates must face in a competitive race. Additionally, Ham shared some of her favorite books, including "Wise Blood" by Flannery O'Connor, "The Rules of Civility" by Amor Towles, and "The Right Mhmm" by Matthew Continetti. Ham praised Continetti's book for its insightful analysis of the American right and conservatism, which aligns with the themes discussed in this podcast. Ham also noted that the definition of conservatism has become increasingly unclear in recent years. Despite having been in the field for over 25 years, she acknowledged that it's a challenge to define what conservatism truly means. Overall, this conversation highlights the significance of understanding the role of suburban voters and the complexity of defining conservatism in American politics.
