In a world where Democrats and Republicans clash and extremism threatens to tear us asunder, our conversation becomes a beacon of hope—a clarion call for unity amidst the cacophony of partisan rhetoric. We peel back the layers of political discourse, exposing the raw nerve of division that pulsates through media channels and public discourse alike.
Follow the page on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/overcoming_the_divide/?hl=en
Embark on a riveting exploration of America's political landscape with Corey Nathan, the dynamic host of the Talkin' Religion and Politics podcast. Together, we plunge headfirst into the heart of our polarized society, daring to ask: Can we ever bridge the gaping chasm that divides us?
Through the power of empathy and genuine human connection, we illuminate a path forward—a path that transcends the stalemate of political ideology and embraces the shared humanity that unites us all.
Drawing on examples like the forthcoming debate between Joe Walsh and Fred Gutenberg on gun legislation, we showcase the transformative potential of starting from common ground. As we navigate the turbulent waters of American politics, we reveal how empathy can serve as a catalyst for progress, even in the most contentious debates.
Yet, our conversation is not confined to lofty ideals; we grapple with the gritty realities of political representation and the tangible impacts of bipartisan action. From the inner workings of political parties to the crucial role of moderate voices, we leave no stone unturned in our quest for understanding.
As our dialogue draws to a close, a heartfelt nod to Corey Nathan underscores the power of individual voices in driving social change. Together, we invite you to join us on this odyssey—a journey toward rediscovering the promise of political unity through empathy, connection, and genuine understanding."
0:00 Political Discourse and Unity Initiative
8:27 Navigating Political Conversations With Shared Values
20:33 Breaking Down Political Party Dynamics
28:46 Addressing Latino Voter Representation
39:29 Bipartisan Legislation and Successful Administration
44:06 Material Differences in Political Unity
53:39 Promoting Social Change Through Interviews
Recorded: 3/13
Intro: Metropolis Nights- penguinmusic
Outro: Powerful Beat- penguinmusic
In a world where Democrats and Republicans clash and extremism threatens to tear us asunder, our conversation becomes a beacon of hope—a clarion call for unity amidst the cacophony of partisan rhetoric. We peel back the layers of political discourse, exposing the raw nerve of division that pulsates through media channels and public discourse alike.
Follow the page on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/overcoming_the_divide/?hl=en
Embark on a riveting exploration of America's political landscape with Corey Nathan, the dynamic host of the Talkin' Religion and Politics podcast. Together, we plunge headfirst into the heart of our polarized society, daring to ask: Can we ever bridge the gaping chasm that divides us?
Through the power of empathy and genuine human connection, we illuminate a path forward—a path that transcends the stalemate of political ideology and embraces the shared humanity that unites us all.
Drawing on examples like the forthcoming debate between Joe Walsh and Fred Gutenberg on gun legislation, we showcase the transformative potential of starting from common ground. As we navigate the turbulent waters of American politics, we reveal how empathy can serve as a catalyst for progress, even in the most contentious debates.
Yet, our conversation is not confined to lofty ideals; we grapple with the gritty realities of political representation and the tangible impacts of bipartisan action. From the inner workings of political parties to the crucial role of moderate voices, we leave no stone unturned in our quest for understanding.
As our dialogue draws to a close, a heartfelt nod to Corey Nathan underscores the power of individual voices in driving social change. Together, we invite you to join us on this odyssey—a journey toward rediscovering the promise of political unity through empathy, connection, and genuine understanding."
0:00 Political Discourse and Unity Initiative
8:27 Navigating Political Conversations With Shared Values
20:33 Breaking Down Political Party Dynamics
28:46 Addressing Latino Voter Representation
39:29 Bipartisan Legislation and Successful Administration
44:06 Material Differences in Political Unity
53:39 Promoting Social Change Through Interviews
Recorded: 3/13
Intro: Metropolis Nights- penguinmusic
Outro: Powerful Beat- penguinmusic
Today we're diving into an explosive discussion on contemporary American politics. This includes the dysfunctionality within our political system, the flaws of both moderates and bipartisanship, the political realignment among certain demographics, extremism within the political system and much more. Welcome to Overcoming the Divide, a platform dedicated to insightful political discourse and debate. Today, we're joined by Corey Nathan, a creative businessman and entrepreneur who seeks to mend political, religious and social divides through his collaborative and creative work. He is the host of the Talkin' Religious and Politics podcast that brings on guests of all different backgrounds to engage in debate and productive conversation. If you enjoy this conversation, I'd please ask you to hit that subscribe button in the bomb right hand corner and share with a friend who you think will also enjoy the conversation. Thank you, welcome to the show, corey. It's really a pleasure to have you here today.
Speaker 2:Oh man, thanks so much for having me. I'm really thrilled that. It's just an honor that you consider to have me as part of the conversation, so thanks for having me 100%.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I appreciate the compliment as well. When you get things kicked off, you host the Talking Politics and Religion podcast or Talking Religion Politics podcast. What do you see and what do you plan to accomplish with that podcast? What's the ultimate goal there when you start out?
Speaker 2:Well, first of all, one of my first goals is getting people to say the title right Talking, it's not talking. You're being all proper Dang it come on, they're like it's talking, Talking.
Speaker 2:No, I'm just kidding, but in a way we specifically started with some informality because it's kind of a we're pointing in the direction of what it's all about. I realized a long time ago actually that when people were talking about others that they didn't agree with, a lot of times they didn't know what they were talking about, but they kind of thought they did because they were listening to their favorite radio show host or whatever, and they were developing all these ideas because who they were listening to or watching on TV, very entertaining, and all that started filling their head with ideas about all those people. So if one of those people are in your midst like, oh, you voted for that guy or you voted for that one, then all of a sudden you think you know them but you really don't. And what that does is it breaks down the possibility of us being able to actually talk to each other Because you automatically assume you kind of tack on any number of assumptions If you get you know. I'll make a silly example If I think you're a Yankees fan, I'm a Die Hard Mets fan and if all I know about you is you're a Yankees fan, it's kind of like, oh, I know all about you, I watch the Mets channel, I listen to the Mets show, I listen to the Mets podcast.
Speaker 2:I know all I need to know about you You're this, you're this, you're this and all I know is you're a Yankee fan. And then do you think a good conversation is going to come out of that? So, to answer your question, my goal with the show is, like, I just want to be able to remember our humanity, you know. So I bring people on, we hear about their story, we open them up all of a sudden, instead of just like one person that you know one thing about based on one headline, they become human beings and hopefully they're people who are a lot different than you, who vote differently than you do, believe differently than you do, but you're learning. At the end of the day, they're human beings and it enables us then to have better conversations and perhaps develop relationships, and we could just do this whole democracy thing a little bit better. So that's my, that's my goal.
Speaker 1:It's interesting.
Speaker 1:You bring up a pretty intriguing point that seems to lie under the surface of a lot of these debates, conversations, arguments, which is your opinion of the quote.
Speaker 1:Other side may be informed of people within your circle of thinking and they're not. They may not be the best people to represent the other side's point of view and oftentimes it's a straw man point of argument that gets put forward, which is one of my biggest kind of like pet peeves, like I just I look for like the truth in the matter, like what is the best way that this argument is taking form and being presented, and if I still disagree with it, totally okay, but at least I know the truth. But a lot of times you kind of see, you know someone who's voting Trump or Biden. They must be xenophobic or they must be a crazy leftist or socialist or communist and all this stuff without actually like kind of digging deeper and hearing that side's argument presented in its best form. And there's a plethora of resources and podcasts, such as, say, this one by other ones and yours, to hear arguments of all different types presented in their best form, but it's a little uncomfortable, kind of like, to do that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, for sure, and I think we're surrounded by what I've come to believe are conflict entrepreneurs. So, talking about radio, podcast, tv, you know, all these different media sources there are certain guys and women who recognized a formula for being successful, for getting more clicks, getting more downloads, and one of those ways is doing the equivalent of at best like selling the equivalent of fast food as opposed to good, nutritious content, you know or at worse. Actually, we had this guy, denver Rigleman. He's a former congressman, republican congressman, but he also ended up being, like head of the Intel committee within the January 6 committee, and one of his findings in doing that research is that people's response to anger and fear driven content TV, radio, podcast, online reading is the same chemical reaction, the actual chemical reaction as when you take a hit of crack cocaine. So our brains function that way. It's like the I don't know the lizard brain or something like that. There's this chemical reaction in the how our neural process is. When we hear something that triggers our fear or triggers our anger, then we respond to it a certain way, as if we're getting ahead of drugs and that gets us addicted. We all like we don't. It feels weirdly good, in a kind of weird way, but we definitely know we want to come back for more, and those are conflict entrepreneurs. They know exactly what they're doing, but what they're not doing is telling you the truth about people that you disagree with. What they want is more anger, more fear, because their ratings go up. People got to come back for more of the political crack, if you will. So I think that it's harder to sell broccoli than it is a Big Mac. It's harder to sell broccoli than it is to sell you know some really good cocaine, but, but maybe I don't know, maybe you could put some bacon in there, put a little bit of gravy, you know. Then maybe that broccoli all of a sudden tasting good At the end of the day, I just want to be doing some political broccoli, some religious broccoli, so that we can have more substantive conversations. We can all be healthier civically. You know, so I, but it's.
Speaker 2:I think the first step, as I say is, is admitting it or at least recognizing it. So if you're recognizing that this dude or this, this, you know your favorite pundit, or whatever, is feeding you stuff that's getting you angry and you're coming back for more, first step is disrupting that process and just realizing it. Back away from the crack pipe, back away from the Dan Bongino. Whoever your favorite person is, I might point to any Matt Walsh, dan Bongino. I don't know. Ben Shapiro I kind of like most of the time, except when he's blowing up Barbie.
Speaker 2:But you know, just maybe back away from it for a minute and find some more substantive material to read, to listen to, to watch. But mostly, mostly, it's not even about what you're reading and listening to online. Mostly it's about who you're looking at deeply next door, who you're listening to sincerely across the Thanksgiving table or just a Friday night, you know, didn't. Or on the soccer field where the kids are on the neighborhood are playing. You know that's. That's what you're really listening to, you know. So that's, I don't know, that's that's. That's that's what I've been trying to do.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this is interesting actually, so I'm going to play more into this. Do you know that commentator streamer destiny? He's a pretty known person in political like landscape. In regards to podcasts, he's only quite a few noble ones, such as the Chris Williamson. He's debated Candace Owens most recently and Ben.
Speaker 1:Shapiro and the Lex Freeman podcast. He's pretty known liberal commentator but he was on modern wisdom podcast with Chris Williamson. He brought up something pretty interesting, which is people will take your applied positions and then assume your values or lack of values from those applied positions. Let me give you an example of this, and this is coming from destiny. But if you say are say, tight on immigration, you want to secure border wall, then you must, you know and you hear that from like a point of view that you probably are more in favors of open border or wider immigration policy. Then if you disagree with that the tighter border wall not only do you disagree on that policy level, but you would disagree with that person. You know assume their values, because if they don't want the wider border and they want a tight border, then then they could be xenophobic or they could be cruel and they don't care.
Speaker 1:So instead of taking issue with policy positions, it's like we're taking issue with the characters of one another, and I think the best conversations or debates I've ever partaken in were ones where I knew the other person had a positive intent and they likewise to me, like they return that favor as well, and it wasn't about exactly winning, even though you were trying to make a point, but more so trying to like Learn together. I think a great example of this is the jorm pierce and sam harris debates, where they debate religion and atheism and not the debating, but they're really just kind of forming beliefs like together, and I kind of seeing how they like Fall apart, line up together is interesting. So I think you know on the mark yeah, no, absolutely.
Speaker 2:We're having a conversation I'm really looking forward to. We're having a guy named joe wash and fred Gutenberg.
Speaker 1:I'm familiar with all yeah yeah.
Speaker 2:So joe had a. He was a congressman, a tea party, came in with a tea party wave Firebrand tea party guy and then had a national radio show very conservative guy but he he became an anti-trump or you know, somewhere around charlotte's fill or maybe else in key, but that's not here. No, there he's still very much a gun rights advocate. You think of himself as strong second amendment guy. Fred tragically lost his daughter in parkland in 2018. So a lot of folks wouldn't think when it realizes. But fred and joe are good friends and you know we're gonna. They really really strongly disagree on gun legislation, gun issues. So how are we gonna start that conversation? Something is close to almost tragic, as unbearable as what fred has got had to go through. You wouldn't think that he's gonna be in the same room, let alone any sort of conversation with a guy like joe who passionately supports gun. You know gun rights, second amendment issues.
Speaker 2:But where do we start? We start with what our core beliefs are. What are core values? Are you know and believe it or not? You know what, what, what are your core beliefs and what are your core values? What you know, what are your core goals? Believe it or not? There's probably a lot of similarity In what fred and joe want, even though the legislation and their conclusions about what kind of legislation to calibrate where we are as a society, as a nation, is very, very different, but the values and the goals there's a lot of similarity there actually.
Speaker 2:So I think any conversation that's fraught with tensions and you know you layer on all of these built up, you know resentments for what you perceive to be your political enemy maybe well, not maybe. I found this again and again and again that if you start with values, what do you value as well as who? As well as giving the person the dignity of looking at them as such, as a person, as a human being, as opposed to that's a creature that voted this way. That's all I need to know, bam. That's a complete. You're distilling that, that human being, down to one data point, and you're not just dehumanizing them, you're basically dismembering them from the community. So what our job is? By remember, by talking about our shared values in our shared goals, by, by looking at individuals like human beings, you're not dismembering them, you're remembering them, you're remembering their humanity. That's a much more fertile ground to have really tough conversations. That does that make sense?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm fine, that completely. I think that's why I'm intriguing and props you for facilitating that conversation. Short, go be a debate to extend. But I think, like when I saw the show overcoming the divide, it was in the summer, twenty twenty and all I really want to do was agree with people because it was at such a time where civil strife yeah, was I'm the present among society, social circle, social circles and even family.
Speaker 1:But now, like this, the point of disagreement is not bad. It's not exactly a bad thing to disagree. I think it's more of an issue when you always agree because one so may not just be like telling the truth but to it's. It's like then some someone, some side is not represented, which I think kind of plays into the same mega wing, the majority, pretty much other public party where you know obviously there's Cult elements to it, such as trump kind of flip, being the status quo of republican positions for like the past decades and people just in the republican party being okay with that and not having any issue with it. But I think when you hear like pundits on an s and b, c, c, n, n or wherever, like how they talk about it is such in this pejorative, disparaging way and I had that something that always turns me off.
Speaker 1:I give you example this totally jen sake was breaking down, I believe the virginia Republican primary and jen sake is to be like a press secretary was press secretary biden not too long ago but she was saying like immigration was the number one issue for republican voters.
Speaker 1:The guy living virginia were thousands of miles away for the from the border. I don't know why republicans really care so much. The only border I do know that we share, that we share with, is the west virginia border is a big laugh and big like dismissal, but like it just for me it kind of touches on like this ali ism, that even if it was an issue, it would be an issue for you because you're part of this upper like class, like you were not going to be dealing with those consequences. I'm curious to get your thoughts on that to like when you talk about the other sides, I think there's also part elements of ali ism. We're not like we can downplaying, demonize whoever we want, but like there's a reason why that exists. I can use that for like almost any side or any party like it's.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'll let you jump in some of your thoughts yeah, there's so much of what you said there that resonates. I think that A lot of times, what feels good to us and you know coming up with the perfect comeback or remembering perfect, you know, rhetorical grenade that are favored pundit just said and then being able to remember it At the perfect time to share it in the conversation, you know, so that you can love that grenade at whoever it is that you're talking to, that's, that's not persuasion, you know that's. That's. That's alienation. It's not persuasion, alienation. You know.
Speaker 2:I think the I've heard a term that a philosopher is so sociologist is working on renee desista, called bespoke realities. There's a tendency for a lot of us to create these bespoke realities. I don't like what you have to say. I disagree, or I disagree with you. I don't like hearing what I disagree with. So I'm not even gonna listen to you. I'm gonna unfriend you. I don't want to see anything in your feed, I don't want to be around you. I'm gonna move to idaho, so I don't have to be around these people.
Speaker 2:You know, whatever it is, we literally create our own realities, our own bespoke realities, right, but somebody one of the best leaders that I ever got to know personally had this expression he goes cori. I'm sure he was quoting somebody else. He was cori. If you ever find yourself in a room where everybody's agreeing with you, you better find another room, you know, and that's. That's a really. He was a really successful leader. It happened to be in the media industry and we came out of a meeting and like, dude, everybody loves you does anybody at this? Can I curse on the show, by the way?
Speaker 1:go for it, yeah, yeah I go to.
Speaker 2:Does anybody ever tell you your full shit? Tell me, yeah, I know, is one of those meetings. Was it a set? If you find yourself in a room where everybody's agreeing with you, find another room. So I want to do those bespoke realities. I want to know, I want people to challenge my thinking, I want people to challenge my assumptions, you know. And that we enrich each other when we say, hey, you know, I don't know if you thought about this, but you know and then we enrich each other to forces me to listen better and and think in a more nuanced way. And you know, I don't know, I might come back around to an original position that I had, or or maybe not, maybe I'll be, maybe I'll have a little bit, or maybe that person will be persuaded that I'm talking to, but I think, in disagreeing with each other, that that creates a better reality for all of us, right.
Speaker 1:Mm-hmm, yeah, that's that brings up a great point and at least like for me, like I want to truth in the matter and so what's true and what's not true? And obviously that Was down to a number of different, say factors that play into that quote truth. But there are things that like blind spots and arguments. I want to know those blind spots, like I, I think it's kind of foolish To buy into a narrative that you probably do know deep down is not fully true and then have, yeah, then have the goal to take that narrative public. Yeah, you're voicing it and, god forbid, you do that with someone who's on others, like who you know has counter talking points. I was, um, it's, it's fine that you mentioned that that original position, right, like, even though you may hear other points and you want to hear the nuance and things.
Speaker 1:Like I did this debate on immigration person was in favor open borders. I was kind of learning a lot and but also kind of like returned to after like a week and doing more research on the points. That's like no, I'm still kind of not in favor of that, but I was still happy to have that discussion because it helps you fill in the gaps. How do you know how strong say how if your ship can flow, if you never put in a mortar, that's a great point, that's, yeah yeah, that's the thing.
Speaker 1:So you have to do stress test, you have to test things out, and that's where I really get props to you and everyone in this space who kind goes on different shows and debates and you only know what's gonna come from it. But you do know you're probably learned something, whether it's the hard way or the better way, when you just feel good all around.
Speaker 2:Yeah, even your yeah. No, even even a creative question. A really thoughtful question Forces me to think about things in a way that I hadn't thought about them before. So it doesn't even require debate or disagreement necessarily. But if somebody is thoughtful and intelligent, you can structure a question in such a way. We're like huh, I Didn't think of it in those terms, and it forces me to use my brain, my imagination, and try to bring, you know, bring Seemingly chaotic things together. You know, make some sense of things.
Speaker 2:I think that helps all of us to keep just keep challenging ourselves on a on a mental level, emotional level, intellectual levels, like a Ethical level. You know, I think it's good stress testing. That's I like that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, 100%. And I'm curious for your thoughts because a Gallup poll back in April found that no record record breaking of Americans view themselves as independent. It was up where it was 49% and the other two parties were only 20 something percent each. Yeah, so what we think just turns people off about the Contemporary modern political parties the Democrats and the Republicans. Because you know you have a lot of experience talking to people across a political spectrum so I'm curious on what you hear and how you've kind of what your takeaways there are.
Speaker 2:Well, there's, there's a lot there. First of all, there's been a lot of studies over the last 10 years at least that kind of lead to the same conclusion and you will find a lot of folks will identify as Independence. Right now, I think the number is hovering somewhere around 42%, depending on where, which which survey you're getting. But I think a lot of the reason is there was another study, a really broad study that included tens of thousands of people, so there was a lot of data feeding into this study. I'm gonna say it's a common ground committee, but it's. It's not that it's related to the common ground committee, but it was a really broad study and the conclusion that they came to was, at the end of the day I think they called it highly engaged, meaning what we would think of as extremists, some guys who get up every every morning and are thinking about it, you know, first thing in the morning and are tweeting last thing before they go to bed.
Speaker 2:They're watching the programs, listen to the podcast, you know all day, every day. They're really super engaged and what we would think of as like the extremists, what they found was there was something along the lines of five or six percent on. I hate the right, left, but you know, for for shorthand We'll just say about five or six percent on the on the right and about seven or eight percent on the left are extremists. Everybody else about 85% of us are somewhere in the middle, but the narratives are being defined by that five or six percent, by that five or six percent and seven, eight percent right. They're being defined by the screamers, by the extremists, and they're taking all the oxygen out of the room. So, number one, it's important for the rest of us to know that. It's important for the rest of us. There's there's another term called the exhausted majority.
Speaker 2:David French has been talking a lot about this and it means that like, oh man, I just don't have time for this, you know, and that person's screaming, they must know what they're talking about. So let them, you know, let them take over, let them take, take all the space in the village square, if you will. Number one, it's important for us in the middle Not to fall prey to just being the exhausted and then we seed the ground to the extremists. We need to be engaged because the truth is a vast, vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle and have a lot more in common than the extremists on this side or that side. So, yeah, it's true, a lot of us, you know, with the thing that you were talking about the independence, the truth is, most of us. There's an organization called braver angels that that I'm, I'm involved with, and braver angels, when you come to their I forgot what they call it, but when you come as a delicate last year it was in gettysburg they do great work and they ask you are you a little bit more red, a little bit more blue? I said I'm an independent and they had a follow-up Uh questionnaire. Because they're like no, you're not. Because for the most part they're usually right.
Speaker 2:Usually somebody says I'm an independent. At the end of the day they vote all republican, all democrat. There's really a very, very small percentage of people who are purple. We're purple, um, and and so. So there is that. That folks, you know, veer a little right, a little left, but still like, I still think, even if, at the end of the day, they're what we would call a traditional democrat, traditional republican, there's still some possibility of persuasion there. You know, um, and there is, like that I don't know, mike matriot.
Speaker 2:In 2020. He was like one of the most brilliant numbers, politician, politics, campaign guys in the country and he identified what's called the banon line. So, within Different constituencies, there's that middle, there's that persuadable voter and the banon line. He kind of hijacked it from steve banon, but he said he identified certain constituencies that were, in fact, that were in that purple area, that were persuadable, and at that, in that election it was five or six percent. So for him, what he was targeting was not just independence, but also registered republicans that would either Um, leave it blank, do a write-in or actually vote for biden in 2020. And it was five or six percent. It's the same thing this time. It's just a matter of figuring out who they are, I think, those constituencies.
Speaker 2:Now for talking large groups of people, I think that I was just talking to a woman named Rachel Vindman, who's one of the co-hosts of the the suburban women problem podcast. It's a great podcast and part of it is, I think, that is the hinge upon which the 2024 election is going to swing Um, suburban women who, if they're old enough, they would have been voting for reagan in the first bush, probably the second bush, um, but but sometime around 2008, 2012 and definitely by 2016, that college educated suburban woman she was. She might have still been registered republican, but she ain't having, you know, today's version of the republican party that she grew up with, you know? So, yeah, 42, 40, 9 percent. I've heard those numbers too, but that's that's where. That's where all the action really is. We think it's from the extremes, but that's just because they're loud, you know, but we gotta take some space back for the rest of us, you know.
Speaker 1:Well, you brought up a good point though that I think plays true, which is you use the word obsessed and someone who's obsessed with their quote craft is going to be better than someone who is not.
Speaker 1:Yeah, sport someone who leisurely plays tennis will not be as good as a pro athlete who wakes up at 6 am In place tennis every day, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1:So I think it like it intuitively makes sense that the people who are most quickly Active or engaged, as you said, they'll be obsessed and they're kind of gonna dominate the discourse.
Speaker 1:You gotta dominate politics because they're the ones whose jobs are, revolve around it, they're livelihoods revolve around it families, friends, networks, and that just that adds up to me and to your, to your point, the exhausted majority. It's like it's me exhausted from like not feeling, you have to say, but I hate, I never want like blame the voter or the American for where we are. But it's like well, if someone who's playing in the like the work or is involved in is engaged, like it just makes sense that this is going to be how it is. And till people say you know what, I am good, you know, run for that seat on the city council or even lower on like a no commissioners board or something, you're just getting involved, more involved in my community and things are just kind of run its course by these people who are hyper politically engaged because they are obsessed with their craft and you know Props and never being obsessed.
Speaker 1:You know I don't really appreciate their positions but nonetheless, like anyone who's really going after it's like okay, well, I know why this is happening. If that makes sense, I don't know why they're so extreme, maybe they that's.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of reasons for that, but just to understand why they're kind of dominating the discourse is more intuitive. I want to play into another thing you said, which was education point, college education, education, college educated women, because you're seeing that as being this almost litmus test for whether someone's going to be more conservative or Liberal, which is whether they received a college education. I know that's. The polling kind of indicates that now, and you see more men who are not going to college trending more towards conservative leaders and thinking, and then, on the opposite side, women who are trending more Enrolling in college more than men, more than men trending more liberal. So that's that's. That's an interesting line that cut across is a number of Categories and topics, but yeah, I mean it's interesting how the realignment in both parties and on political spectrum affects both gender education. It's very involved but nonetheless it intrigues me and I think I'm out of people too.
Speaker 2:And listen, it's the job of a large coalition to be aware of that stuff. You know, if, if, what you're, if, if you, your message is alienating large chunks of the population of the constituency that you're supposed to serve. You gotta be aware of that, you know, because your job is not just to represent the extreme fringe of your, your constituency, the loudest of your constituency, but your entire constituency. So, yeah, like there's, there's a lot of people. Like you know, mike Madrid also has this the guy I was referring to about that that he focused on the band in line and he was a large part of getting that band in line north of six, five or six percent, especially in those swing states in 2020. He's also been writing op eds and trying to educate the Democratic Party. Actually grew up as a Republican. I think he still identifies as a Republican, but he's not. He's not a maga guy. So he's been trying to educate his Democratic friends like hey, listen, you have a Latino problem and we first started saying it at least two years ago, if not longer.
Speaker 2:They were. They a lot of his friends and people who commented on the. You know we wrote in New York Times piece. A lot of people commenting reacted not to the substance of what he was saying but as people who just didn't like what he was saying. And we're responding, whether it was ad hominem or attacks or just kind of temper tantrum throwing, and Mike's like say what you want, do what you want to all the time tantrums you want.
Speaker 2:But this thing is real. You can either yell at me for I don't know, not looking the way you want me to look or we can deal with this problem. It exists. It's kind of like throwing a temper tantrum about gravity. You know you, you can throw a temper tantrum about gravity. It exists, regardless of what your reaction to it is. But you better get used to it, because if you test whether gravity exists or not from 20, 20 story building, it's not going to work out well for you.
Speaker 2:So he was saying Latino. You know what is it about Latino voters. Him and Chuck Rocha have this great podcast, latino vote, and they're both practitioners election practitioners and Mike has helped win a lot of Republican races over the last 30 years, chuck was, you know, historically, one of the, you know, president level campaign managers on the Democratic side and they get along. So you know they're good friends. But they're both talking about this number one is a lot of, but you know it. First of all, it's a very pluralistic vote. We got to acknowledge that. Yeah, come from Cuba, very different people who are coming from Venezuela now, for example. But you know identifying certain things of why is there leakage right now? One is, you know there's still a lot of people of you know whether it's South America, mexico, even, you know, cuba, places like that.
Speaker 2:Faith is a bigger issue than the trend lines of the general population of America. So if you're saying and doing things and representing things that alienate people based on their faith, that's a problem. If you are, a lot of folks are, you know, first generation, second generation, you know so they tend, you know, like my family we tended to be, you know, first section tend to be small business owners, like me. So if your policies are really putting way too much burden on the backs of small business owners, that's a problem, you know. So all these things have to be thought about, like you know. But at the end of the day, kicking and screaming that you don't like hearing the truth about. You know leakage from the Latino vote isn't going to do anything to help you win the next election. You got to address the problem, acknowledge the problem and do something about it. You know.
Speaker 1:A thousand percent. I mean, I think not that the Republican Party doesn't have its own issues, but I would say I feel like that's a theme, at least with the Democratic Party, and it's a modern form.
Speaker 2:Kicking and screaming throw a temper tantrum.
Speaker 1:Well, no, specifically, I said you know, but I mean I have no issue with sying my co-sign, but what I was referring to more specifically was just with not listening to people and not looking at the facts. For example, you know you have polls upwards of 90 percent think Biden's too old to run for president, and before those polls came out, it was kind of evident that that was probably the case as well. Yet they're hopping him up to be the Dominion, is it not me? I'm pretty sure it's officially secured nomination, but like there was opportunity to be like, all right, well, we beat Trump. From a Democratic point of view, we beat Trump. Four years are coming up, you know, 2024, new election buying. We see that he's aging. Served as purpose, say serve. Well, probably someone else in there know reinvigorate, galvanized voters, all from something new.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah yeah, it was just like no, no, we're going to double down. We're doubling down here. We're going to go with Biden. This is our guy, you know he's just so many complications at this point they got, I don't want to mention. I just feel bad, like bring them up, because you kind of like have a sympathy for the guy but nonetheless he's a president and should be held to that standard as much. And it's just like bizarre to me, because there are like a few other candidates that at least come to mind that they could like went with, but decide so I not to, and yeah so like us.
Speaker 2:No, it's so funny. Like you're, you're singing my song man because, like I said, I am a purple voter. So I remember in 2016 I forget exactly how many Republican candidates there were, but let's say they were Fifteen or sixteen there are easily like 14 or 15 of them I could have easily voted for. There are a lot of people on that stage now. A lot of them have devolved in the in the Trump era and I wouldn't be able to support them. You know what they've become in the Trump era. But somebody like Nikki Haley, for example, I could have voted for in a heartbeat. You know? Same thing on the democratic side. Like you put up mayor Pete or Gretchen Whitmer, josh Piro, you get me. You get me somebody who I 95, like exploded and he had that thing rebuilt in two weeks. Like get me that guy all day, every day, because at the end of the day, you need an executive, you need a chief executive, right, somebody who can. Or as Megan Whitmer yeah, what am I not Megan Whitmer?
Speaker 2:Gretchen, gretchen Whitmer yeah, governor what you know I'm talking about from Michigan.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I did a damn rose you know, build a damn rose.
Speaker 2:So I give me somebody like that all day, every day and, frankly, like I have this. It's a stupid theory, but I call it the empty calorie vote. A lot of us are empty calorie voters because we always on a few levels. One is I'm in California. My vote at the presidential level just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. We know where it's going New York, you know. Certain states, just you know, like Biden is just not going to win. North Dakota just not going to happen. He's not going to win Idaho or Wyoming not going to happen, you know.
Speaker 2:Not only that, it extends on an individual level. I go to church with guys who will never, ever, ever, ever, ever cast any other vote other than Republican. They're empty calorie vote, we got it, they're built into the system. We account for empty calories. However, I spent a lot of time as a kid in box County late 20, you know. Or late teens, early 20s. My people in box County, pennsylvania, they are not empty calorie voters, you know. Or in my district, yes, I'm in California. So my presidential level vote, empty calorie vote. But my district is not my district. My US House district was one by 333 votes out of over 340,000 that were cast in 2020, so that is a vote that matters. So I bring that up to say, like my, my, my vote is a purple guy matters at the US House district. If I was in Put bucks County, pennsylvania, my presidential vote would matter there.
Speaker 2:Who's gonna win those votes? I think it's a mayor P or Gretchen Whitmer or Josh a pure on the Democratic side. I think it's a Nikki Haley on the Republican side. There's any number of others a Chris Christie, you know has other problems, but he that he's the kind of guy or even even what's his name that supported Haley from the governor of New Hampshire Is the kind of a young man that can win a larger constituency, build a larger coalition than the very orthodox kind of must be Magal all day, every day, kind of a thing. That's not a growing coalition. That's like you know. I don't know I probably got on too long already. I got myself into trouble, but no, no, I mean, I serious.
Speaker 1:We really have some disagreements in terms of candidates, because it's interesting like I Not fan Trump now, but in terms of 2016, trump and terms of 2016, bernie Sanders, or much more in favor of like their populace rhetoric. Compare, and it's not really the figures in only have anything, find anything egregious about Bernie Sanders like character, but it's less and it's more about like what they're speaking to, which on large part part is economic factors that have kind of Driven out, say, the middle class but also deeply affected the Rust Belt area of the country. But nonetheless, I kind of like I aligns like populace rhetoric to extend and that's why I hear like people such as like Haley, or governor which man who have concerns with, say, the covert nineteen and her policy, or Haley on foreign policy, but nonetheless, like it's on to me it's like More so the communication of how and it's a communication of their policies, which are people and I don't, so I. The point I bring up here is like I don't know if I'm like Find myself, I don't know if most people find themselves to be moderate, the paying on the policy issue, like, for example, like there's a growing number of people like the Democratic Party, the overwhelming majority of the Party is in favor of a ceasefire in Israel or in Gaza, for example.
Speaker 1:I don't know if that's like a moderate position. They all ceasefire maybe is, maybe isn't. But then same thing goes for like health care, when, like no majority Democrats are in favor of like health care and then some taste me, the majority of the Republican Party is in favor of something like on the strict borders and so on. So I mean, I don't know like what Exactly. I don't know how you capture that base while also not tending to the issues that they bring up. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2:It does.
Speaker 2:And there is a solution and we've seen the solution and we also saw a missed opportunity. Now what am I talking about? A lot of folks might not like Biden, but I probably disagree with more of Biden's own policies than agree with them. However, I really agree with his process. What I mean is, if you look at his biggest pieces of legislation, they're all Republican-led or another. You know, one of the big ones that wasn't necessarily Republican-led was led by Joe Manchin, the most centrist senator in the Senate right now. So you get the gun legislation. It wasn't really gun legislation, it was like mental health legislation after the tragic events in Uvalde.
Speaker 2:Who was it? It was John Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, who led that piece of legislation. The bipartisan infrastructure bill was led largely by McConnell and the Republican leaders minority leaders of the Senate that led negotiations, even like the fiscal cliff about a year ago last spring. Who was in the room with Biden? It was Kevin McCarthy and it was more of Kevin McCarthy's boxes that were checked than Biden's boxes that were checked. So a lot of his biggest pieces of legislation the bipartisan infrastructure bill chips, you know, all bipartisan, not just bipartisan-led. Or you look at this last one that didn't go through. Who was in that room? One of the most conservative senators in the Senate, it was Senator Langford from Oklahoma and it was like a, you know, a Republican-conservative closed border, essentially wish list of legislation. He happened to have what's her name, the independent senator from Arizona, in the room with them.
Speaker 2:But that was the furthest left person that he had at the negotiation table. They delivered this. It was technically a bipartisan piece of legislation but it was really a mostly 89% conservative piece of legislation and it boggles my mind that Johnson didn't bring it to the floor in the house because it was their entire wish list. It was the best menu they're ever going to get for a more closed, border-minded constituency. It was like it was delivering on their wish list. But that's how it gets done. It gets done by bringing historic.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of talk about this. Stories have been told about this how Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill the Ronald Reagan Republican president, tip O'Neill, democratic Speaker of the House at the time you know they would negotiate and fight hard all day and at night at six o'clock they'd share a scotch Like that's how legislation, that's how it's supposed to get done. It's the art of negotiation. And if you're you know, in this instance you know it's closely held Senate, closely held House, then a lot of things are going to look a lot more purple, frankly, in the actual legislation and execution. And if you got to tip the scales one way or the other, as a Democratic president, tips of scales that way, but Biden's legislation was a lot more conservative. That's what I think the success of the administration when hit, you know, take away all of the pundits who were putting their you know their spin on it.
Speaker 2:Historically, they're going to look at this four years of Biden's first term and say, huh, they got, you know, six major, major, major pieces of legislation, all of which had direct effects on the economy in terms of jobs, in terms of GDP growth, in terms of the stock market, in terms of even their fiscal policy, in terms of scaling back, bringing inflation back down to closer to healthier levels, or oil production. He has more. He has a record level of domestic oil production, more so than any other president in history. A lot of folks aren't paying attention to that. Why isn't gas in California six and seven bucks? Anyway, what I'm saying is it's not. I disagree with a lot of his positions, but I really agree with Biden's process of bringing in the leaders from the other party in order to craft legislation that ultimately gets passed. I think that's a successful administration and a successful country.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean I agree that there were pieces of legislation that were, you know, beneficial to the country for sure, and aspects of them that were bipartisan. You brought the one with providing more resources to mental health within the states, which I thought was obviously like a net positive right. But I mean, to that same token, I think this is why Biden is struggling to a large extent, which is like the material difference that you're making in people's lives. Like, if you pass that and I mainly make this point and invite your rebuttal just because I think you know I like these conversations but I think, like you know, all these pieces of legislation like they're good, they're good like talking point, not to say that's how you're deploying it, but they're talking point, looks good, sounds good. But then you look at, like the material differences that you're making in people's lives and you look at Biden's like, say, promise and the supplies are like all presidents and a lot of politicians, but you look at Biden's promise to like forgive, like student loan, debt, and he has some of it, but you know, still like fell short of the mark. You look at like we're involved in two wars, we're giving millions or billions of billions of dollars to foreign countries.
Speaker 1:Yet a lot like affordable, unaffordable housing is becoming ever more an issue for the everyday American. More Americans are let me paycheck to paycheck People are not feeling like good. I think that's what matters a little bit more than like the unity and I agree, like in an ideal world, I like that. But I think what, in terms of like the voters point of mind and how I think of it, is like what material difference have you made for me in the past four years? Because I'm not feeling it and I'm kind of feeling like that, like I'm not. I'm not like feeling the, the pros and the heralds of the legislation that was passed. I'm actually feeling a little bit worse, given, you know inflation is coming down, as you said correctly, so, but look at 2019, like still like up by like 20% of like the jump.
Speaker 1:And then you look at like unaffordable housing, then you look at like billions of dollars going to foreign countries and whether it's good or not doesn't really matter. It's just material difference. It's the optics of that and the material difference or lack of that you're making in voters lives. So and I say that because I think like unity is great when it's great for the people as well, but I don't think they always play together. I don't think Democrats and Republicans working together is always an indicator that they are working for the American people, and I do want to call that out and I invite a rebuttal. Nonetheless.
Speaker 2:No, no, no, I'm not going to rebut you. I think it's a good reminder for me as well as listeners, is that I can sit here and give you a nuanced argument about why supporting Ukraine the way we are is is the most efficient way of advancing democracy and protecting democracy both overseas and domestically. But that's a nuanced argument. At the end of the day, All it doesn't matter. A friend of mine said Corey, I know you're talking about inflation is coming down, but at the end of the day, I can't take. I can't even take my family out to McDonald's for less than 60 bucks. That's what.
Speaker 2:I feel you know my son who drives a big truck like he, he all gas prices are still high to him. So all of my you know advanced arguments about Cornyn's bill and the Chips Act and the IRA, like he's like that I can't fill up my tank for less than 100 bucks. That's what matters to me. So I hear you like you gotta meet people where they're at. You know me meet people where their, their, their needs are at. And if you haven't done that, it's not just a messaging problem. It's like you would understand that you're wrong if you only understood how intelligent my argument was. That's not a really good argument, you know.
Speaker 2:I think yeah yeah to your point is like yeah you gotta.
Speaker 2:You gotta meet people where they're at, man and you know. But that's, that's the job of a good leader is like, yeah, I did all these things, but that doesn't matter. I heard it, this pastor who's? He was theologizing, he's gonna be a great talk and comparing a Hebrew Bible verse from from Psalms, to the concept of the body of Christ, and it was really like he was getting into eschatology, so teriology, all these allergies, and he goes. But at the end of the day, we could all do all this theologize we want, but at the end of the day it's still about, you know, my, my, my buddy's grandma's in the hospital. I go hang out with my buddy in a hospital with them, you know. So it's just every day met, need you know? And if we're not doing that, yeah, we're missing the mark.
Speaker 1:So no, that's. I think that's a great example that you put in there and great anecdote to share, because you know it's some someone I'm not the most Bible know what's the where I'm looking for fluent, and you know I went to Catholic grade school in high school so I should know a little more than I probably do. But I mean, I know, I know for at least that Jesus in the New Testament obviously, but like took issue with the Pharisees because they weren't, for they weren't actually know being virtuous people but talking as virtuous people. And there you know, sorry, I don't.
Speaker 2:I don't mean to cut you off, but there's something interesting. So first of all, I that's a whole different conversation. Jesus interaction with the Pharisees was a family conversation. A lot of people see that as as an adversarial. It kind of is kind of, especially if you look at Matthew.
Speaker 2:Twenty three You've got a vibe, or I was pretty heated language, but that's just like Tuesday at Chabad for me. You know it's like you know, if you're not not yelling that, you just not having a really good conversation. But what I was gonna say is, if you notice, if you do get a chance to read through the Gospels, in one of the first introductions of the apostles, of his immediate, his first disciples, he talks about John, who is a son of that one, and Peter, who is his brother at that one, and it's all family connections. And he gets to Simon the zealot and Matthew the tax collector. Those are the only two that are referred to by not by family affiliation, but by political or professional affiliation. Now, why was that significant?
Speaker 2:In the first century Israel, the tax collectors were working on behalf of the Romans right, they were. They were basically, you know, part of the part of the swamp, if you will, and they were hated by some people. And the zealots were were initially formed for theological purposes. You know, study Torah, study the law, study how they should be in the world, based on what the Torah was saying, that kind of thing. But they became zealots that we, as we would think of it, like passionate extremists, if you will, in response to the tax collectors. They became a politically engaged group and you couldn't have more polarized groups than tax collectors and zealots. And yet who was at the table? Who did they mention? They said Simon the zealot, not the tax collector, because Jesus had them both in the discipleship. He had them both at the table.
Speaker 2:You know, that's the other one of the thing I'll that. That I'll just leave you with. I get this from the after party. You know people I know and respect started this thing to help people learn how to talk to each other, better called the after party, started by Curtis, curtis Chang, david French and Russell Moore. And the other thing to notice about those stories is a lot of times Jesus like let's see, let's get around the table.
Speaker 2:You know, somebody comes to him after he's he's raised from the dead. They don't recognize him. They're all troubled. He's like how you look? The first thing he says you look troubled, what's up, don't you know? Like this thing that happens, jesus, messiah. He's like, yeah, that's terrible. Got anything to eat? You know, it's all all this stuff. So that tells me like, hey, let's go get a beer, let's go get a coffee, let's break bread together. You know, you might be a tax collector, I might be a zealot or vice versa, but let's sit around a table, let's figure it out. You know, I think we can figure it out. We have shared values, shared goals. You know we might disagree about how to get there, about legislation or that politician of the jersey we're wearing, but I think if we really see each other as human beings, more so than the tax collector of the republican or the Yankee fan or the whatever, then I think we could figure it out.
Speaker 1:Sure, first one, thank you for sharing that. That's, that was great. No, that's a looming. I love histories and that's kind of like historical as well. So, please, yeah, my interest quite a bit. But, yeah, thank you, and I couldn't agree more like Gang, to know someone outside of the context where you may disagree with them in is is key. Yeah, for sure, but I do want to offer you opportunity, like what, like starting to close out here, how do you View, like, what you're doing, like moving for the what's, what's up next for you, and where can people really keep in touch with you at?
Speaker 2:Thanks for letting me share that. So first, easiest way to find me, you can look up talking politics and religion without killing each other on any of your podcast apps. Were on all the apps. But just remember the talking is what about a, g, t, a, l, k a? N politics with the apostrophe there if you want. But if you put that in there or talking politics and religion usually comes up. We got this purple logo. You recognize the talk politics and religion that killing each other. You could go to our site politics and religion dot us Politics and the end of spelled out politics and religion dot us. Where you can find me, c o r e y s is in sam n a t h a n, at courier snath and on all the socials.
Speaker 2:What I hope to do is just do this thing better. You know like we're all. We're all trying to like throw the perfect bomb at each other. You know perfect like come back at each other, throw it like, just engage in the way. That's all contentiousness. I'm not to say that there's not a time to really meet like debate out points. Yeah, there's time for debate and even contentiousness at times, but like I think that should be the exception to the rule, if we're focusing on each other's humanity, each other shared values, you know then and then having better conversations as a result of that. So I'm bringing people on the show. You know some high profile people I'm really happy about. Some are just regular guys like me, and we're gonna continue doing this thing and I'm gonna continue getting involved in other organizations like braver angels and village square. I'm trying to do this work to like repair. What else is this culture, man? That's what I'm trying to do.
Speaker 1:Corey, it's been a pleasure. Thank you so much, and everyone who's listening, go check out those channels and keep up with Corey's great work.
Speaker 2:Thanks so much. This is great.
Speaker 1:Take care, everyone talk soon.