Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
John Lovett
Hey, welcome back to the In Good Faith podcast, where every week I'm talking to people I think are the most important and influential people in the world and in specific sectors. And this week my guest is Pod Save America and Love it or Leave, it's John Lovin. John was a speechwriter for then Senator Hillary Clinton before going to the White House to write for President Obama.
- [00:16]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
He was also a Hollywood producer and.
- [00:18]
John Lovett
Maybe his highest honor being a contestant.
- [00:20]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
On the show Survivor. He'd probably consider that neck and neck with his Pod Save America empire.
- [00:23]
John Lovett
But today we just, we talked about so much.
- [00:25]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
We covered Graham Platner, the tearing down.
- [00:27]
John Lovett
Of the White House, the never ending government shutdown, and ultimately who John Lovett is.
- [00:31]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Yeah. I hope you enjoy episode as much as I enjoyed doing it.
- [00:33]
John Lovett
And if you did, definitely subscribe.
- [00:35]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Give it 5 stars on Spotify and.
- [00:37]
John Lovett
Apple and give it a like on YouTube.
- [00:38]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
So, John, I'm going to. I'm going to do something I don't normally do. It's. It's kind of a dealer's choice. Do you want to dive straight into the, the, the news of the now, and that might be heavier, or do you want to go light? Because I want to talk about news, but I also want to talk about you. I'm interested in both.
- [00:50]
John Lovett
Let's hit the news. Let's start with the news. Let's get to the light later.
- [00:54]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Okay, so I think the only way to kind of like introduce this now, this is going to be up on Thursday, I believe. Morning. Uh, Graham Platner, where are you at right now? It's kind of like taken over, at least once again. I don't know how much of the.
- [01:09]
John Lovett
News cycle that actually even takes over.
- [01:10]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Because everything I consume is algorithmically pushed. And so all of a sudden I'll start getting, I'll be like, oh, this is everywhere. And initially it's just, you know, 300, like, tweets, stuff like that. But Graham Platner, where are you at with it right now? Because, you know, this blew up in part because he popped on the Pod Save America podcast.
- [01:30]
John Lovett
Yeah. So, all right, Graham Platner, really interesting guy, really interesting life. Right. Somebody that served in the Marines, left the Marines, joins the army, comes home pretty disillusioned, pretty angry, has a Reddit phase that's pretty heinous and ugly. Picks himself up, becomes an oyster farmer, builds a happy life, decides he wants to run for office. Now it's becoming a debate about this person, but I also think it's a bigger debate too. So in the midst of this, it turns out, oh, he does have a Nazi tattoo which. Which stinks. You know, you hate that. You hate that, right? Because that sounds really bad. You know, to find out somebody has a Nazi tattoo, a tattoo of a skull that's associated with specific unit of the Nazis. You know, look, there's a lot of people that are becoming a bit too familiar, bit too friendly to the ideas of the Nazis. I don't care for that. But at least in the Democratic Party, in full cast out, he explains it, that he didn't know that the symbol was associated with the ss, that it was a bunch of guys drinking while in Croatia, while they were serving, they got a tattoo cuz it looked scary. And that he had made it through army vetting, that he had made it through a security check and nobody had flagged it as being hateful. He even shared on Pod Save America video of him dancing shirtless at a wedding. A Jewish person was apparently one of the people in that wedding. Not something you would do if you knew it was a Nazi tattoo. Apparently since he's recorded Ponze of America, he's gotten it covered up. He's turned it into something else. Some sort of a. An animal. Wolf. Yeah, wolf of some kind. And so I think there's like two big questions. One is, should Graham Platner be a senator from Maine? And the other is what do we do when confronted with somebody with a story like Graham Platner's? Now, the first one I actually like, I don't fucking know. Like the other one of the other candidates, the is Janet Mills, she's the governor. There are people who feel very strongly that she has proven that she knows how to win in Maine, that she has a record, that she's less of a risk. I think that's a completely fair argument. I'm not a Maine voter. I have no fucking idea what the best calculus is on the politics. So you put that aside. JD Vance the other day said that a group of young Republicans in a group chat between roughly 18 to 40 making jokes about gas chambers and Hitler and a bunch of racist jokes, that these are just kids telling offensive jokes who deserve to be given grace, who shouldn't have their lives ruined not but a few weeks before, in the wake of the heinous Charlie Kirk assassination. He says that people who made offensive comments online should be fired. The administration is even saying people who made offensive comments should be deported. That would ruin somebody's life. And so I don't think it's that hard to be Consistent. And what consistency requires is holding people accountable for their words and their actions, while at the same time being willing to listen and to be open to the possibility that people can change, that they can apologize, that they can become better versions of themselves. Doesn't mean every apology is sincere. Doesn't mean you have to accept every apology. But. But if we don't allow for a politics in which apologies can be real, it means that people are always defined by their worst moments. And we don't give people the space to become better. And if we don't give people the space to become better, people will prove you right. And so I don't know what the politics dictates. And look, I think there are people sincerely shocked by Graham Platner's comments. And there are people who are like, stunned by the fact that anybody could have had this tattoo for this long. Maybe don't find his explanations plausible. I think that just something he has to deal with, he has to address, he has to, like, answer for it. Like, we have to build a welcoming movement. We have to build a movement that says to people, hey, you could have had a dark face, you could have had a Reddit phase. Like, the Internet incentivizes people to be cruel and mean and radical and extreme, to get a rise out of each other. And we know where that path can lead. And if there's people that have gotten off that path and found community and connection and found a way out, we should be welcoming to them because that's a good unto itself, but also because those can be a voice for others, can be a help to others, a path for others to follow. Now, there's a huge space between being welcoming and making somebody a senator. Totally understand that. But there's also a big space between saying somebody shouldn't be a senator and fuck this guy, he said those things, that's enough for me. He has this tattoo, that's enough for me. Like, that kind of politics, to me is really counterproductive. Trump believes in kind of being closed minded, in like a politics of domination, in seeing the worst in people, appealing to the worst in people. That's an authoritarian tendency. And like the Internet kind of drives that in us a little bit, right? Like a kind of a desire for like, domination and control to, like, prove your right to own people. We have to appeal to a kind of more of a democratic virtue. And maybe this is earnest and maybe people roll their eyes, but what is the opposite of what, what Trump is offering here? It's being vulnerable and curious and open and Generous doesn't mean you don't have a firm position that people need to be held accountable for the bad shit they've done and said. But we've got to be able to sit in the discomfort of knowing that people are complicated and they live complicated lives. Like this guy, like clearly came out of the military a broken person, hurt and angry and disillusioned and nihilistic and got out of it. That's amazing. That's inspiring. Like, see past the politics of it, just to see that as a story that you can find some hope in even if you have questions, even if it's not perfect.
- [07:50]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
So maybe not a perfect question because it does sound like the way that you're talking about it. You're talking about a very complicated situation. I mean, with what we're seeing as far as how it's playing out. And it's different depending on where you go. Does this feel like, just, does this feel like to a certain degree, purity testing, but also with a mix of people that have genuine concerns, slash people kind of trying to jump on him and throw water on the campaign before it can fully get started?
- [08:14]
John Lovett
You know, I don't know. I don't like, you know, one person's, you know, one person's purity test is another person's like, reasonable moral line. Right. Like, we all have tests. Of course we have to. That's how you decide who should be, you know, whether a representative of you, part of your coalition. Right. We all have different sense of what those boundaries should be. So I really don't know. I think some people are genuinely sincere. I think there is also like a pile on kind of culture. I also think people have just a lot of pent up frustration and anger about the state of politics. And it's more fun to yell at a parent who will listen sometimes. And like, I think people like arguing internally inside of the coalition and yelling at people because they know they'll get a rise out of somebody. They know it's somebody who cares what they have to say. I think there's a little bit of that going on. And then I think a lot of times we see people rehash their previous thing that bugged them. Right. It's like we kind of have these sort of. It ends up being a left center, left divide. People think of it as like a rehash of like Hillary versus Bernie, whatever. The, like the kind of people will like find the grooves of the previous fights and try to make something about that. Like, I don't know, I just trying to Just be honest about the complexities of it. Because so much of what the politics through the current kind of noisy algorithmic media does is it kind of like just rips out context and destroys nuance and like just rewards people for being pretty simplistic about this kind of stuff. And it incentivizes people to feel that way. And all I can say is like, I think we gotta fight that. And that's something you can. We can. What's great is you can actually do that yourself. You can. You can fight that and like, not be a participant in that.
- [10:08]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Sometimes I wonder, though. Well, not wonder. I think that it is. I'm more of a cynic. I think that it ends up being a losing battle. Cause even the first question, right, you gave this very, like, thoughtful. You're still figuring it out. Seven minute answer. And it's like, you know, 30 seconds is getting clipped. You know that's gonna happen.
- [10:24]
John Lovett
I could have been pithier. I should have been fifth year. But I'm sorry.
- [10:27]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
No, I'm not putting it on you. I'm just saying it feels like a losing battle because otherwise then you're talking and talking points and you're not being a real person.
- [10:34]
John Lovett
Yeah, look, I don't know. I still think that people offline are not only complicated themselves, but willing to entertain other people's complications. People are much more generous and compassionate and open in the real world than they are on the Internet. Now, that's a bad sign or a good sign, depending on how you see it. But I do think that the loudest voices don't necessarily resonate the most and people are able to. I think people have complicated views despite only being exposed often to simple ones. I hope, I hope.
- [11:14]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Yeah. I did want to ask you one thing, and I don't know how much you know as far as the timeline, because I didn't know when you guys maybe were sent the clip, was it like right with the. Right as the interview was happening? Because I just started thinking like, if I got a tattoo and someone revealed, hey, by the way, Nazi shit, how fast I would get that. That covered up. Or like to the point he said it takes a while to get it removed. So I don't know. I didn't know if you knew the timeline.
- [11:43]
John Lovett
I don't know the exact play by play. But Platinum came on Pod Save America recorded Monday. And Tommy Vitor, my co host, basically walked him through like all of the various controversies. And as part of it, there was this video that. I don't know what the stat I don't know whether it was gonna come out, how it was gonna come out, but it was. And as clearly, like, I don't know. He seems like a smart guy. Certainly if you knew you had a secret Nazi tattoo, the way you would handle it wouldn't be to show it, then have a controversy about it, and then cover it up the next day. Certainly a strange way to handle it. So it lends credence to, like, the face value explanation that, like, he was caught off guard by what this was. Now, maybe he should have known. There's a lot of people on the Internet who are suddenly like, Nazi symbologists. Like, I'm sorry, Like, I don't know. I've read a lot of books about World War II and Nazis. You know, I read the, the, the. The Stevenson trilogy on the right, on the modern retelling of the rise and fall of the Third Reich. I'm a Jewish guy. Like, I, I, like, I didn't know that symbol. I looked like it was like, when I saw it, I was like, that's a Nazi symbol. It looks like it's from Adult Swim. Like, I, like, I would never have thought that. It doesn't. You know what I mean? You look at it, you're like, it looks a little silly, you know, like, I had no fucking idea. Maybe we'll learn that that's not true. You know, maybe this is naive. You know, who? I don't know. I have no idea. But, you know, you're just left with the impression of a guy that lived a complicated life and maybe one that doesn't look like the life led by keyboard warriors who are typing from high above on their hi, high horses, you know, from way above the ground, looking down from their keyboards. Maybe that's too judgmental. Maybe I'm part of the problem, but I don't know. He has to answer for it. Maybe he hasn't done that enough. Maybe there's more he has to say. But I think he deserves a chance to answer for it.
- [13:42]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Based off of your experience in the space and I mean, obviously everything's changing. I mean, how do you think that this is going to play out? Is this going to stop his campaign, do you think? If they emptied everything out as far as oppo research, do you think he moves forward, he is competitive, or wins in the primary. What are your thoughts here? I know people hate to speculate, but if there's anyone that I'm going to ask, I would ask you and a few people.
- [14:08]
John Lovett
You know, I really hate to be in the prediction business. And sincerely, like, I have no fucking idea. I'm not from Maine, you know, I don't know. I don't know what will happen in the coming weeks. Also, by the way, like, who knows what other oppo is about to drop, right? There may be other stuff that comes out that adds to this in a way that's hard to deal with. I don't know. I'm not on the Platner campaign. I have no idea. But he is very compelling. He has a perspective that is valuable. Clearly it is resonating with people. Maine is small enough that you can have a very personal connection as a candidate. Will the argument that Janet Mills is proven and less risky and by the way, also qualified and like, has a record that people respect. Like, will that win the day? I don't know. Like, I respect that argument. I worry about a Democratic Party in which the choices between someone unproven, exciting, but also a risk, and with liabilities versus somebody who's 77 and has said they'll only serve one term, which basically means, I guess, the risk will push off to the next election when what, it won't be as important. Right. Like, that was the argument used in defense of Biden staying in. Right. Like that is an argument against investing in new people. Now, I know that's. That's not that you'd have to take that to its logical conclusion. You can still have Janet Mills be your representative in the fight against Susan Collins while investing in talent. But there's a problem of Democrats not investing in talent. And then when the time comes to run elections, saying, well, I guess it's just the old guard then. And hard to, you know, maybe in every. Maybe in each election, that argument makes sense. But you step all the way back and we're in real trouble here as a party. People don't know what Democrats stand for. Young people don't see themselves in the party. We're losing people. That's not Janet Mills fault. And she deserves to be evaluated on her own terms and to make her own case. But I worry that the risk, the true risk, the greater risk over time is a Democratic Party that is not investing in its future.
- [16:37]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Is there anything specific, and it's probably a stupid question that that is, that has put you in this mindset. Has it? Or has it always been kind of your mindset as far as reinvesting in younger talent? I mean, is it the Biden of it all?
- [16:52]
John Lovett
Yeah, I mean, it's the Biden of it all. But it was problem before that it was a problem before that even put Biden aside. The Democratic leadership in Congress is older, but it isn't honestly like age is a symbol of it. But I was talking to Tim Miller, he's on the bulwark, former Republican, really smart guy. And we were talking about why farmers who are getting fucked over by Trump administration policies aren't more of a political wedge against those policies. Right. Like if Democrats were pursuing a policy that meant you had to bail out farmers because the market had been wrecked by the administration. Oh, and by the way, we're gonna take the money that comes from the tariffs you're paying at Walmart and give it to Argentina to bail them out while bringing in their beef to undercut American farmers. Like, the amount of protest, the amount of attention, the amount of political costs that there would be would be staggering, but that doesn't seem to be happening. And why, why what's missing? And there's a lot missing. There's a lot. It's complicated. But I do think part of it is who are the mainstream leading Democrats who you would say could go to Nebraska, go to a rural farming community and speak with force and enthusiasm and authenticity for that group of people to that group of people. And you kind of gotta go pretty far down the list, right? Like you start to think, well, Bernie, right, that's somebody who could do. Barack Obama potentially could be somebody that could do it. You know, there was Dan Osborne who ran as an independent that had some purchase. But we just over and over again, over the last like 20 years, you have seen that Medicaid on the ballot can do well in a red state. Union rules, marijuana legalization, choice, a bunch of policies on the ballot in a red state can actually do really well in Utah, in Missouri, all across states that are considered unwinnable for Democrats. So why is it that those policies can do well, but the people can't? What is missing? What are we getting wrong? Some of that is not the fault of Democrats. Some of that is the media environment. Some of that is right wing misinformation. Sure. But it is often easier for Democrats to imagine what like, like we can, we can imagine America becoming a completely different authoritarian country more easily than we can Democrats winning 60 seats in the Senate. Right. Like there's just, we, we, we don't really know even have a. We don't even think about it. So we talk about the anti Democratic nature of these institutions, which didn't bother us as much when Democrats were able to win in rural states. And we got to figure out why that is. Part of that is just figuring out why the Democratic Party has been reliant on a smaller and smaller coalition.
- [20:03]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
I mean, it was connected to something that you were saying. I mean, do you, are you past this? Or do you find yourself still every day, maybe driving yourself insane with the question of what if Obama did? Insert blank. What if Obama did? Or are you past that? You're like. Or does that drill into your head.
- [20:20]
John Lovett
Then I'll get you back to the.
- [20:21]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Podcast in just a minute. But let me take a minute to.
- [20:23]
John Lovett
Say, credit card companies, they love you. Or I guess they love your money. Because the second you're late, boom. Fee. It's like dating someone who charges you for texting back slow. And every minimum payment, it's just another way to keep you on the hook forever. But here's the good news. PDS debt helps regular people break free. They've already helped hundreds of thousands cut debt, stop the harassing calls, and actually keep their own money. Credit cards, personal loans, medical bills. PDS debt has custom options for all of it. But this isn't a one size fits all gimmick. They actually look at your unique situation and create a plan designed for you. No minimum credit score, no schemes, just real solutions that work. That's why PDS debt is a rated by the bbb. It has thousands of five star reviews on Google and holds a five star trustpilot rating. The translation People trust them because they actually deliver results. It's your money. It's your future. Why let banks keep writing the rules when you could be on your way to being debt free in less time than it takes to scroll TikTok and you're just 30 seconds away from starting that journey to get debt free. Go get your free assessment and find the best option for you right now@pdsdebt.com DeFranco it's pdsdebt.com DeFranCo or hey, the QR code's on screen. Just scan it and take the first step.
- [21:23]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Today.
- [21:27]
John Lovett
I'm not past it at all. I wish I was. I'm not past it even a little. Like, I know it's like cliche and like I said, know, it's like almost like beside the point, but it is true, right? Like sometimes, you know, because we're so drowning in takes and opinions all the time, you gotta find something new to say, right? But sometimes, like, you know, boring, immutable, kind of constant facts about our situation can still be worth saying. Like what? Like Barack Obama put his feet on the desk. Barack Obama wore a tan suit. Barack Obama put mustard on a burger, whatever it was. Donald Trump puts out a video where he's shooting diarrhea out of an airplane on Americans. No comparable reaction. But this is a But, like, what if Obama stuff, Whatever. But like, what is the. What is the real. What is, like, the asymmetry underneath this? Republicans can go on Fox News and insult liberals, insult people that live in America's cities, make fun of the cities, hate the cities, mock the cities. There is no equivalent for a Democrat. I mean, could you imagine Elizabeth Warren goes on, I don't know, Rachel Maddow, and starts talking about rural Americans being dumb yokels. Like, it's inconceivable, right. First of all, wouldn't do it. Wouldn't have the instinct to do it and wouldn't be good. Wouldn't be seen as good. Politics doesn't work, right. Like, for whatever reason, Ted Cruz thinks that kind of thing plays, but Elizabeth Warren never would. Why? What is it about the, like, the culture of our politics? And I don't know the answer, but I do think part of it is that Republicans have seen for decades the mainstream media as being against them. And that's not totally fair, but what is true is that mainstream media treated Democrats as protagonists and Republicans as antagonists, that Democrats had agency, that they were characters that you understood and whose motivations were clear to you. Because there's a liberal bias of the people, not necessarily always in the coverage, but in the people. And Republicans were these outsiders, and that was a bias against them in some ways. But it also meant that, that they were able to be outsiders in how they talked about the mainstream media and the kind of whatever cosmopolitan culture from which it sprang. And, like, that's one reason. But, man, it is amazing what the different standards are. And I think part of it is figuring out, like, well, how do maybe we just stop pretending that that's true, Right? Like, maybe we don't. And that means saying, like, if Obama couldn't do this, maybe Trump shouldn't. Right? Like, maybe it's okay to call it out.
- [24:16]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
I don't know if it's. I don't know if I want to ask this as, like, you thinking of this as a, from a strategist standpoint or maybe just a pure American standpoint, but right. There's, there's a bunch happening at the same time. Do you think that there is a.
- [24:30]
John Lovett
Which.
- [24:31]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Which is more of a winning messenger or focal point? Trump, right. Demanding that the DOJ pay him $230 million the people who would approve that settlement being his personal lawyers, Obviously that matters.
- [24:43]
John Lovett
And.
- [24:43]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Or focusing on the money, the bailout with Argentina, where, to your point, like, people in the United States are suffering and most likely, depending on how this shutdown goes and negotiations go, going to suffer far more.
- [25:00]
John Lovett
So it's a great question. You know, I think sometimes we get ourselves wrapped around the axle as like an opposition that's like, you know, we shouldn't be, you know, this is just a distraction from Epstein, and Epstein's just a distraction from the economy. And that's just a distraction from the. We got to focus on this and not on that. And maybe it's unsatisfying, but basically, to your point about how we're getting information and how you were saying how I don't even know what's breaking anymore, what's new or big, because I just see what's in my feed, right? My feed. It's, you know, we have, like, algorithmic pricing for the news and we all see a specific version of the world now. Fine. But what that means is you gotta figure out a way to ride these waves of attention wherever they go. And that means you have to have an answer for when Trump is talking about doing a settlement with himself with the Department of Justice from American taxpayers, you gotta find a way to ride the attention wave. When they are demolishing the East Wing of the White House, you've got to get help, figure out how to get it in front of people that Trump is doing a bailout of Argentina when he promised to do America first. And that means being interesting and funny, direct, passionate, whatever, in a way that resonates with people. And then you've turned this into a worse story for him somehow. Right. The story is bad for Trump. Right. More people know about it, the worse it is. You don't have to put much spin on. On the ball, but our job is to figure out how to get that in front of people. Sometimes that's about, you know, going into this studio and, like, just showing the clip and talking about it, because that's going to get it in front of more people. For politicians, that's about having a response that breaks through and makes news. Gets that in front of more people. It's like it's a real game of inches and you have to be fighting on every one of these stories, but it's no longer how it used to be, which is there's a limited amount of space in the newspaper. So if we're picking a fight on this, we're not Going to be able to pick a fight on that.
- [26:55]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Okay, so on the note of it being crazy and it being bad in, you know, with so much feeling bad right now, has there been anything that you would say is not as bad as you thought it would be?
- [27:09]
John Lovett
What has not been as bad as I thought it would be?
- [27:12]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
That is the closest we're probably gonna get to a light question.
- [27:17]
John Lovett
I'll tell you this. Look, right before, there were people that were up in arms around the ballroom, the new presidential ballroom, and I had trouble getting my dandruff about this. Just never been a big, like, I don't, you know, American symbols and, you know, tradition and all, like, that's not that motivating to me. Maybe that changes because he's literally tearing down the east Wing of the White House. When he actually promised that he wouldn't, he said, don't worry, we're not gonna have to, we're not even gonna touch it, I think is the exact words he used to maybe paraphrasing. And now they're tearing it down. So it's another example of him just lying. Fine. But I think people get themselves up in arms around that, like kind of the theater of Trump. And now they're tearing down the ballroom and that's a symbol tearing down the east wing and that's a symbol for Trump's destruction. Like, I don't know, like, I don't care that much about that. Like, he can renovate the White House. It's not that important to me. It's hard because I do think he has done things faster and more aggressively than a lot of people anticipated, myself included. They really were ready. They were. They were ready. Every president, two term presidents, the first term, the White House runs them a little bit. Right. It's an impossible, impossible job. It's a job that doesn't make sense. You're in charge of missiles, Social Security checks, welcoming Boy Scouts. It's a crazy job. And so there's a way in which kind of presidents have to learn how to take control of it. And they tend to do that more in the second term, obviously. But Trump had a four year break that gave a bunch of people time to get ready and to make up for the lost time in the first when they were stymied by courts, by Congress and by institutionalists and less enamored, less loyal Republicans inside of the administration. And they really set out to make sure that didn't happen again. And so those positions are no longer filled by those that lent Trump credibility because he no Longer believes he needs that. And a lot of those people have been captured or are afraid. And so he's just been able to move faster and run roughshod. I was surprised by how fast some of the colleges, the law firms, some of the media companies capitulated. Hopefully we're now getting ourselves onto a stronger footing where people are learning that there's potentially a political price amongst the anti Trump coalition, which does represent a lot of people. You're seeing that with colleges being afraid to sign now, which is, I think, good. But is there something where that doesn't happen as bad? What's your example? What's something you think that didn't, didn't go as bad?
- [30:08]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Oh, no. I've been asking people because I think it's as bad or at times worse. Like everything. I'm. Here's what I'll say. I'm surprised that the economy has not taken a larger hit, but I think that's being propped up by a few things that still could burst. And I'm hoping against it, but that's where it ends up being in this weird situation where it's like, I'm hoping for the best, I'm hoping for the least rough future, you know, but it, it does. There's just a lot happening right now that feels like, okay, that, that can work for a short term sort of thing, but long term I do not see. We're just, it seems like just very different levels of how bad it's going to be and who's going to be impacted.
- [30:56]
John Lovett
So. And I think that's all true and it's all very dangerous and it's all very bad. Part of what has made it bad, right, is you look at like Tim Cook walking into the Oval Office with a bauble intel giving him 10%. Disney and Paramount doing these sort of drug deal payments, settlements for these lawsuits. And it's Trump gaining power he probably couldn't take, right? They could have fought it and won, but they chose not to. Same with the law firm, same with the colleges. And that's really bad. But it is power he couldn't take, right? And still couldn't. They don't like. This is not a, the country wasn't clamoring for this kind of takeover. These are not popular. These are not like popular agenda items. 75% of the country is angry at Trump for failing to focus on prices and, you know, through tariffs, through immigration crackdowns, he's making those problems worse. Seven or eight million people came out as part of the no Kings Protest. One interesting thing that's come out is just in the last couple of days, a bunch of polling showing that the majority of Americans do not believe ICE officers should be wearing masks. But beneath that, the number of Americans who are now just pro immigration, not on policy, not in any specifics, but just are now pro immigration has dramatically risen. That the crackdown is igniting in people, a debate about values. And people are not coming down on the side of Trump. People are not seeing what Trump is doing and coming to respect it. Now there are people who think the crackdown goes too far. They think people that Trump is too extreme, but they still don't trust Democrats. Right. They still think that there's a problem. Democrats don't understand. Right. They don't believe or understand what Democrats stand for, who they are, what they believe, what they would do. And so as much as they don't like Trump, it's not like they view Democrats so much more favorably. It's a huge problem. Right. But in terms of Trump's agenda, this is not some mass mobilization like what is their version of a no Kings protest, How many people would show up? It's not. There's no equivalent. That's why they have to make fun of it. They can't match it.
- [33:10]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, when you talk about the way that Dems are seen, I've only recently started going to local events because my wife's running for school board. And so I'm slowly just familiarizing myself with the space. And I was watching the head of Georgia Dems speak to this small room and it was very much like, very aware that the Dems brand is hurting and kind of saying like, but it's the best we've got. And it feels like that's kind of the message. And it makes me wonder if there, if that is something that can grow because even there, the people that were angry about some other recent elections that had happened and other messaging is like, we have to get past Trump Bad. Right. You look at polling, Trump bad only goes so far. It maybe helps you during the midterms, depending on what the hell these midterms even look like. And I mean that both as far as, like trying to get people to not vote as far as Republicans or I mean, even the polling that we're seeing in Virginia and New Jersey. Very interested to see what happens there. I'm also very interested to know your thoughts there. But I don't know. It's. I do wonder if the Dem brand is something that can be revitalized or if it is going to be something else. And I don't know if you have thoughts there.
- [34:35]
John Lovett
I think, look, big changes happen. This is like. This is a moment of big change, right? Like big transformations happen. Suddenly something new emerges, totally possible. But I also don't think it's impossible that we slowly but surely build a better brand for the Democratic Party. Some of that will just depend on charismatic leadership emerging with the story to tell. There was a poll that came out today or yesterday that since the shutdown began, approval of Democrats by Democrats has risen dramatically. Right. It was like something in the 30s. Now it's in, like, the high 50s. So there's just a bunch of people out there, Democrats, who are desperate to see their leaders put up a fight. And just seeing Democrats being willing to hang together and say, no, we're drawing the line on healthcare. There's a lot of bad shit going on, a lot of stuff that's wrong, a lot of ways in which we need to fight back, a lot of reasons to not fund this government. But we're gonna draw the line on healthcare. We're gonna make that our fight. We're gonna pick that fight and we're gonna take it to its end. We're gonna hang together. That's impressive. They've done it. Probably better than I think a lot of people hope for in terms of the politics of it. And it's led people to say, okay, all right, they're willing to do that. That doesn't solve everything. There's a lot of problems. But it tells you that there's. That, like, Democrats are willing to listen and say, hey, they'll respond, right? Like, you're willing to fight. We'll have your back. Right? That's a good sign. There was a. I saw. I think. I can't remember who it was, but there was a question on about who represents the future of the Democratic Party. Is it Abigail Spamberger or is it Zoran Mamdani? Right. And the answer is yes. The answer is yes. And how do you fight authoritarianism? Right? Like, how do you arrest a downward slide? It's really hard to do. Nobody has all the answers, and it's different every time because you're trying to prove a game is worth playing against people that don't play by the rules. That sucks. That sucks. But whatever the answers are, it's going to look different in different places. It's going to take a bunch of different strategies and take creativity and resourcefulness and ingenuity and fast thinking. But at root, we do know that the answer to a rising authoritarian movement is a mass mobilization, a pro democracy movement big enough to stop it. That can take many forms, that can look like many things, but that is what it will take. That means a bunch of people who are not necessarily natural allies have to suck it up and see themselves as allies and understand they're part of a big movement together. That, to me, is what we're trying to build. And yeah, I want great mainstream democratic leadership in Congress to be part of that, but it's bigger than them. It's going to be. It's about them. It's about religious organizations, it's about unions, it's about nonprofits. It's about us as individuals. It's about using our power not just as voters, but as employees, employers, students, members of clubs and groups, people that are part of a community. Right. Like, that's the muscle we need to kind of work. And some of that will be political. But I think sometimes we, like, look to political leadership as if they're going to have the answer. Never have, never will. That's not how it works. That's us. That's going to be us. And that's like Vote Save America. And what we try to do here at Crooked is we try to give people outlets for ways that they can get involved and participate, yes, electorally, but also in between, how to organize, how to do the organizing between elections. Like how to do the relational organizing, which is about talking to people in your lives. Like, we all have to see ourselves as leaders as part of this pro democracy movement and to where we started. Yeah. Part of that is knocking on doors and getting out there and doing kind of big capital P politics. But some of it is about, like, practicing democracy. And maybe that's earnest and people roll their eyes, but you have to practice it. And democracy is a practice of listening, talking to people, being open, being curious, being vulnerable, being generous. Right. Like those are democratic practices that Trump is so innately allergic to.
- [38:47]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Regarding the higher polling, regarding the fight, I have to ask you, is it possible that we. And I'm using a collective. We have been underestimating Chuck Schumer's sense of strategy or. No, completely different.
- [39:02]
John Lovett
So let me practice being generous. I'll try it. Not my instinct. So I was skeptical. I didn't. First of all, before the shutdown, I was really skeptical and skeptical in all directions, by the way, heard the arguments that said, hey, we should not do a shutdown. We don't have a path out of it. The minority party will lose. Respect that argument. We should shut the government down over health care. It's a hinge. It's a policy on which we have unity. It's one where we can maybe get some, extract some concessions. That's the fight we should pick. And the argument says, like, they're shutting down the government. I'm sorry, they're firing people willy nilly. They've got mass agents on the street, they're disregarding Congress, they're doing open corruption. Healthcare. We have to fight this on everything, on democracy, every. We can't fund a government that is doing an authoritarian takeover. Respect that argument too. Health care felt like in the middle, felt like, you know, half a loaf and then. Yet it seems to have really put Republicans on their heels. The country is seeing the Democratic argument. Blame is obviously going to be shared, but it's certainly not falling on Democrats the way Republicans would have predicted. And it's in a sense about prices and costs in a way that kind of resonates with the kind of underlying politics of Trump failing on these issues. And like they, that was, I, that seems like it was the right fight. I get it. Right. And that's a, that's a strategy coming from the leadership in the Congress. Good for them. The question has always been like, as communicators, are these the best people to be the voice of an opposition? And I don't think there's anybody who thinks that like Chuck Schumer is the great voice of the Democratic opposition. So it's complicated. But, you know, like when you ask people to fight and then they fight, you should be say, okay, thanks, I'm glad you're doing that. I appreciate that. You know, like, I don't think he's perfect. He hasn't stopped being Chuck Schumer in all the ways that he can be silly and some of the videos don't work and kind of goofy. He's an old school guy. He's like from the era of like the Sunday press conference to get in the Monday papers. It's just a different generation. But I'm glad they picked this fight and I'm glad he's holding people together.
- [41:21]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
When you see certain politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene voicing the concern around healthcare and you see articles that say like Marjorie Taylor Greene, welcome to the left or things like that, do you think that this is a broken clock situation? She is a true America first ideologue that's separating from, from the, the party. What, what are your thoughts there?
- [41:46]
John Lovett
It's really interesting. It's strange, right? Like, because it's not just that she's like, it's not a one off comment. Like she's giving interviews that are pretty thoughtful, right? Like these are like, these are like fulsome comments that like okay, you're making a lot of sense. I, I have, I have no idea. You know, I, maybe it is a broken clock situation. I do think there's something. There are a lot of different kinds of ways somebody becomes maga. There are some people that are purely cynical. Purely cynical, right? The Rubio's, the J.D. vance's. There are people that are scared, right, that they're along for the ride and they don't like it, but they're not going to put their heads up. They want to keep their seats, they don't want to be hounded, they're nervous about it. There are people that have justify it like if I weren't here, somebody else would be. A lot of stories people tell. But it's interesting like the people that are genuinely ideologically motivated. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is one of those people. I think Thomas Massie is one of those people. I don't like their views, I don't agree with them. I think they have some pretty heinous views but there's sincerity to it, right? Like I don't think. Does anyone think Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing a show. I think she operates from conviction. Some of them are kooky, a lot of them pretty wrong to me. But you know, and maybe that speaks to something like real about her politics. It's been like whenever Trump was even in the first term, right? Like there were places where Republicans in Congress were willing to buck Trump and one of them was the Freedom Caucus around spending, right? Like they have sincere conviction and that led them to take positions that bothered Trump. Sometimes he would tolerate it, right? Rand Paul's like this too. Sometimes they would tolerate it, but sometimes they would like, sometimes he would like attack them. Massie is now turned on completely. But there are still places where like interesting, like they care more about that than they do about pleasing Donald Trump. Marjorie Taylor Greene, I have no idea. But like it seems sincere. I'm sure she'll get back to sincerely holding positions I find disgusting soon enough. But I'm glad she's making these points about healthcare because they're completely true. I'm glad she's sincerely pointing out that they're preventing a member of Congress from taking office because they don't wanna release the Epstein files or that the House of Representatives has not been in session for weeks. Not just because of a shutdown, but because they're afraid of this resolution that would certainly pass once they've seated this new member. So, like, yeah, glad she's out there. When somebody's saying the right thing, it's okay to say that.
- [44:21]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
And I mean, on the note of what people actually believe or their intent to kind of switch more to you, I was interested. What first drew you to politics? Was it idealism, Curiosity, a sense of responsibility, a gig?
- [44:37]
John Lovett
Oh, that's interesting. No, I was motivated by anger and desire to please my teachers. That's probably what it was. No, I was closeted. Pretty closed off kid. I think politics was an access point to a place where I could get to be smart and learn about something and be smart about it and in a way that allowed me vent about something without talking about the real thing. You could be mad about politics, you could be mad at Republicans, you could have these views, but I'd never have to say, like, and, oh, by the way, it's because I'm afraid to say that I'm attracted to men. And so you could just get out of having to say that, but you could still have these enthusiastic positions. And I think that was part of it.
- [45:41]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Was there a specific moment where you took a. Took a step or went a little further? Because, I mean, for me, I've talked about it with my audience. It was. I was in college for a completely different thing, and I made a video because Rush Limbaugh was randomly taking shots at Michael J. Fox. And I was like, that's insane. And that was randomly the thing that got me sounding off. And so I didn't know if there was a single thing for you or it was just kind of ignorant.
- [46:08]
John Lovett
No, it was just like a slow. Like a slow, steady kind of focus. I remember I was always interested in national politics. And I remember when I was in college, I was also interested in how it tied into campus politics. When I was a student, I think it was my sophomore year, my junior year, two friends and I made a website. It was called FactTrack Faculty Tracker. And the idea was you could rate and review professors and courses. This is like before, or maybe at the very same time that RateMyProfessors.com was launching. So this is like, literally. Is this like 2001? I mean, it's 2001. Maybe. We're talking about, like, really, like, a long time ago. And we were. We built this thing. And it was literally just because there was nothing. There was no form. There was nowhere for people to ask about professors or classes, what they liked, what they didn't like. So, oh, we're going to make this. We didn't think about it as, like, a company. It was literally something we were going to donate, like, kind of make a part of the Williams website. Williams College is where I went because we thought it would be, like, a nice service that people would like. Meanwhile, like, a couple years later, raidmyprofessors.com sold for, like, several hundred million dollars. Like, oh, my God, we're fucking morons. But we just wanted to make something that we thought would be helpful. And we got a ton of shit for that. We got a lot of shit from people that were like, this is wrong. There shouldn't be a place where you can anonymously review people.
- [47:33]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Was it primarily faculty that had this opinion?
- [47:35]
John Lovett
Yes. Yeah, there were some students that sided with them. But, yes, it was faculty that found it to be intrusive. And they had. We had. We didn't know what we. Like, we weren't programmers. I certainly didn't know anything about programming. They knew a little, but, like, it was a really rudimentary thing. And they were like, well, people outside of the campus can post. It's like, oh, we figured out how to stop that, Right? So, like, it was basically a website for people on the Williams College campus to anonymously review and rate faculty and write things. There was no numbers. It was like, literally just write a review. Professors, including professors in which two of the, like, my friends were in the class, right? They made the website. They're in the class. Professors railing against it in the class. The Boston Globe comes and, like, writes about the controversy and refers to us as libertarian sophomores. A reporter that went on to be a big political reporter at the Times years later. And it was a very kind of. It was an influential moment. It was like. It was an important moment because I remember feeling so, like, shocked by the outrage over it because it was so clear to me that this was like, what are you afraid of? Like, what are you afraid of? You're afraid of people saying how they feel about it. Like, it's gonna be. To mean, like, it was a preview of. To me, of, like, kind of what politics would become, right? Which is like, I'm sorry, this is literally just people being free to say how they feel about the classes and sharing that information with each other. But you want to find a way to talk yourself out of it, to say that it's wrong, because, what, you don't like this kind of speech? And that was a little bit radicalizing for me, but I was already kind of.
- [49:20]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
It sounds like it was, you know, you shook up power dynamics and, you know, that sort of reaction, it's not uncommon when we see it. But also, I mean, on the note of speech, I was interested, you know, with your history of. And your time of writing speeches in the White House. Was there any kind of moment that felt like the most personally meaningful for you?
- [49:42]
John Lovett
There were a couple. I remember during the fight for Obamacare, we flew to, I believe, Strongville, Ohio, and President Obama was giving a speech about the afford, about why we needed to pass healthcare reform.
- [49:59]
And.
- [50:01]
There was a woman who was supposed to be a guest at the speech because she had this story about being unable to afford healthcare, how she'd been just been given a terrible ride by an insurance company, and all the ways in which this law would have prevented what was already a terrible health situation from becoming a terrible financial situation. And she wasn't able to go to the speech because she had already become so sick. And President Obama ran through all the reasons we needed the bill. Like, I'm here because we have to do this. I'm here because we need to remove these barriers to people having affordable health care. I'm here because of Natoma. Her name is Natoma. And I remember feeling so proud to be in the room for that, because that felt really meaningful. Yeah.
- [50:44]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
And I mean, when. When it comes to impact or maybe I don't know if it's power or control, do you feel like you had the ability to be more impactful in that role or what you're doing now as, you know, leading Pod, Save America? Yeah. I mean, there might be just such drastically different things, but there is that constant conversation that people have of like, if I would go into politics or if I would try to impact change from the outside.
- [51:10]
John Lovett
I truly don't think about it that way. And I'll tell you. Let me tell you how I do think about it, which is I remember when I was a speechwriter, I remember thinking, well, what's my job? Because it's a strange role. You channel someone, you do what they're not able to do because of time. Some people write for presidents. They couldn't do it if they wanted to. Barack Obama could write the speech if he had the time to. He doesn't have time. So could a few others. Right. But what I always felt was, you know, it's not really my job to know the right thing to say to the country. It's not my job to understand the politics. It's not My job to have the answers. It's my job to know what. It's President Obama's job to know all that stuff. And my job is to channel what would be the most helpful for him in this moment to say about it. Right? And so it's his job to know that. And if he's doing his job and I'm giving him what he needs as a speechwriter and the team is able to come together and edit it and make it what he needs, then we're all doing our jobs. And, like, maybe that was a way of dealing with the kind of pressure of it. I remember there were. We were in the middle of the financial crisis, and there'd be these jobs numbers that would pop out and they'd be horrible right very early on. And the jobs numbers would come out, the markets would be about to open, and President Obama would need to go to the microphones to quickly speak, to address the numbers, explain what they're doing, to try to kind of temper the reaction, put it in context. It's very urgent. And I remember kind of working on those speeches, and there'd be the Treasury Secretary and the National Economic Council head and another policy advisor here and a political advisor here, other person there, all kind of going through the document and taking their edits, trying to figure out how to make their edits work, trying to get to yes on things. Your job is to kind of, very quickly, kind of. You don't need to be the best writer. You'd be a good writer. You need to be the best at politics. You need good at politics. You don't need to be the best collaborator. You need to be a good collaborator to do all these things, kind of synthesize all this, get this done. And I remember you, like, finalizing the speech, and then you'd look over on the television screen and there would be the four windows of the, like, cnn, msnbc, C Span, Fox News, whatever the four news boxes were. And the president's podium would be on all of them because they were waiting for the president to speak. And so in those moments, really, like, what are you gonna do with that pressure? And my way of dealing with it was to say, like, that's not my pressure. You know, that's not my pressure. It's not like I'm just. I'm the person that happened to be here to help these people and to help the president figure out what he is meant to do in this moment. And I have a certain, like, skill set to help them navigate this and write their way through it and figure out the best way to do it, but that's how I feel about it. And then, like, for podcasting, we're just trying to talk through in real time what is happening in a way that is helpful for people and that helps people see themselves as agents and participants rather than just frustrated observers. There's a lot of media out there that treats people like observers, that watches politics through a pair of binoculars, that treats it like a nature documentary. And we're aliens on the outside of it, but we're not. We're citizens and participants, and we're all seeing the same thing. We're all frustrated by the same things. Like, there's a lot of people that feel the same way. And if we can be helpful and talk you through it, have an honest conversation, have a way to separate the signal from the noise, maybe with some jokes, maybe in a way that helps you feel like you're not alone in this, like, that's valuable, because we got to keep people engaged, keep people paying attention.
- [54:56]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Outside of the Pod Save America world, what are. I mean, because kind of on this note, who are like two or three commentators or players in this space right now that you think are doing exciting things or you're excited to see what they continue to do over the next two, three years?
- [55:13]
John Lovett
Yeah, look, I think the bulwark, which are a group of former conservatives, former Republicans, have done something really interesting and praiseworthy. You know, being a Democrat who's furious at what the Republican Party has become, like, it's important, and I'm glad we're doing it. But if you were Republican and stood up against the tide, like, that was real, cost was. And it is, and we know that's true because so few fucking people did it. It's wild. It is so depressing and embarrassing and just such a symbol of the depravity of the era that all of these people that claim to be principled conservatives just gave it up at the first sign of trouble. But the Republicans, that didn't. That was hard, clearly. And that meant risking their jobs, that means breaking friendships. That's a real thing they did. And they built something really principled. And I think that that's impressive, and you don't have to agree with them on everything. But to the point we had a conversation we had earlier. It's like, we need to build a movement that's big enough to have space for the center right, former Republicans all the way to the far left. Right. Like, I like Mehdi Hasan. I do. We get along. I think he's really fucking smart. Don't agree with him on everything, but he's really passionate and direct and confrontational and I think sincere and not afraid of a fight. I think that's cool. I think we need people like that. And I just. I believe we have to see all of those people as being part of one big fight. And. Yeah, those would be the two I'd throw out. Okay.
- [57:07]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
No, I love that. I mean, on kind of this kind of same sort of vibe. I mean, what's something about working in politics? Do you think that most people, even maybe politically engaged people, like, fundamentally misunderstand? Is there one, like, key thing? Is it just a lot of things?
- [57:23]
John Lovett
You know, my answer on this has kind of changed over the years. Here's like, you know, you see, like, Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, and he goes on television and he says there's a Hate America rally. Or, you see, I don't know, somebody like, kind of dissemble or refuse to be honest about something that's so brazen and clear. And you think, like, how does a person get that way, right? Like, how does that happen? And it took me time outside of politics to feel this, but I think there's a lot of people that are like me when I was a kid in that politics is an outlet for feeling a little lonely, feeling a little powerless, feeling that people don't see you, whatever it may be. And there are people that I think are drawn to politics because they're really ambitious and they want that praise and they want that attention. Right? They want to take up space. And there's a lot of people that start that journey when they're pretty young. And because they never get off the ride for even a moment, they really don't challenge that mentality at all. Like, politics is so, so, so important to them. It is all they've ever known. And then you say, well, that's like, how does Lindsey Graham go from somebody who was John McCain's best friend and someone that Democrats could talk to to become such a radical? Why does Joe Biden hang on so long? Why does Dianne Feinstein refuse to leave office? Like, why are people willing to base themselves not those people specifically, but why generally are people willing to debase themselves just to stay in politics, to get up the next rung of the ladder? And the answer is, I don't think they fucking know. I just think it's all they've ever done. It's all they've ever thought about. They've never taken space from it. And it's a pretty immature mindset. It's a mindset of all they've ever cared about, thought about, worried about is politics. And, like, I think there's a lot of people like that, and there's incredible people that have devoted their lives to politics. I don't want to, like, say otherwise. Like, there really are. And people who are so earnest and good, and all they want to do is like, they're like, I care about healthcare policy. I want to make healthcare policy better. I will give my life to it. There are tons of people there like that. You meet them every day. They are fantastic and awesome, and we're better for it. And Trump is trying to undermine those people every day. But I do think in terms on the political side, I think there's a lot of people that just have, like, unexamined motivations, and I do think it spurs a lot of, like, the tension and craziness in a way that's, like, not really talked about. That makes sense.
- [60:02]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Yeah, no, it does. And you know what? I'm going to ask you kind of one last question, unless you don't have an answer for it. But I would say, what do you think is the most difficult thing that you've had to confront about yourself or reality because of politics?
- [60:16]
John Lovett
I think the challenge that I feel, I don't know if it's the biggest, but I would say it's the one I feel most often is, what does it mean to be productive in politics as somebody that's communicating about politics? And that can manifest itself in a lot of ways. Right. Like you were asking, like, do we talk about the $230 million deal for his own legal fees? Or do we talk about the ballroom? Do we talk about the tariffs? And sometimes it's like, I don't want to chase Trump around. Trump is, like, the kind of media director for the whole country at this point. He sets the morning agenda for everything we're going to talk about that stinks. I don't want to chase Trump around. Is that what we're supposed to be doing?
- [60:52]
Is that right?
- [60:53]
Is that productive? I see why it's. I understand why we're doing it, and I want to confront. We have to always be fighting back and making the best argument. But is it productive? I worry about that. I also think about it in terms of honesty, because I want to be as honest as I possibly can about how I feel, while at the same time knowing that sometimes the biggest fucking assholes in life are people that say, I'm just being honest. I'M just being honest. That's the classic Dick headline. And so it's like, I want to know that I am being generous with people that are part of this, with our allies. I do. But I also don't wanna pull punches. And so, like, you know, you asked me about Chuck Schumer. Like, I wanna be honest about what I view as, like, why I sometimes worry we don't have the right leadership, but I also don't wanna be another person that is kind of part of a circular firing squad all the time. Like, you know, when is the right time for infighting? When is the right time for criticism internally versus when do we have to all pull together? Like, I want to, like, how do you think about telling the hardest of hard truths to your friends? And what is the best way to do that? I think about that in terms of what it means to be productive. And so that, to me, is, I think, the day to day challenge. And the truth is, I don't think there's easy answers to it. I think you got to feel your way through it. Because the goal, I think, is to have a welcoming, honest, open conversation, but also one that doesn't view that, just that wants to be helpful. Right? And those things, they're not always. And in fact, they're most often not in tension, but occasionally they are. And you have to figure that out, how to be authentic without just being a scold or a busybody or somebody that's constantly kind of in the armchair doing the quarterbacking, you know?
- [62:50]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Yeah. Sean, thank you so much for the time, man.
- [62:52]
John Lovett
Good to talk to you. This is great.
- [62:53]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
And that, dear listener, is the end of today's podcast. Thank you for watching or listening. If it's your first time here, definitely make sure you subscribe.
- [62:59]
John Lovett
And hey, if you enjoyed the episode.
- [63:01]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Give it five stars on Spotify and.
- [63:03]
John Lovett
Apple or give it a like on YouTube. You know what? While you're at it, leave a comment on what you agreed with, disagreed with, or who you want to see next as a guest. Thank you.
- [63:09]
Co-host (possibly a Pod Save America co-host)
Stay safe out there, stay sane out there, and I'll see you next week.