← New Books Network
New Books Network
Melissa Butcher, "The Trouble with Freedom: Love, Hate and America’s Future" (Manchester UP, 2026)
01:14:00
Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:02]
New Books Network Announcer
Hey, NBN listeners. We're running our 2026 New Books Network audience survey, and we'd love just a few minutes of your time. NBN has been bringing you in depth conversations with authors and scholars for over 15 years. We haven't done a comprehensive audience survey since 2022, and a lot has changed since then. It's time to hear from you again. Here's why we're asking. We want to understand who's listening, what subjects and podcasts you love most, and where you'd like to see us grow. Your responses help us tell NBN's story to the publishers, libraries, and institutions we partner with. When we can show that our listeners are serious readers, lifelong learners, and heavy library users. It opens doors to new partnerships, better resources, and ultimately a stronger NBN for everyone. And one more thing. If you leave your email address at the end of the survey, you'll be entered to win a $100 gift card to bookshop.org, a chance to stock up on books while supporting independent bookstores at the same time. The survey takes just five minutes. Your answers are confidential and your email will never be shared. Head to newbooksnetwork.com to take the survey today. We really appreciate your support. Now go take the survey.
- [01:15]
Matt Dawson
Welcome to the New Books Network. Hello, and welcome to a podcast on the New Books Network. My name is Matt Dawson and I'm professor of sociology at University of Glasgow. And today I'm delighted to have as my guest Melissa Buscher. Melissa is a professor and program director at Cumberland Lodge, and today we are discussing her book, the Trouble with Love, Hate, and America's Future, published by Manchester University Press. So, Melissa, welcome to the show.
- [01:44]
Melissa Buscher
Thanks, Matt. Lovely to be here.
- [01:46]
Matt Dawson
We're delighted to have you. So can you tell us a bit about yourself and how you came to write this book?
- [01:51]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, sure. So I guess my first career was in the media. I was a radio producer with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. So I guess I've always been one of those people that's just interested in other people and asking questions and trying to find out why we do the things we do as human beings. I moved into higher education and as a researcher and academic, and I kind of took that as the area of my research that for the last 20 years has been really focusing on how people manage change, manage cultural change in particular. So for this book, what really sparked it was 2016. I was living here in the UK, in London. We had Brexit and we had Donald Trump the first term. And I became really interested about why People were making that choice. Also the fact that there was a lot of negative criticism of those that had made that choice, people that voted for Brexit, people that voted for Trump. And there just seemed to be this turn towards populism as we saw across Europe and certainly in the States. And so I wanted to explore that a little bit more to try and deconstruct the kind of stereotypes we were seeing about why people are making these choices. And putting it in the context of what has been happening globally in the first 25 years really of this century, which is a massive amount of change, very profound, very rapid. Starting with September 11, 2001, the attacks on the Twin Towers and the States. We've had, ooh, what have we had? Global financial crisis. We've had war in the Middle east times three. We've had war in Europe, we've had Covid, we've had the rise of social media, artificial intelligence. We've had continued deindustrialization and the breakdown of communities that were formerly centered around manufacturing. So an enormous amount of change or the rise of social movements too, like Black Lives Matter, the trans rights activism, this kind of thing. So an awful lot of change in a very short space of time that people are trying to process. And one way we can do that is by just saying, stop, I want to get off. And I don't like this. I don't feel I have any control. And this came up again and again in the study. People feeling that they don't have any control over the direction of change or where their lives are going. We can't see these levers. This is why we see globalization as being one of the key concerns of so much of the people that are supporting Trump. So that really became the genesis of it. Just trying to understand, as we do as humans, when we're faced with a lot of change, we start to evaluate our institutions. Are they fit for purpose, are they keeping us safe? Safety being one of the key drivers of human behavior in terms of politics, I would say most people are saying, not now. Systems of liberal democracy, feeling like they're failing us. And we also start to then reevaluate our values and belief systems. And that includes values like freedom and as a deep seated value in the US that's why I chose that to be the cornerstone of the book.
- [05:00]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, it's really interesting, Melissa, you said about you've always been interested in listening to people and thinking about why they made their choices, because that really comes over when you read the book. And much of the book as we're going to get into is based around conversations you had with people across the states. And I think what's really valuable about the book and why I enjoyed as a reader is those conversations and the ability to hear from everyday Americans across the US and the. That's of course missing in the uk, but that's inevitable. But it strikes me that's also missing in the States, given the very polarized environment that exists out there. So I wondered if to start, you could tell us a bit about how you chose where to go in the US and what considerations shaped your travels across the states.
- [05:42]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah. So first and foremost I wanted to look at rural urban differences because I think that was one of the key stereotypes that we saw coming through about people that would support Trump or that would vote for Brexit. Here in the UK we see this really clear in voting patterns, this distinction between rural urban voting and I come from a conservative rural background myself. I don't share my parents politics, but I kind of get where they're coming from. So I really, I wanted to really kind of deconstruct that and understand a bit more why people made those choices. So I tried to find connections in rural areas. I've traveled to the States quite a bit in the past on the classic road trips a few times. And so I had personal contacts there and I had contacts through professional networks as well. So started there just snowball, snowballing with those contacts and was able to really have in the end, I think about 120 or so conversations with people from all walks of life, all professions, rural, urban, different racial backgrounds, genders, et cetera. And I also wanted to look at what the narrative around freedom was being produced by organizations within the conservative universe, the mega Make America Great Again, America first universe. So I started targeting organizations as well, really simply to begin with, organizations that had freedom in their names. So people advancing American freedom and then also America First. So America First Policy Institute, the Heritage foundation, these are key organizations. So just started tracking the kind of narratives that were being produced by these organizations around freedom. And that's how I ended up at a, at a Turning Point USA rally actually, because in terms of people aren't familiar with Turning Point usa, it's the youth wing of the MAGA movement, if you like. Nationalist populist conservative organization targeting Gen Z, 18 to 30 year olds in particular.
- [07:40]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, we'll come to that Turning Point rally in a second. But as you mentioned, a lot of these conversations were focused on freedom. And you start the book talking about how significant Freedom is to how Americans like to imagine themselves in America. You say at one point that most groups would rate it an 11 out of 10 in terms of the importance of any value. So why is it so important to think about how Americans encounter the notion of freedom today?
- [08:05]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, so it is embedded. Eric Foner, the historian, has this term, the master narrative. Freedom is a master narrative in America. So going right back to. It's its 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence this year. So going right back to that or even the narratives of the Founding Fathers, the Pilgrims, the Mayflower, they're escaping persecution. So from its very founding European settlement, it has been imbued with this idea of freedom. The freedom to live your own life, the freedom to be yourself, the freedom to practice religion as you want to practice it, the freedom to have as little government in your life as possible. But of course, it's always been, if you look at the historical works, it's always been contested. Tyler Stovall's work is excellent on white freedom, that it's always been a white ideal. Initially it was white property owning men that had freedom. Too bad if you're indigenous, black or a woman, your freedoms came from being in relation with other people. You were the unfree. So it, it is always been there, but always contested. And I think what we're seeing today, bring it into the current debates that we're having, is that even though people think that it's a value that everyone shares, it's marking out this polarization that we're seeing in America because people are seeing that they don't actually share this. On one side, you've got the sort of America first version of freedom where they feel that their freedoms are under threat from all of this change that we're seeing, particularly globalists, elites, overbearing government, tyrannical government expression. That gets used a lot. You have on the other side, people who, maybe people of color. Especially now what we're seeing with ICE, the ICE raids that we're seeing under Trump 2.0, who feel that their freedoms are also being threatened by an overbearing state, by ice, by Christian nationalists, et cetera. It's almost a mirroring using the same language of freedom, but just coming at it from very different understandings of what freedom means. Yeah, and that, that is the problem, actually. It's like these threats running, this fear running on parallel tracks, which is just creating the social dividend. I should say. The only group that didn't rank freedom as like 10 or 11 out of 10 were probably the younger Democrat leaning young people who felt that it was overblown and saw it being related to MAGA and Trump and therefore rebelled against the idea of freedom and saw social terms like social justice. And also black activists who for obvious reasons, the legacy of slavery just felt that white freedom was not a word that related to them and they would again use terms like justice instead of freedom.
- [10:59]
Matt Dawson
But as you say, there are all these different relations to freedom and how it's conceived. Sometimes mirroring is sometimes rejection. So let's get to the conversations you had in the book and I'm going to start by asking you something you mentioned already. What did you learn from attending a Turning Point USA event in Phoenix, Arizona in 2021?
- [11:20]
Melissa Buscher
So much. So much, Matt, so much. It was the first event I'd only kind of, I'd gone back to the states in 21 and this was around this time, this was December 21st. And then I've been really tracking what's happening in America over those four years, these interim periods between the two Trump terms. So this was one of the first events that I went to and it is something that I'd never experienced before. So it does have the air of an evangelical rally to it. And again, Christian nationalism played a part in, was in a way uncomfortable to see because I've always worked with young people in my research and also in non academic settings. So when you see about 10,000 young people in this huge exhibition hall all chanting USA or lock him up, lock her up. Talking about violence sometimes around the edges, Hannah Arendt's idea of the mob did come to mind, I have to say, and how easy it is to turn that energy that's in the room into something that can be very destructive. At the same time, we have to make that difference between the mob. And I should say that's the language that MAGA commentators would use as well when they look at left wing activists, that they're a mob. So again, it's this mirroring. But when you have individual conversations with these young people, you know, really thoughtful, reflexive, and you get a much better understanding of why they're there. And buying into this narrative, a lot of it is a sense of. And this is where Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated last year, is the founder of Turning Court usa. He was very clever, very smart guy, actually. He turned this into a movement. You know, this was about come to us, we will give you meaning and purpose in life. And when you're a young person in, in the UK or in the US or Australia or across Europe, I'd say you're facing so many difficulties and a fairly bleak, precarious future. When someone is saying, I've got some solutions and I will give you meaning and purpose in life, it can be attractive as well. So it was that again, that distinction between the individual conversation and then seeing what's happening when you get 10,000 people together. It also really highlighted what the playbook is. And this is something. It's what I call the MAGA playbook, the nationalist populist playbook. They often refer to themselves as that term as well. Nationalist, populist. This is something that's repeated again and again throughout the conservative universe, the media ecosystem that they've developed, which is that, first and foremost, freedom is under threat, your freedoms are under threat, and they have to be defended. That America is a Christian nation, its freedoms come from God, and therefore that Christianity should be that moral center of Christianity should be front and center of politics. That women and the education system are two key institutions that reproduce freedoms and therefore must be protected or reoriented towards that role. So women should be raising patriots and strengthening the family. And the education system also should be raising patriots, not introducing critical race theory or gender studies. That just confuses people. That elites have shamed conservatives. Again, the populist rhetoric of elites shaming conservatives and that the conservatives must push back, must organize and must create their own systems. And this is why this is all leading up to Trump winning again in 24. You could see then the beginnings of this community organizing. They actually, you know, I've talked to activists. They would talk about conservative activists, talking about how they learned from the Democrats how to do the grassroots community organizing, getting people registered to vote, getting young people and women involved at grassroots level, getting them on school boards, up to running for different offices, even running for federal office, getting people much more organized. And this all fed into Trump's victory in 24 as well. So it was actually at that event where I did kind of realize, I'm usually a glass half full person, but I did realize that there was a very good chance that the MAGA movement, America first movement, would get back into power. I didn't pick Trump. I did think it would be J.D. vance, actually, or Ron DeSantis, but Trump hung in there.
- [16:07]
Matt Dawson
Yeah. And there is something interesting about reading this book now where. And you say this in there, that it sort of seems inevitable. What happened when you read this now and you read the account, it's like, yeah, of course, as you said, that movement got back into power and Obviously, one of the things that movement draws upon as an issue to confront is immigration, and particularly immigration from Mexico. And your next location in the book is the US Mexican border and the seemingly arbitrary line just outside El Paso in Texas which separates the US And Mexico. So what did you learn crossing back and forth across this border? And also you have a long discussion about meeting Peter, a former city representative there.
- [16:51]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, Peter was amazing. That's Peter Spazbein. He's an artist and was also a local representative in El Paso and the local council. So, as you mentioned, immigration is one of the key drivers of support for America First. It is depicted on a daily basis and still is, as a place of the border is a case of violence and chaos, that people coming in across that border are criminals. And the language is very violent. The advertising that was used, political advertising used by Trump in The campaign in 2024 was very violent, often and particularly targeting women. And Trump, there's some quotes in the book where he talks about, I will be your protector, addressing women against these violent, deranged. This is one of his favorite terms, floods, as they were depicted coming across the border. So it's this very dystopian image that's depicted. So when I appeared at the border, I was kind of shocked to find that it's actually quite a normal place. Yes, there are absolutely problems in terms of the numbers, but they were dropping when Biden was in charge. They were dropping suspension because of all the political upheaval in Venezuela. So the Biden administration was already engaged in deportations. And what we've seen this year with the Trump administration is probably about the same number, about 500,000 or so deportations, about the same number Biden's actually making towards the end of his term. So what you have is a space that there is a secure border. Obviously, the wall that Trump built is more for stage. It's the stagecraft, if you like, as I describe in the book. You can actually walk around it, at least you could. Then they're extending it now they're trying to. And the church at one point has prevented it crossing some of its land. There's always been some kind of barrier there over the last couple of decades. It used to be much more porous. But previous governments, including the Biden government and the Obama government, also tried to secure the border with digital technology, drones, et cetera, and putting up fences and things like that. So there have been attempts across political persuasion, all political persuasions, to try and control the border. But it does highlight the illusion of it because people still cross. Even now, with all of the increased presence of border security, people will still try and cross, just much less numbers. But what Peter really highlighted, and Lorena as well, who was works in a woman's ngo, they're working with Mexican women in El Paso, is that you can shift this. This image of a dystopian border into one that's very creative and cosmopolitan and see it as a strength as well. This incredible diversity that El Paso has. There's lots of other questions around freedom that happen there, though, which is around free markets, because it is a free trade zone. And the violence around that is not just about migration and the cartels, obviously, on the Mexican side, but it's the violence of. Of capital and the violence of the free trade zones. And that's particularly impacted women. So, yeah, I had a completely different conception of the administration of that border. And there's a sense that what Peter would argue, for example, is that you just need a dignified way to manage the crossing. So the people that live in El Paso, they're constantly crawling. Or in sue del Juarez, which is on the other side of the border, people are constantly crossing. Thousands of people are crossing every day. Again, people don't realize that in the rest, even in America, that you can go across via shopping to one side, you can go across to the dentist, you can go across to school. So some of the kids from Mexico will come across every day to go to school on the American side. So people are making these crossings on a daily basis. And what Peter, amongst others, are arguing is we just need to have a dignified way of managing those crossings rather than trying to militarize these crossings, but recognize that these borders have always been porous. There was a Camino Real, so a crossing before the artificial borders of America and Mexico were created. There's always been these trade routes as well, going from the southern part of America to the northern part of America, using these crossings at El Paso. So, again, it's one of those places that encapsulates so much about the polarization in America and also the depiction of that area. There's negative depictions that we need to think in a much more complex, nuanced way about.
- [21:38]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, it's really fascinating to learn about that because I've been to the US Mexico border in California, just South Asia, where it's very different because there's more empty land either side, so it feels more permeable. But what you showed in that chapter is really just seems completely arbitrary. So if kids are coming back and forth every day to go to school, people go to the dentist. It's. It's hard to think of it as a boulder in the way you do when it's like an equivalent boulder, you know.
- [22:05]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, yeah. I mean, there are checks. You have to go over the bridges and you have to show ID and, and you have to pay. I can't remember now, was it like 60 cents or something might have gone up since ho was there to go over one side. Of course, it's more difficult coming back into the U.S. side. That's when you start to get much more scrutiny. And that's where you can get very long queues, very long tailbacks when people are trying to cross backwards and forwards at peak hours in the morning, in the evening. So, yeah, there's surely a way of trying to manage this better. It is an illusion, this border in many ways. And yet it also is, because it is there. It is the source of so much violence as well.
- [22:49]
Matt Dawson
Yeah. And you also highlighted the significance of NAFTA and the free trade. And I mean, a direct reader, the chapter, you have some details in there about number of jobs, particularly women have lost due to NAFTA and things like that. It was really quite shocking. But let's turn to the next chapter where you discuss justice. And in that chapter you do a sort of comparative between the narratives people draw upon of two groups, people of color who have obviously well known, been disproportionately criminalized and incarcerated by the American justice system. And Those defending the January 6th writers, although obviously those people wouldn't call them rioters, but. So what similarities and differences did you find in the views of those groups?
- [23:30]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, again, so this mirroring. So there is the prison system in the States, as you mentioned, is industrial complex. It's the prison prison industrial complex. There's the whole economy around it in terms of the benefits that it can bring to local towns. It's just growing at the moment because of ice immigration and this. Now that's included in these numbers. When we're looking at the size of the, of the criminal and the incarceration system in the US and just the cost as well in the billions of keeping people incarcerated. And as you say, that disproportionate numbers of black and people of color that are incarcerated and particularly men, the sort of injustices around plea bargaining, you know that the, it's very few cases that actually get to trial, less than 10% of cases actually get to trial. Most people will take a plea bargain because of just the expense, the cost of this, of going through the justice system. But then of course there's all the ramifications of that and the repercussions of that. If you have, you still will have a criminal case. And even if you're, even if you're found, even if you feel that you're innocent. And so a couple of the people I spoke to actually in the book didn't take the plea bargain and then were in prison in one case for 30 years trying to plead his case on the other side January 6th. Yes, they were regarded as political prisoners, but by those that were supporting them, not criminals, not insurrectionists, not writers. And so, and you have this idea of this is where the idea of two tier justice comes from as well. And they would always make the comparison with Black Lives Matter that they would see that Black Lives Matter caused all these riots and they didn't get punished. Well, in fact they did. If you did fact checking with some of the stats I mentioned in the book. You know, they were cases of people that were arrested for causing for damage to property, this kind of thing. But that again, that's not, that's not how it's seen, it's not how it's here what the similarities that come through is the discourse around the lack of justice. So again the idea of plea bargaining, but also the conditions in jails which can be horrendous in the, in the US in terms of just the physical material conditions of the prison system, that was something that came through really strongly. They're in these really terrible conditions describing exactly what the other people who'd been incarcerated, who were all from black or first nations communities that I interviewed, very similar in terms of that. And also just the sense of not having a sense of justice being done to them for them. So you know, they were, they were swept up. And it's interesting, some of the studies that have been done, all the research that's been done around January 6th shows that again it's people getting caught up in a mob. Most of the people that were arrested had never been actually in any kind of situation like that before, but just got caught up in that energy and that fear and that there were some who were there, obviously some of the militias that were there potentially orchestrating it. Those that support the Gen 6s will still to this day talk about it being a false flag operation that they see. They've never shown any evidence, but they're absolutely convinced that they saw people chain, putting on MAGA caps in bushes and coming out and riling up the crowd and so it was again, the deep state that was trying to exacerbate this situation, again shifting the blame from the individuals. So similarities in terms of the material conditions, differences in terms of how they justify why they were arrested to begin with, where you've got real injustices, I think, on the part of the. Those that were incarcerated for being in the wrong time, wrong place, or, you know, in the case of Pamela, it was a white collar crime, which was done unintentionally. But again, she was pushed, the prosecutors pushed for a prison sentence in her case as a. She was a black woman trying to set up a business. She ended up, I think it was something like 10 years, I believe, in her case, and then parole another five years after that. It cost the state more to have her imprisoned than if they had, which her defendants, her lawyers had argued for. Like she. She had a successful business, she could pay it back, but they wanted to punish. So it's this idea of punishment as well that comes through very strongly in the case of those that were black and first nations, that were incarcerated. Yeah.
- [28:22]
Matt Dawson
And it's fascinating, as you say, that although there's those inequities and what's happening, the ways in which it seems like a group that didn't realize the injustice of this justice system are getting a very small taste of it, all of a sudden. They're not liking what they think. The next topic we turn to is gender and sexuality. And you note in your book that that perhaps generates the most passionate emotions of any subject when it comes to US Politics. So what was particularly interesting to me then, and I think you can reflect upon, is the encounter you had with a man named John, who was very calm, measured in his comments in some ways, who works for a Texas pro life organization. So what did you learn from me and John?
- [29:04]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, John is a. It's a really good example of how it's possible to have a civil conversation with someone that you disagree with fundamentally. And, you know, that's not to negate the fact that John is instrumental in. He works for Texas Right to Life. He was instrumental in formulating what's called the Heartbeat act, which was one of the first of its kind, which enacted in the state of Texas. It enables people to bring a civil suit against anyone who has had an abortion or assisted someone to have an abortion. And you don't have to know the person that's having the abortion or had the abortion, but you can. You can just as a citizen, bring a suit. So it actually shifts the onus from the state Prosecuting this into a civil case. So you can imagine that it had like a devastating impact on Texas in terms of women's right to access reproductive freedoms and health care. You're right. Abortion is one of the issues that would always result in tense discussions. When I had groups together, sometimes people Republican and Democrat together, that would be the one issue that would really set people off. For me personally, as someone who supports reproductive freedoms for women, I was, I had no idea how it was going to go. But John actually was, you know, we had a, we had a, a robust conversation, but it was, it was civil. And he actually is really, he was, I found it really interesting. He is someone who is very open to having these conversations. There would be others. I was at a right. The Roe v. Wade, which gave constitutional protection to reproduction, as listeners may know, was repealed in the US and there was lots of pushback against that. So I did join a rally in Washington against that. And that's where you had the traditional Christian nationalists yelling murderer at the women murderers and pictures of fetuses and this kind of stuff. So John is very much against that. He doesn't think that's a useful form of conversation. He doesn't think that's going to convince anybody. It just deepens the polarization around the issue. So his approach is to be open to having conversations. His approach is also open, as I learned, to having a whole, a whole of life approach. So again, those that support abortion always make the point that in conservative politics, those that oppose abortion don't care about the life of a child once it's born, you're on your own, basically. And so they see this certain contradiction there in the argument that anti abortionists would hold or pro life advocates would hold. But John actually is one of those rare, I think, advocates for pro life stance that says that you have to also support women throughout life and throughout their life, or as much as possible provide benefits or get universities to support young women with, to hold their scholarships and accommodation, for example, if they do have to have a child. And he often, he gets pushback from that as well. He was talking about the fact that he has to really convince people, Republican senators and stuff, but he will also work with other advocates. And I mentioned this when we're trying to end the book on a positive note, like where people work together and he does work, he knows he will work with Civil Liberties Union, for example, that will absolutely not agree with him on his stance on abortion. But there are other things, other pieces of legislation where they will work together, you know, Maybe around medical ethics. So he's quite willing to make that bridge. And I found that really interesting because to get out of this tangle, that's, that's kind of what we have to do. We have to have at least try and find some spaces where we can find some common ground to move forward.
- [33:01]
Matt Dawson
Yeah. And I would say, you know, one of the things about reading your book is it does come over as a very hopeful, even perhaps optimistic view of sort of, of America's future. And we're going to perhaps discuss that specifically later on. But the conversation with John, I did think that it was a sign of what should be happening in some ways, that even though people could disagree, they can work together. Religion is the next factor. Turn to, obviously a really significant issue in U.S. debates. And as you show in here, the question of people's relation to God and faith is not a monolith. There's lots of different ways people could say, conceptualize this relationship. And you talk about the role of evangelical Christianity, which has obviously become even more significant, particularly politically in the US over the last 20 years or so. But you have this wonderful encounter with Steph, who lives in the Rockies, and particularly when you speak to her, and then you're invited back to her house later on for drinks with her neighbors. So I wonder if you could tell us a bit about Stephen Steph and the account you had and what that made you think about religion.
- [34:05]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, Steph was great. And in juxtaposition to Steph, I suppose just to say, there's also conversations with those that take a more social activist approach to Christianity as well. It's also important to say, as you mentioned, Matt, that not all evangelicals are Christian nationalists. And so there's some movement in the evangelical church, particularly in urban centers like New York, to try and reclaim evangelicalism as a way, not as part of the MAGA movement. But Steph was great. I mean, she does support Trump. But what for me was so important about that conversation was that it really allowed me to understand those drivers underneath that again, why people are making these very personal choices in the, in the ballot box and what the trade offs that people are willing to make. And including trading off different kinds of freedoms. For Steph, it was really understanding when you get down into it. And we had a lovely long conversation for her. You know, she revealed a kind of a troubled life. She'd had difficulty in her life in the past. You know, she hadn't always been evangelical Christian and she had moved into that because she found that that faith as a way of bringing order to her life. It gave her something to hang on to, if you like, that gave her a sense of control. To choose to give yourselves to God, as she points out, is a freedom as well, you know, and again, it's not my concept of freedom, but for her to that free will, the choice to give herself to God and to trust in God, that gave her a sense of peace. She says herself, it's not easy, you know. And so this idea, again, pushing back against this stereotype that some of the atheists that I spoke to mentioned in that chapter about. Yeah, they just, you know, they have no imagination, they can't think for themselves, et cetera. And I think, no, you, you listen to Steph and she's completely the counter to that. You know, it's, she said it's not an easy thing to do. She still has problems with, with trust and faith at some time, but for her the trade off is that she gets more benefit from that relationship with God, particularly in light of some of the troubles and sense of unease that she's had in the past. And for her that's enabled her to manage all of the change that's going on around her. What was really interesting as well was step and as an academic was sort of coming up in academia in the 90s when post modernity was all the rage. And I thought that had done its death, you know, like nobody talks about post modernity anymore. Matt, I don't know about your department, but certainly no one mentions it anymore. Except in America. Except, except in America. Gramsci and, and post modernity they don't, they never mentioned the, you know, Baudri Hour and there's like do side Beaudry because I thought it was like suddenly and Steph mentioned it some sitting in her lovely home in the middle of the rural Rockies in Colorado and she says, you know, her daughter had gone to university and been talking about this thing. She says, what was it called again? I said, you don't mean post modernity, do you, Steph? She goes, yes, that's it. Post modernity. She said, what's all this? You know, it's the idea that everything is relative, you know, and again, it's not. It's blaming a theory for the, for the. What they see as the troubles of the world. Not, not seeing that the theory is actually a description of the world as is, and blaming capitalism for, for creating those conditions of instability and especially hyper consumerism wherever, you know, the idea that we can all choose who we are and our identities are forever reflexive but yeah, that came up unbidden in several conversations. But what's going on here? So listening again to the media universe and seeing that there are a few high profile commentators, Charlie Kirk as well, that would refer to this idea of postmanities as the fault and academics that teach it is the fault of the creating all this kind of distress. And so for Step, it is this again going back to how we started like all of this change that's happening around. Well, you know, to give up, to put your trust. Sorry, not to give up, but to put your faith in God that will help get you through all of this. And I do make the comparison with some, with the free thing because it's a group in Indiana and a rural part of Indiana as well who also have, I mean, they put their faith in free will and when you think about it as one of them starts to drill down and think about it because yeah, I guess, you know, I guess it's just as illusory as God in some ways. Yeah, kind of, you know, it's like what is, what is consciousness? You can get into some very deep philosophical conversations. But for Step it was really. And it comes through in some of the other conversations, I hope that, that people are thoughtful and there's. They are looking at the world around them and they're making trade offs and they're making decisions on the basis of trying to, like we all do, trying to kind of get a sense of order to our lives. Because that is again, one of the definitions of freedom is having agency and having autonomy and control over our lives as a definition of freedom from Amartya Sen, amongst others. And that is how they do it. It's just different to how I do it. And so we have to find a way of understanding each other's different approaches and moving forward.
- [39:16]
Matt Dawson
Oh yeah. I think certainly all of the people you spoke to come across as incredibly thoughtful in terms of how they're dealing with this. I was particularly struggling with talking about the mention of postmodernity. I was struck by how many times in your book you account a conversation where someone talks about the problem is all these academics teaching young people gender studies and you sort of say I do a bit of that. And their response is generally what I don't mean you.
- [39:41]
Melissa Buscher
It's the other ones. And this is again, it's so important, Matt. This is, you know, in all my research over decades now has been this, this phrase has come up again and again when you're talking about change. And my particular focus over the years has been around issues like migration or gentrification when people are critical of another group, when they're confronted with an individual of that group. And I've even heard married couples do this, when married couples, and one is an immigrant and the one who's not an immigrant will start banging on about how terrible immigrants are and will turn to their partner and go, but I don't mean you. Again and again and again we hear this as a phrase, I don't mean you. It's the difference between the individual in front of us and that amorphous mass. And of course, all people are seeing in the conservative media ecosystem is the amorphous mass that's presented as a threat, as dehumanized. And it goes both ways as well. So you'll see someone like the Charlie Kircher, which continues, his producers Andrew Corvair and Blake Neff in particular continue the program. They will take a clip from an activist who's protesting ICE who says, death to all ICE officers. And they will just replay that, replay that, replay that. And they will say, see this amorphous mass of leftists want you dead. These radical leftists want you dead. These academics, they're all trying to, they hate the country. They're trying to teach kids to hate the country. And as you say, I literally had some of the people I was in conversation with saying, but why do academics teach people to hate their country? I said, well, one, I wish I had that much influence and not that I would teach anyone to hate their country, but I think you're over egging how much influence I have over my students. Actually, in 10 weeks, I'm not turning them into masters. Trust me, it's okay. And again, it's just a lack of understanding about how academia works and the individuals in front that would always come up. Yeah, no, you're all right, you're fine. We can have a conversation with you. But what about the other ones? They're just like me as well. So we really interesting in that regard. And again highlights the importance of these conversations.
- [41:43]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, totally. I mean, I do. If we had the power to have students do anything but have them read more books, that's probably what we'd get to, isn't it?
- [41:49]
Melissa Buscher
You know, rather than start using ChatGPT and read more books.
- [41:53]
Matt Dawson
Exactly. Rather than hating their country or anything grand like that, or even loving their country for that matter. Obviously you just mentioned there, and it's been a key theme throughout our discussion, is the significant changes that Americans have experienced in the whole world, but particularly America's over the last 25 years. And obviously a key one of those is Covid, and that's a focus of your chapter on medical freedom, as it would be called at that point. And I was struck by something you say in that chapter, and you mentioned this earlier, which was the ways in which for people who wanted medical freedom, there was this feeling that in a world where they'd lost loads of control, this was an area where they could sort of gain it back and they could get a bit more of control. So what from your conversations led you to think of this medical freedom movement
- [42:38]
Melissa Buscher
in that sense, as you say? I think this was key. It still is, actually. In 2024, people were still making decisions in the ballot box on the basis of the fears that came out of lockdown. And I think as social scientists, we're still grappling with the impact of that lockdown. I think none of us have lived through anything like that before. And for those that. Particularly for those that believe that they have to always prepare against a tyrannical government, this was their worst nightmare. This was the government literally telling people, you must stay in place. You can't be in contact with each other. And it brings forward those tensions that we're always grappling within every society between individual freedoms and collective freedoms, freedoms as well. My right as an individual to do what I want to do. And you talk to the libertarians, there's a chapter on them with them. They talk about this, you know, freedom to the max. I should be able to do whatever I want to do versus the collective freedoms, which is the right of everybody. We need to give up our freedom sometimes for the right of everybody to be safe. Again, this idea of safety comes up again and again. You know, for some, you can't be free unless you feel safe. You can't be safe unless you're free. And so I think the medical freedom movement that grew out of that and still exists, not as active as it once was, but is still there and now strongly tied to the wellness movement as well, and very influential in getting Robert F. Kennedy involved in the government and Trump seeing him as a very strong ally, and now they being in such a position of power and influence and the consequences that's going to have in terms of vaccinations, and we're seeing measles on the rise, et cetera, in the US all that kind of thing. So what came through, again, different. Different reasons why people got involved in it. It was one of the most egalitarian movements, I think, that I've ever come across. You did have people that were complete Trump supporter supporters. You had the left who left the left who couldn't support the Democrats anymore because of particularly Biden and the role in the mandates. But going back further than that, actually, I think that the whole notion of not provide, you know, the Democrats losing the focus, as we've seen with the Labour Party in the uk losing the focus on their traditional labor supporters, the working classes, that just left them free to be scooped up by the narrative that Trump invented around supporting the muscular classes. But very. Yeah, so you had certainly the most diverse in terms of incorporating the black community and the Hispanic community in these protests as well. You had those that were anti vax entirely, those that were more about free choice. People should be free to choose whether they have it or not. It just shouldn't be mandated. So you had a range of people involved in, in this movement. But again, Kat, who I interview and Elizabeth, you know, they were both the stereotype that they were, that was often portrayed in the media, that people involved in this movement were unthinking, uncritical, uneducated. Actually, no, like Kat, some of them have been to some of the top universities in the US Very thoughtful, very reflexive, but looking at a world around them, again, the pushback against globalism, this idea that, you know, we can't, we don't always have access or can't see these levers that are controlling our lives. So you'd see it very connected to the great Reset. If people aren't familiar with that. It's the idea that there's a cabal, that language particularly centered around the World Economic Forum and that's going to reset the economy in 2030ish. And that could include the extermination of half the population of the planet. That is the great reset. And so this is basically the COVID vaccine was a way of controlling people to enable this to happen. And that for them it was really existential because the body was the last frontier. And this was, the vaccine was something that was being put into our bodies in an incursion in that last frontier of freedom. So very existential question for some of these people that were involved in the movement. But also again, once you have these conversations with some of the activists, it was this idea about enchantment. If we go back to the idea of the loss of, the loss of awe and wonder in the world, the loss of enchantment in the world, the loss of God, however you can conceive of God and for both the cat, for Example, he doesn't mean God in the way that Steph would mean God. It's kind of a sense of spirituality. And again, you see this in the wellness movement. It's the idea of the digital actually is very much intersecting with this fear around the tyranny of mandates and Covid. It's the idea that this is enabling our digital overlords to control our life. It's a way in for them to control our very being, to control our minds. Again, the conspiracy theories around 5G, this is a way of controlling us. So completely antithetical to those that seek freedom as their core sense of identity, their core value and belief, but understanding where they're coming from, understanding that what's driving a lot of this is a sense of loss of enchantment in the world, but also seeing that people are making, adding up 2 and 2 and getting 5 as I would see it. So again, it's filling in the gaps of knowledge. We don't know what's happening in Davos. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes. Politicians do make deals behind the scenes and not tell us what's going on. We know that Big Pharma does make a lot of money out of vaccines and hasn't been always known to be totally honest about their trials. So there's a grain of truth that starts this slippery slope down towards a conspiracy theory. Understanding that process as well, I think really help creates again some avenues where we can have some conversations. But still, even today I was looking at some of the rhetoric coming out of this is Patriot Academy. I was just looking at another one of these organizations, a lot of training and workshops going on in the conservative ecosystem. And one of the things they said, they were criticizing the no Kings demonstrations on the weekend. Millions of people coming out and then mocking them, making fun of them, saying, yeah, these were the people that were willing to give up their freedoms to take the COVID vaccine and to be locked down. So how can these people tell us who understand real freedom, what we should be doing and who we should vote for? So still that narrative around medical freedom and Covid is coming through into these archaeologists. Eczema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with ebglis, a once monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four month or longer dosing phase, about 4 in 10 people taking EBGLIS achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year
- [49:38]
New Books Network Announcer
with monthly dosing Hempclus Lebricizumab. LBKZ a 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema, also called atopic dermatitis, that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. EBGLIS can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to ebglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Eglis. Before starting ebglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.
- [50:13]
Melissa Buscher
Ask your doctor about evglis and visit evglis.lily.com or call 1-800-lilyrx or 1-800-545-5979.
- [50:20]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, and as you say, it's an event we haven't quite grasped what the long term impacts of it are and probably won't know for a long time. When we started our conversation, Melissa, you were talking about the significance of the rural urban split and you have this wonderful chapter towards the end of on rural America, particularly Indiana. And obviously these states are all too readily dismissed as what's often called the flyover states. You know, this idea of like the coast and then there's the flyover states in the middle. So can you tell us a bit about your encounters with the people living as part? Particularly you talked to Carol and her family who live in Indiana, I found fascinating. So what, what did you encounter when you went to these rural areas?
- [50:58]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, so this was like going home, Matt, to be honest. As I say, like, I grew up in a rural area, but I've lived most of my life in cities. But you know, I kind of get, I get where they're coming from. And so it was, it was such a privilege. And again, very rural, very, again, opening the doors to a complete stranger. A lot of the book is based on trust. You know, it was like friends of friends of friends saying, hi, there's this person called Melissa, she wants to come and talk to you. And that just fills me with hope and, but also that sense that we have as, as authors, as writers, that it's a precious thing and we need to look after it. And when talking to Carol, I did ask like, why did you want to get involved. And she said, well, often because, you know, we live in the Midwest, in this farm in the middle of nowhere, and we feel that no one wants to listen to us or hear our voices. And we see all these stereotypes and the famous Hillary Clinton basket of deplorables kind of comment, which, you know, did. Was a really harmful comment that she made in terms of her election prospects. But it's not just that, as I say, like, the starting of this book was really why all these negative comments about people that were voting against what those of us that think of ourselves as liberals might think is good. So Carol was just saying, yeah, we just, you know, we just wanted people to sort of listen to us. I thought, yeah, that's fair enough. So, yeah, the whole family, three generations, from the baby gurgling away on the floor up to the kids, and then Carol and her husband, who came in later into the conversation because he didn't want to talk politics. And that was something else that came through. A lot of people say this is another reason why going in with freedom was important, because if you just go and say you want to talk politics, people did not want to talk politics. They're sick of it. And also it's very divisive and it's tiring and exhausting to, you know, having these arguments. But freedom was something that everyone recognized and was something that we could start the conversation with. But inevitably it's some via towards politics. Carol's family are absolutely lovely. And again, just show all of the complexity of this. You know, they absolutely just repeat, you know, this line that comes through the book. It's sort of a running joke again, about we don't like being told what to do. So that's. That comes up a lot in rural areas. I get it. Yeah, get that. Live through that. You know, and again, it's the sense that what does Washington D.C. know about our farm here? Here in the middle of Indiana. And the other was a ranch in Colorado. And what's important when you think about Carol's. It's a family farm. And as is Seth in Colorado. The other story highlighting for them, you know, the fears that they. That they raise are in the sense legitimate because they're. So what worries them the most is the loss of that land. That land is, again, it's existential. That is their legacy. That is what they will pass on to their kids. It's a sign of a life having meaning, having worth, because you've got a legacy. Especially with Seth's family in Colorado, because his family, they were Homesteaders. So he's like the fifth generation. They actually have Estelle on the front of their property that has the family tree. And the grandkids were there as well. Again, very family oriented in terms of their approach to life. That comes through very strongly in both stories. But the idea is you hand that on to the grandkids, you know, that is your legacy. That is what you can. That sign that you existed in the world is in that land. So the concerns are again, government overreach things around environmental legislation. So again, we can sit in the city and think, yeah, we need to have environmental legislation and preserve the land, but what does that mean for a family farm? And then there's been, if you look at same in Europe, if you look at the stats and what's happening to family farming in the US it's being decimated by big, by agri business. There's the rural tax, as it's referred to. All of the life indicators are less for those living in rural areas. Less access to healthcare, less access to Internet, access to the digital economy. The demographics in rural areas are changing though, especially in Colorado Post Covid. Lots of mobility, people no longer having to work in an office, moving into these beautiful rural areas. And now they're becoming very gentrified and arty and all these environmental activists moving in with their greenways of doing things. And that's putting pressure. The climate is causing issues as well. Like in Colorado, the issue around water and who gets to control water if all these people are moving in. And, and even the, even migration, you know, the issue around migration is really complex because it's. There was a lot of saying, not necessarily from Carol, but certainly from Seth, a lot of negative commentary about immigration and wanting to control the border. But when you dig deeper into that comment, those comments, it was about, well, because what will we have to give up our land? Where will all these people live? You know, does this mean we have to give up our land? Well, in power, we're going to feed all these people. Actually legitimate questions in a way about population growth. You know, how do we manage population growth? What happens to our food systems? City people don't understand the food systems. People on the land do. There's nothing between them and the next, you know, the next climate disaster, the next drought, the next flood. And so listening to that, that disconnect between rural life, literally again, the existential threat of food production, there's a real, there's a real disconnect there. Going back to, but going back to Carol's family again, Thoughtful, reflexive. Every time I had a critical response to something that they said, they one of them got in first. You know, once one would say something about, yeah, but we really, you know, we should have more control over. And then someone would say, yeah, but what, what if, you know, the grand one of the kids was, you know, what if they could have a better life? You know, wouldn't you do exactly what those migrants are doing? You know, so that constant back and forth in the family about these discussions as well. So again, it's just highlighting that these, to get beyond the stereotypes, that these are really thoughtful, reflexive, but concerned about the future because of all the changes. And again, wanting to have some control over those changes, wanting to have input into those changes like we all do, you know, and how do our democratic systems allow for that? We need to have space, especially in the States. It's bad enough here in the uk, but in the States, you know, there's going back the idea that our political institutions are too brittle to manage all these changes that we face. We see that playing out in, in, in everyday life in rural areas because they have even less control over what's happening on a day to day basis. And that sense of breakdown of communities as a result is really, there's a sense of loss and grief there. And again, that's why. And so in Carol's case, you know, she, um, you know, she was, you know, they were tended to be Republican, but as they said, and they, you know, some of them have voted for Trump. One wanted to be libertarian, but realized the libertarians are just not going to get anywhere. They get like 2% of the vote if they're lucky. So what do you do? You know, what do you do? And it's a polarized system where you just have those two choices.
- [58:02]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, I was just reflecting on this when you were talking. You know, one of the things that happens when we do social science research is that our participants often become sort of reflections of the particular positions we're interested in. Right. So it's like, you know, you speak to these people. But one of the things that happens in your book, and I think it's, do you have the space and you talk about it is they come over as real people, you know, and I, I really liked Carol and her family. Like when I was written, they just seemed so nice and completely fair. And as you say, city people don't understand the food system. Speaking as a city person, they're right. I have no idea at all. They know much better than I do. So I would trust their views over mine on that 100 times out of 100, you know, so it was really, it was really interesting in that way. And this brings us probably quite well to the conclusions of the book. And we've touched on this a bit and I'm going to quote from your conclusion here, Melissa, so quote. People are starting to see small, creating. Sorry, let me start again. People are starting small, creating spaces of hope and offering solutions, especially at a local scale. The details of others lives can be understood as much more complex than political classifications. The chance of meaningful relationships are greater when we see each other more often. Someone encountered every day is no longer an abstract label, but instead someone we get to know and care about. We can also create a new narrative that can be shared, making it no longer a choice between left and right, Democrat or Republican, but instead neighbor, friend, friend, colleague. So what led you to write those words?
- [59:31]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, because that's just what came up again and again, Matt. And I think it was. I mean it's hopeful in a small way. I mean there's a lot, there's a lot to worry about. Yeah, I'm not naive and sometimes living next door to people can be difficult. And also there's a problem at the moment is that we're seeing a lot of self segregation. There's some interesting research coming out, just one or two studies, so be interesting to see if it's replicated over time where people are moving into areas where you're less likely to meet someone who's got a different political view. So Democrats segregating Democrat, Republicans, Republican, and that's not great. And also some of the conversations, particularly with the libertarians who really interesting as well, but also talk about this idea of, well, why shouldn't we try and figure out each other's differences? You know, let's just live separately. Education, choice, homeschooling. This also worries me a bit, you know, does that mean we're just segregating? And again, it's because people I think are exhausted by having these debates, by feeling that they're going to get shouted down, by feeling they're going to get trolled on social media, but in very small ways, which I hope are going to kind of keep those resilient connections in local levels at least. That's kind of keeping us together, spinning out into something far worse. At least at the moment. You know, there is talk of civil war. Levitz, Guillotine have talked about this. The conditions are there potentially for civil war. But I personally, I don't, I'm not an expert on the conditions of civil war, but I, I feel that when there's still enough happening at the local level where people remember their neighbors may have different views. And as we go back to Steph and coming in and having a sundown, a sundown is a very important. Hospitality is still very important in rural areas, especially in parts of America south and Colorado rural areas. And yes, we avoid things. That's one way of doing it. We didn't talk politics. We talked about the beautiful mountains and we talked about other things having things in common that you have to. I mentioned the water ditch system in Colorado. This is crucial for survival. Literally for your farm, you have to have a water ditch, but your water ditch runs through several properties. So you got to work together to make sure the water ditches keep flowing. So having things in common. Pastor DA, for example, is a minister, a reverend for justice at one of the mega churches in Dallas. You know, she will work with people across the board on particular issues, local issues like food deserts, for example, trying to improve food quality in suburban areas of Dallas. There's Pamela, one of the women who was incarcerated. She will work across the board with Republic and Democrats to get her legislation passed to improve conditions for women in prison. So sometimes it's holding your nose and just I've got to get the bigger picture. I've got to get this legislation passed. We've got to get these changes in food provision and we've got to keep the water flowing. So let's just hold the nose and just work. In other cases, it is about love. And this is why love is really important. There's a downside to love which is love your nation too much and you get xenophobia, you get maga. Again, understanding why people are doing that though the sense of belonging that you get with that is really important. These human drivers, belonging, dignity, safety, three core human drivers are writ large throughout the book in these conversations is what people really want. Safety, dignity, belonging. So love comes through. So going back to Carol's family, you know, one of her daughter in laws, daughters in law. Danny comes from a more suburban urban part in this next state. Not that far actually from where, where the farm is, but you know, slightly family or more Democrat leaning. So, you know, but they have this and there's a quote from Carol which is, yeah, but you know, we love Danny. You know, obviously she's a member of our family and yeah, she's got slightly different ideas to us and a different upbringing but, but we love her. And then, and then her other daughter says, yeah, and it's great, actually, in a way, because she'll say something and it's like, it's still. It's still itching me like a day later. And I go, now why did you. And then I start thinking about, why did you say, yeah, okay, maybe I can see it a little bit more that way. So, because there is trust and because there is recognition that this person won't hurt me, I'm. I'm open to listening to their ideas, and maybe that will change the way that I'm thinking. And those are two key things as well. Trust me and trusting in particular that that person won't hurt me. Safety. And this is what that local relationship does allow people to do, having those conversations. And there's some great organizations like Braver Angels, which works particularly with bringing together people who vote Democrat and Republican, red and blue, to have conversations. They do very formalized debates, but they also just have discussion groups on films and books and things like that. They have a lot of workshops and depolarizing debate how to communicate. Well, we're seeing it here in the uk. There's an organization up north called here's your neighbor, working with people to train them so to. To be able to have these conversations. And sometimes it is. There isn't. This is what we do here at Cumberland Lodge as well. So. And most of the work that I'm doing now is. Is developing people's skills and. And confidence to be able to have these conversations. Really moving away from the idea of left and right. Again, it's another whole podcast map, but they're completely meaningless and probably always have been, but especially so now, again, you see this in the conversations. You know, the left who left the left I mentioned before, but, you know, politically orphaned, that don't feel attached to any of these labels. And yet that's the labels that used to denigrate the other. So let's move away from those. You know, I don't. I won't speak to you because you're left. I won't speak to you because you're right. Let's, you know, get away from those labels and try having a conversation using other vocabulary. Yes. Avoidance, as I say, is probably not the. Maybe that's the way to start, actually. So, you know, a lot of the conversations that we just don't talk politics. And that's. That's fine. You know, I know where this person stands, I know where they stand, but I can still trust that this is a human being in front of me, and I will look after them because they are my neighbor. I will make sure their road is clear in the winter because I have a snowplow, and they will bring me something else again. In the rural areas, you see a lot. There is still that quid pro quo as well, because you need to. But even in urban areas, you know, people will. Will still talk in those terms of trying to find those spaces where people can come together and have conversation, even if it's not about politics or freedom.
- [66:08]
Matt Dawson
Very much so. Very much so. And then talking of conversations, I was wondering if you'd had. See, the book's been published now. Has there been any further responses from the book that people spoke to. Have they been in touch. Have you been in touch with them? Because, I mean, obviously the people you spoke to have been living for even more turbulent times since when you spoke to them.
- [66:25]
Melissa Buscher
Yeah, as is the way with these projects. You know, people kind of not, not interested necessarily in staying in touch, but there's sort of a core group that, that I touch, keep touching base with every now and then when, usually when something happens like how do you feel about that, you know, Maduro thing and how are you feeling about, you know, the Iran thing? Not specifically about the book. I know some have read it and maybe they're being really polite and they're not saying whether they'd like it or not. It does make me feel really, everyone's anonymized except if they're speaking on behalf of an organization. But you still always feel, because they are living it. And it's interesting, some of those that do not support Trump are just really concerned, still really concerned about the future. Those that do support Trump are still very supportive of Trump. What's been. And they still, yeah, they still trust him. I suspect if there were boots on the ground in Iran, I mean, as we know, he supports tanking over that in particular. But even the Charlie Kirk show that they're talking, that that's a red line. There's people that are very supportive of Trump, instrumental in getting various cohorts over to his side. But I think if there were boots on the ground, that would, that would really decimate that coalition. But in terms of. There's one interesting thing that I find that some of the feedback is they really worry about me. Again, there's the very anti. In the media sphere, especially with Zoran Mamdani in New York, the backlash against Islam, Islamophobia is on the rise now. That's become the kind of bogeyman that people are focusing on, I think Two global cities with both with Muslim mayors. This has become a real source of anxiety for the podcasting manosphere in the mega world. So that is seeping through into some of the conversations. And again, it's about reminding people about the humanity that we all have. But also free speech, actually, that's a big one. They're really worried about the fact that they see this idea that we've got no free speech in the uk and Elon Musk and his commentary on Twitter has been responsible for that. So again, it's just pointing out that, no, I know I live in London, but it's quite okay, there's no Sharia law in London and I'm quite free to say most things that I want to say. It's a little different to the us so again, it's just about media, something we haven't touched on. And you could do a whole book on free speech, actually. And I think others do it better, which is why I didn't focus on it in the book. But I think that that that concept of free speech is really important and how we regulate that is something that really does concern people and still comes through. But again, the perception we need these conversations to happen to kind of counter the fact that we have this social media sphere which is just so full of mis and disinformation. It also highlights the importance of local media. I know the local. The government here in the UK is now talking about supporting local media, but it's just crucial to have that.
- [69:28]
Matt Dawson
Yeah, definitely, definitely. So what are you working on now? Are you carrying this on or are you turning your attention to other matters or.
- [69:34]
Melissa Buscher
Yes, sort of. I mean, the, the idea of borders still fascinates me. And having lived now in the UK for 20 years, I'm still fascinated by European history. And of course, just all these debates are that in the US we're having here as well. As I say, it's still mirroring what's happening here. And there's the connections between organizations in the UK in the US are now reaching out here into the uk. So the National Conservative Movement had a meeting here a few years ago in the UK with a lot of Conservative politicians attending there. We're seeing organizations like alliance, the Defending Freedom, which is very anti reproductive freedoms for women. They're now supporting legal cases here in the uk. TP USA has TP uk. So these connections and funding sources. As we see Elon Musk talking about funding some of the populist parties here in the uk, so those connections are getting even stronger. So we need to always be understanding why people are leaning in that direction. Reform. Curious if you like. So I'm focusing on that. But again, thinking about borders. So how people imagine borders and so starting to think about who I can have some conversations with here in the UK about how they imagine the border, where is the border in the uk, how they imagine the border in the uk, but also all of these quirky places in Europe where the borders have changed over hundreds of years. So around the Baltics and around East Europe and around France and Spain and Northern Ireland. And Ireland, of course. And yeah, what are the why do we get so concerned about borders and how we can make borders and freedom more expansive rather than zero sum games?
- [71:16]
Matt Dawson
That's fascinating work. And obviously I live in Scotland and I lived in Scotland during the independence referendum where there was much discussion of the possibility of a border. But that's a whole nother topic. So as a reminder for listeners, I've been talking to Melissa Butcher about her book the Trouble with Freedom, Love, Hate in America, Love Future, America's Future. And as our conversation has shown, this book is the outcome of really significant engagement with how Americans think about America, about freedom, about their neighbors, about politics, et cetera. And I it's hugely valuable because of that. And that's I'm sure listeners have enjoyed listening to Melissa talk about this, but I learned a lot from reading it as well about that. And I think especially now, whereas as you've highlighted, you know, there's major concerns about what America is about with free Freedom is about these mirrored and also different concerns. It's a really valuable guide for those interested in those type of questions. So thanks Melissa for joining us today.
- [72:10]
Melissa Buscher
Oh my pleasure. It's been absolutely lovely conversation.
- [72:14]
Matt Dawson
Matt, it's been great as well. So thanks very much Melissa. Bye bye. Foreign. Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the Same premium wireless for 15amonth Plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [72:47]
Melissa Buscher
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra fee, full terms at mintmobile. Com.