Loading summary
Transcript101 lines
- [00:00]
A
Insurance isn't one size fits all, and shopping for it shouldn't feel like squeezing into something that just doesn't fit. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name your price tool for years. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they show you options that fit your budget enough. Hunting for discounts, trying to calculate rates, and tinkering with coverages. Maybe you're picking out your very first policy, or maybe you're just looking for something that works better for you and your family. Either way, they make it simple to see your options. No guesswork, no surprises. Ready to see how easy and fun shopping for car insurance can be? Visit progressive.com and give the Name your price tool a try. Take the stress out of shopping and find coverage that fits your life on your terms. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law
- [00:56]
B
It's Thursday, May 7, 2026 from Peach Fish Productions it's the gist I Mike Pesca and today is a not even mad day. We've got great guest Russ Muirhead, who, if you don't know him or have heard and read him, you should. He's a Dartmouth professor and what's really cool is he's an elected officials. He brings a lot of perspective from that job. And being an elected official I don't think drives him, like many elected officials, to say things just to get reelected. He's elected in New Hampshire and it's nice he likes his job, but he's not going to distort his analysis to keep it. And Ben Dreyfuss, who is not going to distort his analysis for anyone. I think his professional career is proved. So the one topic you won't hear us talking about, well, everything except the three we do. But the one big one in the news is Iran. And why not? What do you think we can say? What do you think that would give us or you any extra insight into the basic facts of Iran, which is Trump didn't think it out too well and now everyone's mad at him. Plus the fact that he promised to lower prices. And I don't know, people probably notice gas prices. I would say maybe they're one of the things that people pay attention to, what with them being on giant signs and everyone's life depending on filling your car up with gas or even if you don't, just eating food that might have had to have been fertilized. So what are you going to say about, at the very least, the poor execution thereof. I did see a report in the Washington Post today, headline, US Intelligence says Iran can outlast Trump's Hormuz blockade for months. A confidential intelligence community assessment delivered to the White House also finds that Iran retains a substantial missile and drone arsenal. Yeah, I think all the drones that have been hitting us and our allies maybe attest to that. But a different way of writing this headline might have been US Intelligence says Iran will fold under the blockade if it just goes for a few months. But that's the just. America is not in the mood for any of this to go for months. And Trump doesn't have a good attention span. But I also think, you know, there we say attention span, but we say sense of humor. I don't think he has a sense of attention. I don't think he has a sense of timeframes and what other people might think of as their attention spans. So Trump wanted to get in. He would have loved to have gotten out with a victory. And now he doesn't quite know what to do. But then again, he's probably not thinking two or three months down the road, if the people had the resolve, if we decided that the sacrifice of, you know, probably not ourselves, but putting some treasure on the line, putting the lives of our fighting men and women on the line, if we decided to stick with that for a few months, we probably could get a decent enough effect. But, and I don't blame America, it seems pointless, it seems unlikely to work, it seems, and the faraway goal or the far term benefit, which is in the realm of the hypothetical, recedes in front of the near term pain. And Trump should have known this. And Trump can't blame anyone else for not putting in the hard work and being far seeking because he is the most nearsighted person there is. So anyway, I guess that's the Iran analysis that we couldn't possibly engage in because maybe there's a cease fire, maybe we're blockading your blockade, maybe talks are on, maybe talks are off. And maybe. No, definitely the CIA says whatever Trump is doing with this blockade, it's not going to work out in the short term, which is pretty much the only time horizon we commit to. All right, here is Ben, here is Ross, here is me, and we are not even mad. So lately I've been getting a little, I guess the word is intentional about my wardrobe. You know, you want to look good, but you want to be comfortable. You want to look put together. You want to be put together. Enter Quince. Quince has the wardrobe staples for spring they have 100% European linen shorts and shirts that start off at $34 and they're all lightweight and breathable. And I should also say that the reason they're able to beat all their competitors by 50 to 80% is that they do in fact cut out the middleman. So you guys hear that, but it's true. They work directly with ethical factories. And you're benefiting me. I'm benefiting to the tune of the ultra stretch 24.7 smart chinos. It is good that these aren't 24.6chinos, you know, and I can't wear them Tuesdays. I could wear them every day. I'd like to wear them every day. It's like I'm getting away with something because to the outsider they look like, I'll say dress pants to use that broad category. But to the inside or me inside the pants, they are stretchy and comfortable and you know, they don't feel like those hard, stiff, uncomfortable, starchy dress pants. They're fantastic. Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com thegist for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com thegist Insurance isn't one size fits
- [06:51]
A
all, and shopping for it shouldn't feel like squeezing into something that just doesn't fit. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they show you options that fit your budget enough. Hunting for discounts, trying to calculate rates, and tinkering with coverages. Maybe you're picking out your very first policy. Or maybe you're just looking for something that works better for you and your family. Either way, they make it simple to see your options. No guesswork, no surprises. Ready to see how easy and fun shopping for car insurance can be? Visit progressive.com and give the name your price tool a try. Take the stress out of shopping and find coverage that fits your life on your terms. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law.
- [07:46]
B
Hello, and welcome back to the show that is building a bunker under your consciousness. Not even mad Today we speak of deadly political enmities, RFK Jr and way to save Congress. It's just so crazy it probably won't work as we do. So we promise to uphold our reputation for refutation while at the same time vowing to be not even mad. Who are we this week? We are Russ Muirhead, professor of democracy and politics at Dartmouth College and a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. How goes your work in the House these days, Russ?
- [08:31]
C
I have to say, I. For me, it's like going back to school. I learn something every day, and even when I lose, I love it.
- [08:37]
B
And Ben Dreyfuss is with us. He is the author of Calm Down, a substack about how the Internet is making us all crazy and the House whip in the Icelandic all thing. Congratulations on that post, Ben.
- [08:50]
D
It's a pleasure to be nominated.
- [08:54]
B
So, less than two weeks ago, the White House Correspondent's Dinner was attacked. On Monday, the Secret Service said an armed and suspicious individual near the White House fired at them. Soon after J.D. vance's motorcade drove through. Tomorrow. I mean, who knows? Political violence, it seems, is on the rise. But is it? The New York Times dedicated an episode of the Daily to arguing that the case is. Yes, they did so through the person of University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape, who said, we're living in an era of violent populism. He has been tracking attitudes for five years. The results are stunning. 10 million support the use of force, including assassination, to remove Trump, and another 10 million Americans support the use of force to support Trump. I will say I very much disagree and rebuke these specific findings. But on the broader point, what do you think of the idea, or even the idea of the idea of this era of violent populism?
- [09:58]
D
Ben, what a coincidence that there's 10 million pro and 10 million against each. You know, who. Who would have thought? God, the Vegas money line. No, I think it's overwhelmed, too. I think it's overdone. Obviously, there is political violence and it's bad. And you don't want to. You don't want to diminish it. You don't want to, you know, say it doesn't matter at all. But I think that people tend to catastrophize everything. And this has become sort of a bigger talking point than I think it probably really deserves. At the same time, people do keep trying to shoot him, which is not good. You know, we don't want that one is also. It's good to point that one out as well. But, no, I think that the idea that there's people wandering the streets, you know, I know someone in my family, someone I love quite deeply, my mother, who watches MSNBC but lives in Idaho and She occasionally gets on these deranged, paranoid things where she's like, oh, my God, I'm going to see someone and there's a Trump person. They're going to kill me. And like, no, they're not. They don't. People don't generally like to kill other people. It's just not really hardwired into us. And also you go to jail, which is never nice. But I think that then you get this paranoia that she has and you get it on the right, too, and you get it on every side. And I just don't think it's terribly helpful for everyone to stay up at night dreaming about 10 million people coming to kill them.
- [11:21]
B
So, Russ, have you looked at any statistics? Because this is a little bit of a finger on the scale, but the statistics about political violence I tend to look at actually originate from Dartmouth, and they're much less dire than.
- [11:34]
C
Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, my colleagues like Brendan Nyhan and John Kerry and their outfit, Bright Line Watch, have been polling people about political violence since 20, almost 2015, for about a decade now. And, yeah, they're much more sanguine. You know, they're not seeing massive upticks in support for political violence. They do see things like this. Like each side thinks the other side supports political violence. So my mother's, with yours been, you know, I'm like, can we turn off MSNBC and watch a movie? And it's on all the time on the wall. And, you know, they think if you're, if you're in that world, you can easily come to think that your opponents support it. Your opponents are giving up on the political process. Your opponents lack the kind of norms that make democracy work. And each side kind of thinks that. So. But, you know, but even though the stats that you mentioned by Pape, 10 million, well, 150 million people voted roughly in the last election. So we're talking about a very small number relatively, of the population. Most of them actually aren't going to do violence. But, you know, it does kind of wake me up, the support that bystanders can have for acts of violence. Well, like after the Brian Thompson, you know, murder, the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare, you know, lots of young people, 40% of people under 30 say, yeah, that was acceptable. It doesn't mean they're gonna do it. But that, I think, really is very corrosive to ever believe that it's acceptable. And that's, I think, where the. That's where the action is. That's why I think we Might be seeing a shift. A larger number of people say, yeah, you know, it's acceptable. Given what that guy's done, given what he stands for. Given. Given, you know, the. The way, the anger that he has stirred up, it's acceptable. And. And that. That gets me a little worried.
- [13:22]
D
After that shooting, I, you know, I was so disgusted, too, watching Blue Sky. All these psychotics seemed seemingly happy and thrilled that this poor guy had been gunned down in the street. But then you get. You got, you know, 10 months later, or whatever it was when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I think a lot of people, including me, had, you know, a very big worry that if I logged onto Blue Sky, I was going to see people doing the exact same thing again. And I was going to, you know, oh, Jesus, here we go again. And honestly, I didn't see it. Like, it seemed like they maybe did sort of learn their lesson a little bit by how roundly people were mad at them and disgusted by how they celebrated in the streets of New York. And so it does make me sometimes think that, like, well, things can get better. They can learn that, like. Like the social shaming, stigmatizing that happens for. For good.
- [14:12]
B
Yeah, yeah. Or maybe with the Blue sky crowd, it's just that Ezra Klein presented himself as the source of ire, and then they could have gone against him instead of actually weighing in on the assassination. I just want to say, first of all, sanguine's a very interesting word, right. It means calm, but also bloody. The other interesting word is acceptable. And I don't think acceptable is acceptable, but there is a lesser version of that that I heard Elizabeth Warren voicing. And people who are normally seen as not at all endorsing violence, they would say, I understand it. Hassan Piker, you know, we had to get to him. They say, I understand it. And yes, I mean, I understand as a matter of just comprehension, if you ask me to articulate what this guy's delusions or derangements were, I can articulate that. But I do think that politicians saying, I understand it is. That's not optimal. Right. That is taking advantage of a moment where you should be calming things down, and you're doing the opposite. Right. You're sort of aligning yourself in a way that advances your policy agenda. And you might be very sincere about it and think it is a moral policy agenda, but you're sacrificing what should be a calming aspect of being a public official with something a little more incendiary. And I'm wondering, as an elected official, Russ do you see it that way or is it more? Look, if this is a cause, even if that is the expression that you wouldn't take, you can't run away from the cause in those moments.
- [15:45]
D
Yeah.
- [15:46]
C
I mean, it's so easy in politics to. To think you're 100% right. I mean, the stuff you're fighting for, whatever it is, like when on my side, somebody stands up and defends trans rights, it's usually a trans person who's serving the legislator. And they say, this is who I am and my existence is at stake in this argument. Or talking about funding for food for people who are hungry. We're talking about pretty basic stuff. We're talking about support for law enforcement. People think this is absolutely essential to the functioning of society. Each side doesn't say, well, I'm about 70, probably 70% sure of my position. Like, I'm 100% sure I'm right. And anyone who disagrees with me is destroying society. And people who are, like, willfully destroying society, are they evil? Are they just totally ignorant? I mean, it's hard to view them as participants in a dignified and reasonable kind of exchange of views. And I hate to say it, but, like, politics requires not moralizing stuff. It requires, like, breaking bread with people who disagree with you about stuff that you think is, you know, where you think you're really right and it's really important for society that the right side, you know, rule and to hang out and compromise and get along with and, you know, break bread with people who disagree with you and stuff. There's a way in which you're almost, you know, kind of corrupting your character by doing that. And that's politics. It requires people who don't have, you know, they have a modicum of good character, but not too much good character.
- [17:20]
B
Yeah. Yeah. I also think it's media, because after an event like this, very sincerely, the New York Times seeks out a leading expert. And I do think they present an overly dire picture and an inaccurate picture, but they think they're doing a good job. And MSNBC does the same thing. Maybe, I would say for less. You know, noble reasons. They're playing to their crowd and your mom's, but maybe my mom, too. But one of the things that Pape said in that interview was what needs to happen is that politicians need to articulate something like you said, Russ. They need to have a moment on the White House lawn where they get together and say, violence is never the answer. And then he said, and I thought this was interesting, and they actually did that in the wake of, I think it was the Charlie Kirk shooting and an earlier shooting. And we actually. I was the Butler shooting. And we saw a decrease in his polling. He said he saw a decrease after this articulation for the endorsement of political violence. So Pape then decides that's the answer. To me, this screams, therefore, it's not the answer. Because we keep coming back to this baseline of 10% wanting to kill the other side. But I do wonder about the media version of it. What do you do? What do you do as the media? These things happen, happen to just come out and say, these are outliers. They don't stand for any. They don't really represent broad swathes of people. If you do that, do you convince politicians that the right way to play it is something other than jaw defiance like Donald Trump shows? And I'm not going to back down from my essential animosity towards the other side.
- [19:02]
C
Ben, I do think, you know, the place of total hatred in politics right now. The only. It's way too great. It's way too huge. The only people you're kind of allowed to hate are people of the other party. It's totally permissible to walk around, say, you know, I hate whatever. Democrats, Republicans, progressives, liberals, you know, maga. And you don't get to hate people of other nationalities, of other religions, of other, like, races.
- [19:29]
D
It's.
- [19:30]
C
Even if you do, you have to hide it. You don't have to hide your hatred of people of the other party. And I think, you know, yeah, there's a huge place for leadership here. There's a huge place for, like, what we need. Look, what we need. It sounds like. I feel like I'm preaching or something. But, you know, what we need is, like, not that many, but we need a little bit of people with genuine nobility. We need some people with the spirit of John McCain in our politics in the no man moment. No, ma'. Am. You know, I disagree with Obama on policy, but he's not. He's not evil.
- [20:00]
B
And Utah Governor Spencer Cox was pretty good with that in the wake of the Kirk shooting. But, Ben, you have the Calm down newsletter. I mean, you're doing your part to make them calm down. But that's actually my question. Are there ways, are there messages to get people to realize the other side is not out to kill them? What I do, and it doesn't work at all, is try to make the point that these things that you might think that Republicans are doing are crazy. They're really not that Far apart from where the most of Americans are or they're not that different from exactly where we were in the year 2008. If we're talking about like something like Medicare rollbacks, but you not only try to do this with a mass audience, so I'm going to say it never works. When I make these cases. Is there anything you could do to convince people to calm down? Does it even work with your mom ever?
- [20:52]
D
No. I mean, well, famously telling someone to calm down does not make them calm down.
- [20:56]
B
So it's excellent, Ben.
- [20:58]
C
Usually when I do that, I scream. Screaming, calm down.
- [21:01]
D
Exactly. Like the real reason I call it calm down is because I actually say to myself, constantly calm down, Ben. Because I'm constantly like say whenever I get a flighty.
- [21:10]
B
But okay, so what are the, what are the messages to yourself that make calming down work? What are your practices? Meditation.
- [21:18]
D
I need to breathe and go for a walk or whatever. But, but I think that the, you know, the most interesting thing that and restaurant touched on it earlier. One of my, the craziest findings in that I ever hear about in political science is that the single worst group of like people, Democrat, like highly informed Democrats, you know, highly engaged Democrats and highly engaged Republicans are the most confident and least accurate when describing the qualities of the other party. You know, my mom spends a huge amount of time following politics and she is 100% the worst person to ask for, for any details about Republicans. You know, she, she describes them in ways that are fantastical and truly evil. And I know lots of Republicans who do the exact same thing. And, and those people are the most highly engaged political people, are not only bad at that, but then they're also some of the least popular people in America. You know, there's all these other, other polls that are like, you know, the 20% of Americans who are super highly engaged about politics and won't shut up about it are hated by the other 80% of Americans who just, who just wish we could talk about baseball, wish we could talk about almost anything else except for politics. Every time I do think that sort of like the most important thing to have happen for people to calm down and become friends and realize that they don't have to hate the other side with this born again fury that gets the Russian revolution, I mean Russian civil war, is to spend time with some of them and not necessarily argue, pick little things to argue about. You know, there's a whole world of stuff that doesn't have to be the culture issues that you're. We all feel so strongly about one way or the other. And if you just do that, you'll inevitably see that. All right, the person who I disagree with about stuff isn't actually evil incarnate. And they've, they might have these positions that I disagree with, but they probably arrived at them in maybe a less malicious way than you might think. And as somebody who personally has changed their mind, I know that I'm probably wrong about some of this shit too, and I'll change it again. And so I do think that like the easiest way to calm down about other people is to sort of do an honest inventory of yourself and be like, I am fallible. So too are they. And then to talk about baseball or, or basketball or, or your favorite reality show or something.
- [23:45]
B
Yeah. Or the Met Gala. No, too politicized. One thing that gets in the way of that is our political sorting. Although, Russ, you live in a small purple state, so maybe you're more naturally coming across non exactly like minded individuals.
- [23:59]
C
Yeah, New Hampshire's a little unusual because it's actually a swing state. So we have a trifecta Republican rule at the state level. House, Senate, governor, but we have a completely Democratic federal delegation. And you know, we tend in recent elections, tend to vote Democratic and presidential elections, general elections. So we're really swinging. And that's actually kind of unusual. You look around the country right now, you probably see 12 trifecta Democratic states that aren't swinging that much. You see, you know, probably more than that, maybe almost 20 trifecta Republican states. And so within states, you're seeing a lot of one party rule. But you know, here's the, here's the thing. I think that's driving what we're talking about, the acceptability of hatred. I think it's the fact that neither side can win at the national level and neither side's been able to win for our entire lifetimes. And you know, microscope scopic example. Trump gets everything in 2024. He gets the House, he gets the Senate, he gets the, you know, Electoral college of presidency, has the Supreme Court now, you know, do you think he's expanded his coalition since 2024 or reduced it? And I think it's obvious he's reduced it. Whatever happens, probably going to lose the house in 26, who knows. But you know, it's not getting bigger. So we're not seeing like an age of his coalition dominating, you know, 30 years of his coalition. Biden has it all in 2020, loses it by 2022. You know, Clinton had it all for two years Obama had it all for just two years. Nobody can take their coalition, expand it, and really run the government in a capacious way, in a durable way. And so when, you know, when you have a politics that's hyper competitive like that, it always pays to generate a lot of hatred for the other side. It turns out your voters, it opens their checkbooks, it activates, it mobilizes and you know, it's like neither side can relax and just get into a kind of equilibrium. We're constantly overturning, you know, who's running the country. So, you know, with hyper competitive politics where neither side can win, it's hatred pays.
- [25:59]
D
The fundraising thing that you mentioned is actually like a fantastic point. You know, I get these emails from Democrats. I haven't, I haven't actually donated to a Democrat since like 2008 or something like that, but I get a dozen emails a day because they've rented the lists out and they've done a blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And each one says, someone's coming to kill me in the night. You know, like they're each saying that in states I don't live, Democrats I don't need, never heard. And it's all, it has to be, I need to open that checkbook. And whenever you see these things, it's just a constant, like psychological tax on your own supporters. You know, the money is going to be a push in the end, but what you're definitely doing is making sure that like, psychically, your own supporters are a little less. Well, in their mind.
- [26:43]
C
Yeah, I mean, look, Ben, if I run in a Democratic primary for something and I say, hey, vote for me, I will, I will compromise with the other side. No, I won't get any votes in a Democratic primary, you know, and so, so, yeah, like when you're in this kind of fight, it's just super competitive. Those crazy that, that tax that you just mentioned, you know that that tax collects a lot of revenue.
- [27:08]
B
Do you think Democrats should not use the language of fascism if they really believe that there is some quasi fascism going on and it's their duty to use accurate terms to warn the electorate about what is simmering?
- [27:22]
C
I think, you know, abstractions don't really mobilize people by the tens of millions? I have like, don't, don't come for me, but I have a PhD in, you know, political science and I can't define fascism. You know, there are, but, you know, it's not a bad term. People in a rough way kind of know that. Yeah, it's a kind of Authoritarian thing. It's violent, it's not good. You know, authoritarianism, fascism, I kind of like Caesarism. You know, I think that's more. I don't know. But none of these terms are gonna. You're not gonna build a movement on abstractions like that. And so, yeah, I think it's okay to use. It's okay to say, hey, this is a kind of, you know, authoritarian moment. There. There's a lot of sympathy for. For really, really powerful executive that's unchecked by the legislature and unchecked by the court. And a lot of people who think that's good and sure call it fascism. You know, I don't think it's a winning rhetoric. I think. I think there are things that people feel much more like how much they're paying for a gallon of gas than they feel that terms like fascism. But.
- [28:24]
B
Well, that's what the reason I brought it up was, not the utility of it. But that's the fighting word that every Republican will cite as too far in what's putting Donald Trump in the crosshairs. Fascism means Nazism in the minds of most Americans. And who wouldn't want to kill a Nazi?
- [28:40]
C
Great. Let him. Let him, you know, take a. Take a vote on declaring war in the House of Representatives.
- [28:47]
D
I don't know. I mean, I always find those arguments from the Republicans, it's so disingenuous. I mean, they've been calling me a communist. My entire. Called Obama Muslim terrorists and shit. Like the fact that people. Some people called him a fascist, which is maybe a little too little too inaccurate because, like.
- [29:02]
B
But the implication is. But you have to realize our side has the guns. That's what they're saying. Right. The thing that I.
- [29:09]
D
The Dem. The Democratic talking point that most just annoys me from a utility standpoint is the. It was the years of saying we're fighting for democracy, which sort of. I understood at one point when he had, you know, lost the. He lost the popular vote in 2016 and then. Then January 6th, obviously, which was like an attack on democracy. Then he won in 2024, and they kept using it. And I don't actually know what it means in this context now, because he. He actually did win that one fair and square. And, like, it just gets a little. I've never really understood what that term. What they're using it to mean. Exactly.
- [29:42]
C
It's really weird how often the president talks about how the 2020 election was stolen and in the. In the situations in which he does that, you know, and he'll do that talking to foreign leaders. He'll go on and on about how the 20 but like, the guy can say the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, but when you call him a fascist, that's a bridge too far.
- [30:02]
B
So in a moment, we're going to come back and talk about one particular, let us say, epiphenomenon of, if not the authoritarianism, then some of the weirdness going on. And that man's name is rfk. And also the fix to all of this, which will be really simple. No it won't. Back in a minute with not even mad. So lately I've been getting a little, I guess the word is intentional about my wardrobe. You know, you want to look good, but you want to be comfortable. You want to look put together. You want to be put together. Enter quints. Quince has the wardrobe staples for spring. They have 100% European linen shorts and shirts that start off at $34 and they're all lightweight and breathable. And I should also say that the reason they're able to beat all their competitors by 50 to 80% is that they do in fact cut out the middleman. You always hear that, but it's true. They work directly with ethical fact factories. And you're benefiting me. I'm benefiting to the tune of the ultra stretch 24.7 smart chinos. It is good that these are in 24.6chinos, you know, and I can't wear them Tuesdays. I could wear them every day. I'd like to wear them every day. It's like I'm getting away with something because to the outsider they look like, I'll say dress pants to use that broad category. But to the insider me inside the pants, they are stretchy and comfortable and you know, they don't feel like those hard, stiff, uncomfortable, starchy dress pants. They're fantastic. Refresh your everyday with luxury. You'll actually use head to quince.com the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I-n c e.com
- [31:59]
C
for
- [32:00]
B
free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com the gist insurance isn't one size
- [32:08]
A
fits all and shopping for it shouldn't feel like squeezing into something that just doesn't fit. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they show you options that fit your budget. Enough hunting for discounts, trying to calculate rates and tinkering with coverages. Maybe you're picking out your very first policy, or maybe you're just looking for something that works better for you and your family. Either way, they make it simple to see your options. No guesswork, no surprises. Ready to see how easy and fun shopping for car insurance can be? Visit progressive.com and give the name your price tool a try. Take the stress out of shopping and find coverage that fits your life on your terms. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law.
- [33:02]
B
We're back with Not Even Mad my guests this week, Russ Muirhead, who is a professor of democracy and politics at Dartmouth College and he also serves in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, which seems impressive, but there are like 10,000 people in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. What's the actual number? 400.
- [33:17]
C
It's actually 400. We try. Exactly. When you're one of 400, you can't be that impressed with yourself.
- [33:23]
B
And Ben Dreyfuss, who is the author of Calm Down. Have you ever been part of a 400 collection of anything, Ben?
- [33:30]
D
No, I don't think so. I think there's probably that many substackers, but other than that.
- [33:35]
B
But you don't feel bonded to them either?
- [33:37]
D
No, no. In fact, I cross the street when I see them, you know, look, looking askance. Yeah.
- [33:45]
B
So, couple of headlines from our director of Health and Human Services. One, RFK Jr. Clears path for minors use of tanning beds, much to the dismay of dermatologists. Sorry, I don't know why I'm laughing. I just picture these dismayed dermatologists and these pale teens to the Food and Drug Administration blocked the publication of several government funded studies that found vaccines against COVID 19 and shingles to be effective and safe. And three, Kennedy starts a push to help Americans quit antidepressants. Also, the Maha movement. They're mad at Kennedy, mad at the administration because of things like glyphosate and some other chemicals that they don't think Trump is doing enough to stop. I've come to believe that Kennedy is a millstone around the neck of the administration in ways that other, even embattled members thereof are not. I know that Cash Patel is not popular and he doesn't do well in polling, but I don't think that he is as particularly toxic or noxious to the Republicans because I think that Republicans and the Republican base know to put their support behind Hegseth and Patel and before them, Kristi Noem in A way that with Kennedy, it's actually cross cuts in interesting ways. Do you have a Kennedy take? Other than, of course, Ben, being unbelievably anti vax in your personal life?
- [35:11]
D
I mean, my main take has always been that I hate that voice so much. I mean, what. What in the world.
- [35:16]
C
World.
- [35:17]
D
It is a voice for writing a book. You know, like, it's.
- [35:21]
C
It's.
- [35:22]
D
It's terrible. But also, you know, I agree with a lot of the democratic normal thoughts about him. It's not good that he's having him hide the vaccine studies. Not a good one. I actually didn't know that teens weren't allowed in sun beds until now. I think it's a live and let live situation. If it's okay with their parents and the tanning salon employees, I think we should just let them. Let them do what they want.
- [35:49]
B
Yeah. The spray tans might be worse. I don't know. It might be a vaping cigarette.
- [35:53]
D
I don't know if you guys. Maybe. I am a quite pale person, and I. When you are a quite pale person, you hate it. It's your biggest problem growing up, and you eventually do find fake Tanner, and anyone who has done that eventually then has to go to school in 8th grade looking like an Oompa Loompa, like orange. And people mock you and go, what happened? And you. And you try to cover it up, and you say, I don't know what you're talking about. And. And it happens that they know, and they laugh. And so then. Then that's probably how you end up in a real tanning. Tanning. Tanning room. The. The only other thing that I would say is that as a mentally ill person who's on lots of pharmaceutical drugs and believes everyone else should probably. Probably be on more psychotropic pharmaceutical drugs, him trying to actively get everyone off antidepressants and antipsychotics and people I find very worrisome. It's a little Scientology is to me. You know, I think we should leave. If you're on Wellbutrin, I think we should let the doctor. There might be a reason.
- [37:03]
B
Yeah, leave Wellbutrin off enough alone, I guess. So apart from it, if you have any Oompa Loompa experience, Russ, I want to know it. By the way, plural, of Oompa Loompa. Oompa Loompa. Not a lot of people know that. By the way, Ben, are you a man of tall stature? I've never. Oh, we have met in real life. Yeah. You're certainly medium. Medium, yeah.
- [37:22]
D
I'm the American average. I'm five, nine.
- [37:24]
B
There you go. Perfect.
- [37:25]
C
He looms large in our minds and
- [37:28]
B
he sings in unison about the dangers of television. But Russ, analyze if you will, because my take is that I do think that anti vaccine is not popular among Americans, but most Americans didn't even think about it. The ones who did were the real anti vaxxers. And so now I think it's motivating a lot of people who didn't even think of this as a political issue to say, well, that's kind of insane. I disagree. I don't know if it'll decide their votes, but it's another factor against the Trump coalition with him as a part of it. Do you agree with that?
- [38:03]
C
Yeah, it's so interesting. You know, I've been wondering about the same kind of thing and I think that it's pretty clear that the anti vax constituency, the MAHA constituency, is small but highly activated. They're full time, they're full timers and they overlap obviously with MAGA in their suspicion of experts, in their suspicion of administrative agencies like the Centers for Disease Control, and there's a suspicion of doctors in the medical establishment. And so I think, you know, spiritually and politically, it's an important mini constituency for the overall coalition that fuels Trumpism. And I think that's what Trump is actually quite brilliant and that's what guided his choice of rfk. He instinctively saw it. Then the question is, can he contain RFK so that RFK kind of satisfies this mini constituency without actually causing lots and lots of children around the country to die of measles and to, you know, and to really. Does he really diminished as his encouragement of, you know, description of vaccines as a personal choice for parents, does that cause plummeting rates of vaccination and lots of, lots of heartbreaking and avoidable deaths of children in the United States? And I think, you know, that's the risk. And I think he's actually, he's actually causing that. I think he is guilty of causing many, many deaths because of the encouragement that he gives to anti vaxxers. And I think that he reflects a grotesque pathology at the heart of the Kennedy family. The Kennedy family, young Kennedys are raised to think that they are destined for power and greatness. And they're actually, in general, I mean, I just have to generalize over the last 50 years. They're not that bright and they're not that promising and they don't have that much to offer the world. And if they could just Kind of like, I don't know, sell insurance or something and, you know, do something, become teachers like, like me, do something that isn't going to cause that much damage. It would, it would help everybody. And, and so he, you know, he's. He's RFK's son. He's got this idea that he has to do something truly great. And it engenders. But, you know, it's hard to do something truly great. He doesn't have that kind of genuine, I think, ability. And so what, he's. He's found a constituency, he's found a group that will elevate him and praise him, and he's going to give them everything they want. And I think that weakness in the Kennedy pathology is what makes him a very, very dangerous person.
- [40:44]
B
He's always been kind of a nut. And when he was celebrated on the left and commissioned by Rolling Stone to write articles about how the election was stolen. Wait, which election? The 2004 election. I don't know. Not enough people said, why is this guy on the pages of our magazines? And the answer is, as you said, Russ, because he is a Kennedy. I blame the voters. I blame the gatekeepers. I blame all of. All of us who are a little susceptible to the fact that he seems to have a patter down and beyond the way pushes out the words. The fact that he seems to have some sort of facility with scientific terms we're not at all discerning. But I come back to the idea that being pro vax was never a political constituency or a political identity. It was just called being a decent enough parent. And I think it might be becoming that. And we're also seeing that in Democratic politics playing out with his glyphosate. Cory Booker, a couple of other Democratic senators think they could maybe take a few of the Maha Maha moms, break them away if they're more interested in the forever chemicals, which Democrats are against and the EPA doesn't care to regulate. If they could break off a piece of the Maha moms who aren't as into the vaccine stuff and are more into the chemical stuff, I do think it could be a bit of a winner for Democrats. That's my political analysis of it, Ben.
- [42:09]
D
I mean, I will say, like Brother Jones, we had like this huge constituency of readers who would constantly message us anytime we wrote anything about how anti vaxxers were mentally ill. Because there used to be this huge contingent on, on the left. It was, you know, cranky, crunchy hippies living in the Oregon coast refusing to vaccinate their children. And it was this awful, you know, shame of the Democrat. There was. We had these kooks in the Democratic Party. Oh God, we have to deal with them. And there's part of me that is like, well, at least the Republicans have. We've handed this cancer to the Republicans. And it's not just us killing children in, in Oregon. They're now the Republicans are actually killing too many children all around the country. But it is like the, the psychological thing that leads the people to go and become, you know, crazy health nut fake news people, which is the only way you can like describe it. It's so out there with various chemicals and various microplastics everywhere and there's cross cutting cleavages of it. You know, they all go in there. It's like the line about how eventually they'll all just end up eating each other like cannibals do.
- [43:20]
C
I mean, I mean experts, you know, they gave up a lot. They gave away a lot of authority. They gave away a lot of authority when they said we should invade Iraq and it's going to go well. They gave away a lot of authority. They said we should deregulate everything and they gave us a financial crisis. They gave away a lot of authority when they said we need to close schools forever because of COVID And you know, they way overdid it during COVID We needed schools open all over the country in September 2020. And so, you know, in the aftermath of I think what was massive, like really bad recommendations by experts during COVID it's really hard to stand up and say, hey, you know, we need a government that makes use of expertise and that respects expertise and that empowers experts expertise. And, and so I think, you know what, I just think about this, Ben, listening, because it's, you're right. Like this is not just right or left. This is not, you know, this is not naturally conservative or naturally progressive. But this is kind of suspicion that experts aren't really in tune with the, the actual condition of, of men, women, boys and girls, kids in the country. And, and, and they're out of touch. They're disconnected. And they, and they're not, you know, they're not really attuned. And so I think they're, you know, this is a real problem. And I think all of us who are concerned about RFK have to think hard about it. It's not just like getting one guy out of one agency. It's really about thinking about how to, how to involve experts in our democratic decision making in a way that doesn't disempower people.
- [44:53]
B
Yeah. And that's so well said and I'm glad you included the examples you did because there's something for each side of the partisan divide to be a little bit ashamed about if they want to be honest. One last question though, just out of curiosity. Ben and I love the. We were cutting out the particular cancer from our side. A cancer I guess that could be treated with echinacea if you listen to rfk. But within Mother Jones. Was there within the editorial staff at all an inclination or a constituency that said? Actually these guys have a point.
- [45:25]
D
No, not by the time I was there. I mean I was there. I got there in 2013 and was there by that time. No, the. The editorial staff was convinced that all of that was bullshit. But if you did a little looking into the archives we would constantly find things from 2003 or something like that which was the earlier regime which was saying this might be causing autism. You know, we might need to look into this. And so we'd constantly have to be going around playing whack a mole editing editor's notes to these old embarrassing stories from the earlier regime. Be like, just so you know. Actually turns out the Lancet retracted this study soon after this article was published.
- [46:04]
B
More evidence is in. Yeah.
- [46:06]
D
Yeah.
- [46:07]
B
Okay. So one fix for some of what ails us is a big one. But it's crazy enough to work. And I'll quote from Chuck Todd has a very good substack where he was writing and said in 1929 Congress passed the Reapportionment act of 1929. All the acts I guess in 1929 were of 1929. It effectively capped the House at 435 members. At the founding the Constitution set a ceiling of one rep for every 30,000 people. In practice the first Congress operated at roughly one for every 57,000. Now in 29 it was your representative represented a quarter of a million people. And now we're being represented 80000 of us almost. That's how many people put all our faith in a representative. If we uncap this it does quite a few things. It has these interesting add on effects about taking away some of the potency of the electoral college when you think about it. Because states won't swing as wildly or at least they'll be more in line with the actual will of the people. And we've been finding out all this news about Calais and redrawing districts and now we're in a tit for tat gerrymandering cycle that isn't great for politics in any direction. Even if one of the two parties can get a three seat majority, what do you think about reapportionment on two vectors? One is would it work? And two is can it ever pass?
- [47:33]
C
Russ, I love your idea. I think that, I think we need the House Representatives to be more like a thousand people where in that you know, roughly each one would, would represent 300,000 people instead of about a million people. It would pull members of Congress much much closer to real communities, to neighborhoods and cities and towns and they would know the condition of their, of their districts because their districts would be smaller and they'd be much harder to gerrymander districts because as you have more districts it's harder to gerrymander, you know, within, within states. And you know, right now out of 435 members of Congress, 400 are uncompetitive, 400 are basically safe seats. We're talking about swinging Congress. We're looking at basically 50 to 35 to 50 seats when we think about swinging Congress. And that's not, that's definitely like you know, imagine this. Imagine a Congress where every seat is safe. That's the post Calais world that I think we're looking at. You know, we're going to perfect most people in Congress. I know that is like every single seat is safe. Every incumbent can never be unseated except maybe by someone in their own party if they stray from the party line. You know, in, in one vote somewhere. This is the opposite of, of democracy. And, and yeah, rather than just have like the expect the parties to, to restrain themselves and deny themselves additional members by doing the right thing, we should just radically increase the size of Congress.
- [49:04]
D
Ben, I, I agree substantively that absolutely we should. It sounds wonderful. And of course this would never happen happen. There's sooner, sooner will sunflowers grow out of my head than Congress would vote to weaken their own power to dilute their own power. The fun part about it, I mean the reason why I don't know how well this would pull just even with normal people out there, even though it should. There's no reason for this to pull poorly. It makes perfect intuitive sense makes self interested sense for, for Congress Congress not to pass it maybe, but there's no reason for other people is that I think that there's probably something people get stuck with the number they, they, it feels like tradition. They probably don't know it ever wasn't 435. And there's then, then thoughts where they go, well, you know, we'd have to build a bigger room in Congress. They're not. We're gonna need to add some more. But you wouldn't, because there's, there's, there's a. I'm pointing up. What is it? Balconies they can find. They'll hot desk. They don't need to all be the Senate and have their own.
- [50:06]
C
Will the ballroom beat. Will the big enough for like a thousand members?
- [50:11]
D
They all get sworn in in the ballroom.
- [50:14]
B
I did a story once in South Dakota and the everyone's office there is just the desk on the floor. Leadership has an office, but everyone, like, did the desks lift up so you could put papers there? The answer is yes.
- [50:27]
C
I'm with you, Ben, on just like how dreamlike it is. But here's the thing. I kind of think that, you know, the generation of Americans who are between 15 and 30 years of age, you know, when they get their power, which I may probably not live long enough to see, but, you know, in 25 to 50 years, I think they're going to change stuff. I think they're going to radically change. I think they're going to try to reshape the constitutional order. I think they're going to pass a lot of constitutional amendments. I think they're going to really. They're going to get serious about stuff in a way that my generation just didn't. And, you know, my generation said, hey, you know, billionaires have a right to contribute as much as they want to political campaigns and campaign finance is a violation of the constant, you know, people's constitutional rights. I think this, this younger generation is going to do some radical stuff. And so I think, you know, breathing some life into these ideas, even though I'm with you totally, like, not going to happen next year. You know, I, I don't know, it might happen. We might not be around to see it.
- [51:29]
D
Yeah, I mean, I guess, I guess it's of course in the long run that once, once things get terrible enough, also if everything gets so gerrymandered that it really does stop to work after at some point, maybe Gen A or whatever we're calling them now, we'll do something about it. But I also am tempted to point out that everyone has always said that about the next generation. You know, I'm a millennial and people used to say that about us. We were the Obama generation. It sure as shit didn't take long for us to be like, all right, we're actually now suddenly we're not going to be changing anything. We're going to all we we got gay marriage passed. Now we're going to take a snooze. We'll leave it to the other kids. And I don't know. I have a feeling that every generation somehow they do. Everyone changes things. But it's also more like people are more like the last generation than they like to admit.
- [52:20]
B
I will just voice a couple of misgivings I have. One is I think it might be solving the. The wrong problem. Yeah. It will make the effects of. It will lessen the effects of gerrymandering. But the real reason to have this is to make your representatives closer to your people. And I don't know that that will happen. I don't know how many people feel like they'd love to get in touch with a representative. They just can't. How often something comes up up where you'd love to talk to your representative. I think the people who want to talk to their representative can talk to their representative and if not they're being pretty bad representatives 80000 it seems like a lot but I've always in the one or two times I've been motivated to get in touch with Yvette Clark. I've been able to my city council member in New York city. They represent 179,000 people. I don't see any difference in the accessibility of either of them. So that's one. Number two is it does diminish the standing and power and not just in a cynical way, the prestige, the importance of each individual member of Congress. I don't know how much prestige and importance they have, but they kind of do. If you meet a member of Congress they're mostly somewhat impressive serious people even though the ones that get on TV the most aren't. And that brings up my next point. Point. You're going to usher in a lot of kooks and a lot of people. The next what I'm saying is if you double the number of people in the house the lower 50% will come from the ranks of those who I think wouldn't have been there without this rule change. I also don't think the media is really up to the task of vetting and giving good information to voters so that they're probably not up to that. With the 435 we have. If you double it to 900. I don't think they're going to be great at that. I'm not against it. It'll never happen so it doesn't matter. But I Did want to ask you, Ross. I mean we were joking in the beginning. Every member of the House of Representatives in New Hampshire represents like what, 3,400 people? What's the effect of that? Is that only good or is that kind of diminished the importance and potency of a representative?
- [54:30]
C
The. And actually they tend to be clustered into, they'll be multi member districts where each person tends to represent more than just the per capita number because it's really hard to have people vote. And we don't have voting districts that are small enough for, for each member to just only represent whatever it is the 4,000 people they're supposed to represent. So I think I have 15,000 or something in my district. The. But there are a few other members in the district. So, so the, you know, it's very, it's, it's always been super controversial and progressives have since like 1900 wanted to professionalize legislatures and they thought that, you know, we would, we would sort of get rid of the partisans, the hacks, the tools of the machines and, and, and elevate politics by having, you know, people who are more educated, people who are better trained people, make a career out of specializing in politics, serve in legislatures. And if you look, the two great examples of really professional legislatures are New York and California. They get paid a lot. You can make a career out of it. And I would pit the ragtag New Hampshire legislature against the California assembly any day of the week. And I think that might be why I'm so sympathetic to the possibility of a US Congress having 800 or 1,000
- [55:53]
B
people pound for pound, the most dangerous legislature in the union. You know, in New York it's not just the money you get, it's the lulus, which are extra assignments. Everyone gets some more money on the side. A lulu there. They'll.
- [56:09]
C
I should ask the speaker in New Hampshire about where are my lulu?
- [56:12]
B
Yeah, you got to get a lulu.
- [56:13]
C
I don't have any Lulu's.
- [56:15]
B
Well, listen, I really like that segment. I probably could not qualify to get into Dartmouth, but I felt like I got a little bit of a Dartmouth education. So that was, that was really useful.
- [56:26]
C
Anytime you want to come, we'll let you in.
- [56:28]
B
I've been to Hanover. It's nice if you want to cross country ski or you know, spend a day searching the one used bookstore. So now we come to the show where we talk about those things that annoy us a little bit, the things that get our goats or grind our gears. These are our goat grinders. Ben, what if anything, have you been annoyed by these days?
- [56:51]
D
I get annoyed by the fact that people increasingly and performatively complain about how awful it is to fly on an airplane. You know, they act like that they are walking through the Sahara, that they're just rubbing shit in your face when you go on to a flight. And as somebody who flies quite regularly and doesn't fly in first class and has to deal with the normal logistical headaches of sometimes the flight is delayed and sometimes blah, blah, blah, it's amazing that we get to fly. It's cheap. We get to soar with the birds in the sky that. No, I mean, it's amazing. And even compared to the past, you sometimes see people on social media sharing photos of like a TWA ad from 1966 flying to Paris. So they're like, look, this person has Chateaubriand. We, we. They don't give us anything. On my, you know, EasyJet flight to Tallahassee or whatever is that those people were the richest kings of Europe. They were the only ones who were allowed to fly. Now trailer trash get to fly. You know, like, we all get to fly and we still get. We get there on time mostly, and we don't die. And it's. We get to touch the face of God by being in the sky for hundreds of dollars. So I think that people should just keep it in their pants a bit and stop crying so much about how they have to compete for space above the seat.
- [58:16]
B
You know, with the demise of Spirit Airlines, perhaps the, the trailer folk, as I call them, will have less of. Less available seats.
- [58:25]
C
There's some wisdom there, Ben. I like that.
- [58:27]
B
Yeah.
- [58:28]
C
Little Zen. Little Zen wisdom about flying. I'm gonna, I'm gonna try to channel that the next time I'm stuck on a tarmac. I agree.
- [58:35]
B
Every time someone says, oh, the seats are so tight, or I can't play Words with Friends during takeoff, I don't want to say, but do you think, you know, you're in an iron tube in the sky, right? There's like the trade offs to miracles, perhaps, maybe. Russ, do you have a goat grinder?
- [58:50]
C
You know, there's something right now that really is. It's, It's. It really gets to me. And I don't know what to do with the bad feeling that, that I experienced during. It's when I'm on the phone and I hear, due to high call volume, your wait time may be longer than usual. And, and this started during COVID And. And now every. Like airlines, if you call an air due to high call anytime Any day of the year due to high call volume. I just like sitting. Stop it. Just stop it. Just say, we don't care about you and for that reason we're going to make you spend the next six hours on hold. Don't, don't act that there's like some temporary phenomenon that's driving high call volume. And it's also like when you hear that, you just know, you're like, you know, you're powerless, like there's nothing you can do. And it's just going to be. And you're not going to be able to ask your question. Like, you know, your problem can't get solved. You might as well just at that point, give up, hang up. It's like, you know, there's, there's nothing left. There's. So for me, that's like, I just wish like every company out there would just go into their, like, automated attendance in their phone systems and be. And just like pull that message out. It's not fair.
- [60:02]
B
The greatest injustice, the clearest example of the triumph of hope over experience is taking them up on the. If you'd like to leave your number, we'll call you back. It's not that they don't. It's that it always goes to voicemail or you've. You're like, who the hell is a 6, 4, 7 number? I'd say like 30% of the time
- [60:20]
C
you answer it and it's like somebody who wants your money.
- [60:23]
B
Yeah, it's not all right. My goat grinder is sports related. I saw this headline. I see phrases like this all the time. Ranking the 10 worst QB rooms in the NFL. Now, if you follow football, you don't have to worry about the tight ends or the wide receivers or the running backs. You have to worry about this concept of the running back room, the quarterback room. And my ire isn't that they're trying to misdirect us to a geographical location. It's that they've invented a synecdoche where none is needed. The room just means the collection of people who play the position. And when you think about a wide receiver room, there are several wide receivers on the field at the same time. That makes sense. But a quarterback room, it's the guy who's the quarterback and then the guy who holds his clipboard. So when they ranked the 10 worst quarterback rooms at first, I was like, oh, this one is using terrible wallpaper and the chairs are uncomfortable. No, it's just ranking the 10 worst quarterbacks. And guess what? If you're one of the worst quarterbacks in the NFL, your backup isn't better than you. If he was better than you, he'd be the starter. Then you'd be the backup and the room would be the same. So the 10 worst quarterbacks are the same as the 10 worst quarterback rooms. And this injection of the room concept I have no room for and the 10 worst.
- [61:44]
C
Maybe we should just get rid of the 10 worst. This is a downer. It's a downer. Like, we don't need to know about the 10 worst.
- [61:51]
D
I would actually quite like the, like the version, the Business Insider photo gallery that is actually. This is what the room looks like. You know, the wallpaper is blue. This one. He's got a nice chair over here in the running back room. It's an odd. It's a yellow. It's springy.
- [62:06]
B
Or maybe we should actually focus on the room. And the answer isn't that Geno Smith lacks arm strength or that Daniel Jones can't read a defense. It's the. It's the feng shui was off. Their money center was where their water center should have been. Well, I want to thank you guys. Those were some great things to be annoyed at and some great insight into politics. Ben Dreyfuss, he writes the substack called Calm down. Thank you so much, Ben. Thank you. And Russ Muirhead teaches at Dartmouth and is a member of the New Hampshire House of Reps. Thank you so much, Russ.
- [62:39]
C
Great to be here. Thank you.
- [62:41]
B
And until next time, we're not saying we're right. We're not saying you're right. We are saying we're not even mad. And that's it for today's show. Corey War produces the gist. Kathleen Sykes runs the gist list. Ben Astaire is our booking producer. And Jeff Craig runs our socials. Michelle Pesca oversees it all Benevolently improve and thanks for listening.