ExplorePodcast overview and latest content

EpisodesBrowse the full episode archive

Podcast

Explore
Episodes

Recent Episodes

90. Can You Build a Political Tribe Out of the Moderates Left Behind? – Paul Chapman
DOCUMENTARY - When the State Loses Moral Legitimacy
89. The Mentalization Gap - Lura Forcum
88. The Cost of Purity and the Power of Pluralism – Allison K. Ralph
BONUS - Navigating the Outrage Industry with Corey Nathan

Links

Apple Podcasts
Overcast

About

Outrage Overload: Rethinking politics, division, and media

Outrage Overload: Rethinking politics, division, and media

Powered byPodRewind

Outrage Overload: Rethinking politics, division, and media

Episode•May 13, 2026•44 min

BONUS - Navigating the Outrage Industry with Corey Nathan

Corey Nathan joins the show to deconstruct the "Rage Merchant" business model and explore how we can strengthen our civic muscle in an era of hyper-polarization. Corey is the host of Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killing Each Other and a partner in The Democracy Group podcast network. In this conversation, we move past the surface-level bickering of the news cycle to examine why our brains are often more attracted to the dopamine hit of outrage than the slow work of nuance. We discuss the "Exhausted Majority"—the vast segment of the population that feels alienated by extreme rhetoric—and offer tactical ways to navigate difficult conversations by focusing on curiosity rather than conflict. Text me your feedback and leave your contact info if you'd like a reply (this is a one-way text). Thanks, David Support the show Show Notes: https://outrageoverload.net/ Contact me, David Beckemeyer by email outrageoverload@gmail.com. Follow the show on Instagram @OutrageOverload . We are also on Facebook /OutrageOverload . Check out our Subtstack https://outrageoverload.substack.com HOTLINE: 925-552-7885 Got a Question, comment or just thoughts you'd like to share? Call the O2 hotline and leave a message and you could be featured in an upcoming episode If you would like to help the show, you can contribute here. Tell everyone you know about the show. That’s the best way to support it. Rate and Review the show on Podchaser: https://www.podchaser.com/OutrageOverload Also check out our companion podcasts, This Week in Outrage and Outrage Science Bites. Intro music and outro music by Michael Ramir C. Many thanks to my co-editor and co-director, Austin Chen. Outrage Overload, a Conners Institute podcast, is part of The Democr...

Apple Podcasts Overcast

Transcript

0:00

We all know the outrage industry likes to keep us angry and divided. But to fix a broken system, we have to understand the people inside it. I'm asking our community to take a quick two minute quiz from Harmony Labs to find your audience wedge. Are you a builder, a referee, an investigator, or one of the other archetypes? Head to outrageoverload.net quiz right now. Take the quiz and log your archetype in our anonymous poll. We'll use the results to tailor our upcoming episodes, deep dives and interviews to help us change the channel from outrage to insight. Welcome to Outrage Overload, a science podcast about outrage and lowering the temperature. If you're new to the show, welcome. For longtime listeners, you'll notice we're doing things a little differently today. Outrage Overload is proudly part of the Democracy Group network of podcasts. Joining me today is Corey Nathan, host of Talking Politics and Religion Without Killing each Other, another show in the network. Corey's show is a masterclass in modeling how we can navigate the most high heat, personal topics, faith and policy with humanity and grace. While Corey is in the trenches of those specific issues, over here at Outrage Overload, we tend to stay in the meta lane. We look at the research, the tech, and the psychological mechanics of how we talk, rather than just what we're talking about. But despite our different angles, I'm curious to see if we might share some of the same challenges. I often hear from listeners who are looking for a fast track, an easy way to make their political opponents finally see the light. And when that doesn't happen, the result is often a deep sense of despair or cynicism. And there's a paradox here, too. We talk about lowering the temperature, but. But sometimes when we pull back the curtain to show people how they are being manipulated, especially by their own side, to see the other side as purely evil, it doesn't always lead to calm. Sometimes it just creates a new kind of outrage directed at the system itself. I'm your host, David Beckmeier, and today Corey and I are going to explore some of these dynamics. We're going to talk about why the simple story is so addictive, why nuance feels like a withdrawal symptom, and why in the attention economy designed to keep you angry to choosing to stay calm and realistic is actually a radical act of rebellion. Corey Nathan, welcome to Outrage Overload.

2:25

David, it's so good to be with you, man. Thanks for inviting me. And yeah, excited, excited about this conversation.

2:31

Yeah, awesome. So you know your show with the title, you do a great job right there. Setting up the expectation, you know, quote, unquote, without killing each other.

2:39

That's right.

2:40

So before we dive in, tell us a little bit about your show.

2:42

Sure. So without killing each other doesn't mean I can't beat them into mercy, you know, into submission. No, I'm just kidding. No, we, we started actually almost six years ago. It's, it's hard to believe it's been that long. October of 2020 was our first episode. And first of all, I just fell in love with the podcast Medium from the very first podcast I ever listened to, and it just really ignited my imagination. I, I, I think, think like a producer. So as a producer, I was thinking, oh, wow, this medium, it really lends itself to certain conversations and certain types of stories told in a uniquely candid and intimate way. And for the better part of 20 something years, I've been at these types of conversations across differences in particular, across differences in subjects that are so important, yet very few people feel comfortable talking about. So that was really the genesis of Talk of Politics and Religion Without Killing each Other. The title is kind of long and clunky, but it says exactly what it's all about and what we're trying to do. And it started because we didn't have a title, and we kept on talking about what it was going to be and, okay, the thing talking politics and religion, language, and it just stayed as a title. So, yeah, we've been at it five and a half, six years. And the best part is obviously the work that we're doing. And you and I are shoulder to shoulder in this effort, the civic renewal effort, you know, so that, that the mission of it is, is really special. But one of the coolest things is the folks who've been willing to come on the show. I'm not somebody who comes from politics or academia or journalism. I'm a nobody in that world. And yet we've had so many really terrific people. And I've been, I've been honored to be able to talk with so many of the folks that I've been reading their work or admiring their careers as elected officials, and it's just been a real, real encouragement in otherwise troublesome times.

4:47

Yeah, and speaking of that, on this show, you know, we've talked to a lot of scientists about, you know, how people in general, it's just a tendency of humans, we're sort of attracted to simple narratives. You know, like our brain likes it and it kind of keeps things simple and we keep moving forward. And in particular, you know, with this sort of outrage machine out there. We do love this narrative of sort of our side is good and their side is evil.

5:10

Yeah.

5:10

And that, you know, that moral reinforcement is satisfying and it creates this kind of strong gravitational pull toward that kind of content. And I was wondering, and I think about how that makes somewhat difficult for the kind of, you know, sort of more calm and reasonable content that we're producing. And you know, how does it, how can our, how can our more common and reasonable content sort of break through? Do you have any thoughts on that? Or will we always be sort of fighting an uphill battle against the merchants of outrage?

5:40

Yeah, the merchants of outrage are selling crack and we're trying to sell broccoli and cauliflower.

5:45

Yeah.

5:46

And there's some very concrete ways that that is the case. So studies have been done where the appealing to audiences fear, anger, hatred, these, these negative emotions, it evokes the same chemical reaction as if someone took a hit of crack. So I'm only half joking when I make that comparison. But you know, hey, listen, we can have fun on this side too. But, but you're right. We're, we're trying to make the case for, for real, substantive, nuanced vert for virtues are collective civic virtues, while a proven, a proven business model, at least from a bottom line standpoint, is something very different than, than what we're doing. But I believe that, I believe that what we're doing is, is good. I believe that what we're doing is, is appealing to the truth and are better angels as, as, as Lincoln would have said. And I, I, that's why, that's why I've been able to do 400 plus episodes of this thing, you know, and not always making money at it. You know, we're not, we're doing it because it's something we, it's not just that we believe in our show. It's that we believe in our country. We believe in our neighbors. We believe in the people who are coming on and joining us. We believe in the fol smartly and acutely making the diagnosis for what's broken in our democracy and, and the privilege of being a part of, of solving it, of healing what's broken in, in our world. That that's something I, I could keep on every time I get knocked down and see somebody else's numbers doing great. Who is a rage merchant, you know, a conflict entrepreneur. I, the, the reason I keep on getting up and doing it again is because I'll get an email from, from Jeffrey Rosen was on our show Last week, we just released that episode. Somebody who is just one of our generation's most brilliant constitutional scholars. So every time I get knocked down, I get an email like that, and I'm just incredibly encouraged. So that's why. That's why we got to keep on. And broccoli's pretty tasty. If you put a little cheese on it, some, you know, oil.

8:10

Not so bad.

8:11

Yeah, it's not so bad. So there you go.

8:14

Yeah, I mean, I feel the same way when I get those kind of notices from listeners and stuff. Just, it doesn't take that many, you know, to kind of keep you going in this. In this space. You know, I listen to a lot of podcasts. I don't. I don't reach out and send emails that often. So I know for every email I'm getting, there's a lot of other folks that probably have similar thoughts but aren't reaching out.

8:32

Yeah.

8:33

You know, I mentioned in the opening there a little bit about this idea of sometimes people are sort of looking for a fast track path towards sort of fixing the other side. Um, and, you know, have you seen that, like that maybe not with the guests that you're getting, but, I mean, have you found that people sometimes are not looking for a bridge at all, but. But they're looking for a better weapon?

8:52

Yeah. So we are fighting an uphill battle. We're, you know, the training that a lot of folks get when they do put their toe in the water of the. This public square, such as it is these days, is very short. Attention Spanish. Just these hits, these. What do you call it, the. The chemical dopamine type things. Dopamine hits. Yeah. Thank you. So we're fighting against something, something else, but, you know, we're still all human beings and there's something deep within us that when we see truth, we. We see something beautiful, we see something serendipitous or something that appeals to over transcendent equanimity. There's something that really resonates deep inside of us. I think we're longing for it. You know, we. So people respond to it when they. When they find themselves in it. And sometimes it takes a little while. Sometimes you have to work up to, you know, five minutes of attention, 10 minutes of attention, an hour's worth of attention. You know, sometimes you have to work up to leading with curiosity, being more curious than furious as. As Braver Angels says. But there's something deep within us that we long for, that we long for human, because we're all human beings. And we long for connection with other human beings, so that is awakened. And even though we have to, as folks who. Who are curating these conversations, we have to kind of muddle through a lot of garbage. There's so much gold, there's so much good stuff underneath that, you know, and. And it. It's on any number of different platforms. Like, we're doing it here on a podcast and, you know, there are social media platforms, believe it or not. I've discovered. Well, I discovered substack a long time ago, but I just started getting active there, and the engagement there is really just. It's really wonderful. People. The way I describe it is people actually read the articles. It's, you know, so I, you know, and then. And then even folks that I've had long disagreements with who watch different news programs or in different social media sites than I am, when I actually meet him out for a beer or hop on a zoom with him. And even just connecting, you know, in. In that way, I'm. I mean, I'm. I'm pleasantly surprised again and again at how we can cut through the divisiveness and. And we can get to a point where we actually do see each other as human beings. So I think a lot more folks see each other as neighbors than what the rage entrepreneurs would have you believe.

11:30

Yeah. And what's interesting about that, that I've observed, is that we're often pretty fearful of these kind of conversations, and we're subconsciously fearful we're going to have our mind changed or we're going to find out something we thought was true is not true. And sometimes that happens, and that can be a little destabilizing, and we do

11:49

miss the dopamine hits.

11:50

But when you're able to get past that, I mean, some neuroscientists tell me I'm getting all the technical stuff wrong, but it sort of pushes into the sort of cortisol idea or whatever, right. We're now. Now it's an even deeper, deeper thing that feels a lot better than that little dopamine hit that goes away really fast, you know, because we've had this conversation now, we understand the nuance better, and we understand a lot of those fears that we previously had. You know, sort of aren't there as much anymore because we're able to get past that. And I'll. And so few people are able to experience that because we're so caught up in the fear of trying it, you know, and experiencing it, that we end up sort of stuck in that other side Right.

12:26

Yeah, that's right. And that's. That's buried deep within our, you know, our instincts. You know, if we were. If we're getting looked at by a whole bunch of people, it's kind of like going back to caveman times. If you stumbled upon a different tribe, you're walking by yourself, you stumble upon a different tribe, you know, a kind of a clan of. Of other people or humanoids, and then all of a sudden, all of these eyes are looking at you. It usually meant you were about to get a bunch of rocks t statue, you know, so there is something in our instincts or. Or if you feel like you're being watched, you know, that it might be the lion that's watching you that's about to. To leap on you. But. So there is a reason, I think, instinctively that we're scared, that we have these fears and these fight or flight tendencies that are instinctive to us. But we can use. We can use our. Our own humanity and draw upon, you know, I. I happen to be a religious guy, so, you know, heart, soul, mind, and strength is a big thing. So we can use, you know, our. We can exert effort, we can use our mind, we can use the transcendent within us, we can use our emotions and channel our emotions in a positive way to connect with people again. Even. Even if it means that we might have our mind changed about something, you know, but that. That's a whole other conversation, because changing one's mind, we have this. You. You touched on something, and forgive me for filibustering a little bit here, but the impression is that we're going to enter into these conversations and either one person is going to completely agree with the other, or vice versa. That's not how this stuff works. Usually it's one conversation at a time, and if there's any persuasion, it's one degree at a time. That's what I found after having hundreds, if not thousands of these conversations, whether it's online or in person, you know, that we. We can make headway with someone, but the irony and the ability to make headway to be persuasive, is when we're most persuadable, you know, and it's not to say there are certain things where the hell is going to freeze over before I vote for certain individuals. But it's not to say that I'll vote that I could be persuaded to do that, but I can be persuaded to have a better understanding of why someone else did so. That's what I mean by degrees, you know, there's, there's more nuance there. And, and by being able to be open to that, to see someone else's humanity that way, then they're much more open to me introducing, oh, maybe I don't know if you thought of it this way, but you know, so there, there's, it's, it's a two way street, as any human relation would be.

15:12

Yeah, for sure. What I wanted to go, you know, talking about, you know, having a lot of these kind of conversations. One of the critiques that, that, that I see, and you may, may see this too, that sort of, you know, a lot of people say, well, it just seems like this is something that's for the common, reasonable people. It's, you know, and it's like, it's easy to have a civil conversation with someone who's kind of already on board with that. But I think sometimes people think about this and they think about political division and they're not thinking about sort of a research paper or anything like that. They're thinking about Uncle Jack at Thanksgiving. Right. And maybe he's not always civil and maybe has some extreme views and he's not really interested in these kind of rules of engagement. So I know you've dealt with this kind of thing a bit on the show, but. And in your personal life. So tell us about that a little bit.

15:55

Sure. So first of all, everyone's reasonable. At least most people, I should say, most people are reasonable. But almost everyone thinks they're reasonable.

16:06

Right, for sure. Yeah.

16:08

That's what, and sometimes that's what makes, you know, people who are off the charts seem even more off the charts is that they're in their kind of wacky whatever they think they're being perfectly reasonable. You know, almost every person I've ever spoken to thinks that they're the center, you know.

16:25

Right.

16:26

Um, so, so understanding that. And then even if you completely disagree with that notion and you're looking at the world of, you know, the, the spectrum of different political views, social views, and you know, this person is, is way out there. I, I, so I've, I've literally spoken to people who believe that the earth is flat, but they, to them it makes perfect sense, you know, so they are way, let's face it, I don't know if you have any flat earthers out there in your audience, but like the guy that I spoke to, he doesn't understand how nobody else is seeing this. To him it makes perfect sense. So even though I feel no obligation to grant the seriousness of such a Hypothesis what I can do is I can see the seriousness of the human being of the person that I'm looking at, the person that I'm engaging with and to take him seriously and at least to try to almost like a Sherlock Holmes, like a, to, to uncover where does that, where, where does that come from? How did you start to develop that theory? Why is that important to you? You know, and, and is this connected to other beliefs that you have like so uncovering that person's story and where I'm using an extreme example obviously but just to say that there, there is a way to connect with that person, you know, and again it's not, it's not that I'm going to convince this person that no, the, the earth is, is not flat dude. But what I can at least convince the person is there is at least one human being that's going to take you seriously. Not take your. And, and again I don't have to cede the ground of like oh, I guess the earth is flat. You know, I'm not going to do that because that's part of taking him seriously. Part of taking him seriously is not pretending that, that he, that there's any merit to this hypothesis that he's posed. And I think he, I think he respected that. So we're not going to convince somebody in one conversation. There are a spectrum of, a broad spectrum of people you come across. You are right that I mean especially if you go to a broad based study like the more in Kantov now infamous more in common study from 2018, the Hidden Tribe study. About 85% of us were, are what's called the exhausted majority, you know and it's only about 6 or 7% of the extreme right as you would think of it or 7 or 8% of the extreme left as we would think of it that are extremes in a more objective sense, a more scientific sense as they quantified it. So you're right that there's a good chunk of us that are not to say that we're in the middle, but we can sit down at Thanksgiving dinner, you know, and then accounting for Uncle Stan at Thanksgiving, who's, who's coming in with the whatever hat and coming in hot. He's coming in hot. You know, even Uncle Stan, I have a few, a few rules and sometimes the rule unfortunately is I do have to set a clear boundary where you know, we've tried this and if he's hit a couple of my buttons and isn't coming in good faith, isn't coming with Goodwill, then, no, you haven't earned. You've lost the right to be in these conversations with me. But you have to go really, really far for me to get to that point. As long as I've been doing having these types of conversations, I can still count on one hand how many times I've had to discontinue a conversation and even discontinue friendships. And usually that's when it goes so far as I come from a Jewish background, you know, so it usually has to do with when I realized that somebody crossed the line when it comes to anti Semitism, for example. That was one instance. Other instances, you know, not to go too deep into the examples, but they were pretty extreme and very, very rare examples when I actually did have to cut somebody off.

20:26

Yeah, that's a good point. And I want to go into one little part of that as well, because I think you've talked about how, you know, contempt can end conversations, and it

20:37

relates a little bit back to what

20:38

you were saying to a little. What I wanted to ask about kind of relates to what you were saying before, too, is that everybody sort of thinks they're the center and everyone else is weird. Right?

20:45

Yeah, yeah.

20:46

It's a little bit like contempt sometimes, too. Like the thing I'm saying isn't contemptuous, it's, you know, just a fact. Right. Or something like that.

20:52

Right.

20:53

Because most of us kind of don't really want to be, especially face to face, maybe in social media a little bit more, but in a sort of live conversation. Most of us kind of don't just want to sit there and call people names, but often people just don't even recognize that they're doing that.

21:05

I mean.

21:05

I mean, talk about that a little bit.

21:08

Yeah. So a couple of things that, that really do trouble me. One is when someone else is labeling me in any way, especially when they haven't taken the time to listen to me. That'll often happen when I start to. I'm trying to start to recognize when it's happening before it happens and before I get upset about it. Because, listen, I'm a human too, and sometimes I go off the rails. So I'm trying to recognize when I'm starting to get hot myself. One of the things that will make me hot is when somebody isn't asking me questions in good faith, they're asking me questions in an. In a interrogative way. They're interrogating me. They're not curious about what. What I. How I. What I believe about something. So that's that's, can you give an

21:53

example what that sounds like?

21:56

So, yeah. So a lot of times when you know, you're entering into a conversation with someone, whether you've talked about an event, hey, let's get to get, get together for a beer and talk about Iran or whatever it might be, a lot of times, especially in today's climate, folks will be driving to that pub or wherever, coffee shop, wherever you're meeting, and they're rehearsing what they're going to say because for whatever reason they might have a favorite show that they listen to and they listen and try to memorize the opening soliloquy of Matt Walsh or whoever their favorite punt, you know, Hannity or Rachel Maddow or whoever their favorite pundit is. And, and in their head, they'll be rehearsing these talking points. Not only will they be rehearsing the talking points, they will be anticipating what I'm gonna say about it or what their interlocutor is going to say about it, to which they know how they're going to respond like they're playing three dimensional chess before we even said a word. So I start to recognize that partly because I listen to the shows and I know what the talking points are, but partly because it's a learned pattern and an assumed acceptable way of talking. So I have certain ways of calling that out without putting the person on defensive. I'll say, hey, listen, I know, I know that when we talk about Trump's, you know, the, the emoluments that, that are being strained here, the emoluments clause that's being strained here, or you know, the article one, in a couple different places, it's being strained where there's a, tariffs are going to war. I know that it's, it's natural for you to talk about. Well, other presidents have done it. What do you think about this, this and this. My response might be whether it's okay, what if I tell you I will never vote for Hunter Biden, can we move on and talk about this subject? You know, I'll try to be lighthearted about it. At other times, I might just be really blunt and I'll say, listen, man, Biden isn't my guy. Like, we're not talking about Biden right now. We're talking about a specific moment in time that we're participating in and we're funding. So can we talk about that? And I have no need to defend who the, whatever it is on the other side of the. What about that? You just said, I Have no need to defend that. So, you know, I'm not team this or team that. I'm taught I'm Team America. I'm team Constitution. So let's talk about that, you know, so I'll have a way of reflecting back and sharing with that person, hey, this is what you're doing. I have no need to participate on that playing field. Let's connect as human beings. Or I might switch to a different subject. Instead of talking about the issue itself, I'll talk about the human being. You know, that seems really important to you. And I, you know, at the same time, I'm not, I don't feel a need to answer your question, you know, because they're. Sorry, I'm not answering your question, by the way, directly, but it'll often happen. Well, what do you think about this? And what about that? And you know, what about. I don't know, they'll go back to whatever president they didn't like, you know, and they'll want to make me defend ground that isn't mine to defend. So I'll call that out, but I'll switch, I'll switch gears and I'll answer a question with a question. Hey, man, what? Why do you feel so passionately about that? That seems like it's really important to you, you know, and then I'm talking about that. I'm allowing that person to talk about themselves. I'm allowing that person to share their story. So I'll switch the playing fields altogether. Not to try to be a better combatant, you know, or a better rhetorical ping pong player, but to be a better human connector. Right. And it changes the entire context. Sometimes they just don't want to have it because they're there for a fight. And if that's the case, I'm either not interested or I, I'll be. I'll use some sort of rhetorical jiu jitsu and use their own weight to, to, to bury them. Not that that's what I want to do, but what I want to do is I want to snuff out the contentiousness more so than the person who is contending. Does that make sense? Am I contradicting myself? I don't even know if I'm contradicting myself now.

26:18

No, no, but one, but one thing you pointed out there I think is, I really want to note is that, you know, one time sometimes we're. We. You're talking about kind of the idea we're driving to the conversation and we got all these talking points in our Head and this kind of stuff. And because sometimes we're also kind of afraid that they're going to call us on something we don't know. Some fact we don't know or some.

26:38

And that's okay.

26:39

Exactly.

26:39

It's perfect. Like, hey, dude, that's not my area of expertise. But, you know, I could do some reading. We could talk about it. You want me to read something that's cool, like. But I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in whatever, I don't know, 1763 case that you're talking, like, I don't know, like. And that's okay.

26:55

And what you said there, I think is a really good strategy for people to have kind of in their toolbox. You could say something like, what you said, like, you know, wow, you're really concerned about that, right? Yeah, that's a good one. And I think there's also kind of. How'd you come to know about that? How long have you been bothered by this. This kind of thing? Right. Sometimes that can take them down a path where you'll learn more about how they're coming to get their information to. And learn more about their information landscape.

27:16

Yeah. The key. I think the key, again, is curious over furious. So if I am genuinely curious about that other person, they get to feel heard and seen, and it changes the whole tenor of the conversation. The other part of that, too, is while they might be driving and rehearsing talking points and anticipating my moves and their moves and game theory, you know, whatever. I'm. If I. I used to. I used to drive to these things and prepare for these things in that way. Now I prepare in a very different way. I prepare my demeanor. I'm not preparing comebacks. I'm preparing my demeanor because I have to prepare myself not to want to punch some guys in the throat. So I have to prepare myself to have the demeanor of wanting to see someone, of being in the mindset where there's a possibility that I can arrive at that moment when I say, oh, wow, I never thought of it that way. That's interesting. And then the person feels seen and heard, and it's just. There's something that really changes when you really see someone and you really, you really hear someone. Because a lot of times somebody who comes with their dukes up, it usually means they got calluses because they haven't been heard, you know, And I got people I love who that's. That's been the case and I've been culpable in it. But when I come back and I say, oh man, I, man, I didn't understand that, but I want to try, I want to try to understand it. It changes everything.

28:38

Yeah, yeah. And anything that can sort of steer us away from these sort of talking point arguments, because they're never going anywhere.

28:46

No, no. I mean, except if you're going to convince me that the Yankees are just awesome, then that conversation. I'm going to fight you all day, every day.

28:54

Right.

28:54

Well, if we could limit our fights or sports teams, I mean, that would probably be a good thing.

28:58

Yeah, there you go.

29:00

I want to talk about another critique, you know, that I, that I hear about and I think it's got some validity, a critique of sort of the bridge building movement, you know, that, that it's overrepresented by folks on the left. And, but, and taking that even further, I've heard concerns like, you know, people say things like, hey, building bridges is just, you know, sort of code for getting me to, getting conservatives to act more like liberals. What are some of your thoughts on that?

29:24

So the stats are, are, bear that out. There are more folks on the left. I, I'm going to sound like I'm, I was talking about myself before, but I'm, I'm truly centered. So the two years ago when Braver Angels had a national convention, they gave everybody who attended a survey and they, for anybody who said they're independent or centrist or inversion thereof, they're like, no, really, you're not really one, are you? Like, no, really, I am because, I mean, just this latest election, I voted for, just as an example, I voted for a Republican for state Senate, vocally supported her and actually just saw her over the weekend, I voted for a Democrat for U.S. house. So just to be out of the closet in terms of like my own demeanor, I'm actually a conservative. In normal times, like I would say from anytime from at least 1945 through 2015, most folks would have labeled me some version of conservative, whether it's a, a Buckley and conservative, a Jack Kempion conservative, a Alex P. Keaton type conservative one way or the other. But in the era of Trump, to me, Trump isn't a philosophical, political or theological conservative. So I've been anti Trump from the day he came down the golden escalator. So anyway, I, I'm, I'm, you know, I'm an independent in that regard, but in a lot of ways a right of center independent. But, but, yeah, so in these bridge building movements there are a plethora of folks who are left of center or or further left. I do think though, that there is a strong ballast towards civic engagement, towards centrist, but not centrist in terms of squishy, moderate centrist in terms of pluralists, folks who see the unum in e pluribus Unum. Right. So, and, and it is harder to find folks that are supportive of Trump because something that is, something that is a primary feature of Trumpism is, is the us versus them mentality. So it's very valued to find folks out of the larger MAGA coalition who are willing to engage, who do recognize that the, you know, that this us versus them mentality isn't doing anybody any good. So that that's just part of the problem that we have to reckon with. But the good news is, again, looking at a really good recent survey, I think it was more common as well. Gosh, I should know this off the top of my head, but they, it was more common in the MAGA survey, the beyond MAGA study. Yeah, yeah. The four categories, the four large categories of the MAGA coalition, there are a number of folks in that a and a large, I want to say a majority of folks in that larger coalition that aren't as hardcore that, that it's not being anti left isn't necessarily central to their belief. Now there is a, a certain percentage of them who are, but there's a good chunk of them who are not. So I, I, I think that there's plenty of folks out there, even folks who voted for Trump in this last election, that, that, that not only want to have a more cohesive society, not that we have to agree on everything, but just being able to hang out, you know, at the Memorial Day barbecue with your neighbors and who don't see folks who voted differently as the enemy. So the, the numbers, the numbers bear that out.

33:17

Yeah, for sure. And what's the. So, so is there have you had folks on your show that are pretty far, right?

33:25

Yeah. So during the first administration, we had a lot of folks that were with the administration. Not so coincidentally. A lot of the folks that we had on in 2021, 2022 ended up being the folks that left the administration for one reason or another. There's at least, gosh, more than a half dozen of them in recent years. I have friends who've come on the show who, who voted for Trump. The more important ones aren't the ones necessarily that are coming on the show. They're the folks that I am meeting at the pub or the coffee shop or what have you. So those, you know, not to say that folks who come on the show, it's not important, but I would say that the actual relational work that's being done isn't being done with microphones on. So, you know, I've had a few folks on, actually just last month, my buddy Wilk Wilkinson, who's with Braver Angels. Yeah, he, he would be part of the reluctant right in that beyond MAGA study. But, man, he and I just always have a great time talking and I understand his thinking better every time I talk to him. And we still, you know, disagree on, man, I just. There's so much that we disagree about, but we, we have such a good time when we get together that the differences seem. Not that we can. Not that I can convince him to change his mind about the stuff that we disagree about, but they just seem manageable. We can hold space in the room, you know, for our disagreements. As passionately as I disagree on some of the votes that he's taken, it's still manageable. And, and that's. I think that's. That's kind of the point. That's. That this American experiment, that's. That's kind of the point.

35:02

Yeah. I mean, you know, we talk about a lot of people, I should say, sort of talk about in this bridge building work, you know, you're trying to get us all, you know, you know, to sort of agree on everything and take us to the smushy middle and all that. I mean, I. If there's a common ground of some sort that I'm striving for, sort of as part of the democracy group, it's more about some kind of shared vision. You know, it doesn't necessarily mean these individual things, but, you know, and I'm. I don't know. I mean, I'm. I'm challenged a little bit to believe, you know, to see us getting to that shared vision with how, you know, sort of bitterly divided we are. I mean, what are some of your thoughts on that?

35:40

You know, I was listening to Jane Kamensky recently, another great constitutional scholar. And the purpose, one of the things that she said is she was talking about a few rivals, historic rivals from the Founders, Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton, famously, Thomas Jefferson and Adams, famously. And one of the things that she noted from looking at their correspondence and some of the things they wrote in parallel with each other, some of the things that they supported. She said the purpose of civil discourse is not to make you change your mind, it's to make you share your mind. Right. So part of it's a. It's a really Important act because as I sometimes as I'm sitting with a compatriot and I have to share a point of view that I think they disagree with, I have to share that point of view in such a way that, that not only can I understand it, but hopefully they can understand it, you know, and remembering that part of that point isn't to try to like, like Shane Kamensky said, to make them change their mind, but to at least share my mind. And for, and vice versa. Because too often we're, we're boiling in our own pots, you know, and, and they're, we, we won't, we'll never come together. So if at least we're seasoned, we're each seasoned by an understanding of each other's points of view. There's something to that, about being able to share space together, being able to live on the same street with each other without, you know, just, without that resentment boiling up about what you assume they think or what you assume they think think of you. You know, that's, it's a, it's, it's a toxic mix to keep, to keep each other, to keep us separated. That's part of the brilliance, the evil brilliance, but brilliance nonetheless of that, that. Carl Schmidt, us versus them political philosophy. Keep them separated, you know, and they could do a lot more damage that way.

37:47

Yeah, for sure. So for a listener who's, you know, sort of becoming a bit cynical and maybe suffering some despair and they're sort of seeing the nature of this kind of sense of sort of a rigged system, what is a, maybe a first step towards building some kind of resilience? I mean, how do they stay involved and civically and care about politics without sort of becoming manipulated by the system?

38:16

You know, this might sound counterintuitive, but I, I, One of my kids is that way. If not, at least two out of three of my kids are that way, where there's a desperation and a cynicism that's built up and a frustration. And at least in one of the kids, if not both of them that are in that kind of zone, I see it as. Idealism way, because the individual has an imagination for what this American experiment could be. And the frustration is because we're so far removed from what it could be. That's an idealism. And I love that. I love that. I feel for their frustration. I feel for. And I, I understand the cynicism that's built up. And I, But I don't. Wow. I want to. Like they say, the first step is admitting it. So Admit your own cynicism, and a lot of folks do. Own it. That's great. Okay, own it. But at the same time, don't ruin it. Hold on to your idealism, I say, but let's, let's get past that cynicism now. Part of it is that the actual work itself is gonna look a lot different than being able to snap your fingers and, and make change, whatever that looks like. So hold on to the idealism. You have an ideal of what that perfect picture looks like. You're not going to get there. You might not even get there during your lifetime. That's okay. But what, what success looks like. What success looks like is what, what Heschel talked about, the sanctity in the mundane. And that's, that's one, what we were talking about before. One conversation, one degree at a time. That's the work. So you talk about a movement that really changed history. You get One student, the SNCC, you know, doctor, Dr. King's movement. Get one student on one lunch counter bench, on one chair, and they have, you know, everything from, from gravy to, to, you know, soda, to getting spit on, to getting kicked. But to, to, to persist through that, to persist through the attacks, and especially because we were all watching, the country was watching, you know, and, and the, the, the, the degrees that were changed with that one act, because it wasn't just one student. It was a lot of different students doing the same thing, you know, and, and many students over many weeks and many months doing that, and then millions of eyes seeing that. That's what got things changed, you know, so sometimes one conversation might not seem like much, but the fact that you and I are, to. We didn't know each other, what, a month ago? The fact that you and I are talking about it, you know, 500 miles apart, I don't know how many miles apart, but we're hundreds of miles apart, right? And somehow we connected. I went to, I went to a get together, a symposium in Denver a few weeks ago with another one of our colleagues, Liz Joiner, and, and there were, you know, there were dozens, if not hundreds of us there. So a lot of folks are feeling this sense of frustration, even allowing that cynicism, but the fact that we're all feeling it and the fact that we're all looking for something to do about it, we're all kind of leaning in the same direction. So I say hold on to the idealism, but get past the cynicism and do something about it. Even if that's something, it's just getting a coffee with somebody who's a little different, who thinks different than you, who watches different news programs or different watches, you know, listens to different podcasts than you. Because you are doing something. You are doing something by not giving up on that ideal. That's. I don't know. That's the best I could come up with, at least on Fly.

42:20

That's great.

42:22

Yeah. That's awesome.

42:22

Yeah.

42:23

Well, I mean, I think that's so good we can end it there. So, Corey Nathan, thank you so much for making time for our show.

42:29

David, I'm so glad that you included me in this, man. It's good to be with you. And yeah, let's do it again.

42:35

Yeah, 100%. And I enjoy speaking with you. Thanks again.

42:48

That is it for this episode of the Outrage Overload podcast. For links to to everything we talked about on this episode, go to outrageoverload.net Outrage Overload is a Connors Institute podcast. The Connors Institute for Non Partisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University works to disseminate high quality, non partisan information

43:07

to the American public around issues of

43:09

societal well being, democracy promotion and news literacy. If you found this episode valuable, please share it or leave a review.

43:17

It really helps.

43:18

Thanks for listening and I'll catch you next time.

43:41

This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.

BONUS - Navigating the Outrage Industry with Corey Nathan

0:00

0:00