319- Common Ground, Not Common Enemies with Nathan Smolensky

We confront tribal habits, set aside ego, and explore how to disagree without scorched-earth rhetoric. Nathan Smolensky shares tools for curiosity, active listening, and clear messaging, plus a realistic path for independents in a system built for two.

• defining the problem of outrage-first politics
• using curiosity to lower defenses
• active listening as a repeatable habit
• balancing humility with confidence in your voice
• replacing coded language with clear, simple words
• designing conversations to test ideas, not people
• moving from fact fights to shared guardrails on power
• concise, story-led messaging supported by data
• opportunities for independents beyond purple states
• spoiler fears, closed primaries, and reform
• realistic optimism and strategic action
• when to disengage and redirect your effort

Follow Nathan Smolensky

His website

https://nathansmolensky.com/

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61578763780653

LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathan-c-smolensky-99279821/

Substack

https://substack.com/@unifire

Follow Braver Angels to join tough but civil political conversations.

https://braverangels.org/

Chapters

• 0:00 Setting The Stage: Beyond Ego
• 2:45 Meet Nathan And The Book’s Mission
• 6:50 From Rhetoric To Persuasion
• 10:55 Curiosity And Active Listening
• 17:40 Confidence, Humility, And Rapport
• 24:05 Common Language Over Common Facts
• 30:05 Third Parties And Viable Paths
• 38:20 Spoilers, Primaries, And Reform
• 46:10 Strategy, Optimism, And Action
• 53:05 Social Media And Generational Habits
• 1:01:20 Book Details, Invites, And Resources
• 1:08:00 Host CTAs And Closing Reflections

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:12

Welcome everyone to politically high tech with your host, Allies, for your edutainment. That's what I call it. It's not original, so don't say I've stolen anything, right? I know somebody likes to be accusatory without proof. You know, you're the court of public opinion, not the true court. So sometimes I don't care about your opinion unless I can find gold that is trapped among dirt. A lot of it is dirt. Yes. I'm saying that's why I told you if you want me to, if you want me to take you seriously, be constructive, be specific. And if you want to prove me wrong, even have evidence or quote me or, you know, just make sure you or look, I don't care if I be challenged, I don't care if I've been correct. I don't have the largest ego. I mean, don't give me wrong. Actually, sometimes I do. I'll be lying. But look, I like to be challenged because I want to make sure this country's going the right direction. If it was about my ego, trust me, I'll just do a monologue, just say how great I am and how stupid everybody is. And then trust me, this guest will have I'm just wasting his time, okay? This guest who I'm referring to, and we need this conversation more often. And look, I'm bringing just more because look, do I I used to love being part of the chaos, I used to love the trolling and all of that. But I've seen it's gotten out of hand, okay? And you can say I kind of evolved. And you if you were talking about me, like the first Trump running, I was enjoying the troll train. I was just making fun of people and being a bit of an a-ho. But after seeing how chaotic it got, to the point that I actually started growing a bit of a conscience, political conscience, that is, not human conscious, but the political conscience, then yes, uh, yeah, we gotta change. This is too much chaos, even for me. But with that being said, we're gonna resolve, try try to resolve some of this chaos right now with our guest, Nathan Smolensky. Okay. And we are gonna try to attack this tribalism, hyperpartisanship. It's not it, you know. I and I have to keep repeating this. Disagreement doesn't equal hate, but you treat it that way. You act like you're attacked when you disagree. I don't get it. I can understand they say you're stupid or you're a crazy person, you are blank blank blank. Yeah, that is a personal attack. But they're saying your idea is not great or dumb because of A, B, C, and D. And listen carefully, people, because a lot of y'all don't want to listen. Then, you know, that's more attack ideas. I'm more for attacking ideas, but you want to attack the person, then you're you're part of the problem for sure. So let me end this monologue and let's let Nathan introduce himself to our listeners and viewers. What do you want them to know about?

SPEAKER_02: 2:53

Uh so I'm Nathan Smolensky. I am a political consultant strategist and author. And relevant to this conversation, I am the author of Common Ground from the Ground Up. It is a book on the power of healthier political communication for both self-improvement and societal betterment. And as people would hope to see from such a book, the tools to engage in it and what it takes in terms of mindsets, frameworks, and conversational techniques so that you can enjoy more productive, more constructive political dialogue.

SPEAKER_00: 3:28

Yeah, but that's not the first time I've introduced someone who was trying to do to do this, okay? And we just up the bar a little bit. A little unfair. Well, uh, maybe. But hey, because the problem's getting worse, and I have more specific, even better framing questions. Let's just say that. Uh the ones that got in early, you know what? Some you know what's an advantage about being early? Yeah, you got your stuff out there. But you know what all you know's a disadvantage of being early, you have a better chance of being forgotten if you're not good. So it's actually kind of fair if you think about it. If I would just provide my BS, maybe. We there's a comment section, debate your opinion. Some of some some of your criticism is valid. Anything you want, seeing you want to add something, go right ahead.

SPEAKER_02: 4:10

I mean, just to anyone else in this space, I think that kind of ties in well because you know people may see this book, people see may see what I'm doing as a response to the parts in politics of today, to the Republicans and the Democrats yelling at each other and all this divisive stuff. In a sense, it is, but it's also a response to what's been done in the bridging space in the past and what I've seen there, because I'm kind of frustrated by it sometimes. And this was part of the inspiration for the book, which was seeing, like, okay, we're in these spaces and we're talking about how civil discourse is great. Wouldn't it be great if we were more positive and nice to each other? Okay, and everyone's nodding along, and we're kind of, I don't want to uh put too vulgar a label on it, but you know, we're all patting ourselves on the back for being civil and doing politics better, and then we're trapped in our own bubble. And once we get out of that bubble, you don't know how to address uh just the energy people have, the passion people have, and you may talk a lot about how virtuous you are. People may not be inclined to agree, and then what's your case for viability? Why should people believe that any of this is worth it? So, my approach, where I think a lot of people in MySpace, people in the bridging, like let's let's talk to each other, let's you know, do this more civilly and more constructively, seem to insinuate or will use the phrase that these things aren't worth fighting for. I think you can't just assume that because you're gonna have so many people who reject that. Politics may well be worth fighting over. That doesn't mean the fighting works. And the case that I'm trying to make is hey, these constructive techniques get you further in advocating for what you believe, in persuading other people to understand, to listen to the ideas you have and to appreciate the values that you're presenting. And that is where I think real progress can come. That is where I think there's potential for growth and potential for an idea like mine to spread.

SPEAKER_00: 6:21

Hey, that's a good case right there, people. Yep, because I look, I could agree, look, I agree with what the problem is. Yep, their own bubble, echo chambers, tribalism, wherever the heck you want to call it. Essentially the same thing. People just, you know, like to agree with their size. Oh, yeah, let's go. You know, I could give a progressive example and a conservative example. Did with the progressive example is, oh, yeah, we want to tax the rich, yeah, tax the rich, but say that to a conservative and say, no, you want to drive them a rail. You crazy you communist? You got a problem.

SPEAKER_02: 6:54

Well, I mean, it's so popular, and you're hitting on the point of this tone of the way we're used to hearing about politics and we're used to talking about politics. It's this moral declarative. It's, you know, billionaires are a plague on society, or we got to get these criminals out of here, or, you know, this kind of grand rhetoric. It's not meant to persuade. It's not ever built for that. It's built to rile up preach to the choir. And the reason it's so pernicious and so prevalent is because that's what works in politics and media. They don't have to play to the other side. They know that they're voters, they're donors, they're volunteers, you know, in politicians' cases, and then their viewers, in the case of a lot of legacy media and social media, they're people who agree with them anyway. So they don't build it to persuade, they build it to energize. And the problem is when we as individuals are trying to replicate that way of talking about politics, and suddenly we realize it doesn't really get us far in conversation. You can't talk to people like that who don't agree with you. And it it's fruitless.

SPEAKER_00: 8:04

Oh, yeah, and I absolutely agree with that. Yep. So actually, that brings uh good time for that question. Uh how can you help re-readers break out of their, you know, their bubble, their comfort zone? Yeah, I'm gonna add comfort zone, even safe zone. Yeah, I'm gonna throw a bunch of words in there. Just in case you don't understand, echo chambers, tribes with with I love legacy media, social media, AI doing their damn best to keep people hyped up and tribalized.

SPEAKER_02: 8:36

Well, so a couple of things to that. First of all, you know, you're not going to be able to engage effectively out of your bubble in every space. Social media, online forums, people are there with limited time, limited attention. They don't really see you as a human being behind the screen a lot of the time. And those environments just lend themselves so much to unproductive discourse. So I'm not making the case that we can all be nice to each other on social media because that's not what social media works like. At the same time, when you talk about getting out of your comfort zone in one-on-one conversation, being able to engage with those who disagree with you, I don't necessarily believe that it has to be so uncomfortable. And one of the big pillars that I tried to preach within the book, just be curious. Realize that the issue is not we have this sort of philosopher's way of thinking about politics. Like if I ruled the world, I would do this, this, and this. It's not how politics work. And that's not what the actual problems are. The actual problems, the issues we face are how do we make working policy when we have all these different ideas in play? How do we make policy that's going to work in the context of all of these political sentiments, in the context of all of these ideological sentiments? And when you realize that, you can realize that someone who disagrees with you is not your enemy. The idea that you don't agree with is not your enemy. These are all complementary pieces. They can be additive pieces to trying to understand, all right, how do we get to the best solutions? How do we figure out the best way to solve this problem? You can talk about the potential for corporations to do harm and abuse their power. Someone who is talking about the potential inefficiency of government in regulating and the waste that comes with that and the harms that comes with that, they are not necessarily your enemy. Those are complementary ideas. Those shape the boundaries of policy. Those shape, all right, well, we have to consider this, we have to consider this. No matter what you put in place, there is potential for error, there is potential for things going wrong. And realizing that allows you to take on this more collaborative, more additive approach to conversation, where if you're going in to learn, I don't know, it doesn't have to be uncomfortable at all. You get to learn stuff from people who think differently.

SPEAKER_00: 11:00

That's really cool, in my opinion. Well, two truths could be at the same time. I mean, some of it could be uncomfortable, especially if you're happy, especially you're jumping in to you know the lion's dead, so to speak. But I do get what you're saying. It doesn't always have to be uncomfortable. You could do the and to your point, let me just hold in curiosity and maybe do small steps, one-on-one conversations. I think that's I want to hone in that. For sure. Because that's that's what that's what I'm getting out of it. And you know, I I I agree. And look, I'm a practical practic, I'm a pragmatist, even though my question is pretty hypocritical. It's like a grand, it's a grand bam, bam, bam. It's a I I give you this challenge, but yeah, I'll give you debuffers or extra obstacles how to answer it. So look, you call me hypocrite all you want, it's fine. Um, no one's perfectly consistent, so good luck with that. And it's fine, but you but you did but I want to hone in that because I think that's what people need to really listen. It could be start small and be curious. And I think, and I think the only uh it's a very simple thing, but it needs to be repeated. Listen, active listening. Because that's all I'm gonna add for that, because it it's needed more than ever. People just like to talk, shout at each other, and we it's too many talkers, not enough listeners. That's that's a simple, you know, that's simple, but I think it's very powerful and effective once it has been implemented consistently and effectively. Yep, I gotta add like that because it because listening, it's uh active things. Not just one time thing. Oh, listen to uh Nathan one day, then tomorrow, or who the heck is he? Uh what? Oh, whatever. Uh uh, who was he, you know, uh we we just did it that moment, and then there you go. That that I call it that um active listening is, you know, or even memory at this point is out the window because uh I just got to talk to him today, and then tomorrow I'll have to deal with him. He's annoying. You know, no, I don't think you're annoying. I'm just saying because it was annoying.

SPEAKER_02: 12:50

No, no, no. I'm just I wanted to say to the point of you know, too many talkers, not enough listeners. The listeners are out there. And I also think you know it's a valuable piece of the audience that you need to acknowledge, which is a lot of people who are timid about political conversation, who try to avoid political conversation, who just don't say anything. And these things go hand in hand is the humility that you need to approach constructive conversation with, which is you can learn more from others. But that too has to be reciprocated. And sorry, I should say that can be reciprocated. And one of the things I say, if you want people to open their minds to what it is you have to say, one of the best things you can do is open your mind to what it is they have to say. Start by listening, and you'll find more often than you may expect, people will ask, well, what do you think? You know, what is it you have to offer? But at the same time, there's that other side of that, which is confidence in your own voice. If you have doubts about something, if you're unsure about this political idea that someone is going on about, if it's someone you know well and you have a decent rapport with them, it helps them for you to challenge that in a constructive way. If you are raising the question of, well, what about this or that? This isn't totally resonating with me, how would you be able to play it to this audience? And what about if this happens or that happens? All of that helps refine their ideas. And if you have these doubts, that is a voice that needs to be heard. That is a voice that is valuable, that adds to the conversation, that helps us build better ideas, better understanding of each other, better understanding of policy and politics. And so, as much as I preach listening, it's also to many not to be afraid of the conversation, to have confidence in your voice and know that, yes, you can add to the conversation, you can add to the discourse in a positive way. And I think that's valuable as well.

SPEAKER_00: 15:06

You know, I don't talk enough about that. I'm happy you brought that up. Yeah, the the timid listener. I think there's just so many of them. I used to be one of them, and I just started saying, ah, I got tired. I got tired of being on my shell. So I just think my opinion's not being heard enough, or people have similar opinion, you know, to be the representative of the timid. I, you know, I you see that's that's been enlightening to me because I normally don't think about that. It's only think about the people talking. And it should, there's a lot of there's a lot of people listening, but they're afraid to chime in, either there's a compliment or even disagree. And another key thing you add was build decent rapport. That gets, I would say, I don't know if you agree with this frame, and it's fine. I will say that could be disregarded sometimes. Because these people just want to say their opinion and strong man or project, wherever the heck you want to do, and just it just say their just say the piece and don't even bother to listen to the to the other side. But there are a lot of listeners, you're right about that.

SPEAKER_02: 16:04

Yeah, and you know, and to your point, like you need to, if you don't have that rapport, that takes building, and this is where a lot of the conversational techniques really come into play because people have their guard up and they're used to people. If someone's challenging your idea, they're trying to gotcha. They're trying to beat you in that debate. And this is the kind of politics and the kind of attitude that we've gotten so used to. And if you want to engage in a way that is different from that, you have to be, you have to be upfront about it, and you have to take your time to establish that tone and establish that kind of conversational environment where people can appreciate that you are not challenging from a place of malice. You're not challenging to beat them. You are challenging their ideas to learn from their ideas. And that is where ideally, I think a lot of conversations can go that we don't realize.

SPEAKER_00: 17:04

Oh, yeah, no, for you know, for sure. And uh and I like that. I want to make sure you're getting this point, people, because a lot of people forget about that the rapport factor matters a lot, especially you're about to have a contentious, because if you don't got a rapport that person, no, people say guard updating it. When you're attacking the idea, that people nine out of ten times are gonna take it as if you're attacking them. Let's just be let's just be honest. Unless you're in a, I would say, in a control environment, and and this is a shamus plugin. I encourage always encourage shameless plugins. I would say Braver Angels is taking you know some steps of that. And you know, I'm part I'm part of Braver Angels, and they have interesting style um debates because they do question, you know, they they I like that especially the questioning phase of the speaker. They got the little monologue about why they think, you know, why they're against it or for it, and then they have room for questions about, oh, what about this, what about that? And then uh it's interesting. I mean, the conversation structure is definitely not um the most normal. I think that's the only thing I would differentiate from. I but I do agree, uh, but I do like the timekeeping skill that because you know there's a lot of people in the room, and you gotta give you gotta give you know the opportunities for a lot of people to speak. And another thing I want to add is confidence in your voice, but also concise, accessible messages. That's also important. And I tell one of my left-leaning friends, this is why you're not getting winners. I understand you because I start off as a very moderate Democrat. I understand leftist positions, but many people are not me. I'm an exception to the rule. Pretend that people don't know much. I say like that, make it simple and digestible, and this is where I normally say Republicans are tend to be better at, and their audience is simple, so that's why their messages get across faster. And that's what's on the when you're talking all this, even sometimes I get lost of because I'm paying attention to the light, I'm paying attention to this, and I'm gonna miss some of the nuances. So you gotta make it easier and digestible. Some Democrats are getting it, but I I don't think I don't think enough is. That's just me. I I and look, there's Republicans that can speak craziness, but you you understand what that craziness is. I'm not saying Republicans are best speakers, some of them are, and some are just they they they're they're crazy. Let's just be honest. And yeah, I think that's something I want to add, just again, let me just repeat this for those of you who are just getting in. Concise, digestible messaging is important. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_02: 19:35

Well, yeah, I mean, it's not you know, more than just concise. There is so much coded language that we use that we take for granted. These appeals to sort of ideological or moral stance or an underpinning or you know, a philosophical idea. Not everyone's gonna share those. And just understanding how how you sound more generally can really, really help. And this is what common ground, as I see it, is really about. What it the value of it is that rapport, that language. It is not us agreeing on things at the end. If we're all agreeing on stuff, if we all agree on everything, then there's no reason to discuss politics. It's just you're you're nodding along and great. But the beauty of a democratic society is we have these different perspectives. We can learn from each other, we can challenge these ideas, we can challenge ideas before they become bad policy. We can challenge flawed policy to make it better policy. This is what we should be striving towards. And you do that not by agreeing on everything, not with that common ground, but with the common ground of, all right, let's have this way that we can talk to each other constructively. And that can be as simple as, you know, just the understanding that you are coming from a good place. That can be as simple as being able to convey an idea in a way that makes sense to someone who isn't already bought into it or who doesn't share your same media diet or ideological background. You can also, one of the things I talk about in the book, find ways to move from disagreeing about the facts to looking at the bigger picture and understanding where you can engage constructively, even if you don't agree on specifics of the controversy of the day. And that's really valuable for people. And that's something that I hope listeners understand and I hope prospective readers understand is the common ground isn't the agreement at the end of the day. It's how we're able to effectively disagree at the end of the day.

SPEAKER_00: 21:45

No, and I like that because I don't want everyone just saying, oh, well, this country's gone to the very right or the very left. I mean, that'll be dull and it'll be essentially a communistic society. I mean, let's be real. You're right. Democracy thrives on different ideas, and that's not that's not what I'm there for. I'm just calming down on the hot conflict. I don't mind some conflict, I don't mind discord, but the heated vitriolven is where it's disgusting. You know, they you know, debates, this has been going on for a very, very long time, okay? You could even go millennia, okay, or even longer. But that's not it's not about having everyone to agree on every single thing. No, we should have disagreements. And I never I never brought that up enough, but I I absolutely agree. Because everyone's disagreeing on one thing, it's gonna be so boring, be a communistic society, maybe a benevolent one, but still I still I will still find it boring. And I think I would have been offended if that was the ever result. But but I I like that, and I think I think if I'm gonna add just one more thing before I move on to the next thing, is I think disagreement, people that disagree could be those are the ones that you could modify your ideas or address it effectively. You know, the disagreeers are needed, just like you say, you want to prevent a bad policy for for you know for becoming law. So disagreeers and contrarians are actually beneficials, not a whole bunch of yes people. Oh, yes, master, oh yes, master. Oh, you're legally allowed to kill three people per day. Yes, master, yes, master. Imagine that becomes policy. That that would crease, that would crease you know, uh, that's a very crazy example, but you want to debate that. So, no, why will why it's okay to kill three? No, we shouldn't be killing people at all. Some say, oh, I don't know, I think we should just kill even more people. But you know, it's it's crazy.

SPEAKER_02: 23:42

But I mean no, and you can apply it to a lot. You know, one of the things I am pretty firm on, and I think needs to be understood, is power anywhere has the potential for excess. Once you understand that, that's a big underpinning of being able to engage in a common language on a lot of different issues and being able to realize, all right, you know, whether it's the corporations versus, you know, government regulators example, whether it's you know, whatever agencies you're putting in charge of this or that, realizing that any you need to put the power somewhere to address whatever the problem is. And anywhere the power is, there's the potential for its misuse. And once you understand that, you can understand how to take in constructively a lot of different perspectives. And I think that's just a huge part of being able to engage with others. To your point, also, even if we're not the policymakers, and particularly for those who might aspire to be a policymaker one day, if your idea sounds weird to an audience, it is so much more valuable and so much more beneficial to you when they tell you that rather than if they just say, cool, you do you. That's awesome. I agree with you 100%. Because having it challenged within that friendly environment, within that environment where you have an understanding where you're trying to learn from each other, that is the safe, comfortable place to grow and refine and understand. All right, how do I respond to this? How do I address this? How do I make considerations for this? And so when you want to aspire to that competitive environment of let me put my ideas on the table and try to convince people to vote for me, you better be ready for that. You better be uh practiced in people not agreeing with you because that's the real world.

SPEAKER_00: 25:40

Oh, yeah, exactly. Let's throw in what's the really hot one? Immigration. People are gonna disagree the way the ice raids are being raided. Okay, you're not gonna get no more extremist simple examples. Look, there's people there, it's definitely Republicans that are generally agreed, they're just okay in it, so I'm not saying anything. And then there's those who are speaking out against it because it's you know, it's been violent. I'm they're taking too much migrants as a criticism. And but the problem is those who are in power are not addressing those criticisms, and that's becomes extra contentious because they're trying to point out something, and they ironically they're trying to make you better if you stop, you know, having stop drinking the emo, the emotional, egotistical Kool-Aid. Yeah, and that that's all I'm gonna say about that. I'm not gonna stay on that for too long. But yeah, no, it's about you know, have everyone to agree. If you want them over, I always consider that a bonus. I don't, I never, you know, I never my the way I do politics is I try to understand where they're coming from. If I somehow change their mind, I treat it as a bonus. I never, I don't have that as an expected. I that's not expectation for me. And you need and I would say, people, you need to moderate your expectations. You think just because you're gonna spew something that people could change on their minds? No, we have different experiences, we do things differently, life is different, we are shaped by a bunch of things. Okay, and maybe even genetics play a role, whatever. We all differ one way or another. And just you can expect people to think the same, that's very problematic all the time.

SPEAKER_02: 27:12

Yeah, I mean, just and you get to the heart of it, which is you go into a conversation trying to win. It's not going to be a fun time. When both people are just trying to win the conversation, you're just fighting, your egos get involved a lot. It doesn't go anywhere. No one learns anything. You go and trying to learn, you're going to maybe not necessarily convince people, but you're going to get people to consider what it is you have to say much more often than you might expect. And much more often than you would if you're just trying to beat them, you know, when you talk to them. Because you know, think about reciprocating that. It's just, it's not the kind of conversation anyone should should enjoy. And by and large, it's not the kind of conversation anyone does enjoy.

unknown: 28:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 28:02

Oh yeah. Just I say listen, learn. And even if you have to modify your position, great. If you win some people over, great. And I always say some, because you're just not going to convince everybody, and that's okay. I've told even people on the left that look, you don't need every single person to agree with you. I mean, if you have 20% of the of the country agreeing with you, you're gonna win some elections, believe it or not. You don't need every single person. Actually, that progressive was very happy when I said that. So this is coming for our centrists who will challenge you on some of the issues, okay? I'm just being realistic, you don't need every single person. Does every every single person vote? No, you don't need if the person doesn't vote. I was like, you don't, don't you gotta be strategic where you put your effort in um too. Just like you say, you know, look, if if people reject it, it's okay. Go to the next one, next, next venue, next person, next whatever. Rejection is what I say recently is redirection at the end of the day. And then you know, you can turn it to a little buzz thing if you want, a little quote, a little proverb, whatever it is. Rejection is redirection. So don't treat it as oh, it's the all your hopes and dreams have been killed and destroyed. No, it's just make a just make a turn. That wasn't your destination. You just you got to you have to adjust your you got to you know adjust your route. That's it to the goal.

SPEAKER_02: 29:27

Yeah, and I think you're speaking to uh another problem that a lot of people have, which is when your ego gets so intertwined with your political thought, and when you start to derive your sense of affirmation, your sense of moral worth from your politics, it holds you back. And it makes it so much harder for you to talk to people who think differently. It makes it so much harder for you to interpret just other ideas and understand other ideas. I'm not gonna sit here and tell anyone that they're. Not right or they're not justified in whatever it is they believe. I'm not going to gain very much ground in doing that. But if you approach it that way and take it as sport or take it as religion, it just makes it much harder for you to move the needle. It makes it much harder for you to break out of your bubble and get through to people who aren't already on your team.

SPEAKER_00: 30:25

Yeah, no, absolutely. Like I like I said, I'm going to use a brave rage's example here. I disagree with this person. This is how I addressed it. I said, I get where you're coming from. I disagree with you. There's a but. I did, but I do understand why you did what you did. You know, framing things like that makes the person that is in the perceived, sometimes just perceived, oppositional camp or spectrum. We are both for independence. She leans a little more left than I am, but I but we were still that moderate camp. And you know what? She didn't get defensive. I said, I understand what she did. I don't agree with it, but I understand why you did what you did. You know, and this per this lady here, I'm gonna keep her anonymous. She voted for Eric Adams. I ended up voting for the Republican Curtis Sleewa. You know, I just said, look, and I get the criticism of Curtis Lewa. So I'm not the biggest defender of him. So I I wish he stopped clowning around in his campaign trail. I think he would have been, I think he could have had a shot of winning the New York City mayor. Opinion, yeah. Can I prove that? No. And you know, you have to acknowledge that. You gotta acknowledge the weak points of what you even bring to the table and just be cognizant of that because you gotta address people who's gonna bring that up. And and I think I like this one speaker I had him for for a while. Um, it was a little self-conscious, uh, shockingly, to my surprise. I say, yeah, what kind of questions will you ask if you're gonna be critical for yourself? Yeah, do your so do your own self-auditing as well. If you want to be, you know, you can play devil's african for your own idea. Don't do introspections. Uh you know, I would support taxing the rich. Okay, what are the pros? And then think about what are the cons. And one of the cons is going to say, well, you're gonna lose the rich people, they're gonna move out, and that wealth will be transferred to other states or countries. And but what's the pro? Well, we're gonna get more tax revenue, we could fund more public services. Make sure, you know, if you're gonna bring stats and all of that, I would say wait for more long-form debate. But when it comes to stats statistics, that's not always needed. Um, unless, you know, the person demands proof. I always say always bring some receipts, but as a just in case, not as a oh, I got so much things I gotta show. Oh, yeah, this is a good idea because of 80% says this, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. People don't care about numbers. But you know what people do care about, and I had to pivot towards this the story. Data points are not as a point. You can use data points to strengthen the story, but if the data points is gonna be the main star, you tuning people out, even in your own campus. Oh, okay. I didn't come here to get lectured and hear about all the statistics. I'm not in a stats class, for God's sakes. I'm gonna have a conversation, you know. You're gonna hear that smart aleck thing. That's probably too specific, but just just be ready and be natural. Don't don't try to sound perfect and perfect and rehearse, because that's definitely gonna make it inauthentic and people are gonna be more on guard and suspicious. That's all I'm gonna say. That's just my own little thing. Maybe I should make my own version of the book, but uh it has to be for pro it has to become with my personal life and all of that. Because I it's funny. All I'm gonna say is about me personally. As a kid, I was very confident. As a kid, I became self-conscious. Now the adult, I'm just trying to find that happy ground, happy medium ground. I was too, I was overconfident, and I was then I was self-conscious. I've been to those two extremes. So um, I don't know, maybe maybe 2027-2028, I'll probably write me a little book about how to address this stuff, but you know, and definitely take inspiration for some other people because hey, you you learn from others, or you just don't learn on your own, and AI is not gonna help you with that all the time. Great tool, it doesn't help you with everything. Um, you know, it's not let again, don't let AI take over your lives. Let you direct AI, don't let AI direct you, okay? Because it's it's not gonna be fun. Okay, I think I'll talk to more. I I talked long enough. So I'm interested about this Florida of this forward party. Let's talk about that.

SPEAKER_02: 34:21

Sure. So this was a project that I was involved with from 2022 to 2024. I was a state director of a minor party. That's the forward party's Andrew Yang, who some people might be familiar with. He was a New York mayoral candidate in 2021. Before that, he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in the 2020 cycle, sort of early on. He founded what was called the Forward Party in 2021. Uh or yeah, I guess that was after his mayoral race. And then he merged that organization with the Renew America movement, which is a lot of sort of never Trump conservative types, and the Serve America movement, which was a kind of centrist party-building infrastructure. And they tried to make a viable path as they could to having a credible third party. So this was what I was involved with. And Florida, it was surprising to people at first that we would be active in Florida, because Florida is not a very purple state. And what people don't realize is the purple places, the places where there's an even Democrat-Republican split, those are the worst places, the worst environments for independence to succeed in on a relative basis. You can in certain contexts, but this is where the Democrats have a viable shot and the Republicans have a viable shot. That's not the case in Florida. That's not the case in the vast majority of political districts at every level in the United States. And when you have these situations, you have a minor party, or sorry, a minority party, one of the two majors, that's not really going to be able to put up a real fight. And you can take those voters, you can bring in an independent voice or a minor party voice if you can construct the infrastructure to do that. And you can create voter choice, you can create competition, you can create a healthier environment in those. And that I think goes hand in hand that success and empowering of the independent movement goes hand in hand with building a better politics, not because independence or the center or the middle have all the answers, but because if you can create a buffer, you can create this fulcrum between the Republicans and the Democrats so that neither side has a majority, and it doesn't take that much to do it, suddenly a lot of the incentives involved in politics change. And suddenly we can go from being in this tug of war to realizing, all right, no one's going to be able to strong arm anything from a policy standpoint. We got to work together to solve problems. And that I think can be a turning point toward something much, much more constructive and much more productive at the electoral level.

SPEAKER_00: 37:18

I am so hungry for a third party. No, I'm serious. I've been, you know, I've been hungry for a third party for a long, long time. This is someone who I've switched parties before. I was a moderate Democrat, I was a moderate Republican, I realize they both were screwy and crazy. I said, uh Hobbins gonna be a independent, maybe a lifelong independent at this point, because you're both of them are crazy, and I love bashing both of them. Oh, because you know, you out of two powerful parties. I don't mind punching up. I'm not afraid of punching up. I'm a little more, I'm I'll feel a little sad punching down. You know, that'll be like, well, except for libertarians, I think some of them are a little loony, but that's probably the exception. Green Party, they're a little loony. I get I get, you know, but I but just just to wrap up, just wrap up my point real quick. Libertarians, I seem to agree with them more on the war part. Green Party, they they probably have an extra unorthodox approach, but I think we need nothing. We should be more conscious of the environment. That's what they're trying to push through. Because the Democrats don't do enough of that. That's why these parties, you know, they they they address their grievances. They have a one five-second fame and then they disappear because the mainstream media only comes with two parties. You already said the infrastructure is very biased against a third party as well.

SPEAKER_02: 38:33

I mean, it's not you know, you can make these excuses, but uh, the reality is look, I I've met people who are in the Green Party libertarian party space, libertarians actually quite a bit that we've worked with, that we've talked to, you know, during my time at Forward, during my time in this space of political innovation in general. The problem is, as far as the reach of this kind of strategy, where you're just having what I like to call a small box party, if you are going to be as rigid, as top-down as the major parties, as what we're used to. The core of the audience, these independents and moderate voices who are politically involved, who are politically passionate, but understand that complex problems are complicated, who appreciate things like that. You are not going to rally all these outside the box thinkers, which is one of their distinct characteristics, by building a new box. And this is why this sort of impression of the third party as the perpetual 2% vote getters election after election, look, they have the right to run, they have the right to voice their ideas, they can be part, and I hope they are ultimately part of an additive conversation because we need those perspectives. We need those voices to add and inform the broader discussion. With that in mind, that is not what independent politics has to be. That is not what non-major party politics, non-duopoly politics, as we say in our bubble, has to be. And I'll point to Evan McMullen running for Senate in Utah in 2022, earned 43, 44% of the vote for a senatorial campaign as an independent. Why? Because he was running against a Republican. The Democrat never stood a chance, and the Democrat dropped out. And that is the kind of formula. The very next election cycle. You had a similar case in Nebraska: Dan Osborne running against a Republican who would otherwise have no realistic challenge. And Dan Osborne got 47 to 48% of the popular vote in a senatorial campaign. And this is not as far-fetched as people make it out to be. It's not as far-fetched as people assume it to be. And setting that model, showing that success, whether it starts in Nebraska or Utah or anywhere else, that becomes replicable to challenge the Democrats in California or the Democrats in New York or the Democrats in Chicago or the Republicans in Mississippi or Alabama or the Republicans in wherever else, and to give voters choice who don't have a realistic choice, who don't have serious options right now, and ultimately to drive politics toward a better place and a better, healthier competitive environment. So yeah, that's where, you know, with forward, the balance that you have to strike is you can't just create this rigid top-down box to attract all the outside the box thinkers at their core. And if your entire party, and not to say that forward was this, but I think we struggled to break away from this, if all your unifying principles and all all your ideas are just generic or fluff, people are going to be very confused by that and people will be put off by that. And so people we've we cite the studies a lot that something like 60 odd percent of Americans want to see a third party, but they are selective with it and they ought to be selective with it. Because you have to bring something that is a cohesive vision that is powerful, that speaks to the issues and speaks to how it can solve problems better, but that is uniquely attuned to the independent spirit. And that is where the beautiful challenge is and the opportunity as well.

SPEAKER_00: 42:29

Yeah, I don't know. I no, no, no, no, that's fine. No, I uh the only one I have to say this is a minor pushback on the New York one because they're they are a closed primary, and closed primaries only benefits the duopolies, even greater than the open primary. I think the reason why they succeeded in those, well, I'll not succeed. The reason why they did well, I get what you're saying, these independent candidates. I was paying TensorTests, but maybe it's a little more viable. I get what you're saying. That maybe that's a challenge of more the purer states. Ironically, the purple states is where they go through the most hell, which is ironic. You would thought that would have made a cohesive, you know, party much easier. And sadly, I I assume the same, to be honest, but that's not the case. If anything, the Dems Republicans are equally competitive, they can just punch down on them and then they're gone.

SPEAKER_02: 43:15

Well, it's this spoiler stigma. It's like, are you you know, and this is the line that they love to use if you're throwing your vote away when you vote for an independent. And the reality is, if it is 49% Republicans, 49% Democrats, every vote is gonna be critical. And those situations, you know, we've seen that at the presidential level. It may be overblown, it may be overstated, but it's real. When you have a situation like Nebraska or uh Mississippi or California, those are not real choices that voters have. You are not throwing your vote away. You're getting an actual vote that matters if you have a viable and credible independent candidate in a situation like that.

SPEAKER_00: 44:00

Yeah, the that the New York and New Jersey, what some people don't don't say don't understand or depart are just not aware of that. It's a closed primary. And that, you know, that gives an extra advantage to even the minor party that has no power. Well, I would say New Jersey's a little more purple. I would say the Republicans got more shot in that state. New York, it's very Democrat. It gives more it gives power to the Supreme Party, the Supreme Established Party. And it gives a little advantage to the even the, ironically, the minor party. But when it comes to independence, they are effectively shut out. You have to register Democrat or Republican just to, you know, just to join in a primary. This is only primary people. The general election, you could be independent.

SPEAKER_02: 44:47

Now you're speaking about But it's two separate conversations. If you speak to the voter and the candidate, and I'm empowering the independent voter, yeah, and this is a lot of the political innovation space is dedicated to this kind of electoral reform, structural reform, where you know, you want to see more open primaries, you want to see more encouragement of independence as far as an independent running in the general election in a situation like that. When the closed primaries are selecting for people who play to the party bases more and more, those can actually be even stronger opportunities for someone who is going to challenge from the flank and challenge from unifying a second party that is not represented at all, that often will stand aside or stand down from independents who have been locked out. And the other thing in and even moderates who get cut out of these closed primary circuits where they really cater to the party base and the most fervent and partisan and passionate. But the other thing about these closed primary situations, they understate the actual independent sentiment of the voters. It takes a lot to register independent or not have a party attached to your name when it only benefits you to do so. And a lot of independents, a lot of people who would otherwise mark themselves down as no party affiliation, are putting themselves down as either Republicans or Democrats so they can vote in the primaries. And but their sentiments, their voices are independent voices. And that is something that I think we need to be cognizant of.

SPEAKER_00: 46:29

Yep. New York, you know, you're being warned. The independent, you know, people virtuous independence growing. I'm being honest, and a million, over a million voters have been locked out, at least, and I'm sure that's been growing, especially my generation of Gen Z in particular, because look, Democrats and Republicans, they're just not impressive, okay? Especially right now. Just look at the federal federal thing, it's it's the macrocosm of it, okay? Uh we we we got the we got the MAGA people, and then we got the and then we got the Democrats. They're they're it's like a three-headed dragon, you know, they're not not operating as one. They're all over the place. That's the Democrats right now. There's a do nothings, they're very aggressive, and there's those who try to push their own vision. And then for the Republicans, oh, a lot of them's just mostly locked in MAGA. It's oversimplification, yeah, but I gotta get straight to the point. You know, that's what's going on at the federal level.

SPEAKER_02: 47:19

But you can look at this with a very sort of pessimist and defeatist lens and say, oh man, it just keeps getting worse. Politics keeps getting worse and worse. Or you can kind of look at it as a business problem, where, hey, they're kind of tapping into this strategy of riling up rather than reaching out more and more because it works within this structure that they've created and they're doing some things to keep that in place, but they're losing a lot by doing that. And they're losing touch with people and they're losing a lot of approval, and they're not able to actually talk about interesting ideas on the issues because they're spending all their time on negative campaigning. That's market opportunity. If you are strategic about dealing with that, as you know, someone who is passionate about making politics better, there are very viable paths that open. And not just, gosh, we wish something better would pop up, but you start to do the math around it, and you're like, the numbers, if you can field a viable, you know, a serious independent campaign, the numbers can work a lot in your favor. And you can do a lot through that. So that's where I think the greatest opportunity is for positive change within our politics.

SPEAKER_00: 48:40

Well, that's good. I don't mind being challenged. Look, I don't have a lot of the answers. Maybe I'll be inspired to get one. I mean, look at me personally, I'll be more involved in the political ground just to try and change things. So yeah, I may use the defeat's language at time, or maybe go doom and gloom, but then uh I I think people say I'll even be slightly more optimistic because oh, you won't go to my earliest seasons, it was a hell of a lot more doom and gloom. I'll say that much. It's bounce down just a little bit. And like I say, I think I think there's actually more hope once you stop using the news as your lens of life. It doesn't match. It matches on some degree, but not the entire, you know, it doesn't it doesn't reflect on all people, it doesn't reflect on all politics, it reflects on some, but not everything. So you just gotta put it at its proper box, if you will. So just letting it dominate your entire brain, and you know, that's something that I have learned, being more down the street. So, okay, this things are hopeful, not easy, but hopeful.

SPEAKER_02: 49:38

Yeah. And you know, like to that end, and you know, I wasn't directing anything personally, speaking about pessimism, this is just something that a lot of people tend to fall into when thinking about politics is a sense of hopelessness. The conclusion of my book is titled The Case Against Optimism. And what I mean by that and what I talk about there is the takeaway, if you see this hope, if you see this opportunity, if you see this potential, is not to say, okay, everything's gonna be fine. It's to realize that we can have a say in things, we can play an active role in shaping the future. We can share our voices, we can make our voices heard, and we can make a difference. And if you're going to be an optimist, if you're going to say everything's going to be fine, you don't have to do anything. But if you realize, no, no, no, you can be an active player in determining if it's a positive or a negative outcome, then suddenly you realize that, yeah, you can do something about it and you can shape what that outcome is going to be. So I think that's valuable as well, is not to realize that it's not a foregone conclusion and to realize that our voices matter and what we do now matters.

SPEAKER_00: 50:57

Yep. And that's why this is one of the few reasons why I do podcasting. Let's just let's just do a shameless self, self-aware plug-in right there. But no, no, no, no, it's not even a butt. Look, I got more involved politically, open out on a lot of things, and look, and even if you have a loss, that loss is not the end. You try again. You learn from you turn your failures into lessons, and you get better. And that's what that's why I learned to be part of his organization. I got some wins, but you're also gonna have some losses. And then you and I think in some ways it's better to lose because you become better, more prepared. And me, it was like a last-minute um invite. And me, I just did just this very simple picture. I look make oh make the primaries more open. So the independent viable case. I say, you know, let the people decide. That's what you put in there, let people decide. If they don't want it, then fine, then they don't want it. And you know, that's something I'll be willing to accept, um, begrudgingly, of course. I'm just be honest. I say, oh yay, people don't want it. That's not good, but hey, at least the people did it, but they decided not to put that in the battle, which I criticized uh the charter commission of New York City. I respect one lady who tried to really advocate for it, God bless her. And she gave a lot of defense, but I think the rest of the commission didn't necessarily buy because they felt full of political fears of both Democrats and Republicans. That part they united in because they want independence being there. Okay. This is what Democrats and Republicans are united, and I've seen it. But both politicians, one Republican and one Democrat, saying, oh no, we only need this, this is gonna, you know, bring big money, is racist and all. They I mean they come up with such cockamaney excuses. I was there, I heard it, and you'll be surprised what disingenuous nonsense they put there. But this is what you have to be ready for. So people are not gonna debate in good faith. You gotta be ready for that as well. And yeah, I mean, you don't need to get along with everybody, and some of it is gonna be a verbal battle. Just get ready. Some of it you could unintentionally win people over, and some you're just gonna be ready for uh for a verbal battle because people are some people don't come with good intentions, you just gotta be aware of that as well. Be alert on the per just be just pay close attention, careful attention to the other person. Are they in their mind to even engage? If they don't have that bandwidth, sometimes you just gotta let it go, end it. You don't need everybody, you don't need everybody. That's the final thing I'm gonna say. You're not gonna be helping, you're not superman, you're not gonna solve everybody's issues, okay? You're just not. We got our own goals, and just keep that in mind. What if if this if this is helping your goal or this is hindering it? No, is is it helping your why or is it against your why? That's that's the angle, that should be your your drive right there. If it's against it, then go over the other direction. If it is, then you put more effort to it. Generally speaking, I don't care what your goal is, but is that's your general butter toast, plain toast advice to all of you. It could be, I don't know, get more Republican votes, get more Democrat votes, get more I don't know, form a third uh cohesive third party, which uh let's just say it's much easier said than done. Um this is why not many of them are there. I mean, look at the libertarian, largest third party. They haven't won a single election, okay? A single one. Not even for a very local um position. So that that that should show you how difficult it is.

SPEAKER_02: 54:29

But I think they're we're they've they've won for local positions, to be fair.

SPEAKER_00: 54:33

Yeah, so what, they their party positions, or yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 54:36

No, no, no, no, no. I mean you have libertarian mayors all over the place. You you do get some of that.

SPEAKER_00: 54:42

Oh, okay, okay. Well, if that correction, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 54:45

They'd yell at me if I if I didn't make that correction there. But yeah, I think that model is not necessarily the model, and maybe the forward model isn't necessarily the model. And maybe it, you know, bringing together these independent voices, and this is something that I explore in the book because I do think people will ask, well, all right, I may be able to engage more positively with my neighbor, but what's that ultimately going to matter if the electoral politics just continues to suck and you know it's miserable forever? And you have to have that pathway to making a more positive approach to discourse translate into electoral success. And I think, you know, the case I made, bringing up Utah and Nebraska, those senatorial efforts, those are independents. They were not with any party. And what you need for supporting things like that, you may need structures that aren't necessarily parties. You may need different packs, different nonprofits, different services. You want to empower them to run lean in cases they will not have the financial resources that the major parties have in a lot of cases, but you can overcome quite a bit of that, more than people realize. And that's something I explore in the book. And ultimately, you can carve out this viable path. So, this idea of kind of the more niche ideology just grounding this third party, that is not the only way to challenge the powers that be. And assuming that it is is one of many assumptions that hold us back on realizing how much hope there is for both personal discourse and societal change.

SPEAKER_00: 56:31

Yeah, well, I'm gonna say I did learn something for this conversation. That's why it's good to talk to different people. And so did us. Yeah, you know, and look, look, this is this is more of an exchange, it's not the whole snow's everything. Trust me, I do not. If I did, what's the point of this conversation? No, I don't need Nathan. What is he talking about? He's crazy. I could have just done that. No, no, no. If you say you know everything, you're an idiot, ironically. If you admit you don't know much, you're willing to learn, that actually makes you wiser and smarter. That's the that's the paradox, ironically. Just keep that in mind. And I used to be that person, so I don't want to be that person, so I know what I'm talking about. Okay. So I could actually advocate for that. I don't have that imposter syndrome on that one because I used to be an arrogant ass. You know, so uh, but you know, I I think this has been an enlightening conversation. Look, I don't expect people to agree with me, and to be to be honest, it's actually more interesting when you disagree. So it's just, oh yes, oh yes. Or though the the kind of agreement I like is when you add a different factor to it that I'm not aware of, like a compound, uh either compounding agreement or uh or a disagreement that addresses blind spots that I'm not aware of. You know, enlightening me, enlightening disagreements, I'm gonna quote it.

SPEAKER_02: 57:42

Yeah. And there's there's a yes and aspect to it. And that can come down to often how you present your case. I talk about, you know, potential for misuse of power. This is a a big, big way of getting to a common language place, more so. And a big part of that is if your point is, look, there is harm that is coming from the way that we are approaching these immigration rates, you can meet that in a civil conversation with yes, and we also need to consider the harm that comes when we don't enforce laws in place for an extended period of time, or yes, and we need to be considerate of the long-term, the continuity of our policy and people being uh having the peace of mind that whatever assurances they get will hold over time. And you can have these different perspectives that aren't fighting, but that are all informing the conversation and all informing the solution, which is the most important thing, which is just how do we make better policy and how do we make the best, best country possible in this democracy that we've been given.

SPEAKER_00: 58:59

Yep. And listen, how we get there, it's not gonna be it's gonna be messy, it's gonna take some effort. But you know, at the end of the day, despite how I feel, sometimes I'm gonna look doom and gloom, sometimes I'm gonna speak positive language, but at the end of the day, I got the inner spark that keeps going. So I can always show. I might even drag myself, but you gotta keep that inner spark going. And because if you don't, if you leave it to others, you're most likely gonna get an outcome that you're definitely not gonna like. So be part of it, be active, vote, be involved, do your research. And I would say do your research that benefits you, and even do your own oppositional research because you you need to be ready. Not everyone's gonna agree, and it's okay. Disagreement does not equal hate. And you know, it this is what we need to stop that. And I and and I gotta criticize the older adults who act like such social media children. Stop. You should know better. You know, you didn't grow up in social media a lot. You know, you social media came when you were in your form in your formed years already. Come on. I I you know the I I I can say 13-year-olds acting erratic, but come on, someone in their 40s? Well, sometimes it's not exactly ageest thing, but you know, y'all should know better. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:00:19

Sometimes it's it's counterintuitive that way because the generation, like the youngest generations right now, they kind of grew up aware of social media. And this is, you know, finally, well, I think Gen Z more than any other generation was sort of plunged into the social media depths when no one had grown up with social media before them. Generation Alpha coming after that is more okay, we have these warning signs, we have this generation ahead of us that sort of dealt with the problems. Now we have a little more of an approach to social media where we understand what it is and we know what we're getting into. But the older generations, when you're an adult and suddenly you see this and it's like nothing you've experienced before, you have no precedent for that. You have nothing in your life that's prepared you for that. And it's very easy to get carried away. So yeah, sometimes you know they're the ones who have the most trouble controlling themselves on those media.

SPEAKER_00: 1:01:25

Yeah, sadly, that is a good point. If you don't have a precedent for it, yeah, it was how I'm gonna do it. I mean, some people, this is when true character, I would say true character gets revealed. Will you handle it better than you thought, or will you be erratic? Will you become mental? I'm just gonna keep it like that. I I could be such a such such smart alec, but you know, I I I agree that I actually, you know, you see, see, this is this is the reason why I have these conversations. Yeah, and that's true. Some don't know what the heck they're doing because they haven't they haven't been adapted with that social media. I mean, it could go um either way, and then there's the young that are so plunged and addicted to it that they don't they can't they can't live without it. So it it could be like multiple truths happening at the same time, kind of thing. That's how big this um thing is, even more complicated issues. Um multiple things happening at the same time, and that's true. You see, that's that that's a good point. Um look, if it was just about me choking my ango, my ego, I would just boot them out already, okay? This is not about ego boasting. This is not a safe space for partisanship, okay? Not no. And that even applies to the host. That doesn't apply even to the host. I'm not immune for it, I'm not exempt for it. It applies to the host as well because I'm bringing people in. Rather you like them or not, I really don't care. Have you learned something from them? That's why that's why I want to hear. Or do you have a good disagreement with them? That's what I want to hear. Not not if you like them or not. I re I could care less. That's child that to me that's pretty childish. All right. Oh, you code and harsh. I don't care. It's my ideas in the end of the day. I can like the person, yeah, but to me, to me, it's more about I'm I'm more mission-driven. This is why I can be seen as code, harsh, or even just laser focused. Almost like a like like a person that's you know has some kind of disorder at times, not all the time, of course. But while I'm relaxed, yeah, I could be a loving, joking, very light-hearted person. But this is this is a serious this app, I like to mix my fun in there, uh, even though it's a serious conversation, because it can get heavy, it can easily hit the woman gloom for a lot of you, and hope I uh entertained you at least in some aspects. So that's all I'm gonna say about that. Anything else you want to add before I wrap this up?

SPEAKER_01: 1:03:32

No, I think uh you've touched on a lot of valuable points and uh appreciate it.

SPEAKER_00: 1:03:38

So nope, nope, not a problem. So now let me do the guesses. Look, get that book, get common ground from the ground. Okay, thank goodness it is a common sense. Look at that. It's a plain, like it's a simple, and I love that the letters in purple. I think that's intentional because it's not it's not red, it's not blue, and that's just like my logo, and it's white too as well. And it has like two, you know, it has a simple illustration of two leaves because like a you know, plant sprouting, you know, having that, you know, that fertile foundation, just how to be better people when we you know conduct political discourse. That you know, that that symbolism right there. You just make sure you're not getting anything else, you know, because look, they they could be bootleggers out there. And look, I even though I'm a capitalist, but I do respect the producer as well of their work. Okay, and look, and I love it, and the subtitle is and I love how this is a tri-color and this representative of Democrats, Republicans, and even the Purple for Independence. How are we thinking politics can help us feel heard? Oh, we don't get enough of that. Yeah, your relationships and fix our democracy.

SPEAKER_02: 1:04:47

Now go ahead. Yeah, no, sorry. Um for those watching the video, I'm holding up one of my not-for-resale copies, and it's got that right over the subtitle. So I hope you weren't reading off of that. But nowhere is there. No.

SPEAKER_00: 1:05:03

Uh no, no, it's it's from this from the webpage.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:05

Yeah, I gotcha, I gotcha. And yeah, I'll also echo anyone who wants to reach out to me, uh, do events around this sort of thing, and do a lot of speaking with this topic. And if your organization, your book club, you see an opportunity to reach people and to benefit people and to tap into an interested audience with this, people can find me on my website. It's NathanSmolensky.com. And definitely reach out to me there. Now I love to hear from everyone, and I'm excited where the conversation goes because one of the things I say with the book is it's only as strong as its readers make it. So yeah. Anyone who has any idea of what I can do better and where I can go to get this message and messages like it out there, I'm excited to have that conversation.

SPEAKER_00: 1:06:04

So look at that. Come on, give him some support. He's not he's not an eagle, he's not an egomaniac at all. I'm more egomaniac than him, I can say that much. Especially if I'm ticked off. But hey, anyway, but uh, Leo, the self-exposed right there. No, but all seriousness. Follow him, get the book, learn more about him. He either he has the social media as well, his website, social media is gonna be included in the description. Give him support, okay? He's doing the good work, all right? And the serious note. Let me just be serious now. Just just give me support, okay? And all that will be included. Now for now I got so much plugins now. Like, comment, subscribe, and this is go for YouTube and Rumble, they have similar wording. I'm not gonna bother going through all that. Just know that you have more freedom of speech. That's the only perk that you get there. Even though I would say it's not as great as a video platform, even though I think they're slow. I'm not sure about catching up, but I think they're slowly, they're becoming obviously more viable competitor. I thought they would be gone, but I'm wrong there, obviously. And I think it's good. YouTube needs needs a bit of a competition. Is it viable yet? No, I still don't think so. But that's a whole nother beast for another day. And for reviews, leave reviews of Apple Podcasts. If it's a five-star review, please give one reason why it's great. If it's a four-star or lower, give, you know, one reason or two about how I can improve. Um I'm I look, I want to learn, actually. I'm serious about learning, and that and I take that very seriously. If you're specific and say, you know, it could be something like, oh, you could talk less about this and focus more on that. Great. I will be willing to do that. Uh fix the lighting. Wants to fix the lighting. I've done that, I got a studio light. Because that was that was actually an issue. I it I feel like I was a dark demon spirit talking to a person in one episode. I said, Yeah, that's a legitimate criticism. Now I got the studio lights. See, so your words do matter, okay, people? That's that's and oh now we got a three-part um plugin. Join podmatch. You know, guests I don't use pod match. I, you know, it gets so annoying digging through those trails of emails. And if they have to do an edit to their on one pager, they gotta redo the PD, they gotta do the edit at Microsoft Word or PowerPoint, wherever the heck they use. And then they gotta re-PDF the darn thing, and they gotta send it to me, and it gets lost in a shuffle. Me, I have a good sister for that, but I'm lazy. I'm spoiled. Podmatch makes it so easy. You can make you can make so much edits and tailor into it, it'll be instantaneous, refresh, good. I could get the update of that person. And and it's more, you know, it's pretty organized. It says just take it through emails. So that's to me, that's that's gonna be problematic. It'll be lost in a shuffle. And I think I think at the amateur relation of non-podcast, non-podmatch guests, because of that. And but oh well, was it meant to be? I'm not gonna cry over it. That's why you should get pod match so you won't lose relations for such silly reasons as that. Okay. And then that's part one. Part two, have a link to free website. Yeah, if you have a crappy website or don't have a website, go there. I will put the link to free the free web guides, which I'm currently using, and I'm gonna have a website popping up soon. They, yeah, you you could pass free to or even low costs, and they'll help you, they'll help you, they will guide your hand along the way, just gonna need some information. Try them out, they're really good. I don't push stuff that I don't, you know, that I don't think I that I wanna I, you know, if I push them, it's because I actually use them. I have good experience. I'm not gonna push a product that I'm gonna say it's crap, okay? You don't have to believe me. Don't take my word for it. But this one's low, this is low risk. So I say give it give it a shot, okay? Even for pod match, same thing. And in a new paper, the least riskiest of them all. I have the link right there. If you want just news that is just not even partisan, just straight facts, and it's an easy read. The longest read is five minutes. You know, they got your stocks, your it has politics, but so bare bones, so so factual, get straight to the point, okay? I have a new paper. You know that, you know, because you know, media, you know, news is very partisan. You got your left-wing flare, your right wing flare, even a center flare can be biased sometimes. Yeah, you know, just join a new paper. It's short, you get you get your your articles Monday through Friday, okay? And that is it. Finally, once you complete this audio or visual journey, you have a blessed day, afternoon, or night,