Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

Flux Community Media

Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, Doomscroll, and The Electorette.

  1. 3D AGO

    Americans want big ideas, but Trump’s opponents aren’t providing them

    Episode Summary  One of the most enduring myths of the Trump years has been that everyone who votes for him does so because they agree with him. Obviously a lot of his supporters do, but polls have consistently shown that Trump is a historically unpopular president with issue positions that most Americans have never supported. And yet, it remains the case that a majority of voters in the last election decided to vote for him anyway. We’ve talked in previous episodes of Theory of Change about how part of this is due to the enormous reach of right-wing media. It is the mainstream media for millions of Americans–whether they deliberately choose to watch it or not. But media saturation isn’t the only factor. Another significant factor behind Trump’s durable political appeal is that his opponents have been unable to present a larger alternative vision to MAGA. That matters because a lot of people aren’t interested in policy minutiae, they want to hear your big-picture vision. Democrats simply have not done this. And as a result, the party is facing some of its lowest approval ratings in years–including from people who identify as Democrats. Joining me to talk about all this is someone who has been doing this work from the ground up for over a decade: Seth Flaxman. He’s the co-founder of Catalyst for American Futures a new liberal group that’s building a broader-left political coalition that focuses on improving the country so that everyone has a fair chance, ideas that they’ve put into a new book called Out of Many, One: Writings on American Universalism and on a website, The All American. Previously, Seth led Democracy Works for twelve years, an organization that helps tens of millions of Americans get trusted election information. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Theory of Change brings you in-depth conversations on politics, technology, and media like nowhere else. Please subscribe to stay in touch! Related Content * Black Americans expect more from Democrats, but do party leaders realize this? * Unions, churches, and local media were many Americans’ anchors to democracy, as they’ve faded, so has public faith in the country * Republicans took over the judiciary while liberals were pretending that jurisprudence was a science * The 2024 election was decided by people who disliked both Harris and Trump * How religious fundamentalism’s intellectual collapse powers Trump’s politics of despair * Bureaucratic obsessions are ruining America’s educational system * Harris’s loss has permanently discredited timid Democratic approaches to Trumpist authoritarianism Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 10:18 — American universalism as a political philosophy 14:22 — The spirit of St. Louis and the civil war 18:29 — Understanding modern authoritarianism 21:14 — Building majority support for democracy 24:31 — The need for open debate and disagreement 28:02 — Problems with Democratic party messaging 34:24 — The missing movement infrastructure 37:19 — Economic solutions beyond neoliberalism 41:09 — Learning from right-wing political tactics 46:19 — The role of government in the modern economy 49:38 — The importance of public rallies and engagement 54:32 — Creating a new culture of political discourse 58:28 — Working in coalitions despite disagreements 01:01:59 — Lessons from the civil rights movement 01:05:01 — Closing thoughts and contact information Audio Transcript The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Seth Flaxman. Hey Seth, welcome to Theory of Change. SETH FLAXMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Glad to be here. SHEFFIELD: Yeah, good to have you. Well, so, why don't we start off a bit before we get into the discussion just tell us a bit about your background and how you got into politics and what you've been doing since. FLAXMAN: Great, thank you. I mean, I I, don't even know if I would say I've been in politics. I've been working on strengthening US democracy for almost my entire professional career the last 15, 16 years or so. And I got into this space because I thought our democracy was in a really dangerous position. And for me, the warning lights like 2000 and going back 2009, 2010 maybe, were just low turnout in everything, especially anything local or primary election related. But then the rise of birtherism was terrifying to me. Also Proposition 8 was very scary to me at the time. [00:04:00] And I wasn't sure what to do because, for most of my peers, Barack Obama's president, everything's fine. And so I just felt like I was in a very different wavelength and I felt like the thing I can do is use this new force in our society technology to try to increase voter engagement because we know technology can do one thing very well if it makes things easier and more people will do it. So I spent a long time just trying to get the, like bugs and kinks out of the voting system, where can I make things easier and increased participation? And after doing that for 12 years and three presidential cycles, I came to the conclusion that it was valuable work. It was like critical for our democracy, but it was not going to solve the democracy crisis that we were facing. And. So I've been spending the last few years trying to understand what is this global rise of authoritarianism in addition to this, how it looks like in America and like what do other countries do about it? What have we done about it historically? And trying to help scale up different strategies and leaders that I think can get us outta this democracy crisis. SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And that is a, good point regarding like, just participation because one of the things that, that I do on this show is there is look at people who don't participate and, often what they say in polls is it's not difficult to vote it's not difficult to register to vote. They just don't, they don't see the need to. They don't see a difference between the parties. They, whatever their objections are, they have, a bunch of them. And so, but it boils down to, it's not that it's too hard for them, it's, they don't want to, they're choosing not to because they think the system has failed. Yeah. FLAXMAN: And, that is an absolutely true segment of the non-voter population. It might even be as high as [00:06:00] 60 percent of it. Sometimes it's 50, but it changes by state. It Changes by age. If you look at census data, then the census will ask people often, like, why reasons they don't vote. It's part of the data that people don't often dig into. And you'll find often a collection of, like almost up though a dozen different process issues that people have. And you add it up and it does it does matter. And we know, from just like the modern economy internet age, when you like, make something easier, it changes customer behavior. that's why Amazon invented one click. So like, it's just, it's, yes, and it's, a part of the issue, and, but it's, certainly not the, whole issue. And I was, I'm very proud to spend so many years solving that problem to the extent that I could and, one can, but it's a necessary part of improving our democracy. But it's not going to be sufficient. SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, especially because, there's just so many barriers, which we'll talk about between what people need, what they think they need, and then whether the politicians are listening at all. And so, so, all right. And then, so currently you are working with the catalyst for American Futures and publishing over on the website called the All American. So, so tell us about The these endeavors. FLAXMAN: Yeah. this, came together working with my two co-founders Ilyse Hogue, who is most well-known for leading NARAL for over 10 years. And Peter Teague, who was a leader in philanthropy working on climate change. And we came to the conclusion that the civil society broadly is not ready for the authoritarian crisis that we're in. We're missing all sorts of infrastructure movements united front, that building that's needed. And I'm sure we'll go into it, but it, I don't think any of us [00:08:00] set out being like, oh, we, really want to build this new organization. We built it, because we felt like the country's in crisis and there are just like missing pieces of the solution. We needed to get stood up as quickly as possible in order to one, build a united front, which is how a lot of other countries successfully defeat authoritarian surges. And a key component of a United front is that it's a, it's a Coalition of multiple different. Ideologically distinct movements. And right now we have the progressive movement, which is important, but it's not going to be a united front by itself. And we have sort of a center right faction that's not yet a movement, but it's, building some effort, but there's a huge gap for a lot of Americans who feel politically homeless right now. And we needed to give them an on-ramp into United Front that could be a place, a new political home for them to organize from that authentically reflected their values and was rooted in sort of what we would say, like patriotic and universalist values that are sort of the normy values that a lot of Americans have, but they're not really the central organizing principle in movement spaces. SHEFFIELD: Well, and that's you're that's what the book that you guys have put together is really about. And it's called out of Many One Writings on American. I'm literally looking at it FLAXMAN: I know, I'm like, I don't have my copy of the book. Oh, actually, should I grab my prop? SHEFFIELD: Oh

    1h 8m
  2. AUG 20

    The Human Cost of Failed Immigration Reform — A Conversation with Jessica Orozco Guttlein

    Decades of failed immigration reform and political half-measures have left millions of immigrants in the U.S. without a path to legal status. Instead, families are being torn apart by harsh deportation policies, asylum seekers are forced into the shadows, and U.S. citizen children live in daily fear of losing their parents. In this episode, I speak with Jessica Orozco Guttlein, Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications at the Hispanic Federation, about how we got here—and what it will take to repair the damage. We examine the legacy of the 1986 immigration reform, the repeated failure to pass the DREAM Act, and how policies like the Laken Riley Act deepen racial profiling and destabilize communities. Jessica also sheds light on the resilience of mixed-status families, the role of industries that quietly depend on immigrant labor, and why restoring due process must be central to any meaningful reform. Together, we consider how piecemeal solutions—like securing citizenship pathways for Dreamers—can begin to rebuild trust, reunite families, and prevent history from repeating itself. (00:00) Broken Immigration System and Political Stalemate Inadequate immigration policies and deportation destabilize families and communities, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform and recognition of immigrant contributions. (13:29) Challenges in US Asylum Policy The U.S. asylum system faces challenges due to policy changes, lack of resources, and removal of protections for immigrants. (24:31) Impact of Immigration Policies on Communities Immigrants in the US face fear and uncertainty due to increased enforcement policies, affecting sectors like hospitality and healthcare. (32:01) Restoring Due Process in Immigration The Laken Riley Act grants local police immigration authority, impacting mixed-status families and emphasizing the need for legislative action and due process restoration. (36:08) Immigration Backlog and Justice System The recent tax and spending bill highlights concerns about immigration enforcement priorities and the need for fair reforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    38 min
  3. AUG 10

    Terrified Trump is slinging ‘zombie food’ to distract his base from Jeffrey Epstein

    Episode Summary  Donald Trump in an unfamiliar situation. After years of being able to tell his followers what to think about almost everything, many of the MAGA faithful are upset at his administration for refusing to release the government’s files on the infamous sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. When he was running for office last year, Trump and many of the people who work in the highest levels of his administration repeatedly promised that they would release the documents on Epstein, including FBI, director Kash Patel, Deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Now, both Bondi and Trump are saying that they will not be releasing the Epstein files. This refusal has been extremely upsetting to many Trump voters because believing that imaginary Democratic pedophiles secretly rule the world has become almost the cornerstone of being a Republican in the Trump era.  Faced such massive inter-party descent, the administration has taken to a strategy that they reportedly refer to as “zombie food,” throwing out stories that they know know to be nonsense in order to distract MAGA partisans from Trump’s Epstein betrayal. In the past several weeks, Trump has offered a veritable zombie food buffet of narratives to supporters. But the biggest dish by far seems to be a new effort re-frame the 2016 Russian hack and influence campaign as actually a secret plot by Trump’s former opponent, Hillary Clinton, and former President Barack Obama. None of this is real, needless say, but I think particular episode is worth digging into further in real-time since we can see right now how zombie food is made and served up to the MAGA masses. Joining the show to discuss is Renée DiResta, a long-time friend of the show who has direct knowledge of this particular history because she was one of numerous experts who worked with the Senate Intelligence Committee to analyze the Russian hacking and disinformation campaign. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere Theory of Change brings you in-depth conversations on politics, technology, and media like nowhere else. Please subscribe to stay in touch! Related Content ◘ The internet is a safe space for lying now, thanks to congressional Republicans ◘ Covid contrarians were far more wrong than scientists were ◘ What today’s internet propagandists owe to yesterday’s tobacco advertising executives ◘ Countering the economics of disinformation ◘ America’s political divide is psychological more than ideological ◘ What’s actually in Tulsi Gabbard’s document dump? Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 08:26 — Marco Rubio and Senate Republicans said Russia tried to help Trump in 2016 12:21 — Trump’s “zombie food” distraction strategy 15:13 — The Sydney Sweeney hoax controversy 18:29 — File dumps as fake disclosure 22:25 — Tulsi Gabbard’s desperation to reconcile with Trump after Iran debacle 28:22 — Russian trolls only praised Clinton to damn her 30:06 — Russian troll tactics 34:15 — Right-wing figures falsely conflating media headlines with government actions 37:30 — John Durham turned up nothing compared to Robert Mueller 41:56 — Kash Patel’s burn bag story 44:20 — What the Durham Report annex actually says 48:48 — Right-wing media’s lower reading comprehension? 55:48 — Russian idiom snafus 01:00:05 — Conclusion This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    1h 24m
  4. Sydney Sweeney and ‘Phantom Lib Syndrome’

    AUG 8

    Sydney Sweeney and ‘Phantom Lib Syndrome’

    Episode Summary Right-wing Republicans have lost in the marketplace of ideas. Their policy views that evolution never happened, that tax cuts increase revenues, and that science is a big left-wing conspiracy are laughable. Whenever reactionaries attempt to debate progressives and liberals, as they recently tried against Mehdi Hasan, they fall flat on their faces. The millionaire grifters you see talking to themselves on YouTube or talk radio are too afraid to debate actual progressive pundits, so instead, the reactionary right picks battles with imaginary Democrats. I know this because I used to do it in my former career as a right-wing activist. It’s a dead-simple method: Find an obscure person you can say is “on the left” and then make that person’s little-viewed TikTok video somehow representative of everyone on the center-to-left. Rupert Murdoch’s Fox cable channel pioneered this tactic decades ago with its infamous “War on Christmas” lies. In actuality, celebrating Christmas was popularized by the liberal cultural Christian Charles Dickens. The original right-wing Protestants, the Puritans like Oliver Cromwell, hated Christmas and banned it from being celebrated for its supposed pagan and papist origins. But truth does not matter to reactionary authoritarians. Only power. And we saw that most recently in the recent hoax generated by right-wing media over actress Sydney Sweeney’s decision to do an ad campaign for a jean manufacturer that we won’t name. Most people didn’t care about the Sweeney spot. It was one of thousands of celeb paid endorsements. A handful of people noted that using “jeans” as a play on the word “genes” had unfortunate echoes of eugenics, but mostly it was ignored—until far-right extremists like Libs of TikTok and Charlie Kirk seized on a handful of scattered online comments and inflated them into proof of a massive “woke” meltdown. In reality, the outrage they claimed to be responding to didn’t exist; they had manufactured it, using a well-worn tactic called nutpicking to pretend that Democrats nationwide were outraged by an ad they had never even seen. In this live Theory of Change episode, Noah Berlatsky of Everything Is Horrible joins to talk about the right’s history of lying about the left, the center’s falling for it, and why Donald Trump is desperate to have Americans talk about anything but his failed administration and cover-up for Jeffrey Epstein. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Related Content * The right-wing freakout about sorority dance videos is more disturbing than it looks * How 1970s right-wing college students invented canceling people and many of today’s political consulting tools * Inside the cult of Turning Point USA * It’s not just schools: Reactionaries are targeting public libraries as well * The fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is being considered for a Trump pardon reveals his absolute desperation * Trump’s many broken campaign promises Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 05:33 — Right-wing envy of progressive cultural influence 09:53 — History of manufactured controversies 14:25 — Beauty standards and eugenics 19:01 — Trump's comments on minorities 23:49 — Republicans love canceling people 28:41 — History of Christmas celebrations 32:36 — Trump's failed campaign promises 36:46 — Economic policy failures 40:21 — Right-wing media tactics 44:36 — Online harassment campaigns 48:43 — Trump and Epstein connection 55:55 — The importance of distraction for Trump Transcript The following is a computer-generated transcript of the audio. It is provided for convenience purposes only and is not proof-read. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: ​[00:00:00] This is Theory of Change. I'm Matthew Sheffield. Thanks for joining me for another episode. And we're doing a live one today with Noah Berlatsky to talk about one of the most absurd and stupid fake controversies cooked up by the right wing in a number of years. And I'm talking of course about Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle and the ad campaign that she did for them, featuring some her wearing a jean jacket and pants, and which it was. Basically kind of a play off of a very kind of infamous Franklin, ad from the, nineties, I guess it was the nineties. Yeah. Featuring Brooke Shields when she was 14 years old and, that was kind of creepy. And they were trying to basically do an edgy, quote unquote, type of ad and, get controversy, but it didn't work initially, and like people weren't really paying attention to it. and, there, there was a little bit of commentary here and there of people talking about beauty standards and euro, euro centra and that sort of thing. But overall, people are just like, oh, Sydney Sweeney did an ad. and a lot of people had never heard of Sydney Sweeney. Like, I think that's the thing that I, when I, have [00:02:00] posted about a, thread about it, a couple of, or yesterday I've gotten so many replies from people saying, who the hell is Sydney Sweeney? Have you have people said that to you, Noah? NOAH BERLATSKY: Not, I mean, I haven't talked about it a ton, but I haven't uhhuh, I mean, I kind of know who she is. I don't know that Oh, you do? Yeah. SHEFFIELD: You're, a, you, are a media and political writer, so Of course, so, BERLATSKY: yeah. But, yeah, I mean, I'm not that surprised 'cause she's, she's a relatively new, her, stardom is relatively new and she, I don't think she's been in any huge kinda blockbuster hits quite yet, so, SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So I'm not sure. It's not surprising that people wouldn't know necessarily, I think. but, I guess before we get further into it, so, Noah just give, people a little background of your site and, and how you got into all this, if you would BERLATSKY: please. Sure. I'm a freelance writer. I write about politics and culture. my site is Everything is Horrible, which is a newsletter on Substack. and I've written about Sydnee Sweeney a couple times. most recently I talked about this ad a little bit. and, yeah, I've talked about her movie Immaculate. And, she's kind of been a figure who the right's been interested in for a while. sort of both positive. I mean, they've kind of both praised and attacked her. She's kind of a figure that the right thinks about, so I've talked about that a little. SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, let me, yeah, that's right. and, she's interesting as a figure for the right, because, they, they were trying to make Taylor Swift, their mascot, a few years ago, and I think after that didn't work. Now they're [00:04:00] trying, they've tried to make Sydney Sweeney as sort of their avatar, which is really bizarre because like, that's the, one of the funniest. And the most absurd things about right-wing cultural commentary, is that, or cultural output is that they can't make anything artistic. and so, these people who have these avatars of, Greek sculptures and, Renaissance paintings, et cetera, et cetera, and they're talking about, oh, I'm here to protect the culture from the ravages of the left. Well, guess what? The left runs all of these museums. and they're the ones, you know who, well, BERLATSKY: I think that's right, and I think that there's, I think that the left and Democrats don't really think about that as an advantage or don't necessarily capitalize it on it the way they could. I mean, I was kind of thinking about this with, kind of, people are like, who's the Joe Rogan of the left? Right? Are, because Joe Rogan's kind of has a big audience and people think, oh, well, he's. Got this direct line to a lot of young men, even though his audience is not that young. and I was thinking about that. And the truth is, I mean, there's a lot of cultural product that is made by people on the left, whether you're talking about museums, whether you're talking about like Taylor Swift, who's, a Democrat and who is endorsing Democrats or Beyonce. The right’s envy of progressive cultural influence BERLATSKY: I mean, there's just a lot of culture that comes from sort of the broadly progressive side of the spectrum. and, but you know, there's not a, what there isn't is there's not a lot of effort to people are willing to spend a lot of money to find the [00:06:00] next Joe Rogan, but like less money to do things like fund alternative weeklies, which help cultivate this kind of. Art scene, which is often quite progressive and, is interesting to people who are progressive and gets them interested in culture and in politics. the le I mean, the left doesn't really have an arts policy. I mean, that used to be, there was one of those in the thirties, right? I mean FDR was like, we're gonna fund, well that's, yeah. We kind of don't do that and Then they're like, well, why don't we have Joe Rogan? And it's like, you've got this large infrastructure, which you could do more to fund if you want it. And the right kind of knows that, which is why they're defunding it. Right. the, right is like attacking arts funding. And they're doing that because a lot of the arts are, sort of broadly progressive and they want, don't want people to be able to like, make a living doing that or communicate. SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's true. And and, essentially what they're trying to do is so, so mainstream culture, the reactionary, right. and I think it's important not to call them conservative because, conservatives want to keep things how they are. and Donald Trump is anything but conservative. conservative is somebody like Joe Manchin or Ki or, ki Sinema, that's a conservative. or like George will, or like those are conservatives. Donald Trump is a reactionary and authoritarian, fascist, whatever those words we want to use, I think.

    1h 15m
  5. Trump’s war on statisticians and the ‘liberal bias’ of reality

    AUG 6

    Trump’s war on statisticians and the ‘liberal bias’ of reality

    On Tuesday, Brad DeLong joined me for a live Theory of Change episode to discuss Donald Trump’s firing of Erika McEntarfer, the former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and how it is part of a decades-long war on sound economics and expertise in general waged by reactionary Republicans. We also discussed Brad’s own efforts to get economics as a discipline to understand complexity, and then wrapped with a discussion about the economy and artificial intelligence, one of his current research interests Video Timecodes 00:00 — The Erosion of Expertise and Trust 01:54 — Introduction and background 04:35 — Historical context of labor statistics 07:12 — Republican response to BLS firing 10:35 — The problem of Republican truth-telling 14:26 — The importance of judgment and expertise 18:05 — Trump's broader attack on expertise 26:01 — The first wave of AI development 30:20 — The crypto grift and AI investment 36:24 — The need for independent statistics 45:27 — The value of government investment 54:24 — Understanding AI's current state 01:04:11 — The role of liberal education 01:13:08 — The future of AI applications 01:19:58 — Musk, Trump and the tech elite 01:26:23 — Right-wing epistemology and AI Transcript The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: All right. So, for everybody who is, joining us, we're doing, this is a [00:02:00] live theory of change show and, we are here today with Brad Long of the, well, various places where you are at, but, primarily, your own Substack, we're going to be doing that. and, you are also you also have some affiliations. you're a professor at the University of California Berkeley. Brad DeLong: That’s the big one. Yes. SHEFFIELD: Yes. Okay. Brad DeLong: Important one. SHEFFIELD: Yes. and also, so, and I wanted to bring Brad on to do this with me today to talk about obviously, Donald Trump's firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head, Erika McEntarfer, after he had the bad jobs support, a bad jobs number. But it's obviously, this is part of a much broader picture, I think, of the reactionary right’s hatred of expertise, and, continually exemplifying that, that old phrase from Stephen Colbert, that reality has a liberal bias. DELONG: A liberal bias. SHEFFIELD: It seems that's what they think. DELONG: Yes. In many ways, it is the end of a long and honorable American tradition. as another Erica, Groen, my class, my graduate school classmate, who was an earlier commissioner of labor statistics, as she said, I think on Bloomberg's surveillance this morning. It was in 1884 that Carol Wright, the first Commissioner of Labor Statistics, said that his contract with the American people was that they were going to produce the best possible numbers they could and get them out without worrying at all what implications they had for any kind of political movement. or social reform. Or social order, right. cause that it was not their job. [00:04:00] to do anything other than to get the most accurate numbers they could out and that they pledged, that's what they would do for the American people. Donald Trump is now trying to break that. He is going to face a lot of resistance from the bureaucracy, which is in this case an extraordinarily good thing because the bureaucracy does indeed do its job as best it can, and they are indeed addicted to the idea that it is their job to produce the numbers. Historical context of labor statistics DELONG: That indeed, back in the 1870s, in the 1880s, people found themselves in furious political debates here in America. some of them saying that America was getting more prosperous, others pointing to falling prices of our farm goods and saying it was becoming less. Some of them saying that income distribution was becoming more equal. Others saying that from what they saw, it was becoming more unequal. And a whole bunch of people got together and said, we disagree on a huge amount, but we all agree we do not have reliable information about this, and we should spend some serious money creating governmental institutions that will in fact produce serious and accurate information. and that's what people interested in America, interested in, good governance, interested in a actual functioning, political sphere that does its job, got behind in the 1870s and 1880s. And that is the reason for the statistics movement. And first, the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics, and then the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, were started as a result of that 140 year tradition. And now with I say the complete absence, the complete absence of any kind of pushback from. Any Republican whatsoever against this with no [00:06:00] resignations from Trump's staff with no hearings called by any senators with nobody in Trump's orbit willing to say, by and large, the economic news is likely to be good over the next four years. And by doing this, you have just made it certain that no one will believe it, right? That you've actually shot yourself in the foot fairly significantly. And the right thing for you to do is to say, you flew off the handle and actually, will you please come back and work for us? You're a great, person that after all you were confirmed, what was it, 93 to six with JD Vance voting, yes. are you saying that, does Trump saying that JD Vance made a big mistake in choosing a partisan democratic apparat to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in which case the wokeness is coming from inside the White House in a very severe fashion. You don't wanna say that. You wanna say you overreacted, you flew off the handle, and we should walk this back. Republican response to BLS firing DELONG: Nobody is saying that to Trump. In fact, Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy were writing to the Commissioner of Labor statistics even as she was being fired, saying, why are you producing lousy numbers? Right? and the answer is that you have to, that this particular set of numbers comes from the reports that corporations make as they pay Social security and other contributions into the government. And, those things arrive. They arrive with sometimes a lag. You know that not every piece of paper gets in all the time at the right moment, and SHEFFIELD: As a, DELONG: of paper are [00:08:00] missing, you guess what they are. But then you get the real pieces of paper later on. This causes problems for the statistics. There is an industry of economists, about how the Bureau of Labor statistics, is unlikely to hit turning points accurately because it will assume there is more inertia in the missing data in the system than there in fact is. And when the new data comes in, you say, oh, the economy actually started growing two months ago, or, oh, the economy actually started shrinking three months ago. And they frantically attempt to construct better models to do this without a great deal of success. SHEFFIELD: because it's flying blind in a DELONG: to demand that you produce numbers that are not revised. Is either a demand that you go out, you send your goons out and start firing or start fining people who don't get their social insurance contribution paperwork in on time, which is you make the government a lot more oppressive and nasty in terms of filling out forms. or you delay everything a month or two months, or you report on what the level of payroll employment in July was, not at the start of August, but at the start of October. And if that's what Susan Collins wants to see, she's an idiot. And if none of the members of her staff told her, wait a minute, if you complain about this. Then you are either calling for data to be delayed for two further months so it can be properly checked and assessed. or you are simply wanting to make some kind of headlines about how you can't trust government statistics for partisan advantage. And neither is a professional occupation for a senator. yet apparently Susan Collins staff has no one on it who will say, wait a minute. Susan Collins herself, who is after all my [00:10:00] 52nd favorite senator, was willing to go whole hog in on this, and she has not asked Donald Trump to reconsider the firing of the Commissioner of Labor statistics, which means essentially that the entire Republican party is gone, from the perspective of actually wanting. Ideas that are true rather than ideas that are convenient go out there in the world. The problem of Republican truth-telling SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, it is notable that, the guy who was the previous Trump appointee. as the BLS head, has, in fact, he just came out with a statement criticizing, her or criticizing Trump for firing Erica the qar far. and, but yeah, it, only emphasizes your point though, that these are only the former Republicans, who are engaging in truth telling, in this regard. Like the actual people who are elected who could do something are, too intimidated and they're too intimidated by the Trumpian cancel culture against accountability. because like that's really, there, there's, this double game that has always been played since William F. Buckley came along and created, he, and others, created the, post-war reactionary movement that took over the Republican Party in which one party acts entirely in bad faith at all times. And everyone has to pretend that they don't. And so they attack all expertise and all data that, that counteract their beliefs and opinions. And then, everyone just has to pretend that it's serious. and this is why the Republican Party has, a higher approval rating than the Democratic Party does, because Democrats actually are willing to [00:12:00] criticize their own party, whereas Republicans don't. DELONG: yeah. No, I do remember being struck right in the last Trump administration, that, Economists, Robert Barrow and came out with a prediction that the then Trump McConnell Ryan tax cut would be a huge boost to American e

    1h 32m
  6. AUG 6

    Things Do Not Have to Be This Way: Dismantling American Patriarchy with Anna Malaika Tubbs

    Author and scholar Anna Malaika Tubbs joins The Electorette to discuss her powerful new book, Erased: What American Patriarchy Has Hidden from Us—a sweeping, incisive examination of how American patriarchy was built to exclude, erase, and control. In this conversation, Anna unpacks the nation’s gendered social order, from its origins in the Constitution to its modern-day consequences in law, politics, motherhood, and racial injustice. Drawing on personal experience, global perspective, and deep historical research, Anna explains how stories like that of Sacagawea—an Indigenous girl forced to guide the Lewis and Clark expedition—have been co-opted to prop up a false narrative of inclusion. She also traces how the legacy of patriarchal power lives on in institutions like the Supreme Court, and how it has shaped political identities and movements across generations. Anna Malaika Tubbs is a Cambridge Ph.D. candidate in Sociology and a Bill and Melinda Gates Cambridge Scholar. Erased is the follow-up to her debut The Three Mothers, and was an instant New York Times bestseller, a USA Today national bestseller, and named an Amazon Best Book of the Year (So Far) for 2025. This conversation explores what it means to be seen, to be heard, and to reclaim stories that were never told truthfully to begin with. Episode Chapters (00:00) American Patriarchy With Anna Malaika Tubbs American patriarchy, its impact on society, and reimagining narratives through personal and historical lenses. (12:31) Deconstructing American Patriarchy Through History Sacagawea's story is used to serve agendas, revealing erasure of matriarchal and non-binary identities and shared struggles of marginalized groups. (22:13) American Patriarchy and Women's Resistance Black women challenge American patriarchy, influenced by Supreme Court decisions, advocating for inclusive reproductive justice. (37:09) Black Feminist Motherhood and Reproductive Justice Black feminism, motherhood, and American patriarchy are discussed, with emphasis on accessible reproductive choices and dismantling societal norms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    47 min
  7. AUG 3

    In an age of fictionalized reality, we need literary criticism more than ever

    Episode Summary  If you’ve watched or listened to this podcast for a while, you probably know by now that Theory of Change is about stories—larger trends that happen and the narratives we tell ourselves about them. We’re finite beings; we exist for a moment within a small slice of spacetime. To understand anything at all about externality, we have to simplify it. But sometimes simplification makes things more complicated and confusing. The historical moment we’re sharing together is incredibly messy and confusing which is why I firmly believe that while the 20th century was the age of the economist, the 21st century is the domain of the philosopher—an era of interpretation. That’s why I’m excited to bring you today’s discussion with Virginia Heffernan, a really fantastic writer and thinker whose work you may have seen in the New Republic, Wired, or at her Substack, “Magic and Loss.” Virginia has written a lot of great journalism over the years, but at heart, she’s a literary critic—a profession that I think is very well-suited to interpret our interesting times in which the division between text and sub-text is often impossible to delineate. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Related Content • “This Present Darkness” and the fictionalization of evangelicalism • How an oversharing Christian blogger inadvertently documented his own radicalization • Why 90s Christian pulp fiction explains today’s Republican Party • How Democrats got trapped in the fictional politics of “The West Wing” • Jeffrey Epstein as the synechdoche of cruelty across political ideologies • The Big Ten rises up against Trump Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 07:42 — The 21st century as the return of philosophy 10:54 — Oral versus written traditions 13:32 — The fragile nature of reason within society 19:33 — The end of purist capitalism and communism 20:35 — Universities as places of public goods versus privatized goods 26:34 — Jeffrey Epstein as a synecdoche of corrupt compromise 34:02 — QAnon as projected right-wing Christian fear about internal predation 41:45 — Lewis, Tolkien, and the rise of fictionalized group interpretations of reality 51:08 — Richard Rorty's continued relevance 58:19 — Opposition to cruelty as a guiding principle 01:04:53 — Understanding why people believe lies 01:08:10 — Conclusion Audio Transcript The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Virginia Heffernan. Hey, Virginia. Welcome to Theory of Change. VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN: I’m so glad we’re doing this. SHEFFIELD: Yes, me too. Absolutely. Well, so why don't we start with that the title of your Substack is called politics–or the subtitle of it, I should say, is called “Politics for English Majors.” What do you mean by that? HEFFERNAN: Well, so title is the same as my book title from 2016 book, Magic and Loss, and I can tell you about that title if you are interested. But essentially comes from engineering. That's lossy. Lossy sound representation is representation that loses something obscure from the sound that we might not be able to perceive with our ears. But that can be quantified. And that's the loss. And then the magic is sort of that term of art. From tech or a term of marketing from tech that, any te technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. It was a big Steve Jobs word. So the book was about, the internet was about those two sides of the internet, something obscurity lost for which we're grieving and something gained that almost tripped our minds into kind of superstitious thinking, into magical thinking. And so that's the title of the book. That's the title of the of the, of, the Substack, which began a bit to be about tech 'cause that's what I had written about for so long. But I'm trained as a literary critic. I did a PhD at Harvard in, in, in English. And the topic of the dissertation was sort of finance and various novels about finance and in particular about inflation. So. short, the [00:04:00] idea that to save money is to lose it American fiction at the turn of the 20th century. And that has all kinds of consequences for nostalgia and preciousness money and value. so all those things were propelling this Substack as I went into to write it. And I really, but I had also very much since 2012, been writing about tech and politics since the digital election of 20 20 12, which I was, I wrote about Yahoo News. Just, pounding the pavement, going to the conventions, studying the Pinterest of, MIT, Romney's wife, like that kind of thing. So I, and, I had my old podcast Trump cast had just been ca ended because we thought Trump's reign of terror was over right after Trump's, after Trump lost the 2020 election. I looked forward to not writing about politics, to writing back about tech because I figured the ship of state had been righted with Biden as president and that politics would become boring again, and that I'd be able to write full time about AI, which I, was writing about for Wired at the time about AI and also some biotech with Ozempic and other drugs. And I figured that would be that would be my future. But then Trump was reelected and so it stopped being tech and politics and wanted to be, or I felt it wanted to be ta politics again, but all of it. Including the book Magic and Loss all the way through has been influenced by training, and I can only call it that as a iterate critic. I, don't say that to establish my authority as much as to say that's what I was soaking in for so long. My father was a literary critic. And it's, these things are hard to get out of once you have hermeneutic strategies and, methodologies, but also a [00:06:00] lot of politics seems to me. To come down to textual analysis. So a very simple one is, originalism, right? Like, it's crazy to hear people talk, to talk, hear constitutional law. People talk about originalism or to hear religious folks talk about fundamentalism without using the tools of literary criticism. Originalism has, there's a lot of faith that you can read words the way they are originally either intended or laid down, or, and this is kind of the work of literary criticism, is to understand why there's nothing simple and transparent about language that's put on a page. There's nothing that you can see through to either the intention of an author or to reality. And. Maybe you can, right? So that's another argument. But the fact that people have arguments about originalism absent the language of literary criticism and the methodology of literary criticism is just leaving a lot on the table. It's leaving a lot of tools on the table and I've seen computer scientists and other people kind of in philosophers, swoop in on conversations in, public domains in other domains and say like, you know what? We have something to offer here. This is Aristotle, and psychologists coming in with physicists or and so on. And that I'm an academic at heart. I like interdisciplinary studies, and I think it can be very useful to use some of the techniques of literary criticism, and I could give more examples of that to, understand kinds of facets of American politics. The 21st century as the return of philosophy SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I definitely think that's right. And and, in a lot of ways the, politics of this moment, the, of the 21st century, I see it as the, this is the century of philosophy. The 20th century was the century of [00:08:00] economics. But we're, and, going back to philosophy as the, nexus of politics that is the historical reality of it. And that even, like the term economics, that, that comes from oikonomia, which, is the Greek word. And, Aristotle was one that put that in. So this wasn't a discipline that arose on its own. It was created by philosophy, just like so many it created so many other things, including religion. HEFFERNAN: I really, appreciate, and I do, I agree by the way, if with the implication that literary criticism or criticism is a subset of philosophy I, double majored in philosophy in English. My problem with philosophy and Aristotle as an example is just that I could read so little of it in the original. I mean, certainly not ancient philosophers, but also French philosophers and so on. So what I like about the, that I think some people forget when they think that what I, we study in English departments is, literature, right? We are trying to focus on just literature in English or in the American language and paying close attention to the way the English language works. So I have much, much less to say about than I do about what Whitman for obvious reasons. And I am not confident to. Even if I can get through a copy of Madam Bovary in French, not capable of reading it very deeply. Because my vocabulary's limited, because my understanding the grammar's limited because I haven't been soaking in it and I just am skeptical of the translations that I get when it comes to ancient texts. I'm not sure, you just did like a lovely translation. We had to, do in the PhD program I was in, we had to have two ancient language, sorry, two ancient, two modern languages. And one of my ancient languages was old English. So [00:10:00] we can do those translations, but it's incredible how revelatory they are when you press on them and you wonder how much you might be missing. So anyway, just emphasize that. Literary cri English literary criticism in English and American literate literature is a subset of philosophy, especially since it's got this incredible laser-like focus on t

    1h 11m
  8. JUL 31

    Are Governors The New Power Players in U.S. Politics? A Conversation with Ofirah Yheskel

    In this episode of The Electorette, I’m joined by Ofirah Yheskel, Director of External Affairs for the Democratic Governors Association, to unpack the growing national influence of Democratic governors—especially in the face of Republican extremism and Trump-aligned policymaking. We discuss two high-stakes gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, where Democratic candidates Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill are stepping up to defend reproductive rights, protect access to healthcare, and push back against anti-democratic efforts like gerrymandering and Medicaid cuts. Their races aren't just local—they're national bellwethers for what’s ahead in the 2026 midterms. From canceled medical debt in Michigan to creative policy leadership in states like Arizona and Illinois, this conversation spotlights how Democratic governors are becoming the last line of defense—and the first line of progress. Whether you live in a battleground state or not, now is the time to pay attention. (00:00) The Role of Democratic Governors Democratic governors protect civil rights, reproductive rights, and healthcare against federal challenges, emphasizing the importance of electing Democratic governors in upcoming races. (08:11) Governor's Races Virginia and New Jersey's pivotal elections feature bipartisan candidates Spanberger and Sherrill, challenging extreme Republican policies on healthcare and reproductive rights. (16:28) Preparing for Critical Governor's Races Democratic governors shape national politics, DGA involvement, battleground states, open seats, supporting candidates, and staying informed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    20 min
4.8
out of 5
62 Ratings

About

Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, Doomscroll, and The Electorette.

You Might Also Like