Episode #365 – I Think You’re Wrong, But I’m Listening: Respectful Political Dialogue with Pantsuit Politics

This is episode 365 of the Brilliant Balance Podcast. I think you’re wrong, but I’m listening, the Art of Respectful political dialogue with Beth Silvers, one of the co-hosts of Pantsuit Politics. So welcome back to Brilliant Balance. I am so glad you’re here today and tuning in today because we are diving into a topic that has become increasingly difficult to navigate in our modern world, and that is how to have civil conversations across political divides. My guest today is Beth Silvers. She is the co-host of the highly acclaimed Pantsuit Politics podcast and co-author of two books. I think you’re wrong, but I’m listening. And now what Beth and her co-host, Sarah Stewart Holland, have built a tremendous platform centered on having respectful nuanced conversations about politics even when they themselves don’t always agree. So Beth’s background is in law and human resources, and you will hear this in the interview.

She talks about her experience, executive coaching and her experience as an attorney, but her passion is really in creating spaces where we can talk about tough issues without resorting to anger or dismissiveness. Right? She’s a very calm, pragmatic approach, and it is exactly what so many of us need when we find ourselves in emotionally charged conversations, whether those are happening with family members or coworkers, or even close friends. So I invited Beth on today because let’s be honest, we have all been in situations where political conversations have not gone well. But I genuinely believe it doesn’t have to be that way. And Beth is here to show us how we can lean on the skills we’ve already built as leaders to maintain grace and keep our cool, and ultimately actually connect with people who see the world differently. Within my family and my friends and the brilliant balanced community, there are people who feel very strong connections to disparate political points of view, sometimes based on single issues, sometimes based on the overall direction of a particular party, sometimes based on a particular politician and our emotions about them. So while we are not here today to change your point of view about politics, we are here to help you maintain healthy conversations and relationships, even in the midst of those differences. And I think you’re going to hear how this approach can serve you really well in the coming weeks and months and beyond. So if you have been avoiding these conversations, or if you’re tired of having them end in frustration, I think you’re gonna learn a lot from Beth today. So let’s get into it.

Cherylanne Skolnicki:
All right, Beth, well, welcome to the show.

Beth Silvers:
Thanks for having me. So

CS:
Listen, it’s my understanding, and I would love your version of this origin story that you and Sarah started Pantsuit Politics back in 2015, really with the vision of creating a space for civil nuanced dialogue, right? Political dialogue in particular between two people who had really different opinions. Can you tell me your version of that story? Fill in some of the color around, like what made you decide to step into this world

BS:
That sounds like a bigger vision than we had when we first started <laugh>. It’s generous, I would say <laugh>. You know, we really wanted to just talk to each other in a way that we weren’t finding other spaces to talk. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, there are lots of constraints around talking politics in business companies, in communities, in religious communities. Yes. So we really just, we wanted to talk about things that mattered to us, and we wanted to have the kind of conversation that we weren’t hearing anywhere else, because in the spaces where people were talking politics, it was so immediately contentious. It was contentious by design, and it felt very surface level to us. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. It’s one thing to say we’re so polarized. People disagree so strongly. It’s another to say, well, why?

Yeah. And what got us here and what could unstick us in these places where we feel so stuck? Or what’s my personal evolution? How much room am I giving myself to learn more or to be challenged or to question where I’m starting? And so we really began late at night. We both had little babies. Yeah. When we started, I worked a full-time job. Sarah was doing social media consulting, so we were kind of making the podcast in the cracks of the day, but I would sit down on the floor of my bedroom closet with a microphone stacked up on some books and just chat with Sarah. And it was really a release that I needed because I care about these things like so many of us do. And I just didn’t have a place to explore. And that’s what the podcast became.

CS:
And it’s so beautiful because I think if, to the extent that we’re having political conversations at all, I think most people are having them with like-minded individuals because they feel safe. And so to really have a friend you already trusted that you could do this with and trust that you would listen enough to get to the nuance or maybe the intent behind the belief or whatever was creating the division. That’s the word that I pull out of your work, work a lot is nuance. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And it’s a word I love. I use it a lot. I think so many problems are not solved in broad brush strokes. Right? There are so many fewer things that are true dualities than we act like there are. And it’s like the nuance of really being willing to listen long enough to understand is where we find common ground.

BS:
It’s where we find common ground, and sometimes it’s where we find the least common ground. It’s where we find what is the most true about our differences and what is most true that we aren’t willing to change. Yes. You know, I know that you do executive coaching work, and I’ve done a little bit of that work in my career, and the, the main question I learned to ask clients is, what are you willing to change? Because we can’t make things better without making a difference. Yes. But it’s also really frustrating for everybody to keep running up against a wall of things that you’re just not willing to change, whether it would make your life better or not. So let’s be really honest about that. And I think that that’s important in political discussion too. It’s a lovely thing to sit down with someone and seek common ground. Sometimes it’s just as useful to say, this is where we break down. This is

CS:
The line,

BS:
This is the line, and I’m not really willing to change my perspective here, and you are not either. So what does that mean? What do we do next? What does that mean in terms of policy? What does it mean in terms of relationship?

CS:
And that’s where I can already feel the fear starting to rise up right. In my own chest <laugh>, because I think that’s why we don’t go there. I think it’s the, the fear is that we will reach a wall that says, I don’t know what I do about that. I don’t know what I do with somebody who truly believes that. Something that’s at the polar opposite to your own beliefs. Right. So listening sounds like it’s at the root of this Absolutely. The art of listening. And your book actually includes that. Right? I think you’re wrong, but I’m listening is such a great book title. It’s so great. So tell me a little bit about how listening plays into this from your experience, you know, a decade now of hosting this show. What does listening have to do with it?

BS:
Well, I think that listening is the key to unearthing what’s interesting in these conversations. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, I think a lot of us have tuned out on politics because it’s gotten boring. You turn on cable news, you can predict what everyone will say. You understand what the roles are. You understand what the talking points are, even when something new happens. Even when something new happens like a true disaster. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, you can quickly predict how social media is gonna break down. Yes. And what people of the left and right are going to say about it. And that is stressful. And it’s also just not very stimulating. And so when I really listen to Sarah, and she’s an interesting thinker, anyway, that’s part of why I love doing this with her. But when I really listen to her, I hear not only kind of the surface level, well, what do we think ought to happen next in terms of policy?

Or whose fault is this? Which is something we circle around in politics all the time, all the time there’s a problem, who can we blame for it? But I also hear at least the beginnings of why she gravitates towards this person or why she cares deeply about this issue or what in her life experience makes her skeptical of a solution. And then I can ask a question that takes us a level down from there and a level down from there. And always somewhere in those layers. There’s something I haven’t thought about before. And I love that.

CS:
Yes. And I think that the phrase, my thinking on this has evolved is one of my, my personal favorite phrases. I use it all the time. And I think it’s something that, first of all, we don’t give politicians room enough to do Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Right. I mean, heaven forbid someone’s thinking evolves over time because they get new information or access to the nuance of an issue. We get so fired up about that Right. As a, as a people. And yet in my own life, some of my biggest growth comes when my thinking on something evolves. So I’m confident that you two are evolving each other’s thinking. How do you think that plays into this? You know, you kind of talked to the side of sometimes we are, this is a foundational bedrock issue. I’m not moving. But what about the other times when there is evolution?

BS:
I think that’s the most exciting part of doing this work. I mean, you do this for 10 years, it changes you in a million ways. And it’s not just Sarah. We publish a podcast episode and we hear from people all over the world. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And always we hear from people who have more direct experience with a policy issue than we do. Yes. We are two women. We both live in Kentucky, we both have law degrees, we’re married to men, we have kids, and you know, an SUV and a minivan like our life experience are pretty defined. Yes. So we publish these episodes knowing that we’re putting our, I like to call it my draft opinion. This is my draft opinion and I’m putting it out into the world, but I am gonna get worked on by the people who listen to the show. And I love being worked on.

And I think that’s been a really lovely, uh, consequence of doing this that I didn’t anticipate Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> that I, I now enjoy being malleable. Yeah. I enjoy being able to say, my thinking has evolved on this, or I see this differently. The way that I’ve come to put it recently is like, the world changes and so do I. And that will always be, you know, I had a very kind of philosophically grounded, I thought, view of the role of government before the pandemic, but then there’s a pandemic. What you need from a government totally shifts. Yes. And that doesn’t mean that I think everything is relative and nothing is sturdy. But it means, I think a lot of things are Yes. And I’m willing to be that sort of squishy in the middle, like work in progress on politics because it keeps me in my relationships and it keeps me curious about the world. And that’s, that’s what I want.

CS:
Yes. And ultimately, solutions to pragmatic world problems that can address these multiple points of view. I mean, somebody at the end of the day has to make decisions. That encompasses these disparate points of view and value systems. And I think sometimes we lose sight of that when we’re, it’s so easy to kind of, of treat it like it’s a football team, you know, oh, this is the team I’m for, instead of really looking at, there are very deep challenging elements about any solution to any policy issue on both sides. And that, I think, I just think kind of in general, we get a little too mummified in our understanding of those issues.

BS:
A football game ends <laugh>. That is the problem with that context. Yeah. Right. The football game ends, the season ends, the players change. Everybody gets a break and a chance to move on. I think it’s much more useful to apply some of the skills that you apply in organizational leadership to politics. Yeah. Because this is a never ending, constantly evolving, living, breathing thing that we’re all doing here together. Yes. And if we treat it like, well, this is your team and this is my team, uh, and somebody is going to win in the short term, and then maybe the championship, I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean for our communities. Right. Right.

CS:
It falls apart. And yet I think the ethos of how people behave, particularly during election seasons is as though Right. We’ve kind of taken sides and we’re cheering for a team. So many of the women you just mentioned, organizational behavior and leadership, many of the women who listen to this show are leaders navigating, you know, corporate constructs or constructs at work where they are in a position of leadership. Political discussions can come up. They need to find ways to have and navigate them. That’s not just like, this is a, no one talks about it subject. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. But where there is a level of respect and gracefulness in those conversations, you do this so beautifully, what practical ideas do you have that they can apply at first at work? And then I’m gonna talk about family separately.

BS:
So I think of it in a slightly different frame than you asked the question. Okay. I think part of the reason I’ve been able to do this in politics is because of my business experience. Okay. So I would say lean into the skills that you already have. The worst thing that’s happened to our politics is that we have put them in a container and shut the lid and said, that is like a toxic substance that you keep over there. And I guess I will engage with it during elections maybe, but mostly I would like to keep it way over there with the lid on. And, and I would like it to work as well as it can, but mostly leave me alone. And of course, it continues to rot because we treat it that way. Yes. We have the skills. If you have led an organization, you have the skills of looking at a situation where often there is not a perfect solution.

Where often there are strongly held and differing perspectives. More than two Yes. About where we ought to go with something, where the consequences, those that are foreseeable and those that are not, will be really significant and could impact people’s livelihoods and their, their home lives and the community that you are operating in. You know how to do this. Right. And you know how at the end of the day, a call has to be made, and sometimes that call involves a ton of compromise. And sometimes that call involves saying, we must pick a way and there isn’t really a compromise available. Yes. So we’re gonna pick this way and we’re all gonna have to disagree and commit that this is the way that we’re going. And then we’ll figure out what the next stage looks like. So instead of saying, well, here’s like a separate skillset that I need to import for when politics enters the room. I think that’s when you most need to lean into what you’ve learned about problem solving. Oh,

CS:
That is beautiful. And I think the notion of agree, disagree, commit, like that sort of framework. I remember being taught that my corporate background at Procter and Gamble, I remember hearing that in meeting rooms for years. Like, Hey, we’re gonna hash this out. It could get ugly. People are gonna have a lot of strong opinions. At the end of the day when the decision gets made, we’re all gonna commit. Right. Because if we’re not, and if there’s people pocket vetoing, right. The the decision that we’re trying to make, we are not ever gonna get to where we could if we were all supporting the ultimate decision. Like trusting, hey, points of view have been heard, the decision’s been made with all the best available data, and now we gotta go do the thing. That’s, I think that’s such a great framework that people can really grab onto.

BS:
I think that’s what we used to mean by politics ends at the water’s edge. Like with respect to our foreign policy, we would hash it out, disagree, perhaps, and then commit. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And I think we need to bring that ethos back around our foreign policy, but also bring it to our domestic policy. What’s great about a place like Procter and Gamble is I know they really value that hashing out process. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, we mean it when we say, give us your best argument. Make your best case, bring your best thinking. We don’t wanna miss anything. Right.

One of my favorite experiences with P&G people, if I can tell you this. Yes. I was at a charity event and I sat at a table with a number of folks from Proctor and Gamble who were working on the laundry line. Yes. And they started asking me questions about how I wash my clothes, what products I use, what cycle I use. Yes. How, what do I dry and not dry? Focus group was one, I’ve been so interrogated about my laundry in my life, but it was so fun because their passion was really clear. And also when I brought up a product that P&G didn’t make, they weren’t offended by it. They were excited to know more. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Why, why that one? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Okay. I like that you’re using multiple products. That’s good news for us. Even if it’s not all of our products, you know?

Yes. If we could bring that lens to policy discussions or to elections Yeah. Where we say, no, it’s really important. Make your best case. I wanna hear you out on this. And then we’ll, we’ll all have to figure out what we’re gonna do next. Yeah. And that’s okay too. And, and we’re committed because ultimately we are Americans or we are citizens of this world and, and we all want what’s best for our kids. Yes. We all want to continue to have safe lives. We all want as many people to be prosperous as possible if we can kind of believe that and commit to a direction and then commit to revisiting that direction after it’s been given some time. You know, I really do believe that those types of skills from the business world are super useful in government. It’s not that I think the government should run like a business. It’s very different. Yes. It’s very different. But it is that I think there are learnings from how we conduct ourselves in organizations. That are important in our civic life

CS:
And lend themselves to conversations about political topics, whether or not we are politicians, right? Yes. That, yes. I think that’s what’s key and critical.

CS:
I wanna talk to all my fellow business owners and introduce you to my friends at Mackey. They are experts in providing CFO services that give you the clarity and confidence that you need not only to succeed, but to make those strategic decisions that transform your business. Listen, running a business can be stressful. And trust me, I get it. You always want more time away from work to do the things you love, but you also want more profit. And that’s where Mackey comes in with their full service, financial accounting, and executive guidance with their Prosper for business system. You’ll have a trusted partner by your side combining strategic planning, data analysis, and goal setting to help you grow further, better, and faster. And their results speak for themselves. Mackey’s clients experience an average first year profit increase of over 100%, and business owners report a 20% increase in time freedom.

So start your journey to prosper today. Visit mackey advisors.com. Brilliant. Balance and book your consultation.

Okay. Balance builders. Any chance you’re feeling a little overwhelmed by your overloaded schedule. I know I’ve been there. In fact, it’s why I created 14 days to calendar control. This is my step-by-step program where I share my personal system and set of tools to help you transform your chaotic weeks into easy breezy ones. Okay. Maybe not easy breezy, but at least edited and organized. Listen, there’s training templates and tools in there to help you get things under control quickly. Say goodbye to constant conflicts and chronic rushing and say hello to calendar control, curious. Head to brilliant-balance.com/calendar for instant access. That’s brilliant-balance.com/calendar. Now, back to the show.

CS:
What I really hear in your story about the Proctor and Gamble event is curiosity, right? This kind of in and I, that speaks to me because I grew up there essentially, right? In that organization, very curious minded people across all functions who truly want to know the answers, right? And, and want to understand what am I missing here? What element of this do I not yet understand? And I think fear stands in the way of that curiosity. It kind of goes back to what we were saying earlier. If you take this to a family context, right? Yes. We’re about to have a family dialogue. We’re all heading toward the holiday season. And, and just invariably there will be heated dug in conversations that happen at, you know, tables around the country in the month of November. I’m so hopeful for what curiosity could bring to that conversation.

CS:
And I remember talking to my kids about sort of behaving like anthropologists, like going into some of those conversations. Like, I really want to understand what makes this point of, you know, what was the life experience that this person had? What are they really saying behind what they’re saying? Like, what are the unspoken ideals? And if you can keep the temperature down on the emotional response and really listen for that, I think there’s so much that we learn about where that person’s beliefs were shaped, right? Yes. And what they’re really holding so dear. So, let’s talk a little bit about family environments and how the same lens of curiosity might help us. Do you have any great stories?

BS:
I think anthropology is a great place to start. I would do it first with me. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So what am I afraid of? Why am I nervous about this coming up? Will I feel rejected if we all disagree if my parents say, well, you’ve lost your way. I think your beliefs are crazy. I think you’re listening to fake news or conspiracy theories, or however it presents. Yes. What will I feel inside? What am I afraid of feeling? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And then for me, the next thing I think is, well, okay, I am afraid of that. And fear feels like, I don’t know, tension in my shoulders or nausea or whatever. And I’m willing to feel that because I think this is important and I know I will survive that. I also think it’s good to be curious about if you know your family has landed in different places, how that happened.

So if I am the, the black sheep politically mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, how did I get here? And can I kind of draw myself a map from when I was really aligned with this group of people to where I am today and what were the key events and what are the stories of those key events that I might be able to share to help them understand that I wasn’t rejecting you? I don’t think you’re stupid. I still love you, I still value your opinions. Yes. But these are the things that happened in my life that remolded my thoughts around this. If you’re not, if you’re still aligned and somebody else is coming to the table, who’s landed in a very different spot Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, Hey, isn’t it interesting that we both grew up in this house, that we had the same parents, that we went to the same church, that we both played softball, whatever, and we landed in such different places on this. I wonder what in your life have I missed that got you here?

CS:
Oh, Great Question

BS:
And how can we, and how can we work through that? It’s a different goal than sitting down and saying, well, I wanna make sure that we all get up from the Thanksgiving table and vote for the same person. Or I wanna make sure that we have, we’ve solved immigration today. You know, we’ve, we’ve written comprehensive immigration reform here at our table. Right. Like that’s, that is not our work to do, our work to do for those of us who are not in positions of political power other than our votes and our citizenship. Yeah. Our work to do is to influence each other and to be influenced, you know, if it’s just one way, the, the only thing I would, the only note I would have about that anthropological exercise is that if it’s just one way we really risk turning people into projects Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and treating them with condescension and, and distancing ourselves from them.

Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. But if we’re working on ourselves at the same time, then I think we can walk in each other’s directions. It may not ever mean that we’ll vote for the same person Right. Or that we’ll see an issue the same way, but it could mean that our relationship is healthier and stronger, and that we continue to have an opportunity to just be in ears. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, you know, Sarah says this really well. Her dad is in a very different place politically than she is. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And she will often say, I just show up to disrupt what he thinks about all people like me. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Because it’s really easy when you’re having the conversations about politics only with people who agree with you to decide what the other side looks like. Like Yeah. But when it’s your daughter who loves you and reaches out to still connect with you through that, then that’s, that’s disruptive and that’s good. Even if it never changes how he votes.

CS:
Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think the notion of stepping into it instead of away from it is something, I’m just getting over it and over from you in this conversation. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> is, again, I feel like the governing emotion is fear there or anger. Right. Pick one of those two is probably at play. And when we’re worried that the conversations will be divisive, that they will rupture relationships beyond repair, that we will not speak to these people again. And I think that is the fear that a lot of people are carrying into political conversations in their communities and in their families and in their workplaces. Then of course, we’re not having them. Right. Because fear is in the driver’s seat. So something else is gonna have to get in the driver’s seat for us to feel like we need to have these conversations so we can continue to deepen the relationships.

And to your point, our main role in the political process is influence. It’s helping people understand how we think and listening to how they think so that ultimately, you know, the entire country is influenced by people that they can listen to. So, my kids were watching the debates. I mean, I have three teenagers and they were like, how do we get anything out of this? Right. How is this a helpful process? And it brought me back to like, debate team in high school. When you think about what happens in a debate team where you are forced to take the opposite point of view, for anyone listening who doesn’t know how debate teams work, you sometimes have to debate the opposing point of view. Right. Which forces you to think through how you would make that argument. And so we were having a conversation in our house about wouldn’t that be interesting if you really had to get both parties to articulate the opposite side’s point of view with conviction, how might they do that and what would that change about the way, you know, the debate protocols are today? Because I, I think most people can agree, like it’s not a helpful piece of the process today. Like maybe there’s something I’m missing that you see in that, that I should see.

BS:
No, I think it’s not a helpful piece of the process today, except in so far as it’s maybe a little bit like the bar exam. Like, did you do your homework? Did you prepare? Yes. Do you have the endurance to stand up here and go through this thing that’s really grueling? Yes. Do you have the endurance to have people watch your face and maintain video over and over?

Yeah. Keep it in check. You know, what is your kind of emotional resilience like? Yeah. And those things are important. I mean, I would rather see a problem solving exercise. I would rather see each candidate sit down at a desk and be handed just a total catastrophe mass. Yes. And, and then tell us what are you going to do? Who are you calling? What are your priorities? And answer questions about just what would you be guided by when you, when you sit at the Yes. The, the

CS:
Resolution desk. Yes. Like a case study in a consulting interview. Yes. Yes.

BS:
Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And I don’t need to see that in an adversarial format. Right. Just side by side. Yes. Just hand these two people the same scenarios and let me watch them work through it. But that really takes the football element out that really disrupts the way that we’re all feeling. That’s not super fun. Uh, you know, to wear a sweatshirt about

CS:
Or chance SNL can’t do a lot with that. Yeah. No.

BS:
I’m, I be, I think they probably could if they worked hard, but, and wouldn’t that be more fun for everybody if we had like a new paradigm? Yeah. What that gets to me, when you were talking about fear, I kept thinking, yes, I think we’re all afraid and that’s why we don’t do these things. But what I know, and I’m sure you have experienced in this or in the life of a nonprofit or a church, the thing that you are afraid of absolutely will happen if you don’t address it. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So if you are looking at your family or friends and thinking this relationship will be destroyed if we start talking about politics, that relationship will be destroyed by politics at some point. Yeah. It absolutely, if you never talk about it, the simmering resentment of that

CS:
Steering Mm-Hmm.

BS:
<affirmative> knowing that you are holding this tension and not even trusting each other enough to surface it and name it and start working through it, that will destroy the relationship.

CS:
You know what it reminds me of Beth, it reminds me of the Brene Brown teaching of, you know, the story I told myself. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> when, when something happens, just take someone in your life who you think holds a political, um, the opposite or a a disparate political point of view from your own, the story you’re telling yourself about why they believe that and what they think about you is made up in your head unless you’re in conversation with them. Right. Just like in any relationship. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, if I think my husband’s mad at me about something and I’m not in dialogue about why, you know, I’m believing whatever I made up maybe for a long time. And that does lead to long-term resentment. So I’d not really thought about that. Um, and thank you for mentioning it, I think the unspoken conversations can lead us to really just erroneous conclusions. Right. If we’re not careful. That’s a great point.

BS:
And we layer onto that conversation happening in my head, what I hear from liberals or conservatives in the world. Yes. So now I’m not even seeing this person who I love anymore. I’m seeing them as an avatar, a caricature for a, a greater, you know, a greater and probably the worst media view, uh, that they might be holding onto. Yeah. And we just, you again, you cannot put that in a container and slap a lid on it and say, but everything else will be cool between us <laugh>, it’s not going to

CS:
No, no. Yeah. And I’m sitting here, rolling through in my head, like people that I know and where their relationships are being damaged by, you know, neighborhoods, like neighborhoods where people are becoming divided and unwilling to really understand, well, what does that person flying that flag really mean? You know, there’s not any conversation happening. We’re reading symbols as though we know everything about them. I think it’s so important that we’re brave and courageous in having these conversations and such an important reminder that we have a lot to grab onto from our life experience that we can use in these conversations as well. What gives you hope? What, where are you seeing evidence of, you know, that is giving you hope in the future of how we manage these political conversations?

BS:
Well, I have the privilege of talking to lots of people who are holding office. And I almost always leave those conversations really encouraged, even the conversation until someone’s been very cautious and I haven’t heard much from them that I couldn’t have heard in a hundred other interviews, I still think, well, they’re being really cautious. They take this seriously. They do their homework and they stick to what they believe really matters here. So they don’t get distracted by nonsense. I can find hope in that. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. But I hear a number of people, governors specifically, really working hard to say, I represent everybody in this state, regardless of who they voted for and regardless of their vision for our country. I represent everybody. Yeah. And so it’s my job to really work the fundamentals of representing everybody. What are our highways and bridges? Like? What’s the quality of our water? How good are our schools? How easy is it to interact with your government? You know, I think a lot about an interview we did with Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, and he wants to have this model where there’s no wrong door to come into government. So if you need something from the DMV, but you go to a different department, they get you there. You know, they don’t say good luck to you, go find it out on your own. Right. If you go to their website and you need help filling out a form, there’s a video there to help you through it. And then there’s a number you can call and talk to a person who will help you. And that, that gives me a lot of hope because I think the symbols that you mentioned, the flags, the yard signs, the hats, the things that we spend a lot of time fighting over.

Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> I think it really has eroded some of the real tangible elements of what the government is here to do. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And that we have in that climate, so many people working really hard to say, no, I’m here to do what the government’s really here to do. I’m not here to figure out good versus evil. I am not here to fight some existential battle about you, you know, fill in the blank hot button issue. I recognize that there are 330 million people in America. We’re gonna feel lots of different ways about what a good life means, about what a good death means, about what a good relationship means, what good, a good family, a good career. We’re gonna feel all kinds of ways about that. Yep. We can make sure that our highways are built to withstand harsh weather events. We can make sure that the water you drink will not poison you. Like we’re gonna, we’re gonna do the things that we can do for everybody. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And I think that that’s just critical to getting us trusting each other again, but also just like the reality check of the things that matter and how they matter. Yes.

CS:
So, good. I’m gonna end this with a question about the book. I think you’re wrong, but I’m listening. What is a takeaway from that one teaching point that you really love from that book, that you think that we can carry with us into these conversations that are about to unfold in Technicolor in the coming weeks? <laugh>,

BS:
I hope that if you read, I think You’re wrong, and our second book now what, what you walk away thinking about is like, what is my work to do in this space? It’s really easy, especially if you’ve tuned way out of politics and you start to tune in to tune all the way in and to start to feel responsible for absolutely everything. Yeah. I was listening to one of your recent episodes about how it feels like we don’t have enough time in our lives because those of us who end up in positions of leadership often wanna bring that competence and excellence and sense of responsibility to absolutely everything that we touch. And that’s not available in politics. Politics works best when everyone’s doing their part and just their part, not more than their part. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So I hope with both of our books we’re saying, your part can look like caregiving.

You are doing something political. When you’re raising three teenagers who watch the debates and talk about it with you, you’re doing something political when you’re caring for aging parents and advocating for them with inside systems that are confusing and daunting and often you think, well, who does this work for? It seems like no one <laugh>, you know, uh, you’re doing political work when you push for parental leave policies in your workplace that are more generous. You know, there are all kinds of ways to contribute and I hope that you can read our books and think, okay, there is a way that I am fully equipped to do this. I don’t need to be intimidated. I’m fully equipped and also I am not responsible if I don’t have to knock doors in this election to have done something really impactful. Maybe if I’m called to that in the season of my life, great. But I think sometimes it feels like there’s only one way to be a politically contributory person and there’s just, and and there. We don’t need that or desire it. It’s you, you use your gifts and talents and interests and opportunities to put good stuff in the river of our civic stream and then be satisfied with that contribution.

CS:
Excellent. Excellent. Beth, will you just outline where people can find you, the podcast, the books, and then we will link those in the show notes? Yes.

BS:
Well, we’re Pantsuit Politics everywhere, so wherever you listen to podcasts, Pantsuit Politics is there. The books are, I think you’re wrong, but I’m listening And now what, how to move forward when we’re divided about basically everything. Our website is pan politics show.com and it’ll take you to everything else that we make. All the thanks and there’s a lot of it.

CS:
Yeah. Yes. Well, you two are a delight. I really love the show and thank you. Thank you so much for being with me today here on The Brilliant Balance Show. It has been an absolute pleasure to have you. 

BS:
Thank you for having me.