How Do We Fix It?

When we first started our podcast in the spring of 2015, Jim and Richard came from different political tribes. They still do. But during more than 400 shows they've deepened their friendship and learned a tremendous amount from each other, and our remarkable guests.While "How Do We Fix It?" podcast will continue its journey, Jim and Richard's nine years as co-hosts ends with this show. We discuss why the partnership is ending (spoiler alert: it's amicable!) and what they discovered about podcasting, politics, and how to navigate divisions at a time of rigid, painful divides."I feel like when we started, we were a couple of voices in the wilderness, searching for more open-minded conversations, looking for people willing to grapple with facts and ideas that don't fit their comfortable world views," says Jim."One of our last-minute decisions in those early days was to add a question mark to our title," says Richard. "I'm so glad we decided to do that, because fixing the current political mess starts with better listening and more challenging questions."In the years since we started our voices have grown into a movement. Some call it the bridging space with organizations such as Braver Angels, Heterodox Academy, Living Room Conversations, Listen First, Solutions Journalism Network, Common Ground Committee and many more. Media have also changed with the huge growth of podcasting, Substack, and new news sites such as The Free Press. We've enjoyed hearing from a remarkable range of guests. Among the most successful and persuasive experts are humble about their own opinions and accomplishments. They've been open-minded and curious about the views of those who sharply, and sometimes dismissively, disagreed with them. Standout examples include scientist Alina Chan, journalist and author Jonathan Rausch, writer and podcast host Yascha Mounk, and Moni Guzman of Braver Angels. In this episode Richard and Jim get personal and a bit emotional about where they've changed their minds and personally learned from each other. Please listen!Follow How Do We Fix It? on Facebook and Twitter X. Jim is a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute. Follow him here on Twitter. He writes for City Journal and Commentary. Richard co-hosts "Let's Find Common Ground" podcast with Ashley Milne-Tyte. He's on Facebook and his Twitter handle is daviesnow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Supporters of Ranked Choice Voting argue that we need to a big change how we vote. Our “choose-one” elections, they say, deprive voters of meaningful choices, create increasingly toxic campaign cycles, advance candidates who lack broad support and leave voters feeling like our voices are not heard. We examine the case for this form of proportional representation. Ranked Choice Voting could boost electoral turnout, reduce polarization, and cut the public cost of running elections. This relatively new reform is now being used in dozens of states, cities and counties. In 2022, Alaska implemented ranked-choice voting for the first time after a referendum revamped its elections.Our guest, Rob Richie is cofounder and senior analyst at FairVote, makes the case for how it works and why RCV is a viable way to improve electoral politics. Right now, he says, we are in this "incredibly intense winner-take-all environment" in most states. Ranked-choice voting could change the equation.Instead of picking just one candidate, voters rank as many candidates as they want in order of choice: first, second, third and so on. If your first-choice candidate is in last place, your vote counts for your highest-ranked candidate who can win by getting more than 50%. RCV removes voters' concerns that their favored candidate could split the vote.Most Americans agree Congress is not working. Retiring Senators Mitt Romney (Republican - Utah) and Joe Manchin (Democrat - West Virginia) are outspoken supporters of Ranked Choice Voting. “Every incentive in Washington is designed to make politics extreme,” says Manchin. “The growing divide between Democrats and Republicans is paralyzing Congress and worsening our nation’s problems.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Liberalism is out of fashion. You might say that it's under siege. From the populist right to the progressive left, liberal touchtones of limited government, personal freedom, the rule of law, and a mixed economy have come in for harsh criticism.Liberalism is assailed by many critics, but it has not failed, argues Yale Political Science Professor Bryan Garsten. "A liberal society is unique in that it offers refuge from the very people it empowers" through "institutions and different political parties. This allows the rest of us to live undisturbed," he says. Supporters argue that this form of liberty most clearly elevates the liberal project. In addition to his research and teaching, Garsten has written recent op-eds for The New York Times. His books include “Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgement” and a collection of essays he edited about Rousseau and the Age of Enlightenment. This episode is published with assistance from The Journal of Democracy. We are grateful. The most recent print issue includes essays by five authors, who grapple with questions of liberalism's lasting relevance and its challenges for the future. Our interview features a lively discussion about the difference between liberal thought and other "isms" such as neoliberalism, libertarianism and progressivism. We learn more about the importance of community, the limits of individual freedom, and why liberal societies do not produce refugees— arguably another unique source of strength.Professor Garsten is also skeptical of some aspects of modern liberalism. "I think there's a certain language that liberals use, of science, rights and progress which sometimes has been hijacked to justify elite overreach in imposing a vision of the world onto many people of different views," he tells us. "I offer the language of refuge as an alternative way to get at what's morally admirable in liberal societies."Recommendation: Richard has just read the new book by journalist and TV commentator, Fareed Zakaria: "Age of Revolutions. Progress and Backlash From 1600 to the Present." Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In much of the country local news has collapsed, threatening civic pride and a sense of community for countless towns and cities. This dramatic change has also deepened America's divides.As our guest, journalist and public policy researcher Anna Brugmann explains in this episode, "the internet disrupted the local journalism model". Newspaper advertising revenue fell 80% since 2000. Thousands of local and regional publications closed. Most surviving newsrooms faced drastic cutbacks. Coverage of all kinds of local events— from city hall, school board meetings and football games to local businesses and zoning decisions — disappeared.First, Craigslist displaced print-based classified ads. Then Google, Facebook and other online firms became the main source of consumer advertising. We discuss the impact on local journalism. In recent decades, the news we read and listen to has largely shifted from local reporting to often highly polarizing national opinion journalism.In the first of two episodes on the changing face of the news media, we look at the retreat of local journalism and discuss solutions. These include non-profit media and changes in for-profit business models. Today, many newspapers get more revenue from subscriptions and fundraising drives than from advertising. We ask: how sustainable are these initiatives?Anna Brugmann is policy director for the advocacy organization, Rebuild Local News. According to her group, since 2004, as the U.S. population has grown, the number of newsroom employees has dropped by 57%."By almost every metric by which you measure a healthy community and a healthy democracy, the trends are in the wrong direction when local news leaves," says Anna. "In the past twenty years more than two thousands newspapers have closed in The United States."Recommendation: Jim is listening to a lot of podcasts since he unplugged his TV and stopped watching broadcast and cable news. Among his current favorite podcasts is "The Reeducation With Eli Lake". The show "challenges the common narratives the mainstream media and others push". Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder discuss the flaws of diversity, equity, and inclusion training in institutions, highlighting the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. They emphasize the importance of genuine dialogue and critique corporate influence on DEI efforts in education. The conversation delves into challenges of free speech in academic environments and the nuances of promoting diversity while maintaining academic rigor.

The podcast discusses how most Americans fall in the middle politically, with a mix of conservative and liberal views. Shannon Watson from Majority in the Middle promotes cooperation outside the extremes. The rise of independents challenges the grip of the two-party system. Changes in beliefs among Trump conservatives and younger Democrats are highlighted. The need for civility and unity in a polarized environment is emphasized.

Joy Mayer, an expert in changing journalism and boosting trust in the news media, discusses bias, transparency, and constructive steps for newsrooms to improve their reputation. She emphasizes the need for self-awareness, transparency, and rewarding skepticism to build trust with the audience. The podcast also explores the challenges faced by local journalism and the importance of accurate information during the pandemic. Additionally, it delves into the lack of understanding between journalists and the public, highlighting the importance of diversity in newsrooms. The significance of feedback and building relationships between newsrooms and their community is also addressed.

Roosevelt Montás, an advocate for a liberal education, discusses the value of a liberal education in helping individuals find purpose and engage deeply in their lives. He shares his personal story of how encountering great books as an immigrant teenager changed his life. The podcast also explores the significance of a liberal education in fostering critical thinking and dismantling oppressive structures, while addressing concerns about its exclusiveness.

The podcast hosts review their previous predictions and discuss upcoming topics such as the 2024 US presidential election, the Biden administration's approach to the southern border, the changing landscape of journalism, and concerns about populism. They also make predictions about Trump's popularity, a wider war in the Middle East, and the importance of democratic principles.

We continue our discussion with Yascha Mounk, one of the leading public intellectuals of our time. The subject is a hugely influential ideology that attempts to put racial, sexual and gender identity at the center of our social, cultural and political life. The "identity synthesis", Mounk argues, denies that members of different groups can truly understand one another and this stifles public discourse.In this podcast episode, we learn why an obsession with identity undermines social justice, fuels culture wars, and boosts hateful hardliners on the right and left— from Donald Trump to protesters who support Hamas and its murderous attacks on Israeli civilians. We also hear how to politely but firmly push back against those who have become ensnared in "The Identity Trap," the name of Yascha Mounk's new book."Categories like race and gender and sexual orientation help to explain what's going on in the world, but they're not the only categories that help to explain it," Mounk tells us. "There's also social class, religion and patriotism as well as individual actions, attributes and aspirations.""The Identity Trap" has been called "the most ambitious and comprehensive account to date of the origins, consequences and limitations" of "wokeness". In our last episode, Yascha Mounk explained how postmodernism, postcolonialism and critical race theory gained currency on many college campuses by 2020. Today, a simplified version of these ideas exerts a strong influence in business, government and media. In this episode, Mounk urges listeners to claim the moral high ground. "Don’t apologize about arguing against a worldview that emphasizes identity to the exclusion of other factors". Recognize we have genuine disagreements but argue for convictions that you believe will result in a better world. People are open to persuasion, he says.Mounk mentions two of the most effective critics of the identity ideology were once very drawn to it: Maurice Mitchell of the Working Families Party and interfaith organizer, Eboo Patel.Recommendation: Richard has just read "The Speech", by Gary Younge, who writes for the Guardian and The Nation. His book is the story behind Martin Luther King Jr.'s powerful "I have a Dream" speech delivered to a vast audience in 1963. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.