Countdown to After America: Economic Hardship, Loss of Culture, and Authoritarianism w/ Dr. Arlie Hochschild

As we count down to the release of the limited series After America, we are revisiting some past episodes of Deep Dive to help lay the groundwork for this important project that will attempt to answer the question - What would it actually look like if American democracy were to fail?

Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay
---------

How does economic hardship and cultural marginalization fuel the rise of authoritarianism in America? In this conversation with Dr. Arlie Hochschild, the acclaimed author of "Strangers in Their Own Land," we explore the white working-class community's sense of hopelessness and how it makes them susceptible to figures like Donald Trump, who promise radical solutions. Together, we unravel the emotional and political dynamics driving these communities towards authoritarianism, scrutinizing the threat it poses to our democratic norms and institutions.

From the petrochemical plants of Louisiana to the halls of power, we venture into the lives of white, blue-collar workers to understand their growing alignment with right-wing movements. By diving into their "deep story," we shed light on feelings of being left behind and the resentment that fuels their political choices. This episode uncovers the stark disconnect between urban elites and rural populations, examining how federal policies and evolving sentiments have led to moments of intense political upheaval, such as the January 6th insurrection.

We also dissect the complex relationship between voter behavior and democratic stability. Are moderate voters swaying their officials towards moderation, or is it the other way around? 

Tune in to explore how we can bridge the American political divide, address economic concerns, and find innovative solutions to rejuvenate neglected areas, fostering moderation and tolerance in an increasingly polarized nation.

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Transcript

Shawn: 2:13

Hey folks, this is Shawn C Fettig, host of Deep Dive. You've heard our teaser trailers so you know we've got something special in the works. Our new limited series, after America, premieres in late June and is dedicated to addressing a critical question that becomes ever more urgent as we approach the 2024 election question that becomes ever more urgent as we approach the 2024 election, and that question is what would democratic backsliding or, worse, a rise of authoritarianism look like in today's United States if it were to happen? In the lead-up to this series and to set the stage for After America, we're re-releasing pivotal deep dive episodes every Sunday, each shedding light on the vulnerabilities of our democracy and highlighting some of the issues and challenges threatening our nation and the global order. This week, we revisit my conversation with Dr Arlie Hochschild, professor Emeritus at University of California, berkeley, and author of the New York Times bestselling book Strangers in their Own Land, which argues that the concept of hopelessness is intricately woven into the fabric of political and social dynamics, particularly among the white working class community. Hawkschild describes how economic hardship, cultural marginalization and environmental degradation have fostered a pervasive sense of hopelessness among these individuals. This despair stems from a feeling of being left behind in the modern economy, losing cultural values they cherish and seeing their local environment destroyed by industrial pollution, all while feeling that their grievances are ignored or belittled by the political elite and broader society. This sense of hopelessness creates fertile ground for the rise of authoritarianism. When people feel hopeless, they are more likely to seek out strong, decisive leaders who promise to restore order and bring about change, often through simple and radical solutions. This is why so many in 2016 turned to then-candidate Donald Trump, drawn to his promises of economic revitalization, strict immigration policies and a return to traditional values. They saw in him a champion who recognized their struggles and was willing to take bold, albeit controversial, actions to address them. The feeling of being unheard and unvalued has not dissipated for many. Economic inequalities persist, cultural divides widen and distrust in traditional political institutions remains high, and the Republican Party continues to exploit these sentiments, undermining democratic norms and institutions unrealistically, promising swift and simple solutions to complex problems and embracing authoritarian processes to make their vision real and permanent. Follow and like Deep Dive to stay updated on all developments related to After America. The clock is ticking. Democracy is at a crossroads and the time to act is now no-transcript they see an absolute silence on issues of social class. Welcome to Deep Dive with me, Fettig. I'm a political scientist and I'm interested in how our government and our politicians influence our lives, but also how our personal stories influence our politics. In this podcast, I may focus on topics in the news, but this is not punditry. Instead, I dive deep into issues and stories with my guests, behind the headlines, beyond the basic narrative that is often crafted by the media and our politicians, to help us better understand each other and why we think and feel the ways we do. Okay, listeners. So today I'm embarking on a new deep dive adventure a mini-series of sorts, and let me tell you why.

Shawn: 6:31

Being a political scientist and having been a teacher in this area, there are three things I've encountered in the research, both mine and that of others, that posture as warning signs for democracy. First, it was becoming clear that Republican Party voters, especially, were beginning to design their belief systems around their party identification. Instead of formulating a belief or policy preference and then pursuing a party and or candidate that held that same preference, republican voters have been evolving to form their personal policy preferences to align with the Republican party preferences. Second, in institutional support and legitimacy research, survey, respondents are often asked a battery of questions about their feelings toward democratic institutions. One of these questions is some version of the following If the institution Congress, the presidency or the Supreme Court started making decisions that you don't agree with or that run against the will of the people, then we should do away with that institution altogether. And what I was finding was that in survey after survey, including my own national survey for my dissertation project, upwards of about 20% of respondents consistently stated that we should do away with democratic institutions. Under these circumstances, at the time that I was doing this research, a professor in my department scoffed and was indignant that this question was ridiculous and measures nothing real, essentially, that nobody would actually do away with these institutions. And 10 years ago I can understand that sentiment. But today, after the Trump presidency, and considering the events of January 6, 2021, I'd like to suggest that maybe not so ridiculous after all.

Shawn: 8:13

And third, when I was teaching American politics, I would often engage students in a thought experiment, a discussion about the American constitutional design, and really try to peel back some layers to get at this question what is actually stopping bad actors from bringing down the house, from destroying our government? And the knee-jerk answer is always checks and balances, separation of powers. You know, the president can veto bad legislation. The Supreme Court can find something unconstitutional. If it infringes on a right, congress can take that jurisdiction away from the court if it oversteps its bounds. Congress cannot take rights away from the states. But the states also have to abide by constitutional congressional legislation. And this all sounds good on paper, literally on animal skin, parchment paper which, if you don't know, trivia the constitution is written on. But what happens if any actor or actors ignore or flout those rules, those norms, those laws? Donald Trump is challenging these things all over the place. Little Trump bombs everywhere and really what he's doing is exposing every fucking vulnerability in the constitution that can bring the country to its end, and he has a massive pool of supporters amongst the American electorate.

Shawn: 9:25

So, taken together, here's this voter cocktail One part, constructing a personal belief system around the party preferences. One part, willingness to do away with democratic institutions that don't produce your preferred policy outcomes. And one part, destruction of democratic norms and laws that stand in the way. And maybe an ice cube or two just to represent how chilling this is. And okay, maybe that's too far, but I do love a good metaphor.

Shawn: 9:51

So over the past few years, I've been on a concerted mission to understand today's Republican party, its supporters, trump voters, and if they're somehow associated ideologically with nationalist movements that we're seeing proliferating in countries other than the United States, places like Australia, france, the UK, the Netherlands and Italy, to name a few. Three books that I have read individually and together, helped to paint a picture for me that I wasn't really seeing in much clarity. It definitely feels and I hear this sentiment repeated by many people across many countries and inhabiting many ideological stations that we are on the cusp of some global shift in social and political order, in fact, perhaps a new world order. In many ways, and especially if we view this narrowly, focusing only on the United States and only through the lens of horse race politics, then maybe it's easy to dismiss what's happening as just heated electoral rhetoric. But if we step back and view this widely, historically and in aggregate, it's clear that this is a global shift that is cumulative, exponential and fierce. The anti-immigrant, anti-gay, highly evangelical policy push that we are experiencing in the United States is also happening in places far flung from our backyards and they echo the same sentiment with the same goals the demise of liberal democracy. And in that vacuum, these movements are not simply waiting to see if some more authoritarian system of governance fills the gap, they're actively pursuing it.

Shawn: 11:22

So, beginning with this episode and over the course of the next three weeks, I'll be speaking to three researchers who have written phenomenal books that help explain this movement, both in the United States and globally. Next week, I'm talking to Dr Philip Gorski, a sociologist at Yale University, about his book co-authored with Dr Samuel Perry out of the University of Oklahoma, the Flag and the Cross, and the week after I'll be talking to Dr Sasha Polakow-Saransky, a journalist and the deputy editor of Foreign Policy Magazine, about his book, go Back to when you Came From. But first to kick off the mini-series, today I'm talking to Dr Arlie Hochschild, sociologist out of the University of California, berkeley, about her book Strangers in their Own Land. For this project, dr Hochschild embedded herself deep in Louisiana Republican and eventually Trump country, seeking to understand a paradox why these voters seem to vote against their own interests, and she examines this phenomenon through a keyhole issue, as she calls it, and that issue is environmental policy. In living beside these people, becoming a part of their social networks and families, she uncovers what she terms a deep story that explains what these people are feeling and how it drives their voting patterns, how they connect with politicians and policies and how they view what, for all intents and purposes, have become their enemies liberals and particularly people of color, queer folks and immigrants. But I'll let her explain the deep story in more detail. Let's do a deep dive.

Shawn: 12:57

Dr Hochschild, I really appreciate you taking the time to be here and chat with me today.

Shawn: 13:07

Welcome, it's my pleasure, thank you. I think your book Strangers in their Own Land is probably one of the best political science books and some of the best political science research I've ever read, and that's made even more fascinating by the fact that it's not overtly a political science text. You know this book has received a lot of positive attention since its release in 2016. And I know you've talked quite a bit about it since, but I think that the political landscape, and maybe even the people you're researching here, have changed so much in the past six years In the last week alone as a matter of fact for listeners, we're recording this one week after the court overturned Roe and just a day after they ended an extremely consequential term that you know. I'm really interested in digging into how this might impact your thinking. But let's start at the beginning. So in Strangers in their Own Land, you identify something that you call the Great Paradox. Can you explain what this is and, in doing so, maybe also your central thesis here?

Dr. Hochschild: 14:37

United States. It's the poorer states, it's the states with the worst health. It in tax dollars, and they revile the federal government, the people in that state. That's the paradox. If you've got a lot of problems, you've got terrible schools, not enough medical clinics. Wouldn't you welcome government help? And generally, these are today are red states. So that was I thought.

Dr. Hochschild: 15:03

I began that this is strange. Let me go to one of the reddest states in the country would, and that would be in the Deep South. And where in the Deep South? Well, that's Louisiana or Mississippi. I knew one person in the state of Louisiana in 2011 when I began my research and I dove in there to talk to generally white, blue-collar male petrochemical workers, welders, pipefitters to see what their world is. What I did was take my alarm system off and try to enter into what they consider their truth. And it's not a book of reporting, it's a book of translation, because I live in a blue bubble in Berkeley, california. We have our truth the truth in my view and a lot of other people's view and I wanted to get as far away from it as I could to understand why the bridges between these two worlds are getting so shaky and what was going on on the other side.

Shawn: 16:20

And so you craft a deep story about these folks, which isn't just capturing the right side of a liberal, conservative cleavage, but also the everyone else side of, you know, an elite, non-elite cleavage.

Dr. Hochschild: 16:31

Yes, so what is the deep story? Well, let me maybe back up and say one more thing about this project. Give it a larger frame, bring it closer to political science, right, I think the people that I came to know, if we're to situate them on a social class map, they are the elite of the left. Behind, that is, from the 1970s on, there have been winners and losers of globalization, of globalization, and the winners generally have been people in urban areas with college education sawn up, and the losers have generally been people in rural situations and without that BA passport. And so in Louisiana, the people that I think were most animated were the most distressed for blue collar workers, who felt, who were kind of the elite, but they felt in a declining world, and the story was one of loss. And I think if we go around the world and look at all the upstart right wing movements going on today, that's the social class where this begins. So, having said that, who do these people, what do they feel? I did develop this idea of a deep story. What is a deep story? A deep story, again, it's a different way of looking at politics. Is a situation as deeply felt? It feels central, it feels riveting? You take truth out of the deep story. You take moral precepts out. It's just a deep story, is what is the situation? Deeply felt. And the right wing deep story that I discovered hanging out with people I would go fishing with them, I visited their homes, their churches, their graveyards and kind of getting the hang of their feelings can be summarized in a metaphor in this deep story.

Dr. Hochschild: 19:16

You are a new collar man and, let's say, a pipe fitter in the petrochemical industry and you are in a long line which leads up a hill to the American dream as imagined. This line is not moving and you in line are not looking at the very many behind you in line. You're just looking forward kind of guy you would like to be closer up to the American dream and you feel like you're not prejudiced against anybody. You feel like you're playing by the rules, you've worked hard At your feet, you're tired, you haven't had a raise in a decade, and then you see a line cutter. Well, who would that be? That would be an African-American person, that would be a woman who, through affirmative action that the federal government has initiated, that is taking your place and pushing you back. And that other line cutters would be immigrants, refugees, well-paid public officials, and then you look at the person who is allowing this a federal official. The time I did this work, it was Barack Obama and you think well, hey, isn't he a line cutter too?

Dr. Hochschild: 20:51

How did he get to go to Harvard? A guy who was the son of a single mother? Something must be fishy over there at Harvard. And then so a kind of suspicion sets in. And then the final moment of the right wing, deep story there's someone ahead of you in line who's doing better than you are, who doesn't mind all these line cutters, turns around, looks at you, says you racist, sexist, homophobic, redneck or hillbilly. And then you think I am going into a different line. I'm not this, I'm a stranger in my own land, and it's too much.

Dr. Hochschild: 21:38

So the book Strangers in their Own Land is about that feeling and as captured in that story, I went back to the people I had gotten to know and interviewed repeatedly, and with that story I said what do you think? One guy said you've read my mind. Another guy said I live your metaphor. And some people said well, no, you left out the fact that the people waiting in line are paying taxes that are going to the line cutters. So what the metaphor says is that there's a questioning of the whole legitimacy behind the idea of equality and that their moral ethic, their moral compass, does not coincide with the moral compass of liberals. I think that's just the beginning of the story about environmental protection, which, paradoxically, will hurt blue-collar, red-state people even more than blue-state inhabitants. So I think all the good things federal government has done protection of gay marriage and Roe v Wade all of that is being destroyed now by right-wing judiciary, as we know, and bringing it closer to a right-wing vision of what's right. So it's a discouraging moment and I have given quite a bit of time thinking about how we got from the Tea Party distress that I saw in 2016 to a full-blown January 6th break-in, and I think, actually, that you can take the deep story and see various chapters as it evolves.

Dr. Hochschild: 24:09

And it's evolved, I think, from a deep feeling of loss. I mean, the people standing in line were feeling well, whoa, all the economic opportunity that I was hoping for and once had is less than it was because of automation and offshoring, which have hit blue harder than white collar, and I've lost cultural centrality. It's, you know, white males used to be at the top and now we're criticized, you know, as the object of blame for problems. An object of blame for problems, and I think these the sense that you know I'm a smart person without a BA that's been demeaned and devalued, that their cultural currency, their cultural capital has been devalued.

Dr. Hochschild: 25:10

So a lot of losses in there. They love fishing and hunting, but nature's been degraded, partly because they don't believe in the protection of it. So it's a lost story. But I think the lost story has turned into a stolen story, and stolen has turned into attack. The thief and the people that came to January 6th felt that they were proudly defending democracy, and that they were. They were therefore attacking the thief of democracy. So anyway, it's gone through these steps.

Shawn: 25:59

Well, I think you're naturally going into space that I'm interested in.

Shawn: 26:04

You know.

Shawn: 26:04

I guess over the next few questions I really do want to delve into what I see as a very dissonant quality to the worldview that the conservatives you've studied here seem to hold and the objectives they're seeking and then the means by which they hope to attain it.

Shawn: 26:18

And so let's just start there. Then, you know, the Trump candidacy and presidency elevated and legitimized a racial element to the motivation of these voters that I don't think is easily captured in the keyhole issue that you chose to focus on, and I'm wondering if the presidency and then now, kind of subsequently, what we've seen with the court and the Republican Party and the insurrection, if that has changed your views. And you did talk a little bit about loss and then a sense of not just having lost something but having it having been stolen from you as perhaps being something that's driving these conservative working class voters or at least motivating them. But I'm wondering, I could imagine feeling a sense of loss or feeling a sense of something having been stolen from me without racializing that, and I'm wondering how that situates. Is it simply the story that folks of color and I'm following the racial line here is that folks of color are the thieves.

Dr. Hochschild: 27:18

Yes, I think race which, as I wrote in the book, people didn't want to talk to me about, you know it was everywhere I went I could see flags, I would see. You know, I interviewed Black people for the book. Although it isn't about Black people, you know, it's about white people's thinking about Black people and there were certain areas they would go and I would see them at a certain time of day walking in Lake Charles, at the lakefront, one time of day for blacks, one for whites. It was all over Graveyards, you could see it, but they were bottling it up. You know Some northern writers coming down. They didn't want to be accused of racism and I'm not sure that I could have written the same book had them opened their hearts in the way they did if I started with race. But clearly it was there and now it's very overt, I think.

Shawn: 28:23

But I wonder what the story would look like if that was a keyhole issue. Let's say, we could imagine that somehow that had been attainable, right To examine that in the same way and maintain the relationships and you know or maybe a keyhole issue being something like white supremacy. How do you think the thesis of the book not necessarily how it would land today, but at the time in 2016 would be different if you had approached it from that perspective? Do you think you would have come to a different place?

Dr. Hochschild: 28:54

I guess no, I think I would come to the same place of, first of all, focusing on emotions. And to go back to your question, what's changed in my view? When I started this, I thought I was kind of studying political parties and the Tea Party, you know Well. No, I think I'm really studying a movement that's more volatile than I had imagined and it's not just a movement, but it's really feelings that drive that emotion, powerful feelings.

Dr. Hochschild: 29:40

One guy I've interviewed since the book said well, donald Trump, he's electricity in a jar. Well, how, you know, what is that electricity? Let's just stop and figure out why a charismatic leader, who, who, in many ways shameless and dangerous, could appeal to what is he appealing? You know, because the electricity justice Donald Trump, it's in his followers. And what predisposition? What are the causes of that predisposition? That is my interest. And I think that they, if you're asking how race? Let me go back to race. Would it be any different? No, I think that they would fix on race and feel well, wait a minute Now.

Dr. Hochschild: 30:51

All of the radio announcers and TV announcers seem to be Black. Many of them are read comics, you know, and are in fantasy and some of those fantasy figures, you know, this is unsettling for them. And do they know any blacks you know? In rural areas Often they don't. Where I'm doing work now in Appalachia, eastern Kentucky, they don't know them.

Dr. Hochschild: 31:27

And when they do have contact, there's friendship, so it's, but if they're in an all-white area they project all kinds of feelings of someone's taking something away from me. That is, I think, quite similar. That loss will be projected onto Blacks. And if you have a charismatic leader like Trump inviting them to blame Blacks, blame immigrants, liberal EPA rules and a pinhead pointy-headed academics, that's the emotional move between feeling loss and woe. Something's been taken. And then the next thing, which I think is what Trump has done, is to turn blame into attack, turn loss into blame, blame into attack, and it all feels like it is electricity, and I think that Blacks have become the person that took their place in line, have become the person that took their place in line.

Shawn: 32:54

It's an interesting thesis because I imagine a natural emotion associated with loss is sadness, and a natural emotion associated with something having been stolen is anger, rage.

Dr. Hochschild: 33:07

Yes.

Shawn: 33:08

And you mentioned Donald Trump supporters and I think that's a great explanation as to that pivot. So perhaps this was primarily a sense of loss and there was a certain amount of uncoalesced anger, but maybe more so a sense of hopelessness that somebody and that somebody is Donald Trump could exploit or at least harness and funnel into rage.

Dr. Hochschild: 33:36

Yes, instead of feeling abject and depressed and ready for what's been called, you know, diseases of despair, which some in this blue collar men have been in a very high rate of you know drug overdoses, alcoholism, suicide. That sadness turned inward, and so it can actually feel empowering to imagine yourself proudly defending freedom on the steps of the Capitol on January 6th. You're not an abject victim. You've empowered yourself because you've made up the belief that you're defending what's been taken. You went for that myth, you went for that magical thinking in order to deal with loss, sadness and shame.

Shawn: 34:38

But so in political science and you know this, you know, we know that liberal voters and conservative voters are motivated by different things. So liberal voters are more motivated by hopeful messaging and conservative voters are more motivated by grievance or anger. And something that struck me in Strangers in their Own Land is that these are, in a certain sense, in a certain framing. These are two sides of the same coin, in that Donald Trump, in tapping into that rage, was also providing a sense of hope that didn't exist prior.

Dr. Hochschild: 35:17

Yes, oh, very much so. If you look at Hillary Clinton's campaign, there was background music of happiness. You know, I'm happy, happy, happy and upward mobility, the classic American dream. You just have to work hard enough and you too will rise. You know there isn't a stall in the line to go back to the deep story, you just walk ahead to it.

Dr. Hochschild: 35:44

And Donald Trump was this country is a mess, it's been taken over, it's. You know, our bridges are down, our roads destroyed. We're not what we were. You know there was a great yesterday in Donald Trump's rhetoric, right from the beginning. And so, yes, he appealed to those who were frightened and aggrieved, grieved and aggrieved about downward mobility, and he said America, great again. Right, that isn't saying it's great now, and that has lit the flame.

Dr. Hochschild: 36:29

I would say, if we focus on Trump himself and how he made an appeal to this elite of the Left Behind, I think that that story is worth putting in the picture too, because he appealed to this loss. And then I think he made another move, which is to beatify himself. That is strange, as it may seem, he has tried to say look, I am you, you are me, you love me, I love you and I am taking your grief on and I am taking your shame on and I will rescue you from it. And in a way, he made himself a victim. Look how I suffer for you, how the deep state is against me and all these liberal pundits. They are against me and all these liberal pundits. They are against me, but I am representing you and they say you are my hero. And then he says I fought for you. Now you fight for me. January 6th.

Shawn: 37:58

And I wonder if this helps to explain another, I guess, dissonance that I for a time struggled with, and that is this there is a cross-section, or at least a group of folks that make up the supporting bucket for Donald Trump and that is hard for me to square with the rest of the folks in that bucket, and that is Christians.

Shawn: 38:27

And you you talk about, you have in I think it's your, your chapter, the team player. You you introduce the reader to a woman who, who talks about, um, you know the fact that she's a Christian and how liberal values don't comport with her Christianity. So you know to her, she, you know she associates liberal folks with employees watching porn or artists who paint with dung. And it's always struck me that these are the same folks, the folks that are Christians, so strongly support Donald Trump. You know a man who has questionable values, and I'm wondering if your explanation of how he has situated himself as a victim that is taking on their suffering it helps to explain why what the appeal is to Christians for him? Yes, in that they're not necessarily interested in how things are done, but just that they that things are done.

Dr. Hochschild: 39:28

That's right, that's completely right. They feel rescued by him and he he's not a religious man, as we know. When some Christian leader asked him what's your favorite book of the Bible?

Dr. Hochschild: 39:47

Oh, I like them all he says yeah, Right, so he is really making Jesus move over and trying to become that figure. I also think he is taking over the shame of a shame downwardly mobile social class and taking us through a three-part ritual. So I'll just say this part. I have a new perspective on this Not a new perspective in my next book to spelling this out, but I think during the four years of Donald Trump's tenure we maybe two or three times we were taken through a kind of ritual that none of us kind of saw as that, but it is what it is.

Dr. Hochschild: 40:48

This that has three parts. One part Donald Trump would say something outrageous All the immigrants, you know they're rapists and thieves. Okay, so that's part one. He says something outrageous. Or that Africans all want to come here because they live in hellhole countries Something outrageous. Then part two the punditry says you can't say that. That's shameful. You're a president. What are you doing? How you can't say that that's shameful? You're a president, what are you doing? How can you say something like that? And then there is a third part where Donald Trump roars back at the shamers. I think the people I came to know get off on that. I think they say yeah, so that his very shamelessness which appalls liberals is actually a point of electricity, point of appeal to people who feel downwardly mobile.

Shawn: 42:04

Hmm, something I've been struggling with and it fits, I think, in response to this, clapping back perhaps, or, you know, roaring back, yeah, that. So these folks, these folks that you've studied, are immensely proud people, hardworking.

Shawn: 42:15

Yes and they have this idea that the country abandoned them, took advantage of them, stole from them, and you know that they're being used then to advance people that are less deserving. But we've seen, you know, recently, the most fervent of them, you know, in support of policies that go much farther than what would seem necessary to meet their concerns, like clearly anti-democratic territory, you know, limiting voting, banning books, outlawing abortion, now limiting discussion about sexual orientation and gender and race, et cetera.

Dr. Hochschild: 42:49

Absolutely.

Shawn: 42:50

So the objectives of these folks and I think it seems especially obvious now, you know, post-january 6th, you know post-election denial, post-gutting of voting rights what I'm wrestling with is, it seems like that what their objectives are simply cannot exist in a world in which liberals also get to actualize their objectives. But I'm wondering if this is cynical and if it's not, how do we reconcile all of this in a unified nation?

Dr. Hochschild: 43:17

You're asking a very basic question. A lot of people that I'm interviewing now are saying well, this feels like it must have felt at the lead up to the Civil War. You know there really are differences and yet it's funny. If you hang out with a whole range of people in blue states, as I'm doing in Kentucky now, you find it's not as extreme. There are more moderates. There are more quiet moderates that don't have the microphone. It's not as extreme as the most vocal of right-wingers are making out. Many were much more moderate and your podcast listeners need to hear is that they don't feel any democratic presence that addresses their needs or respectfully reaches out to them.

Dr. Hochschild: 44:37

When they think of the Democratic Party they think of the Democratic Party they see an absolute silence on issues of social class that in the talk the talk is of you know Tran, this bathroom, this, you know. What about housing? What about the cost of gas? They're not hearing bread and butter issues and they're not feeling that the economic circumstances of their lives are being addressed and, in addition, they're listening to MSNBC comedians ridicule them. They don't feel spoken to and it used to be a powerful labor movement of labor unions on the one hand, or federal government on the other and it went offshore to its factories and capital, that, from that moment on, we lost the main connector between a Democratic Party and a blue-collar class and we haven't made up for that.

Dr. Hochschild: 46:09

And the talk has moved to identity politics. Well, gender, race, sexuality, and they think well, wait a minute, what's happened to social class? A lot of the people, by the way, who loved Donald Trump actually loved Bernie Sanders. They're a substantial number who could have gone either way, and I talked to people who said, oh, bernie no, he's a socialist, he's a communist no, but Uncle Bernie no, he's a socialist, he's a communist no, but Uncle Bernie. So we're, I think, not being self-critical enough to say well, how do we seem to them? Who are the people that could hear what we have to say? I think that's the turn the Democratic Party needs to take.

Shawn: 47:02

I think that's the turn the Democratic Party needs to take.

Shawn: 47:09

You know, in Bill Bishop's book the Big Sword, he maps out quite literally, as you know, the mobilization of citizens into like-minded communities, and it creates clear geographic strongholds for both liberals and conservatives.

Shawn: 47:18

In the United States, we both live in liberal strongholds, in blue states, blue zones, but I'm also well aware that the ability to change your location and I suppose, by extension then your condition, is really limited to those that have the means to do so, which means that, in real effect, the most vulnerable of our communities are you know, quote unquote left behind and in reading strangers in their own land, it made me wonder how wise this behavior is.

Shawn: 47:45

I wonder if maybe it might be better in a lot of ways political, social and cultural. You know, I guess, irrespective of our personal discomfort and inconvenience if we those of us that have the means, liberals and conservatives instead seeded our unfriendly communities and dove into the work necessary to build more moderate, compromising and tolerant communities across the entire spectrum of the country. I wonder if and this has come up in a couple of interviews that I've had with folks what we're actually doing on both sides conservatives and liberals that are fleeing to safer places are know places, are abandoning the most vulnerable in those in those lands and conservative and liberal dominions to their own devices, and what we're really doing is creating a country of vastly different rights and rules and experiences.

Dr. Hochschild: 48:35

Yes, you know, ro Khanna, who is the Democratic representative of Silicon Valley, has a new book out which I read and endorsed and like very much, and he says look, if you look at all the tech jobs that we have here in Silicon Valley in California and we're outsourcing some of that work to Bangalore the work of coding, for example why not take that to Appalachia and to the south and give people new work there? And I think it's a great idea, kind of reinvest in our own poor and downright global areas, and that would also bring the liberals coastal liberals into the interior of the country. Dr Hochschild, thank you so much. I've really appreciated this coastal liberals into the interior of the country.

Shawn: 49:43

Dr Hochschild, thank you so much. I've really appreciated this Appreciate you carving out the time and having this conversation with me.

Dr. Hochschild: 49:51

Thank you.

Shawn: 49:56

After we finished recording, I asked Dr Hochschild if, to her mind, there was anything shared between the contemporary right-wing voter and left-wing voter in America, some commonality that responsible and responsive politicians and leaders could appeal to that might help to bridge the divide we're experiencing right now. And she suggested patriotism, something that we can all value and hold dear without agreeing on much else. That this is something, as Americans, that we can all share and hold dear without agreeing on much else. That this is something, as Americans, that we can all share and respect. And this is absolutely true that most Americans are moderate. Their policy preferences fall on a spectrum somewhere between the two extremes.

Shawn: 50:32

The problem is that we have a first-past-the-post electoral system in which there's one absolute winner and one absolute loser. Think of it this way If one candidate gets 50.1% of the vote, she wins the entire thing, and the 49.9% of the people that voted for the other candidate lose everything. This design rewards a two-party system and it rewards extremism in our candidates. A candidate has nothing to gain by moderating, so we end up with extreme candidates that ignore a huge swath of the population. And then the question is is the dog wagging its tail or is the tail wagging the dog. Are these moderate voters moderating their elected officials or are the electeds making their voters more extreme? It seems to be the latter, and it's having chilling impacts on the fabric of our democracy.

Shawn: 51:23

Next week, I go in deeper search of these voters what's motivating them and why democracy doesn't seem to be an answer for them when I'm talking to Dr Philip Gorski, professor and sociologist at Yale University and co-author of the book the Flag and the Cross. In the meantime, as always, if you have any thoughts, questions or comments, you can email me at deepdivewithshawn, at gmailcom, and you can find me on Twitter, at deepdiveshawn, and on Instagram, at deepdivewithshawn. Chat soon, folks. Thank you.