The question Chief Technology Officer of Palantir Technologies, Shyam Sankar, sought to answer in the episode of The Shawn Ryan Show was “Are We Sleepwalking Into World War 3? We didn’t walk away with a clear answer, and if you’re anything like Ryan’s audience & commenters, you might be confused by why Ryan decided to have this conversation at all. In his role at Palantir, Sankar has a stake in making the general population more comfortable with AI. Much of this conversation—a stop on Sankar’s book tour—sounds at best like positive spin for Palantir and at worst like straight-up propaganda. Sankar was Palantir’s 13th employee long before the company became one of the most talked-about names in AI and defense tech. He helped transform it from a Peter Thiel-founded Silicon Valley startup into the global software and AI company it is today. With deep ties to the Trump administration, Palantir and its spokespeople are widely considered defining players in the tech right movement. Shawn Ryan is a former Navy Seal whose podcast has built a massive following around traditional family values, self-reliance, and mistrust of mainstream institutions. Guests on his show have included the former Navy SEAL whose shot killed Osama Bin Laden, President Donald Trump, and Erik Prince—the founder of the private military company Blackwater.

So, what did we hear?

Share

AI is actually a tool that empowers workers and will not ruin your life.

Sankar emphasizes repeatedly that AI has the potential to empower everyday workers and help them do their jobs, rather than disempowering them (or eliminating their jobs completely). Sankar does not distinguish between himself, a billionaire, and the everyday American. His talking point is that we, as a collective, all stand to benefit from advances in technology. Positioning himself as an advocate for the ICU nurse and factory worker, Sankar makes a case for how Big Tech is not counting these people out, but rather welcoming them in, and offering a piece of the pie via AI. In his words, “You know, our problem is not ‘do we have talented enough people?’ It’s like, ‘are we allowing them to apply themselves? Are we taking the shackles off? Are we letting them run?’” He suggested that, if given the right tools, people on the proverbial ‘factory floor’ can do BIG THINGS, if we simply (in his words) “LET THEM COOK.”

If this is a listener’s first time hearing about AI, Sankar gives a convincing pitch: he says we - the common man - are in control. Through his lens, regulation of A places a shackle on the innovative forces of the American people. Of course, advances in AI do have the potential to benefit the everyday American worker, and Democratic messaging should acknowledge this, while pushing for regulation that will protect working families. Having productive conversations means allowing people to imagine how they think AI should be used and also making space for their concerns. No one wants to feel left out or left behind, so it’s helpful to understand how this major technological tool is being framed from the top down.

AI is Patriotic actually!

Patriotism is a core theme in Sankar’s messaging. “You know, no civilization can be great unless it believes in itself, unless it’s proud of itself. And I think no nation has more to be proud of than America.” For Sankar, to love America is to see it as a site of unlimited innovation and imagination; and this means committing fully to a future built around AI. In other words, Sankar is skillfully painting a picture where AI skeptics risk being labeled anti-American, unwilling to help our country reach its full potential.

Here, Sankar is appealing to a hunger for the American dream, the visionary, entrepreneurial spirit that means anyone has the ability to make it big. He is also speaking to American PRIDE, something the left has largely given up on. He references big moments of American history (World War II) and moments of American monoculture where we just had “good old fashioned entertainment (the 80s??). It can be hard to feel pride in a country that is responsible for enacting such violence both in our own country and abroad. Rejecting patriotism leaves a vacuum for more nefarious voices to shape opinion (one of the key theses of this club). There is power in Sankar’s message because he understands that people are eager to have something big to rally around.

An Alliance with Shawn Ryan Listeners.

Sankar, clearly a strategic thinker, understands the importance of building consensus around AI. Here, he’s tapping into the manosphere and “bro culture” to reframe the narrative. He channels themes of patriotism, self-determination and rational thinking to make AI feel like something that will directly fit into the lifestyle of the average Shawn Ryan listener. Describing AI as “Iron Man for the American worker” and glamorizing the importance of advancing the USA’s war technology taps into a traditional masculine feeling of power.

That doesn’t mean Ryan’s listeners were buying what Sankar is selling. Many comments expressed disappointment with Sankar as a guest and called out Ryan’s failure to challenge or question him. They don’t appreciate being told what to do or think by a tech billionaire so far removed from their own lived experiences. This tension between the tech right and traditional right-wing Shawn Ryan listeners presents a significant opportunity for people on the left. There is common ground to be found in criticism of AI and Big Tech.

Sankar failed to properly acknowledge very real economic anxiety and worries of being left behind by capitalism. This tells us that Ryan’s audience values authenticity and wants to ensure that the power of AI is not left only in the hands of the few. For us to connect with this audience, we should own our unwillingness to let the wool be pulled over our eyes and blindly accept the advances of Big Tech and AI. (In the words of Texas Senate hopeful James Talarico, “It’s not about left vs right but top vs bottom”).

Subscribe now

How can the left-leaning coalition benefit from embracing hope and optimism?

Sankar claims that people’s fears about AI are overblown and pushes back against the belief that AI will take all of our jobs. Despite claiming a stake as the unbiased middle man, he proceeds to repeatedly highlight the “prosperity” and “bounty” that AI will inevitably provide. Further, he says “And rejecting nihilism is so important in our youth. You know, there’s a temptation to just say like, burn it all down..there’s a growing up phase where you go through that, but like, helping our youth exit that and understand that what we’ve built is worth fighting for is so critical.”

It’s … almost as if he’s on a book tour and trying to get us to forget that he is the Palantir guy, but try as he might, he cannot help let his AI fanatic flag fly.

To state the obvious, many people are struggling right now. Gas prices, groceries, and rent are all at an all time high. Thus, a shiny solution that promises to cure all problems has mass appeal. How can our coalition authentically speak to this without abandoning our positions and morals? One solution is to offer an alternative vision of the future, in which prosperity is possible through leveraging technology in a way that is human-centered and prioritizes key issues like affordability. Realism does not have to mean rejecting any vision of abundance. Hope is a powerful force, especially when it is built on real actions, policies and force for change; not faulty promises about a robot in shining armor coming to save the day.

What We’ve Been Reading

AI Adoption is Rising. So Why is Gen Z Trust Declining?

Right-Wing Creators Are in Their Flop Era

The Red Pill is Coming For Queer Dating

A Year of Trump is Backfiring on the Religious Right

The Men Who Think Toxic Feminism Destroyed America | Plain English

In Argentina, U.S. Tech Billionaire Peter Thiel Finds An Escape

Snaking a drain doesn’t make someone a plumber. Changing a lightbulb doesn’t make them an electrician. And filling a tank of gas doesn’t make them a mechanic.

In the same vein, writing a paragraph, recording a video, and speaking in the rolling lilt of a newscaster’s voice doesn’t make someone a journalist.

Journalism is a trade. It is a set of learned skills bound by ethics, norms, and decades of case law. It is the pursuit of truth, and at its best, it ‘comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.’ But today, the journalism industry is far from its best. It is a deeply flawed tradition that hasn’t always upheld its call to publish the truth and has a long history of entrenched bias. It is also still several steps behind the information ecosystem of the internet, which, as a tool of democratization, drastically changed the way people value and understand journalism. Today’s internet is riddled with the now broken URLs of once vaunted outlets, and the years-long period of media layoffs has transitioned from the clap of a cramp to the debilitating familiarity of chronic pain. And, most discouraging of all, an industry that relies on trust above all else has become a villain across the political spectrum.

And yet, as traditional outlets spin into oblivion due to their own poor decisions, relentless corporate consolidation, and political attacks, the trappings of journalism remain exceptionally powerful.

As a member of UNASB, I’ve seen over and over how right-wing media leverages the tropes and terminology of traditional journalism to gain credibility while also undermining establishment media at every turn.

Share

Within minutes on a podcast like the Michael Knowles Show, you’ll hear the host state that he doesn’t believe the mainstream media and then play a CBS news clip as evidence of his claims. Meanwhile, Calley Means, a senior advisor to the Department of Health and Human Services, regularly undercuts the scientific consensus reported in major outlets, but as a guest on Alex Clark’s podcast, he is proud to boast that his book is a New York Times best seller. And these podcasters, despite their ire for “the media,” nevertheless emulate much of the same affectation you hear in traditional news journalism: the placeless accent and shifting pitch designed to keep the audience engaged and convey a level of serious authority.

And then there’s the investigative reporter cosplay. In his viral video “exposing” a ring of fraudulent childcare providers in Minnesota, Nick Shirley positions himself as the only independent reporter brave enough to face and share the truth. In the serious tones of an evening news anchor, he claims that daycares are taking public funding without actually enrolling any children. He then proceeds to ambush several facilities and demand to see proof of kids in their care. The daycares’ refusal to allow unknown adult men to lay eyes on children is used as evidence of their wrongdoing, rather than an appropriate protective response. Shirley also fails to properly identify himself as a reporter to the childcare workers he interviews and instead pretends he’s a potential customer to bait them; being honest about who you are is journalism 101. By definition, people like Nick Shirley are not journalists. They are not operating within the ethical or legal frameworks of journalism and are instead misleading their audience to score political points.

Traditional media brands are anathema to them and their anti-establishment audience, but they understand that parroting reporters is a fast pass to credibility.

Subscribe now

This content works in part because it’s salacious. There’s a crass journalism adage that “if it bleeds, it leads,” and the right has a penchant for turning scabs into gaping wounds. It also reinforces the audience’s existing opinions and provides “evidence” for beliefs rooted in hatred. It feels good as an audience member to be told that you’re right. And this material effectively targets people who may otherwise be unmoved by conspiratorial thinking. The content seems more reasonable and persuasive because its journalistic constructs feel familiar, even if belief in actual journalism is cratering.

And therein lies hope.

If institutional media trappings are still valuable, then the real journalists have a shot to win the day. Influencers play a valuable, but distinct, role in political communications; they can explain, contextualize, or repeat factual information to spread awareness and amplify a message. People without a traditional news background have done powerful reporting on their own, including influencers such as Arielle Fodor (known as ‘Mrs. Frazzled’ on social media) and Cheyenne Hunt, whose work helped journalists break the story about Eric Swalwell’s history of sexual harassment and end his gubernatorial campaign. The influencers, who are not bound by the rules of newsrooms but do have significant trust from their audiences, posted allegations against Swalwell and then passed material to institutions with fact checking resources to put the full story together. This dynamic should be used as a playbook for news outlets. In certain circumstances, reporters should do their best to substantiate well-intended influencers’ claims, because those same influencers can, if proven correct, maximize the reach and resonance of reported facts.

Share

Journalists can also learn from influencers by diversifying the platforms they use to reach audiences.

Today, reporters with traditional news backgrounds who have left legacy media are branching out onto platforms like Substack, some as a matter of post-layoff survival and others as an attempt to proactively seek the middle of the Venn diagram between journalist and influencer. Reporters in this position occasionally brandish their establishment media credentials to build an audience and cultivate trust and authority, despite lacking the editorial apparatus to fact check their copy or protect them if someone decides to sue.

To break through the cluttered attention economy, independent journalists stand to benefit from distancing themselves from the baggage of establishment media but not the processes, visuals, or standards.

They have the opportunity to produce reliable, fact-based content on their own platforms with contracted editors and, if needed, legal support behind the scenes.

Just as influencers are piggy-backing off journalists’ tried and true tricks, independent journalists can leverage the tropes of influencing to advance the truth. They need less polish, more personality, and more humility. Many of the right-wing “exposès” that are most effective are framed as regular people asking questions, leaning into what they purport not to know, and feigning outrage at the answers they’re hearing. Journalists shouldn’t play dumb to manipulate their audience, but they can take their readers and viewers along as they learn something new and react to that information organically. Allowing the audience to see behind the scenes generates buy in and creates a deeper sense of connection between the reporter and the viewer. Establishment outlets can do this, too, by increasing reporter engagement with well-intentioned comments, which the New York Times does, and allowing individual reporters to flash more of their personality in their work.

If truth really is stranger than fiction, then reporters can run laps around people brandishing falsehoods for clicks by being honest. Journalists must internalize that being truthful and being captivating are not mutually exclusive.

The United States is facing a crisis of shared truth. This is a difficult problem to reverse but cannot be accepted as intractable. Accurate reporting that is engaging enough to reverberate online is an essential piece of the solution.

We tried something new in UNASB this week. Two of our members shared useful tactics about having uncomfortable conversations grounded in tried and tested behavioral therapy, psychology, and political science research. Andrea Gilliam, a lawyer and leadership coach, spoke about staying curious and sharing stories to build connection, rather than try to persuade. Anthony Aguirre, a licensed therapist, shared behavioral skills that help us improve relationships with the “other side” while holding our boundaries.

What We Get Wrong About Persuasion

Listening to right-wing content – with the extreme views that the almighty algorithm immediately seems to think you want (hello rank bigotry!) – hasn’t been easy. In addition to our podcast listening and discussion, UNASB has an evergreen assignment to have conversations with those in your life with whom you disagree politically. It’s easy to want to persuade someone to change their mind, but that isn’t the most effective approach. This presentation sought to bridge the gap between consuming inflammatory political content and engaging thoughtfully with actual people in real life.

Myth 1 The “Other Side” Is Extreme

That starts with a level-setting about who we’re talking to. Polarization is real, but most Americans are less extreme than the loudest voices make it seem, especially when we listen to right-wing media. (Again, algorithm.) On average, Democrats and Republicans believe that 55 percent of their opponents’ views are extreme, but in reality only about 30 percent are. To have a conversation, we have to view each other as people first, not a caricature of the other side.

Myth 2 Facts Change Minds

What we get wrong about persuasion is often rooted in the assumption that people change their minds because they are presented with better facts or stronger arguments. In other words, we think that facts change minds, when we should pay more attention to emotion and values. In the book How Minds Change, David McRaney details the research from political science, psychology, and behavior change suggests something more complicated: beliefs are deeply tied to identity and group belonging.

Instead of trying to force agreement or “win” an argument, effective persuasion is often about creating enough openness, trust, and safety for people to reflect and think differently for themselves. We need to create the conditions where new thinking becomes possible. People change more when they generate their own reasons, not when they’re told what to do or think. We see this across disciplines.

Myth 3 Someone Will Change Their Mind in One Conversation

We recognize that minds don’t change overnight and instead think about each conversation as planting seeds of possibility, giving opportunity for a new perspective. Progress is moving the dial just a little. Social change is not a solitary act, but is multifaceted and complex.

What Works? Listening, Sharing Stories, Staying Curious

Conversation can create community, connection, and understanding. Each conversation we have is a contribution. We’re affected by our friendships and relationships and finding a little common ground can go a long way. And even in a conversation with a stranger, deep canvassing shows us that non-judgmental listening and sharing stories goes a long way to creating conditions that allow minds to change.

It’s equally important to create a reciprocal opportunity by keeping our own minds open to change. Politics is often framed as right versus wrong, but in a polarized world, persuasion isn’t about certainty or winning. It’s about expanding what’s possible. It’s about creating space; for curiosity, for complexity, and for movement. Curiosity is a superpower and learning is a powerful shared goal.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) offers us tools for how to have these conversations in a productive way, while staying grounded and respecting our own boundaries. Two useful frameworks we spoke about in our meeting were the FAST and GIVE techniques outlined below.

Subscribe now

Skills to Hold Yourself and The Other Up During a Hard Conversation

When engaging with people on the right, we have a tendency to move into fight or flight mode. It’s critical to stay in-tuned with the other person during these conversations. Interpersonal effectiveness is a therapeutic pillar that emphasizes healthy relationship maintenance over being right. The more Democrats practice these skills, the more likely we are to bridge massive communication gaps that may never be truly bridged but are worth understanding.

As the research above shows us, it’s easy to fall into the trap of relying on facts that align with our values while overlooking the facts that align with theirs. This tendency feeds into the stereotype – which isn’t entirely inaccurate – that Democrats bring white papers and data to fist fights. Using the skills below helps ground us in connection, understand the other person’s perspective, and build with the conversation.

GIVE

“GIVE” is a useful strategy for building and maintaining positive relationships. GIVE means:

• Being Gentle in one’s approach keeps fight or flight emotions down. Try to sit with the other person, use direct eye contact, and a calm voice.

• Acting Interested in the other person’s perspective gives you a benchmark to test your own ideas against. For example, “Oh interesting - can you tell me more about how you got to that conclusion?”

• Validating the other’s perspective reinforces the notion that their experience is based on their reality, the same as your own. For example, “I want to make sure I hear you correctly, you’re saying [repeat back your understanding of their position].”

• Using an easy manner keeps the conversation light. Smile, use humor when able, and don’t take yourself too seriously!

FAST

“FAST” is an approach that allows us to set boundaries and maintain self-respect in difficult conversations. FAST entails:

• Being fair to yourself and the other person holds your own boundaries while others’ exist as they are. For example, “While I respect that you think what you do, it’s important you hear out where I’m coming from as well” Not over-apologizing for your own beliefs is critical to letting the other person know you come from a place of strength. For example, “I won’t be disrespectful in this conversation, but I’d love you to examine my mindset as well.”

• Sticking to your personal values is critical to who you are.Make sure you are consistent in your beliefs. For example, if respect is in your political philosophy, reflect that in the personal discussion as well.

• Finally, being truthful in these discussions are important. For example, “I didn’t know that fact. I still believe my position is accurate, but I’d love to hear more about what you’re saying.” If you hear information that contradicts your bias, be open to its existence and examine it critically.

Share

We’re looking forward to taking these skills out into our real world conversations. This is where our evergreen assignment comes into play. The next time we find ourselves having difficult conversations, let’s try meeting the other person where they’re at. Let’s avoid the instinct to try to persuade them.

Let’s actually listen to what they are saying and notice places where we might find alignment. Let’s listen to their worldview, and challenge our own.

By using GIVE and FAST we can strengthen our boundaries and stand by our values while continuing to build bridges and make powerful connections across the political divide.

What UNASB Members Are Reading:

• Why Debating Republicans (Almost) Never Works—And What to Do Instead

• Inside a MAGA Influencer’s Turn Against the Right-Wing Machine

• The Political Power of Wines Moms

• Rising Narratives for Radical Futures

• There is No Evidence the Trump Assassination Attempts Were Staged. People Still Believe They Were.

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

Subscribe now

UNASB dove into the crossover event of the quarter: Joe Rogan’s latest interview with Theo Von (published April 2). In case you missed it, Rogan and Von both played a huge role in Trump’s 2024 victory. In the last year or so, they’ve occasionally expressed frustration with the administration but have been quick to move on to whatever topics keep them feeling content with their previous decisions. In this episode, you’ll hear the podcaster-comedians cover a wide range of issues: the war in Iran, Christopher Columbus, ICE, woke ideology in comedy, AI/Palantir, gun laws, fraud in California, Epstein files, Netanyahu, the rise in autism rates, and Von’s new movie. For anyone looking to dive into the manosphere, this is a “great” place to start – it exemplifies how so many Americans process information about politics, culture, society, and more.

This episode is messy. It’s nonlinear. It’s offensive. And it’s worth paying attention to.

Below are some messaging styles used throughout the episode, and why these styles might resonate with the listeners of the most popular podcast in the country and people looking for an ideological home.

Instead of a specific enemy, a constant, but undefined, “they”

Rogan and Von repeatedly gesture toward a vague but powerful force shaping events, not by specific names or political parties. In fact, Trump, MAGA, or the Democrats are rarely named directly, but alluded to as a big, unnameable “they”.

“They” might be:

• The government

• Elites, or “people with horns”

• COVID-era decision makers

• Corporations

• “The woke mob”

• Something harder to name

The lack of specificity is the point. It allows listeners to feel that the speakers are independent thinkers, and therefore, the listener is able to define their own “they.” This approach makes the narrative feel personal and widely applicable, and empowers the listener, rather than feeling like propaganda for one party.

“Facts” are now sponsored by AI

Rogan frequently turns to his brand sponsor, Perplexity (an AI search engine), to “fact check” during the conversation. From the history of Christopher Columbus to CIA secret projects to placate populations, Perplexity had all the answers (or most of them).

This approach of asking questions to an AI search engine gives the impression of journalistic credibility, allowing listeners to trust Rogan. However, often the answers reinforce what Rogan has already claimed, or the AI allows him to reword the questions until Perplexity delivers the answer that Rogan and Von want to hear.

The effect is less about accuracy and more about giving the audience the impression that this is credible information and that we are all learning and figuring things out together.

Humor as both a bridge and a shield

Given that both host and guest are comedians, this episode leans heavily on humor and prompted UNASB members to wonder what role comedy should play in the Left’s strategy moving forward. In this episode, we recognized that jokes made controversial ideas easier to introduce or discuss. They softened disagreement and allowed conversation to flow instead of becoming antagonistic, and they provided cover – “it’s just a joke, man” – when ideas were questioned or challenged.

A recurring undercurrent of fear and uncertainty

Despite the humor, both men do exhibit some vulnerability, which feels in contrast with the “strong man” image we often associate with right-leaning media. Both men share openly about their anxiety about the state of the world, distrust of institutions, and concerns about health, tech safety, and the future.

At one point, Von openly shares feeling overwhelmed and scared. It’s one of the more grounded moments in the episode, and one that resonated strongly with UNASB listeners and drives home a takeaway that’s come up a lot in the last few years. Emotion sticks more than facts, and Democrats need to bring fewer whitepapers and more emotion to the fight.

The uncertainty seems to have no possible resolution, as they’re unwilling to name who is currently in charge. With gas and grocery prices continuing to rise, unpopular wars in the Middle East nowhere close to ending, AI claiming jobs from hardworking Americans, and the unresolved Epstein files scandal — this uncertainty could represent the mindset of many Americans. We should think about the best way to connect with those not ready to name why they’re feeling insecure in their livelihoods and identities.

Subscribe now

Key Takeaways

Manosphere podcasts present an entry point for those looking for a political home and are still drawing people to the right.

Compared to more structured, ideological voices we’ve listened to in UNASB like Matt Walsh or Michael Knowles, this conversation is less overtly political, less religious, less polished, more casual and conversational. It doesn’t present itself as authoritative. It presents itself as relatable, which keeps people listening, coming back, and feeling comfortable sharing. And, not coincidentally, if you have questions about the status quo, the “just asking questions” – and more importantly – “go ahead, say it, we’re not going to judge” vibe allows Americans, even those who may not naturally find themselves voting conservative, a surprising home on the right.

Throughout the episode, Von challenges the current power structures, but Rogan is quick to pivot the conversation back to wokeness, bureaucracy, and fraud — something he heavily associates with left-leaning leadership.

Whether you like it or not, Rogan’s format feels casual and inclusive

Rogan is so popular in part because he’s unscripted, non-judgmental, and, in many ways, inclusive of different ideas and perspectives. Even when he and Theo disagree, it never comes across as shaming or professorial. Rogan can simply offer another point of view, maybe a joke, and the conversation flows on.

Being curious as a host not only allows Rogan to avoid taking any accountability, but also allows ideas (regardless of accuracy) to enter the conversation with ease, and feels fresh and different from so much of the “us vs. them” we hear in other media.

The episodes bring listeners in instead of lecturing to them. It feels like we are part of the conversation instead of part of the audience.

Points of agreement?

UNASB members actually identified several overlapping topics discussed on the show that could act as a “bridge” to foster conversations with friends, neighbors, and family who might listen to Rogan or Von for the entertainment value and sense of belonging. Many UNASB members said they could imagine themselves saying, “I was listening to Joe Rogan the other day, and I really agreed with his take on…”

• The problematic concentration of wealth and power in this country

• Large institutions not acting with their customers’ best interests at heart

• Public health and food systems being controlled by insurance companies

• Not wanting to spend our money and send our – and more specifically other people’s less educated, connected, more blue collar – kids to war

• AI efforts being led by a small subgroup of people who are vocally antisocial

Even if they’re framed differently, these themes show up across political lines, and maybe by saying you heard it on Joe Rogan, you can have a conversation rooted in common values instead of politics.

A few practical approaches for left-leaning people…

Avoid over-intellectualization.
Conversations that feel natural and emotionally grounded landed more effectively than overly polished or academic language.

Feel human.
It’s ok not to be perfect and to express emotion. Say that you’re scared, tired, overwhelmed, angry, etc. Be vulnerable – feelings change people’s minds! In fact, people often remember (and repeat) how something felt, not just what was factually correct.

Use humor.
Making the joke lets everyone put their guard down. It can open conversations and also reduce friction when points of view differ.

Instead of pointing fingers, find shared ground.
When you take the “us vs. them” out of the conversation, you’ll uncover small points of agreement that can create space for deeper dialogue. It may be hard, but saying “I agreed with Joe Rogan when he said [insert shared belief]” may just get you somewhere. You may not only shock right-leaning people by admitting that you’ve listened to his podcast, but also build a bridge for deeper conversation.

Recognize how dynamic people (including YOU) are.
Some newer UNASB members pointed out several hypocrisies that came up throughout the episode. One example: Theo expressing an interest in healthy food, but then vaping all in the same breath. That’s because the overwhelming majority of people –one could argue everyone – do not exist in a monolith or in a perfect “red” or “blue” box. The point is this: Notice areas of agreement and disagreement between you and whoever you’re talking to. That’s your starting point to build conversation.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

• Tradwives, sugar babies and OnlyFans: Euphoria’s misogyny feels like the manosphere’s wet dream

• Stop trying to ‘educate’ people into changing. Science proves it doesn’t work

• The ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Movement Is Cooling on Trump and Republicans

• What Democrats Keep Missing About the “Manosphere”

• The Right Successfully Coins a Lot of Insults. The Left Has ‘Chud.’

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

On April 1st, we witnessed the launch of Artemis II, and we left the right and left leaning corners of the internet to spend the next ten days in the same livestreams and TikToks as four astronauts became the first humans to complete a journey around the moon in real time.

Those ten days from hopeful launch to safe splashdown were a very unique case of society-wide sustained effervescence.

Subscribe now

When the astronauts escaped Earth’s gravity, we briefly escaped with them. As an American, it was especially refreshing to see our government be a catalyst for inspiration and celebrate the triumphs of the human spirit; a sharp contrast to an unpopular war and an ongoing partial government shutdown.

All this unity, wonder, and innovation that NASA has showcased, which, according to Forbes, 97% of Americans support, is what’s possible when our government invests, believes in, and supports its own scientific institutions.

The technology behind Artemis II’s success, the new perspectives on our Moon and Earth, and the touching moments we all loved along the way? All of it is the product of government-funded research.

So, who’s in the 3% that doesn’t support NASA?

Well, despite his recent rhetoric and public support of the Artemis II Mission, Trump is trying to cut NASA’s funding by nearly 50%. Again! While the Artemis II mission would still be funded in his proposed budget cut, large chunks of NASA’s scientific portfolio, things that make more Artemis IIs possible, are on the chopping block.

There is truly so much we could dive into about how crucial government-funded space and science research is across the board – for humanity, the planet, the private sector, enterprise, and good old American capitalism. (Exhibit A: GPS and the Internet. See also MRIs and memory foam.)

However, because this is UNASB, we’re always thinking about our evergreen homework assignment: how to reach the right-leaning and apolitical people in our lives, and how to shape a more progressive culture through connection and conversation.

Share

We think Artemis II is the perfect gateway to discussing how cool NASA, and more broadly, our government’s scientific efforts can be.

Especially with your right-leaning friends and family, who were equally invested in four astronauts dealing with a broken toilet in zero gravity while hurtling through space.

There is something awe-inspiring and moving about seeing humans just like us, traveling over 200,000 miles away from the only home humans have ever known. We can and should take advantage of this moment, a rare positive and shared blip of common ground in the current newscycle, to note what’s possible with government-funded research when we aren’t actively dismantling it.

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

UNASB recently listened to episode 1945 of the Michael Knowles Show, “BREAKING: Trump Fires AG Pam Bondi.” We explored the messaging tactics Knowles uses to bring his audience along, including invoking religion as a source of moral authority, repetition and compassionate coercion (gently bullying his audience into agreement), perceptions of Americans and “Americanness,” and attacks on the Supreme Court.

The Episode: BREAKING: Trump FIRES AG Pam Bondi

The Michael Knowles show is part of The Daily Wire, a far-right media house founded by Ben Shapiro and home to other popular conservative podcasters including Ben Shapiro himself (“The Ben Shapiro Show”) and Matt Walsh (“The Matt Walsh Show”). While The Daily Wire’s podcasters each have their own distinct voice, there is an undeniable undercurrent pulling all of the aforementioned shows in the same direction: institutional voice.

It’s not uncommon for one podcast host to feature another Daily Wire podcaster as a guest. It’s also not uncommon for themes and specific talking points to reappear, over and over again. This is true despite the fact that Matt Walsh, for example, disagrees with the war in Iran, while Michael Knowles and Ben Shapiro both support it. They have intentional, scripted conversations, featuring polite debate over this disagreement while presenting a united front against what they view as the “real threats” to America: Ketanji Brown Jackson (the only Black woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court), trans people, the lower federal courts, unmarried women, Democrats, the educated “elite,” and anyone who isn’t Christian.

This episode bounced from topic to topic at warp speed, so buckle up.

Helping Create Distance between Trump and the administration’s “weak links”

Knowles kicked off the episode by tap dancing around the recent Trump firings of Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem. He framed the firings as unnewsworthy, calling them “unsurprising” and referring to Bondi as the “weakest link.” In a maneuver Knowles proves expert at, he simultaneously applauded Trump for his discipline and restraint while condemning the administration’s most senior officials. While Knowles didn’t directly address gender in reference to Bondi and Noem’s firings, he did comment - in his own comments section for this episode - that “[a]ll of the other women in the cabinet are starting to get nervous.” The math is in fact mathing.

In other noteworthy news Knowles glossed over, the war in Iran was not mentioned once in this episode.

The Liberals aren’t sending their best: Creating a facade of neutrality

Michael Knowles and his Daily Wire compatriots spend a lot of time talking about Ketanji Brown Jackson. In this episode, Knowles went all the way in on Justice Jackson.

What starts as a bumbling explanation of English Common Law and its foundational connections to present-day birthright citizenship in U.S. jurisprudence quickly turned into, well, whatever this is:

• “Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman who during her confirmation hearings could not tell Senator Blackburn what a woman is . . . .”

• “Ketanji Jackson, arguably not the most qualified jurist we’ve had on the Supreme Court . . . some would say, not the brightest bulb in the candelabra . . .”

Knowles continues this while “analyzing” the Colorado “Conversion Therapy” case, also currently before the court:

• “[T]his woman’s arguments are ridiculous.”

• “Elena Kagan, a very leftwing member of the Supreme Court, was mocking Justice Jackson’s arguments in this case.”

• “This woman just has no grasp on the law.”

• “Ketanji Jackson has no grasp on the law.”

• “She has no grasp on formal logic or informal logic.”

• “She clearly doesn’t understand the matters that she’s supposed to deliberate on.”

• “Indeed, she doesn’t understand what a woman is.”

• “[I]f you had a court full of Ketanji Jacksons, American jurisprudence would be shredded.”

• “[T]he scary thing is, especially if we have a Democrat president in 2029, you’re going to get more Ketanji Jacksons.”

• “There is no comparison between a Ketanji Jackson and an Elena Kagan, or even between a Ketanji Jackson and a Sonia Sotomayor….”

• “The Supreme Court is supposed to be rock solid. And when you[] fill the Court up with Ketanji Jacksons, that’s going away.”

Your eyes are not betraying you. Knowles said all of these things about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a single episode.

Knowles goes as far as saying that the Solicitor General, the man responsible for arguing the birthright citizenship case on behalf of the Trump administration, “ha[d] to go in and describe what everybody always knew . . . and explain what domicile meant and what all of these legal terms meant in the 19th century.” He’s nudging his listeners to believe that Justice Jackson, a Yale-trained attorney who graduated at the top of her class and spent more time as a federal judge prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court than any other current Supreme Court Justice, does not understand the law.

Following this scathing tirade about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, it is somewhat surprising when Knowles concedes “I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to Ketanji Jackson here,” referencing the Supreme Court concept of “viewpoint neutrality,” which Knowles describes as “silly.” This is a key strategy for Knowles, as demonstrating his ability to relate to his enemy serves to strengthen his credibility. This sympathy, however, is feigned. Only a few moments later, Knowles declares “this woman’s arguments are ridiculous.”

Knowles had very little to say about the merits of either of the cases actually before the court. He spent most of his time vacillating between directly stating that Ketanji Brown Jackson is unintelligent and unqualified or insinuating as much.

This segment of the episode also proved a masterclass in fear mongering. While painting conversion therapy as not only normal, but desirable, Knowles relied heavily on populism. This divide and conquer tactic is a common mechanism for Knowles and other conservative podcasters. They create an “us” and a “them” and diligently invest in that division both within and across episodes. They tell us who is a “good American” and who is not. Spoiler alert: the LGBTQIA+ community, undocumented immigrants, Democrats, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson are on the naughty list.

UFOs, Aliens, and . . . Demons? Oh my.

“Extraterrestrial human breeding programs” . . . he said what he said. A major theme in this episode of the Michael Knowles show was aliens. At first listen, he seemed to be knowingly throwing a conspiracy theory into the ether just for funsies. However, as we unpacked in our most recent meeting, the religious undertones surfaced quickly.

After playing sound bites from recent conversations in congress surrounding aliens, the military, and how the military is allegedly perpetrating an alien sexual assault ring, Knowles shifted seemlessly into a discussion on demons.

He claims that these aliens are actually demons, in the religious sense. They don’t necessarily occupy space and time as we might expect them to. They are a demonic creation. And, in a rhetorical device he reaches for with regularity, he gently bullies his audience into agreeing with him, saying his listeners “should” believe in demons, angels, and immaterial substances. It’s common for right-wing podcasters to exploit a divide, a fear, and a pull toward the unknown. Keep an ear out for this tactic as you listen to these voices.

“I pick the least popular view on anything, that’s how you know I’m right.”

Knowles has a veritable grab bag full of tactics that he engages with impressive ease to cajole his audience into trusting him and everything he is saying. He deploys repetition deftly, saying the same phrases and repeating the same rhetorical questions over and over again. He says things like “can we all agree on this” and “Can we acknowledge that this is a problem? Can we acknowledge that this is a serious problem?”

After a brief commercial break to push beef tallow as the best facial moisturizer, he returns and repeats the exact same phrase: “Can we acknowledge that this is a problem?” leaving the listener to feel like the only reasonable thing to do is agree that this is in fact a problem. Knowles is carefully constructing an image of himself as the voice of reason, in turn anyone who disagrees is inherently crazy and unreasonable.

Knowles sprints from topic to topic in a way that leaves the listener gasping for air and with little time to think critically.

He crumbs the listener to the “truth” he wants them to believe by sandwiching factual, provable information between thick slices of ahistorical and untrue information. He taps into fear and uncertainty, repeatedly honing in on how scary the Supreme Court has become, and how much scarier it will be when it is full of Ketanji Brown Jacksons at some future time that he cannot name but assures us will come.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Better Not to Address the Elephant in the Room if it Complicates Your Argument.

Michael Knowles covers everything from anchor babies to alien demons and yet he fails to mention the heavily controversial War in Iran. By refusing to dig into this issue, Knowles is freeing himself from any need to question Trump’s actions or take a clear stance on an area that conservatives have very conflicted opinions on.

Admitting when you agree with the other side builds credibility.

Even when it comes to people we feel are completely morally opposed to us it is worth taking the time to find that ONE point of intersection. Not only does this serve as a bridge to the other side, it demonstrates that you are actually listening to their argument as opposed to rejecting everything they say at face value.

Presenting your argument as the voice of reason.

The phrases “can’t we agree” and “it’s kind of silly” are repeated over and over again by Knowles. This is powerful because it devalues the left in a tongue-in-cheek light hearted way. Scathing criticism is replaced with a sly smirk and witty line, undermining the other side without coming across as too serious or overly critical. Without any opportunity for response these rhetorical questions present all of Knowles’ arguments as unquestionable and even common sense.

Repetition.

Knowles’ presentation of his arguments as “objectively” reasonable is made all the more convincing by his use of repetition as a tool. He repeats the same phrase over and over again, sometimes both before and after a commercial break, other times just several times in a row. It eventually has the effect of either making the listener question whether he might be on to something, if not believing it outright.

Using media from the other side as evidence for your claims.

By pulling from a CBS clip and providing his own context for it, Knowles is highlighting that his perspective can be trusted. While his arguments might be better supported by right-wing media sources, he is appealing to a wider audience by demonstrating he can prove his point from either side.

Using more palatable people from the other side as foils.

Knowles repeatedly uses liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as tools to make Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seem patently unreasonable. He employs the same tactic when he disagrees with conservative Justices in other episodes, portraying Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as tried and true conservative heroes while depicting Chief Justice John Roberts as useless.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

• Hundreds of Fake Pro-Trump Avatars Emerge on Social Media

• Ilhan Omar Pushes Democrats To Embrace Marjorie Taylor Greene, Other MAGA Stars Ditching Trump

• Women Snatch MAGA’s Megaphone

• Why the MAGA Media Revolt Matters Even More Than You Think

• This Is Why There’s No Liberal Joe Rogan

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

I’m old—old enough to remember G. Gordon Liddy testifying before Congress during the Watergate hearings. He said something I never forgot: he was deathly afraid of rats. To conquer that fear, he caught one, cooked it over a campfire—and ate it.

That analogy works for me and UNASB.

Subscribe now

Before UNASB, I was intimidated by the dark-money machine—the opaque forces flowing from what I think of as the Epstein class through a right-wing media ecosystem that manufactures disinformation before there’s even demand for the truth. It doesn’t just respond to reality; it scripts it. It tells people how to think, what to think, and reinforces it until it becomes a wall.

For a long time, I didn’t want to look under that hood. It felt impenetrable—and frankly, I didn’t have the time. I chose to ignore the grotesque elements: the performative outrage, the coded racism, the bad-faith narratives fueled by money and power. I knew it was there. I just didn’t engage.

Then I found UNASB.

Within this community I was able to lower my resistance and actually listen to what the far-right is saying and doing. UNASB helped me do the uncomfortable thing: to examine it closely, understand it, and yes—if I extend the metaphor—catch, cook, and eat the rat.

We’re not just studying figures like Tucker Carlson or tracing the history of right-wing media. We’re also learning how to communicate more effectively ourselves—how to reach people, how to use the tools that successful influencers use, and how to recognize the coded language embedded in messaging.

Because that language works. It persuades people—often against their own best interests.

Take Alex Clark, who talks about wanting healthy food for her family. It’s clear that achieving that requires government support and regulation. Will she get that from this administration? Probably not.

But her brand is tied more closely to her MAHA affiliation than to the outcomes she’s advocating for—clean food, clean water, education, and infrastructure, which the non-MAHA side is pushing for in legislation.

That’s where the contradiction lives. And within those contradictions, we have opportunities—to build bridges, to connect, and to create moments of real understanding.

UNASB has given me clarity. It’s helped me understand the language, the structure, and the intent behind what we’re up against—and how to push back effectively.

Before this, I never would have spent time watching people like Benny Johnson or Ben Shapiro—paid influencers crafting narratives built on provocation and distortion. Now I can engage with that content without being overwhelmed by it.

I feel more aware. More grounded. More prepared.

And that power?

Yeah—I ate the rat. I’m not afraid of it anymore.

There’s still a lot of work to do. But UNASB has helped me see what’s out there—and what’s coming.

Bring it on.

Share

For years now, there have been calls for the left to “invest more in digital.” But as someone who’s spent a decade describing my own job as vaguely “doing digital politics things,” let me be the first person to say: we have to be much more specific about what we mean if we’re going to see real change in the space.

Hey y’all, this is Max Levy, your former recapper, author of The Short Answer newsletter (where this piece is also running!), and freelance digital and political strategist. I joined the Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath crew at the beginning of this year, where the discussions about the right’s cultural infrastructure and how the left can counter it have made it even more clear how urgent it is for people on our side to start doing things differently.

One place we can start is by moving from generic calls to “do better” to actually naming the changes we want to see.

Subscribe now

Think about it. When you say “digital,” do you just mean social media? Organic social media from a candidate’s page? Running paid ads or getting other creators and influencers to post? Do you want better graphics, professional videography, smarter captions, or just higher volume? Maybe you aren’t talking social at all, and you want to see better use of email. Are you using email to fundraise? Recruit volunteers? Persuade in-state voters? Or maybe you’re thinking about something else entirely when you say “digital.” As long as you don’t mean the guy who knows how to make the projector work, you’re probably right to think of it as “digital” work. And that’s a problem for digital teams that keep getting asked to do more and more, with the same staffing and budgets.

Using “digital” as an umbrella term may have once been helpful to describe campaign (often communications) work happening online. Now though, there are so many tools, tactics, and strategies under this umbrella that just using the term leaves decision-makers with enough ambiguity to get away with not doing anything.

So, let’s run down some specific ways to “do digital better” in the political space:

Devoting budget, staffing, and time to organic social media strategy

Organic social posts (what a “typical” account creates and posts, not paid ads that bypass the algorithm entirely) are a key way that regular people engage with political accounts, but they’re often an afterthought in budgets and strategies for reaching voters or supporters. An open letter from digital strategists to party leaders details more of what it would look like to take organic social more seriously, including increased budget, dedicated capacity for content creation, and a voice in strategic decisions. For campaigns specifically, we should also ask candidates and senior-level staff to carve out more dedicated time for digital content creation and training to hone the skills and frameworks that work for organic social.

Shifting ad budgets towards digital platforms

According to Tech for Campaign’s analysis of 2024 ad spend, “commercial advertisers allocated 78% of their media budgets to digital. Political advertisers? Just 36%.”

Do we really think campaigns know something that brands don’t about modern advertising best practices? Too many campaigns are still stuck in the past, and it’s time to shift to the places where people are actually paying attention. That means more budget to create digital ads, more spend to get those ads out into the world, and more latitude to test bold ideas or emerging platforms.

Building a stronger creator infrastructure — with both political and non-political creators

Races like Abigail Spanberger’s in Virginia and Mike Sherrill’s in New Jersey saw important investments in staffing, candidate time, and budget to engage social media creators in 2025, which marks an encouraging shift. But we’re still woefully behind the right in building our creator economy, and there’s a lot more time and funding that needs to be invested to get progressive ideas spreading through a self-sustaining, culturally-relevant infrastructure. (Lots more to say on this piece — stay tuned!)

Communicating better with “owned” audiences like email and text lists

Inboxes are one of the most intimate ways we communicate with voters and supporters, but too many organizations treat them as places to ask for donations and nothing else. And for smaller campaigns, they might not even have the staffing or budget to utilize or grow their opt-in email list at all. We need to train more people on low-lift best practices, make tools more accessible, and ensure leadership actually sees channels like email or text as tools that can be used to achieve organizing, messaging, and other campaign goals beyond fundraising.

Improving online organizing

Speaking of organizing — a group of practitioners recently produced a 60-page report on how Democrats could improve modern organizing, and many of their recommendations would be implemented with digital tools. They want campaigns to prioritize relational organizing (where volunteers talk to people they know, not strangers they cold call), finally merge offline and online organizing, and encourage teams to adapt and experiment. They make a number of specific, actionable asks, and the full report (or at least the executive summary) is worth reading in full!

These are far from the only things we can be doing to better reach, organize, persuade, and mobilize people online, and not every organization has the budget or capacity to implement all of them. But we have to start getting specific — naming actual goals, tools, and what’s needed to implement them — if we’re going to stop gesturing into the void and start actually “doing digital” well enough to win.

Subscribe now

Share

P.S. If you found this piece insightful, you should of course subscribe to UNASB, but I hope you’ll consider subscribing to The Short Answer, too! Each week’s newsletter discusses a topic across politics, media, tech, or culture, plus articles worth your time, good posts from people across the progressive ecosystem, and a tool to make it easier to do impactful work.

In our last meeting, we had an off-the record conversation about how right-wing influencers are shaping narratives. We used the following info to prep in case our readers want to follow along!

Subscribe now

Minnesota Daycare Fraud Content

In December, pro-Trump creator Nick Shirley posted a video claiming to expose widespread financial fraud at Somali-run daycare centers in Minnesota, which went viral and was boosted by right-wing media and members of the Trump administration.

• Shirley visited various day care centers in Minnesota, filming people he found there and asking, “Where are the children?” After he wasn’t allowed to enter the day care facilities, he declared there were “no children anywhere.”

• Despite Minnesota investigators debunking Shirley’s claims about the facilities he covered, right-wing media and the Trump administration ran with the claims and used them as an excuse to slash Minnesota’s child care funding and escalate immigration enforcement in the state, ultimately leading to 4,000 arrests, months of protests, and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Videos Alleging Voter Fraud

Trump aligned “independent reporters” are shifting to creating on the ground video content purporting to expose voter or voter registration fraud. This narrative shift coincides with the Trump administration’s widespread push to interfere with the midterm elections – often using immigration or conspiracies related to voter fraud or noncitizens voting as a pretext to do so.

• TPUSA’s Frontlines and Savanah Hernandez co-posted a video to Instagram showing a petitioner on LA’s Skid Row “exchanging cigarettes for signatures.”

• Cam Higby released a video featuring Jonathan Choe purporting to uncover fraudulent voter registrations along LA’s Skid Row. The title graphic for the video states it’s part 1.

  • Higby also posted a clip of the video to Instagram, where he alleges to have witnessed people exchanging “cash for registration signatures on ballot initiatives.”

• Nick Shirley rebooted James O’Keefe’s debunked voter fraud myths for a new audience in a YouTube video on “California’s Suspected Voter Fraud.”

• Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson released a “documentary” claiming that California’s assistance programs for unhoused individuals were being used to “rig national elections.”

• Right-wing commentators David Khait and Fabian Garcia teamed up to release a series of videos investigating voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, visiting a homeless shelter, a church, and more. For the church, the influencers claimed that over 2,000 people used the location as their voter registration address. However, the video omits reporting that Georgia’s voter laws allow unhoused residents to use nonresidential addresses to help them register to vote.

  • Khait and Garcia published a similar video about locations in Fulton County, Georgia, on YouTube on February 17. The video has been amplified by several right-wing figures, including Trish Regan and Libs of TikTok

ICE Ride-along Videos

After a select group of right-wing and right-leaning creators were granted exclusive access to ICE raids and ride-alongs, the influencers posted misleading videos which Trump administration officials re-posted and used as evidence to support their anti-immigrant agenda.

• Right-wing influencer and Real America’s Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam participated in at least 4 ICE ride-alongs in Chicago and posted a video to Facebook from one of his October ride-alongs which shows him referring to a group of bystanders as a “beehive of activist traitors,” with on-screen text that said, “Riding with ICE in Chicago exposing the enemies within!”

• During a visit to Chicago in October, Benny Johnson went on a ride-along and to an ICE facility with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and he posted content of the visit that earned over 2 million views in total.

• Shirley went on a ride-along in Chicago in October and posted at least two videos that earned over 2 million combined views. The videos show Shirley interviewing masked agents, riding in an ICE vehicle, and observing people being arrested.

CECOT Content

Since 2024, at least five YouTube content creators have been granted access to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, the megaprison to which the Trump administration began sending immigrants last year. The resulting YouTube videos have been viewed over 200 million times, and at least one creator appeared on Fox News several times to discuss what he saw while filming. Below are a few examples of their videos.

• Nick Shirley posted a tour of CECOT and appeared on Fox News at least 4 times to discuss his visit

• UAE-based YouTuber Joe Hattab posted a tour of CECOT, earning over 49 million views

• Turkish YouTuber Ruhi Cenat also posted a video tour, earning over 95 million views

Share

Subscribe now

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen our approach.

It’s been over a month since Trump attacked Iran. The subsequent failures to conclude the war quickly lay bare some of MAGA’s fissures. These fissures, which had laid dormant and knitted together by Trump, have begun to burst out into the open and threaten to peel off a non-insignificant portion of Trump’s MAGA support.

This couldn’t have been more evident in podcasts (watch them here and here) from two of MAGA’s greatest warriors: Dan Bongino, podcaster turned FBI Deputy Director turned podcaster again, and Matt Walsh, of the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA. Both are deeply loyal to MAGA but their backgrounds explain their differing takes on the war. Bongino is a mostly traditional Republican, having run for office multiple times and served as a federal law enforcement officer. Walsh came up in radio, transitioned to the Daily Wire, and is a self described “theocratic fascist”. Bongino is the guy you get a beer with at the bar. Walsh is probably the dude who radicalizes you on 4Chan.

Subscribe now

Bongino’s Version

Both spent much of their podcasts- each posted in the first week of March- talking about the war in Iran in very different ways. Bongino cheerleads the absolute smackdown we are (were?) putting on Iran. He talks about it in the way that Seahawks fans were probably talking shit after they beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, or American hockey fans to Canada after the Olympics. Ironically, Bongino lampoons the Iranian foreign minister as Baghdad Bobby, an Iraqi propagandist who said things were going absolutely great during the 2003 Iraq War (until Iraq fell to the U.S.). Looking back almost a month after this podcast first aired, it’s fair to ask if Bongino is actually Baghdad Bobby.

Playing against type, though, Bongino provides rather thoughtful commentary on topics that liberals and progressives might agree with him on: the dangers of mass surveillance and the merit of body cameras. He then diverges into some political analysis and advocacy, gently warning about the midterms, and urging his listeners to “10, 10, 10” (call ten friends about the midterms, email friends ten times, and make ten social media posts). It’s a call to action that is so clear and easy that liberals and progressives should take, and take repeatedly.

Matt’s Version

Contra to Bongino, Walsh is extremely skeptical of the war, befitting the America First, isolationist wing that he is associated with. He starts by arguing that for any use of American military force, the benefits should outweigh the costs. He notes that the Trump administration has not made the case for war nor these benefits, effectively going radio silent, while contrasting their approach with the Bush administration- where, despite the disastrous Iraq War- they at least made the case. He also compares the Trump administration’s approach of “trust us, we’re the experts” to the similar approach (in his view) of the public health experts during COVID.

Liberals and progressives would agree with many of Walsh’s critiques. But he then uses the specter of terror attacks by immigrants in America unhappy about the U.S.’ attack against Iran (and the terror attack by a naturalized American citizen from Senegal in Texas in the days after the U.S. first struck Iran) to argue that the Iran War is making America less safe. He demagogues against immigration from the “third world”, arguing for denaturalizing “anti-American invaders”, while stating that before he could support the Iran War, America would need to deport every “third world Muslim militant and potential militant”. Ultimately, he concludes the totality of these risks make the war not worth taking. His conclusion on immigration is sobering and infuriating: if liberals and progressives could find common ground with someone like Walsh on Iran, they will quickly find that with his anti-immigrant rhetoric, it’s poisoned ground.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Bongino and Walsh both offer places to find common ground with different wings of MAGA.

Speaking from authority as both a former law enforcement officer and Deputy FBI Director, Bongino makes the case against mass surveillance using AI tools and in favor of body cameras to protect law enforcement officers from false accusations. With Walsh, liberals and progressives are uniformly against the war in Iran, just as Walsh and the isolationist wing of MAGA are. This opposition has been proven correct through the subsequent failure to defeat Iran quickly and the closure of the Hormuz Strait that is increasing prices. Hijack these talking points to help pivot conversations.

Despite the common ground, Bongino and Walsh both use extremely loaded language when talking about Democrats and immigrants.

Bongino spends much of his time praising Kristi Noem and blasting Democrats as the “anti anti communists” (willing to lie in bed with anyone, as long as they’re anti-Trump) and Walsh uses extremely demeaning language when talking about immigrants. These guys will never view liberals or progressives as partners on anything.

How are we supposed to square the potential to find agreement with the fundamental incompatibility with Bongino’s and Walsh’s views?

The first step is to separate the listener from the messenger. Just because someone listens to Bongino and Walsh doesn’t mean they will agree with everything they say or believe. The next step is to understand what is core to their appeal. Walsh and Bongino appeal to a sense of safety and order. In the case of Iran, it’s possible to argue that the Iran War has made us less safe, less secure, and also put our troops in harm’s way for no reason.

Like many other successful MAGA commentators, Bongino and Walsh often come off as “we’re just asking questions” guys. Liberals and progressives can use that against them.

First, as someone noted in a listening group, encourage curiosity as an act of resistance, and then use the disconnect in what Bongino and Walsh are stating is fact against the reality that is plainly before us. In the case of the Iran War, it is clear- despite what Bongino Bob says- that the war is not going well or achieving its objectives. Liberals and progressives can use that dissonance to undercut Bongino’s authority before his audience and drive distrust between MAGA leaders and their followers.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

• The Trump-inspired realignment of the conservative think tank world

• I Went to Florida to See the 31-Year-Old Candidate Thrilling Gen Z. We’re in Trouble.

• For Republicans, the political influence of X is greater than ever

• Silicon Valley Is Drifting Farther and Farther Right

• Evie Magazine Averages an Anti-Birth Control Article Every Month

• Thousands have swooned over this MAGA dream girl. She’s made with AI.

Thanks for reading! We’re currently accepting new members into our 5th (!!) cohort starting in April. Sign up here!

Subscribe now

Share

I live in likely the strongest liberal bubble in the country – San Francisco. As a result, it is very rare that I encounter someone in my daily life with political views that are in direct opposition to mine. The political debates around me are between the liberal, really liberal and really really liberal – who still all agree on the vast majority of issues. As someone who is exceptionally conflict averse, I recognize that the absence of what I see as uncomfortable confrontations is both an incredible privilege and not the experience of much of America. In an effort to continually learn about our country and work toward a sane future, I’m diving into the deep end and learning how to have these conversations productively – even if they aren’t ever comfortable.

Subscribe now

How am I doing this?

I joined the most recent cohort of Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath – a listening club that’s been getting a lot of attention lately, including a recent feature in The New York Times. Here’s the premise: we listen to right-wing media not to criticize or slam it, but to actually understand the communication tactics being used – and then apply those lessons to how we communicate on the left.

And, let me tell you. It is hard. I have to listen to the assignments on 1.5x speed to be able to get through them without going into a full on panic attack. I get the majority of my news from NPR (subscriber to two stations), The New York Times, and The San Francisco Chronicle. Why would I willingly subject myself to content that makes my blood pressure spike? Because understanding how the other side talks, what resonates with their audiences, and how they frame issues isn’t about agreeing with them. It’s about getting smarter about how we show up in conversations – especially the hard ones with people we care about who see things differently.

It turns out there’s actual science backing this up. This recent piece in the Times breaks down what research tells us about productive disagreement – and spoiler alert: most of us are doing it wrong. The key isn’t winning the argument, it’s creating opportunity for actual understanding.

I’m also drawing inspiration from this piece about talking to friends who “aren’t paying attention” to politics right now. It’s a reminder that productive conversations aren’t about winning arguments – they’re about staying connected to people and helping them see why any of this matters in the first place.

I’ve already learned a lot. For instance, the right is not a monolith – there are real differences of opinion, just like on the left. America First and Trump First coalitions have genuinely different views on Iran, which means there’s actually room for productive conversation about foreign policy. Who knew?

I’m also realizing that not every conversation needs to be explicitly about politics to influence politics. If the right can use a review of the new Wuthering Heights movie to reinforce tenets of Christian Nationalism (yes, really), then we can absolutely use cultural touchpoints to reinforce our values too.

And here’s the thing I keep coming back to: I can easily understand why the right has been so successful at messaging. They package tough ideas in bite-sized, repeatable nuggets – sometimes in the most unexpected places. Meanwhile, we’re over here writing monologues and policy theses. What if we just said things simply and said them again? And again?

So here’s my commitment

I’m going to keep showing up for these uncomfortable conversations. I’m going to listen more than I want to. And I’m going to keep reporting back on what I’m learning – because if we’re going to do something about democracy, we need to be able to talk to people beyond our bubble, even when (especially when) it’s hard.

Who’s with me?

If you’re interested in joining UNASB, currently accepting new members into our 5th (!!) cohort starting in April. Sign up here!

Share

Subscribe now

____

Follow Sheila at: https://dosomethinganything.substack.com/

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen our approach.

The Right Wing’s use of cultural commentary as a tactic to funnel new audiences into the MAGA-aligned media ecosystem is something UNASB has come to understand well. We’ve examined how this works to target young men; last week, we turned our attention to how it operates on women, leading with moral concerns and values-first messaging before pivoting to ideology.

The episode: Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey’s Episode 1304 | ‘Wuthering Heights’ Movie is NOT What I Expected.

The messenger: Allie Beth Stuckey is a podcaster on Glenn Beck’s network and author of the recent New York Times bestseller ‘Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion,’ which frames progressive appeals to compassion as dangerous manipulation tactics. A Conservative Millennial, wife, and mom of three, Stuckey operates at the intersection of politics and Christian theology. She has 722k YouTube subscribers and 900k Instagram followers.

In the episode, Stuckey critiques the recently-released film ‘Wuthering Heights’ and contemporary pop culture through the lens of Christian womanhood and purity culture, taking aim at Bridgerton, Taylor Swift, Twilight, among others. Notably, Stuckey’s discourse around ‘Wuthering Heights’ seems to imply that she has not actually watched it.

Note: Stuckey’s advertisers—pro-life diapers marketed as “knowing what a woman is,” crisis pregnancy centers, prepper supplies that shift responsibility for family protection from state to individual—explicitly reinforce the worldview she proselytizes.

Subscribe now

Key Learnings & How to Use Them

Values-first messaging is a gateway

Stuckey leads with appeals to shared moral concerns: gender-based violence in media, the impact of hyper-sexualization on young women, and the toxicity of patriarchal control in romantic relationships. This approach lets listeners first agree with her moral premise without realizing they’re being moved toward a particular political worldview.

She never mentions being “Republican” or “conservative,” never invokes the boogeyman language of “the left” or “Hollywood elite.” By avoiding partisan language, she sidesteps barriers many people put up against political messaging. A mother concerned about media’s impact on her child, or a young woman worried about a romantic relationship, finds herself in genuine agreement, then gradually absorbed into an ideology that systematically undercuts women’s agency and autonomy.

Making it actionable

This is how moral foundations function: start with a shared truth or moral concern (sexualization of children, social media harms kids, media depicts violence) that activates a core moral intuition, then bring politics in through that foundation. The Right does this well, whereas the Left tends to lead with policy. We can compete on this terrain, but we have to arrive there through a moral frame, one that actually expands agency. This UNASB op-ed is essential reading to understand how: Before the Argument, There is an Instinct.

One obvious place for the Left to lean on moral foundations? Widespread outrage and disgust over the Epstein files. Stuckey references the scandal directly, describing it as ‘the reality of evil…being perpetrated against the most vulnerable’, indicating her audience is already engaged with and disgusted by this story. We can leverage the same moral intuitions—disgust towards the perpetrators, an instinct to protect the most vulnerable from harm, a desire for justice on their behalf—by continuing to demand transparency and accountability for those responsible, including the many perpetrators with ties to the Trump administration.

Accessible language and scripture mimic connection

Stuckey opens with scripture, then positions herself as a relatable older sister who, in girlhood, was also led astray by mainstream culture (Taylor Swift’s “Fearless” album, the Twilight series), but ultimately saw the light and wisely chose a different path. From the spiritual communion of sermon to the intimacy of girl talk, Stuckey speaks directly to the longing for meaning and belonging that people feel so acutely today, in an increasingly atomized and lonely world.

Stuckey also offers community in a space that affirms her listeners’ feelings of overwhelm. She offers them in-group membership as part of, for example, the “never watched Bridgerton” club. For that in-group to exist, there must also be an out-group: those consuming different media, who by extension have different values, and are thus morally compromised.

Making it actionable

We must speak to people’s hunger for meaning, belonging, and relational connection. Language that speaks to people on a human level—to their hearts and souls, not just their heads—is one way to do that.

We can also reframe what the actual threat is. The Left has an opportunity to offer the same sense of in-group belonging, but around a shared enemy that’s actually harming regular working people: tech billionaires, the Epstein class, corrupt politicians. We can create a “we” that’s defined by who we’re protecting ourselves against.

The appeal of benevolent patriarchy as God’s eternal plan

Stuckey’s message resonates because it acknowledges real pain: women’s fears of being alone, alienation from modern culture, uncertainty navigating modern dating and anxiety around partnership. Her refrain “God’s eternal plan is going off without a hitch”, which was mentioned frequently by listeners in the comments section, extends grace even to women who’ve “failed” the purity culture script.

However, she exploits this pain. After making her listeners feel heard and understood, she shifts toward benevolent patriarchy and purity culture as the solution to their problems—or at least a salvation from worrying about them. She reframes self-knowledge as selfish narcissism and lowered expectations of romantic partners as spiritual maturity. She presents this as protecting women, but in reality, it restricts them.

It’s notable how this mirrors Stuckey’s critique in Toxic Empathy that progressives use appeals to compassion as manipulation. She deploys the same tactic here, gently and compassionately addressing real fears, then presenting solutions that ask women to accept less.

Making it actionable

Stuckey’s vision has a critical weakness: it offers no agency. She tells women what to avoid, what not to consume, but she doesn’t offer them anything concrete to do. No path forward, no aspirational vision. This is a weakness the Left can leverage. We have an opening here, to offer women solutions that are aspirational and involve real agency and real choices.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

• What Love is Blind: Ohio Understands About the Rust Belt That Democrats Don’t

• ‘You unbelievable coward’: conservative US media in open warfare over Iran

• Hasan Piker: ‘The left should be better at manufacturing outrage’

• ‘Nazi heaven’: Inside Miami campus Republicans’ racist group chat

• Inside the secret meeting that led to the AI political resistance

• MAGA Christians Are Split Over Iran

Thanks for reading! We’re currently accepting new members into our 5th (!!) cohort starting in April. Sign up here!

Subscribe now

Share

A Visceral Beginning

Listening to The Benny Show, the first episode in my Unfortunately Not A Sound Bath journey, felt like I had jumped into the deep end. It left me deeply unsettled by what I heard. I wasn’t prepared for my own visceral reaction. My body reacted before my mind could organize an argument. I felt a tightening. A sense of contraction.

I had hoped that listening would humanize and broaden my perspective. Instead, I found myself wondering whether this was a fool’s errand. This rhetoric is not meant to build understanding but rather to invoke fear and exclusion.

For a moment, I considered stepping back. I could handle well-reasoned arguments from either side, but I didn’t know if I wanted to listen to such an inflammatory narrative.

And yet, I stayed.

What’s shifted for me over the past couple of months hasn’t been softening toward the content (which remains painful to hear). What’s shifted is how I’ve begun to listen and what I’ve been able to acknowledge about myself.

Subscribe now

The Moral Understory

Jonathan Haidt argues in The Righteous Mind that our political divisions are rooted less in facts than in moral intuitions. He describes six core moral foundations:

1. Care and harm

2. Fairness and cheating

3. Loyalty and betrayal

4. Authority and subversion

5. Sanctity and degradation

6. Liberty and oppression

He doesn’t argue that the foundations are good or bad, but simply describes them as a product of how humans have evolved in systems that promote survival, reproduction, and cooperation.

Haidt’s research suggests that people on the political Left tend to emphasize care, fairness, and liberty. People on the Right tend to draw from all six foundations, especially loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The difference is not simply about policy preferences. It is about which moral instincts are activated. To be sure, a moral instinct may later be overridden by logic, but the instinct appears first.

Conflict Entrepreneurs Exploit Moral Instincts

Moral instincts are easily exploited in today’s media landscape, where anyone can host a podcast and say just about anything they want. Stories circulate quickly. They do not need to persuade everyone. They do not need to be true. They need only resonate with the moral instincts of a particular audience. And often they are peddled by “conflict entrepreneurs” like Benny Johnson who exploit division and conflict for their own benefit.

When listening to UNASB’s podcast assignments through the lens of Haidt’s research, we get a glimpse of something more layered that conflict entrepreneurs are using to stir up outrage, hate, and fear among their audiences.

Hearing the Instinct Beneath the Rhetoric

When I heard Benny Johnson describe immigrants as eroding the “fabric” of the country, and Muslim prayer framed as allegiance to a foreign land, I heard loyalty and sanctity being activated together. A moral boundary around who truly belongs, and an implicit concern about cultural purity.

When I heard Benny Johnson’s insistence that America must be rooted purely in Christendom, that “orderly, clean, safe societies” flow from adherence to a singular Christian doctrine, I heard authority and sanctity intertwined. A vision of hierarchy presented as sacred order.

When I heard him dismiss global suffering with “I don’t care” because it was not “my country,” I heard in-group protection elevated above universal care.

Politics, in the Haidt’s moral foundations framework, is not primarily persuasion through evidence. It is moral storytelling that taps into a listener’s instinct about what is sacred or who belongs. To listen in this way, we also must name our own instincts.

Naming My Own Instincts

Only after mapping it this way did I fully acknowledge something about myself. My moral compass leans strongly towards care and fairness. Rhetoric that is dismissive of suffering or that draws unfair lines around who is welcome in our country activates something in me almost immediately and makes it difficult to stay with what I’m hearing. My fight-or-flight instinct is activated. My reaction is not just intellectual disagreement. It is a moral instinct.

Moving from Reaction to Real Conversation

Hearing the moral instincts shifted something in me. Instead of asking only, “How could someone listening believe this?” I began asking, “What instinct is being activated here?”

That question does not erase disagreement. It does not excuse harmful rhetoric. It does not change the fact that podcasters like Benny Johnson are demonizing other human beings and intentionally sowing the seeds of divisiveness for their own gain. But it complicates the narrative. It invites curiosity about what meaning people are interpreting from this content rather than assuming that all people of a certain political party are simply misinformed or ill-willed.

This is an important distinction as we move from media and online spaces to real, human interactions with people (who are not conflict entrepreneurs), where “it’s hard to hate up close” rings more true.

Much of my professional work centers on helping people navigate conflict and talk across differences. I have sought out cross-partisan spaces and joined conversations designed to bring people with opposing views into the same room. I have come to believe that understanding across differences is possible, though not easy, a believer in Mary Lou Kownacki’s words that “there isn’t anyone you couldn’t love once you heard their story.” I have yet to have a one-on-one conversation with someone whom I have been unable to find any common ground.

Which Instincts Do We Elevate?

Using the lens of moral instincts also raises a harder question. Which moral foundations are emphasized or neglected in my own community? If moral instincts shape perception and belief, then how we frame the issues matters.

On the political left, the moral language often centers on care and fairness. We tell stories about protecting the vulnerable, correcting injustice, and expanding who is included within the circle of belonging. Those instincts can be powerful, but they can also make it harder to recognize the moral concerns that resonate more strongly for others, such as loyalty, tradition, or social order. Understanding which instincts resonate for different audiences is just as important as the facts we present.

Staying in the Room

Staying allowed me to move from reacting solely at the level of outrage to listening for the deeper instinct underneath the argument.

We can be shocked.

We can be angered.

We can be offended.

And we can still ask what fear is being tapped, what value is being defended, what feels sacred to the listener, and whether the messenger is seeking to divide or to understand.

In a polarized culture, that shift will not change everyone’s mind. But it changes the quality of attention we bring to the conversation. And perhaps that is where true persuasion begins.

Share

Subscribe now

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

Subscribe now

UNASB made its annual pilgrimage to the Joe Rogan Experience, where we got a deep dive into the tech right’s worldview through the guest, Palmer Luckey.

Luckey is a tech billionaire who invented the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset which was acquired by Facebook (now Meta) in his early twenties. He was fired from Facebook (or was asked to leave or mutually separated, depending on who you ask) at 25 for making a $10,000 donation to a pro-Trump group that ran a “Too Big To Jail” billboard with Hillary Clinton’s face and other anti-Hillary memes during the 2016 election.

Now in his thirties, Luckey runs the weapons and tech manufacturer he founded, Anduril Industries, which has made millions from government contracts and is even more entrenched within the tech right network. Anduril received initial investments from tech right figurehead Peter Thiel, and the company’s early staff included former executives from Palantir, Thiel’s technology and surveillance company.

Rogan and Luckey’s conversation runs for over three hours, and it feels like two dudes hanging out and talking about whatever pops into their minds next. Still, the episode works to paint Luckey as a righteous boy genius living at exactly the right time to use his talents to become massively wealthy and help his country in the process.

Joe Rogan Experience #2394 - Palmer Luckey

Throughout the podcast, Luckey makes specific cultural references — from sci-fi shows to video games to his company Anduril itself, which is named after a sword from Lord of the Rings — that provide a window into the kinds of media that are resonating with a cohort of Millennial and Gen-Z young men. Rogan (who seems to have more bro-y cultural touchstones), doesn’t quite match Luckey’s enthusiasm at all times, but the two talk about The X Files, conspiracy theories, Star Trek, video games, robot battles, talking dogs, and more. These references could get very niche (this nerdy recapper clocked that Luckey was name-dropping a Yu-Gi-Oh character as a fictional technologist he admired without Luckey even naming the anime series itself), but they were mostly from mainstream, not right wing, media.

Luckey still works in conservative talking points into these pop culture discussions, though. He praises Warner Bros. for announcing they will make movies people want to see, and not what he calls “art house social justice money losers” (notably, he doesn’t say ‘woke’). He never uses the actual phrase “DEI,” but he uses a heavy-handed metaphor about choosing the best ratio of men’s to women’s bathrooms in a new office building to ‘prove’ that working towards more gender diversity in male-dominated fields like video games is undeniably stupid. Rogan nods along.

Luckey’s portrayal of his career (and the worldview he developed through it) also consistently reinforces the tech right’s narratives. Luckey celebrates the role of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors as a way to live out his boyhood dreams, gamifying war so it doesn’t feel like it has life-or-death stakes. He breezes past the fact that he’s made billions from government spending and military contracts, describing it as more efficient cost savings. He even says making instruments of war is the morally righteous thing to do (because if a moral person doesn’t make the weapons, someone else will), adding that the best role for the United States would be “to become the world’s gun store.”

And then there’s the actual politics talk. A tangent that starts with Rogan and Luckey talking about the Gulf War ends with them agreeing that Trump is the only man alive who could withstand the physical pressures of the presidency, and they’re off to the races. Luckey shares a story about Clinton advisor John Podesta refusing to answer a straightforward question in a meeting with potential donors in 2015, citing that exchange as the moment he fully turned against the left. Then he talks about how he’s been a longtime Trump supporter by 2016, claiming credibility as both a converted liberal and a Trump fan ahead of his time. Rogan and Luckey may gesture at being independent, but through it all, they are unabashedly pro-Trump, anti-Democrat, and certainly anti-liberal.

Key Takeaways

• Luckey presents himself as the (pun intended) luckiest guy in the world. He’s born at exactly the right time to take his childhood love of sci-fi, his self-proclaimed brilliance, and the government’s desire to pay for new weapons in order to get rich doing what he loves. In this way, he gives young men who might not have Rogan’s brawn but Luckey’s brain a future to aspire to —a future that still leads them to the right.

• Luckey claims to be the source of truth — both intellectually and morally —without qualms or caveats. He says without batting an eye that the best choice for smart, moral people is to go into weapons manufacturing. He’s convinced that independent corporations should be the only ones making military technology. He’s even got an unimpeachable read on the British psyche and Chinese acceptance of surveillance. Rogan rarely pushes back or asks follow-ups; Luckey is able to hand-wave his source for some military knowledge with an “I can’t tell you how I know that,” and the conversation moves on to another area of Luckey’s expertise.

• Luckey finds just enough points of disagreement to paint himself as an independent, credible voice. He calls himself libertarian, doesn’t think the state should be involved in regulating marriage at all (gay or otherwise), and even references a time when he used to work with a liberal nonprofit. He even breaks with other tech-right thinkers by criticizing government surveillance and censorship on social media, and by saying he does think foreign policy decisions should be made by an elected official, not a corporation. Rogan takes these departures from expectations as adding credibility, not marks against it.

• Rogan isn’t fully sold on the tech right’s post-human fantasies. While Luckey hypes up robot-on-robot boxing matches (and his long-term backer, Peter Thiel, isn’t convinced the human race should endure at all), Rogan would rather use AI to help humans box better instead. He also seems bored during some of Luckey’s nerdier tangents, suggesting this jock-nerd alliance isn’t fully locked in.

What we (left-leaning people) can learn from this and DO

We can find common ground for conversations with people who are compelled by the tech right, through critiques of bloated military spending.

Luckey, who directly profits from government defense contracts, is willing to say that America’s defense spending is bloated and inefficient. This could be an inroad to talking more about reprioritizing massive military budgets. It could also be an opportunity to talk about what the government is NOT spending money on, like making medication more affordable, fighting monopolies, improving education, or keeping our air and water clean.

Present a compelling vision of the future, and inspire tech innovators to help us make it possible.

Luckey offers a clear, supposedly utopian future through tech. It’s one where we can talk to our dogs thanks to AI, where drones are constantly monitoring to detect and stop wildfires before they get a chance to spread — and yes, where the brightest minds have made the United States the gun store of the world. If we want to bring more people onto our side, we have to give these potential innovators a different vision to work towards. Instead of weapons, what should we be creating? The Abundance-left paints a picture of America with towers of housing, freely available clean energy, and thriving innovation. How can other factions of the left improve their own worldbuilding in the public consciousness? Whatever future vision you may have, talk about it often and in tangible ways, and invite more people in to help you make it real.

Faith is still an important battleground, even with the tech right.

In one of the more surprising moments, Luckey talks about how AI and technology go hand in hand with his devout Christian faith. His faith gives a purpose to his billions and his mission, and AI shows that man can also create something in its own image. Could there be better answers from the left for people asking these same questions?

We have to do better about engaging sci-fi and fantasy fan cultures.

Reading Lord of the Rings or watching Star Trek doesn’t automatically make you conservative — just ask Stacey Abrams (or your recapper, who dressed up as J.R.R. Tolkien for a fourth grade biography night). The left has made some inroads here, like making DC Comics’ Nazi-fighting G.I. Robot into a symbol of anti-authoritarian resistance online, but there’s more work to be done. This fan engagement also needs to be authentic, instead of just playing Madden a week before Election Day to try and reach some gamers. There will always be a contingent of trolls mad about casting a woman or non-white Star Wars character, but there are plenty more apolitical fans out there to find common ground with and bring to our side, too.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

• Christian nationalist pastor speaks on his sermon to troops at Pentagon

• Young Voters Are Turning Away From Trump. Here’s Why

• What the Left Can Learn From A MAGA–Adjacent Christian Streaming Service

• MARK HALPERIN: Trump strategy super session plots midterm survival as history stalks GOP

• ‘The right has won the family’: my relentless search for lefty mommy bloggers

• How We Collectively Shifted the ICE Convo

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

Subscribe now

Share

On a frigid Chicago January evening, I make my way through a bustling multiplex, to a near-empty theater occupied by just one other couple. I’m realizing we’re getting our own private screening for the documentary Melania on opening weekend.

This is not a normal movie review, since I’m here on assignment for Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath—it’s a messaging autopsy. UNASB’s goal is to get out of our bubble, study the content millions of people are consuming, notice the patterns, and translate those patterns into better real-world conversations.

Amazon reportedly spent around $75 million for the story and distribution rights. The price tag had critics calling it a “propaganda piece” and “open bribe” under the label of a biopic. The film centers around Melania Trump’s experience as First Lady-elect during the 20 days leading up to the 2024 Presidential Inauguration. To be fair, this may have been an interesting story in other hands instead of the Epstein connected director, Brett Ratner.

Subscribe now

When Vibes Replace Substance

As Monica Hesse observed in The Washington Post, there’s nothing to see here—and hiding Melania’s true personality “is, in fact, her personality.” This isn’t a flaw in the documentary, it’s working exactly as intended. The absence is the point, emptiness is the brand. The film’s vibes just require production value to persuade viewers with atmosphere and aesthetics.

The film sells us the image of Melania Trump following a formula of three repeating pillars —Family, Business, and Philanthropy. In many positive promotions for the film, these themes were incanted constantly. Say it enough times with the right music and lighting, and maybe no one will notice a lack of evidence of these things.

The Family That Never Connects

Let’s start with Family. The film mentions it constantly. We see Melania Trump lighting a candle for her deceased mother, a brief shot of Barron Trump, references to Donald Trump. But watch closely—there’s no actual connection shown. No conversations, no warmth, no moments that reveal relationships. Melania is surrounded by staff in every scene, moving through palatial spaces alone. In her gilded palaces, I’d almost feel sorry for her. The out-of-touch comparisons to Marie Antoinette are not new, but at least Marie had her cosplay Hameau de la Reine to pretend she connected with the working class.

This is a film about a family that rarely appears in the same frame with anything resembling intimacy. It’s the aesthetic of family—the word invoked, the symbolic gesture—without the substance. Even the moments that should feel intimate are staged for maximum emotional manipulation. The private moments in a cleared out church for Melania’s candle-lighting scene, or the “unifier” line from Trump’s inauguration speech, highlighted in the trailer and edited to appear as if he nods acknowledgment to Melania’s earlier scene contribution. (Rewatching the speech, the acknowledgement never happened.)

Some critics have tried to paint Melania as a trapped Rapunzel, a victim waiting to be saved. Maureen Dowd got it right in The New York Times: she’s not imprisoned in the tower, she’s “comfortable in the frosty vertical solitude,” swaddled in luxury. The isolation isn’t inflicted on her—it’s cultivated.

The Business Empire That Isn’t

Then there’s Business, the second pillar. Her empire, as promoted in the film and press materials, consists of: a cryptocurrency venture (launched shortly before the crypto market crashed), NFTs (that barely sold), some jewelry, and holiday ornaments. There’s also a publishing company with one product—her own coffee table memoir and this film deal. That’s it. That’s the business portfolio of someone positioning herself as a serious executive.

As critics at The Atlantic have suggested, the film is really a “hard launch of a new lifestyle brand.“ They’re right. This is an extended infomercial for Melania the brand—the memoir, the jewelry, the crypto ventures, the aesthetic. The film itself IS the business, which explains why the actual business empire feels so hollow. She’s not building businesses; she’s licensing her image. The product is the mystique.

Compare that to the hours of footage devoted to showing us luxury, wealth, and designer consultations. We’re meant to absorb “successful businesswoman” through atmosphere, not evidence. The film lingers on a video call with France’s First Lady, Brigitte Macron, featuring an impossibly long shot of a MacBook—ever so naturally perched on Melania’s memoir. Everything is product placement, including Melania herself. We’re watching a commercial disguised as access, branding disguised as intimacy.

In promotional interviews, her agent, Marc Beckman, described the film as a “fashion explosion” showing “how she gets dressed, how she selects her styles.” In promoting a documentary about a First Lady’s work, the selling point is wardrobe selection? My mistake, Marc, I thought this was about a successful immigrant executive businesswoman rising to the top.

The Philanthropy Platform

And then there’s Philanthropy, the third pillar. The film leans heavily on “Be Best,” her anti-cyberbullying platform. What it doesn’t mention: the platform has been functionally dormant for years, with minimal activity on her website or social media about it since the end of her first term. The irony—that her husband remains one of the most prolifically vitriolic social media users in history—goes entirely unaddressed.

In promotional interviews, her agent lists examples of the First Lady’s accomplishments: the Take It Down Act, foster care executive orders, AI initiatives for children. But notice what’s missing: implementation details, measurable outcomes, follow-through.

The “Fostering the Future Together” program is announced with universities “involved,” but where are the students? How many have been helped? The one anecdotal letter he mentions—from a teacher who benefited years ago—is telling. If this were an active, robust program, there would be hundreds of stories, not one carefully-curated testimonial.

There was also a “Unity” purse partnership with Gucci, where 20% of proceeds would supposedly go to charity. You’ll just need to drop $2,800 on your next shopping trip to Beverly Hills. Which raises the question, who’s benefiting? The film wants you to absorb “philanthropist” the way you might absorb “glamorous” or “poised”—through repetition and aesthetics, not through demonstration.

Her agent claims she works “seven days a week from 6am to past midnight. Every day. There’s never a vacation day.” If true, where’s the output? What are the receipts for all those hours? The film itself—covering 20 days—shows us designer consultations and party planning. That’s what “working around the clock” looks like in this universe: curating the appearance of work, not the work itself.

Who This Film Is Really For?

Who watches this and comes away satisfied?

Sitting in that near-empty theater (that seats 300), I desperately wanted to ask the only two other people why they were there. Were they Melania fans? Hate-watchers? Critics? Unfortunately, when the lights came up, I must have blacked out since the next thing I knew I was standing outside, brought back to reality by the frigid Chicago evening. My numb brain needed a strong drink.

Later, as I decompressed and pored over my notes, I went looking for any authentic positive response without direct ties to Jeff Bezos or the Trumps. Just like in the film itself, it took a lot of searching to find anyone praising her who wasn’t getting paid, one way or another.

To better understand the target audience, I attempted to break down who was buying tickets to see the film.

The Trump loyalists tended to be older women in sold-out theaters in wealthy conservative strongholds like Florida and Texas. They describe Melania as “beautiful, classy, poised” and most importantly, “an influence to Trump.” For them, the three pillars don’t need evidence—they’re articles of faith. The film confirms what they already believe about proximity to power equaling virtue. These are fans of the Trump brand regardless of what shape it comes in, and Melania has always been the most palatable package.

The apolitical parasocial viewers who might be the ones that secretly peek in their party host’s medicine cabinet. Their investment is to happily watch the drama unfold like a reality show, ambivalent to the real-world consequences. They don’t care if the business is real or the philanthropy is active—they’re here for the aesthetic of wealth. The three pillars are just set dressing for voyeurism.

The Alchemy of Propaganda

This is the danger of the modern influencer class: making billionaire excess feel not just acceptable, but deserved and achievable. Melania Trump floats from scene to scene, moving between private jets, designer clothes fittings, glitzy residences, and golden eggs, with language about “hard work.” It’s telling non-political viewers that this level of wealth isn’t about inheritance or corruption—it’s about work ethic.

That is if they just worked “seven days a week,” they too could have designers consulting on their wardrobe choices. It’s the American Dream repackaged as the American Royal Family, and you’re invited to watch but can never actually touch.

The Protection Racket

Here’s what keeps me up at night: the film works even when it doesn’t.

Sophie Gilbert in The Atlantic put it bluntly: “Melania the movie isn’t a documentary; it’s a protection racket.” Amazon—which has extensive federal contracts through AWS and whose CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and Blue Origin—paid $40 million for this film with $28 million going directly to the Trump family coffers, far above any competing bid, adding $35 million for marketing. Amazon reps insisted they invested so heavily because they “think customers are going to love it.”

The film made $7 million in its opening weekend—technically “the strongest opening for a documentary in a decade.” But as Sam Adams noted in Slate, there’s an old Hollywood term for a $75 million movie that opens with $7 million: a flop.

But that was never really the point, was it? Bezos dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago just weeks before this deal was announced. Days after the film’s release, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Bezos’s facilities. The film premiered at the Kennedy Center—not with celebrities, not with Hollywood, but with government officials. Government officials attending a film about a First Lady, distributed by a company that needs those officials’ approval for federal contracts.

This isn’t just a bad movie. It’s a transaction dressed up as art. And while Amazon spent $75 million on this vanity project, they laid off one-third of Washington Post staff, including investigative reporters who might have covered the transactional nature of that very deal.

If you’re wondering what a “protection racket” looks like in practice, that’s it. The corruption isn’t hidden—it’s performed as culture, with a red carpet.

The New Blueprint

It’s what critic Sonny Bunch in The Bulwark calls “a pure and naked instrument of grift and propaganda deployed to great effect on an audience happy to lap it up.” Theaters in Florida and Texas sold out with people paying to bask in the golden glow of Trump Tower, even as my Chicago theater sat empty.

Trump supporters bought validation and millions more will stream it, absorbing the message that wealth equals virtue, that emptiness equals mystery, that a life of fittings and place settings is something to aspire to rather than mourn.

This is the blueprint now. Not to convince people with arguments, but to train them to accept branding as reality. To consume power as entertainment. To mistake production value for substance. To scroll through life absorbing vibes.

So, I’ll ask anyone with the misfortune of seeing this film (and the couple in my screening), is this what legitimacy looks like? Does wealth equal virtue? Does access equal truth?

But we’re not helpless. We can refuse to stream it. We can spend fewer dollars with Amazon, the company run by a billionaire that gifted $28 million to another billionaire while laying off a third of their Washington Post journalists. We can patronize actual documentaries that investigate power instead of performing it.

More urgently, we need to recognize propaganda when we see it. Not for us to become paranoid, but to become literate. To notice when editing fabricates truth. To question when we are told to stare at golden shiny things and ignore reality.

Because if we can’t tell the difference between what is and what was, we’ll already have lost more than we know.

Subscribe now

Share

At UNASB, we don’t listen to MAGA voices to mock them. We listen to understand them — to study how they package power, masculinity, nostalgia and grievance into something aspirational. We try to decode the vibe.

Last Monday, we spent three hours inside one of the most influential vibe machines in America: The Joe Rogan Experience. His guest was Palmer Luckey.

If you only know Luckey as a young billionaire with political opinions, you’re missing the engineering part of the story. He’s not a nepo baby. He built something real.

As a teenager, Luckey began developing what would become the prototype for modern virtual reality headsets. He founded Oculus Rift. In 2014, Facebook acquired Oculus VR for $2 billion. By his early twenties, he was one of Silicon Valley’s wunderkinds — proof that technical brilliance plus timing equals astronomical wealth.

He is now 33 years old and has spent over half his life building advanced electronic systems. After leaving Facebook, he founded Anduril, a defense technology company with billions in U.S. government contracts focused on autonomous weapons systems, surveillance and AI-enabled military tools.

Subscribe now

He is now a big boy with very big toys.

He is, by any definition, accomplished. Smart. A true engineer.

And he is also a MAGA supporter, moving comfortably within the ecosystem that Rogan both shapes and reflects.

That is where the metaphor becomes unavoidable.

In the biblical book of Isaiah, there is a vision of peace: They shall beat their swords into ploughshares. Weapons transformed into tools of cultivation. Instruments of death reshaped into instruments of nourishment.

For centuries, that phrase has represented moral progress — the idea that technology and power can be redirected toward human flourishing.

Luckey represents a cultural inversion.

The engineer who once built a device designed to expand human experience — to immerse us in new worlds — now builds machines designed to dominate and, if necessary, eliminate perceived enemies. The ploughshare has become a sword.

And we are funding the forge.

Anduril’s contracts are not speculative venture capital experiments. They are taxpayer dollars. Public money flowing into increasingly autonomous and increasingly anonymous systems of force.

Luckey frames this as innovation.

He does not present himself as a warmonger. He presents as an engineer solving problems. He sees inefficiency and wants to optimize it. He sees risk and wants to automate it. He sees global competition and wants to win.

In that framing, morality becomes secondary to capability.That’s the cultural shift.

Rogan’s platform amplifies this because it rewards confidence, competence, and masculine spectacle. It prizes strength, innovation, and the thrill of competition. The allure of dominance. In that ecosystem, robots fighting robots isn’t horrifying. It’s fascinating.

Palmer Luckey doesn’t appear cruel. He seems excited, proud, almost boyish in his enthusiasm. And that is what makes it complicated.

Because what he builds is not neutral.

Autonomous weapons are not simply cooler versions of existing tools. They alter the moral distance between decision and consequence. They abstract human cost. They make force scalable and, potentially, easier to deploy.

Three hours of conversation, and very little sustained reflection on what happens when lethal capability becomes software-driven and self-directed.

Three hours of futurism and nostalgia — and almost no pause to consider what kind of world emerges when cultivation loses cultural prestige and combat gains it.

I found myself strangely conflicted.

Luckey is charismatic, brilliant, and in some ways admirable. The self-made engineer archetype still holds enormous power in the American imagination. We are drawn to competence. We root for builders.

But admiration without scrutiny is how cultural currents quietly reverse direction.

We once imagined technology as something that would free humans — from labor, from scarcity, from limitation. Increasingly, it is being sold as something that will outfight us.

Turning ploughshares into swords is not simply a defense policy decision. It is a cultural one. It reflects what we celebrate. What we fund. What keeps life going.

And while we argue over groceries and healthcare, billions of public dollars are moving from cultivation to combat — from tools that feed to tools that fight.

This isn’t inevitable.

It is a choice.

The most unsettling part of the interview was not aggression. It was what was missing. An absence of moral wrestling. An absence of hesitation about where this road leads. The engineer sees a system to improve.

The question is whether we, as a culture, still see the difference between building a world and dominating one.

In many ways, 2026 feels like a Mars moment — whether you believe in astrology or not. The cultural current favors fire, assertion, boldness. Competence is prized. Strength is aestheticized. Winning is a virtue.

Palmer Luckey embodies a version of masculinity ascendant in this moment: technically brilliant, fascinated by capability, comfortable with scale and force. It is not an angry masculinity. It is an optimized one.

But masculinity is at a crossroads. Real strength is not measured in how powerful the tool is, but in what the tool is for. The divine masculine — if we still believe in such a thing — is not defined by domination. It is defined by stewardship. It asks not only “Can we build it?” But…“What are we responsible for once we do?”

A warrior without guardianship is a spectacle. Power without compassion is performance.

It isn’t how big or good-looking your muscle is. It’s what you use it for.

If we do not remember the difference, we may wake up one day to discover its long-term cost: we didn’t shift resources to infrastructure, or that which helps people.

We simply built better swords — and called it progress.

Subscribe now

Share

I have a confession to make: I don’t have strong opinions about Bad Bunny’s halftime performance or his music. I enjoy the Winter Olympics, but can’t say I live or die by them, or the athletes—besides Lindsey Vonn. I didn’t watch the Grammys or pay attention to which artists spoke out against ICE.

I might be the exception because each of these events has been a flashpoint in the ongoing Culture War between MAGA and the rest of America. Enough pieces have been written about the current state of the Culture War, and it appears that, as of this writing, Trump and MAGA are currently losing it.

I am less interested in watching these specific events and more interested in what they say about the current state of Trump’s hold on America, its institutions, and most importantly, its people.

America Afraid

Think back to just over a year ago. America’s cultural institutions were afraid to go against Trump/ruffle MAGA’s feathers. SNL is an illustrative example. The episode after Trump’s election, they spent much of it kowtowing to him in a joking and self-aware way. Their episode directly preceding Trump’s second inauguration deployed Dave Chappelle (perhaps as a fellow cancel culture victim, depending on your view) to plead with Trump, “Do not forget your humanity and please have empathy for displaced people”. These were signals to America about our new authoritarian age, which would soon see major institutions from prestigious law firms to universities bend the knee to Trump. Professors, scientists and various celebrities literally fled the country, including noted authoritarianism scholar, Timothy Snyder, who ironically led his “resist-the-libs” bible, “On Tyranny” with the edict, “Do not obey in advance”. Snyder obeyed in advance. And many of our cultural institutions, political leaders, and artists seemed to fall in line.

That’s what makes Bad Bunny’s speech at the Grammys and his halftime performance so notable. It’s why Olympians speaking out matters. Why the NBA canceling Minnesota’s game after the murder of Alex Pretti breaks through (some of) the noise. Popular culture and media—despite their fragmentation—continue to both set and reflect the terms of our national conversation. Bad Bunny, artists at the Grammys, and our Olympians all had the courage and felt they had the space to say something. They act as the beacons to everyday Americans who might otherwise remain quiet.

It’s human nature to be influenced by those we interact with in person and online. We take our cues from our friends and family, but also our public figures. When Americans see people in public positions who have nothing to do with our political system speaking out, it can become popular to speak out. Impossible to measure but real nonetheless. Because silence begets silence but conversations spark fire for action.

It also rebuts the “lol, nothing matters” theory that sometimes becomes popular. Nothing is inevitable. Policy impacts politics impacts culture impacts popularity (or perhaps vice versa). Going after all undocumented immigrants - not just those who commit crimes - and the resulting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti matter. Tariffs increasing prices for Americans matter. Slow walking and covering up the Epstein files matter. Americans notice and Trump’s popularity plummets.

America Unafraid

And so, our cultural figures speak out. People post in random sports subreddits about the Epstein Files. A subreddit about catbongos says, ICE Out, after the deaths of Good and Pretti. These acts feed one another, and even people who normally disdain what they consider loud and combative politics, realize that it’s not “politics” to want their fellow Americans to not be murdered, that immigration is a core American value, that prices are too high, and that we should hold billionaires accountable if they’re in the Epstein Files. As was noted here recently, each act, each statement, is a sign, a permission, an implicit exhortation, and the start of a conversation: about our values and who we want to be.

These are the sparks and the kindling of a shifting tide. Many are witnessing it. But we must each participate in it. We must talk to our friends and family because some don’t hold our same field of view and certainly don’t share our information bubbles. When we share a meme that undercuts MAGA’s message, when we reach out to a friend who we might not often agree with to start a well meaning conversation about what’s going on in Minnesota or the Epstein Files or another hard to defend outrage- that becomes impossible to miss and serves as the fuel to victory. Each of our actions builds on one another and momentum can take hold. But we must be the momentum and the backbone, or else the tide turns again.

I’ll say again: Trump is starting to lose the culture war. He’s losing the culture war because Americans are fed up with his vision and governance of America. It starts with Bad Bunny. It ends with each of us, in our words and actions that our communities witness, online and in person. And eventually, the roaring fire becomes too large and too loud to ignore.

Subscribe now

Share

This piece was written by an UNASB club member who wishes to remain anonymous. If you would like to join the club, please signup for the waitlist here.

This past week, at 38 weeks pregnant with my first child, I went to the hospital with high blood pressure. They were checking for preeclampsia - a condition that can quickly become life-threatening for both mother and baby - despite my otherwise normal and healthy pregnancy. I sat in a triage room, hooked up to monitors, watching numbers on a screen, waiting and nervous.

Thankfully, the tests came back negative, but this is what new motherhood is, before it even formally begins: It is a cascade of fears from rational to irrational, and everything in between. For many of us, they begin before we even get pregnant and don’t seem to let up. Fear that something is wrong with your baby. Fear that you’re not feeding them right. Fear that you can’t trust the information you’re getting. Fear that you’re not enough. Fear that the world your child is entering is not safe. According to one survey, new moms spend more than 1,400 hours worrying about their baby’s health in the first year alone. That’s eight straight weeks of nothing but worry.

These fears are universal and, in many cases, healthy! They’re the instinct that keeps us vigilant, the power that we could lift a car, the engine behind every late-night Google search and every call to the doctors. But in 2026, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and the Trump administration have turned those fears into a grift. They are not easing the anxieties of new mothers. Instead, they are identifying them, inflaming them, and converting them into supplement sales, podcast downloads, and ultimately, votes.

MAHA is taking our concerns and turning them into cons.

Subscribe now

The Concern: “Is something wrong with my baby?”

Every new mom worries that something is wrong with her baby. It is biological. It is constant. It is the reason we lie awake listening for breathing.

The Con: Tylenol causes autism and the vaccine schedule is a hoax.

The same week I started getting pregnancy headaches - the kind where you’re already anxious because you know high blood pressure runs in your family, and you’re not quite out of the first trimester weeds - the White House went on Truth Social to tell parents not to give their children Tylenol “for virtually any reason,” linking acetaminophen to autism despite no causal evidence. A major JAMA study of 2.5 million children had already directly rebutted this claim. The American Academy of Pediatrics called the White House announcement “filled with dangerous claims and misleading information.” But the damage was already done. Personally, I had to spend an entire appointment navigating how to treat my headaches and worse, parents started showing up to ERs with infants running 103-degree fevers, too afraid to give them medicine.

Last week, I had to call my hospital with a question I didn’t think I’d need to ask: would they still be administering the hepatitis B vaccine after birth, given recent Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendations? And when RFK Jr.’s HHS removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended schedule for healthy children and pregnant women - a move that also affects insurance coverage - the question of what else might quietly disappear stopped being paranoid and started being practical.

They are taking the most primal fear a mother has - is my baby okay? - and exploiting it to sell distrust.

The Concern: “Am I feeding my baby right?”

Twenty-eight percent of new parents list “is my baby getting enough to eat?” as their number one fear. Before my baby has even arrived, I’ve already fielded unsolicited opinions about breastfeeding versus formula, about what I should and shouldn’t be eating while pregnant, about whether my prenatal vitamins are the right brand. The anxiety around feeding is relentless and for many mothers, it’s tied directly to the question of whether they’re doing enough.

The Con: Shame moms no matter what they do but tell them you have all the answers.

In said recent interview on Alex Clark’s TPUSA podcast, Calley Means, a former food and pharmaceutical industry lobbyist turned White House special government employee who by his own admission helped kill sugar taxes on behalf of Coca-Cola, lamented about “processed food as the first food a child eats.” That’s formula. He is talking about formula. The thing that keeps millions of newborns alive and healthy when breastfeeding isn’t possible or isn’t chosen. The MAHA movement claims to be the voice of American mothers and then shames them for how they feed their babies from day one - and the guy doing it used to lobby for soda companies. Meanwhile, RFK Jr.’s HHS has pushed to restrict what SNAP recipients can buy, because apparently the administration that can’t get its own dietary guidelines straight wants to police what low-income mothers put in their grocery carts.

The Concern: “Can I trust what I’m being told?”

At our hospital tour, another expectant parent asked about the vitamin K shot, not because they had a medical concern, but because they’d seen something on Instagram. The nurse paused. You could feel the room recalibrate. This is what happens when federal health policy gets filtered through wellness influencers: every routine question becomes a landmine, and healthcare providers are left doing cleanup for misinformation they didn’t create.

I’ve had to think carefully about how I talk about our decision to use a doula and midwives, because those choices now carry political coding they didn’t used to. The vaccine schedule conversation, which should be a routine part of prenatal care, has become loaded with suspicion from every direction. I chose these things based on the guidance of trusted medical experts not because some wellness influencer told me the answers to America’s health crisis are in the Bible, like Means does in the interview.

The Con: The people asking you to distrust the medical establishment? Consider who they are.

Casey Means, Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, dropped out of her surgical residency, profits from wellness supplements and sponsored social media posts, runs a metabolic testing company that a Public Citizen report says has already benefited from RFK Jr.’s promotion of wearable health devices, and invested in tobacco giants Philip Morris and Altria while selling you supplements for metabolic health.

Her brother Calley helped kill sugar taxes (or so he claims) for the soda industry before rebranding as a health crusader. As Public Citizen put it: MAHA influencers “accurately identify that much of the US healthcare system is beholden to corporate interests,” then “sell consumers their own version of the grift.” They didn’t fix the corruption. They just swapped which industry gets to profit off your anxiety.

The Concern: “Is my child safe?”

This is the fear that haunts every parent and the one this administration has the least credibility to address. The Harvard Center on the Developing Child has documented how childhood adversity such as abuse, family separation, and witnessing violence triggers toxic stress that disrupts developing brain architecture, weakens immune function, and drives chronic inflammation. The research on childhood sexual abuse (CSA) specifically is devastating: a Lancet Psychiatry umbrella review covering 559 studies and over four million participants found that CSA is associated with virtually every adult health outcome studied: elevated rates of cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, chronic pain, and a 39% increase in type 2 diabetes. At the cellular level, childhood sexual abuse accelerates telomere erosion - literally aging survivors from the inside out.

This is the actual childhood health crisis. Not sugary cereal. Not Red Dye 40. Not the measles vaccine, whose most common side effects are a mild fever and a sore arm, and which prevents a disease that hospitalizes one in five and kills one to three per thousand who catch it.

The Con: They are actively endangering children.

In the same interview, Calley Means repeatedly says that President Trump is going to be “the voice of American children and the voice of American mothers.” I listened to this episode just days after the latest Epstein files dropped. Let’s sit with what “the voice of American children” actually looks like.

The 3 million pages of Epstein files released by the DOJ include an FBI report detailing an allegation that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl. They include a victim’s account of Ghislaine Maxwell “presenting” her to Trump at a party, telling her he “liked” her and suggesting she was “available.” They include a description of a 14-year-old being brought to Mar-a-Lago, where Epstein elbowed Trump, gestured at the child, and asked, “This is a good one, right?” Trump smiled and nodded.

And MAHA isn’t clean from the files either: Dr. Peter Attia - the longevity guru whose *Outlive* was a bestseller, whose podcast is gospel in the “optimize your health” world - appears over 1,700 times in the Epstein files. Three years of correspondence after Epstein had spent time in prison for soliciting minors. Medical advice for a convicted sex trafficker. CBS pulled his 60 Minutes segment after finding that one of the wellness industry’s most trusted doctors was pen pals with a pedophile.

And just a reminder: TPUSA is the same Turning Point that hosted the Super Bowl Halftime Show alternative - billed as a celebration of “American faith, family, and freedom” - headlined by Kid Rock. Whose song “Cool, Daddy Cool” includes the lyric “young ladies, I like ‘em underage / see some say that’s statutory / but I say it’s mandatory.”

The Concern: “Am I enough?”

Underneath all the specific fears - the feeding, the vaccines, the safety - is the one that runs deepest: Am I a good enough mother? Researchers have found that this question haunts parents across demographics. One qualitative study found that expectant mothers’ anxieties distilled down to a single devastating question, “Can one of my small choices ruin the entire life of my child?”

The Con: The MAHA movement has built its entire appeal on the answer being you’re not enough.

Yes, the wrong food will poison your child. Yes, the wrong medication will give them autism. Yes, formula will set them up for failure. Yes, the vaccine schedule is the thing that’s making kids sick. And the only way to be a good mother is to reject the establishment entirely, do your own research, buy the supplements, follow the right influencers, and achieve a kind of maternal purity that, conveniently, requires a subscription and discount code. This is how they actively work to erode public trust in medical professionals, making mothers feel like they can’t rely on doctors and instead must turn to MAHA for guidance.

This is the funnel. And at the bottom of it are not healthier kids. It’s a voter base.

Calley Means says the quiet part out loud in that same Alex Clark conversation when he shares that Charlie Kirk told him behind the scenes that he was excited about the MAHA movement because of “the electoral implications of MAHA and how new voters could be brought into the fold.” Not changing vaccine regulations. Not finding root causes of disease. Not healthier kids. Power. And Means says this in the same breath as he says that the answers to our health crisis are in the Bible.

So what do we do?

Well, the rugged individualism baked into new parenthood cuts across political lines. It makes sense, we all want agency. From the ingredients in our food to what kind of education our kids receive, it is part of our responsibility to navigate the world on behalf of our children. These fears? They’re not weaknesses. They’re what make us pay attention.

But the Alex Clarks, the Calley Means, the Trump advisors, and the MAHA influencer class are not respecting those fears. They are mapping them, monetizing them, and weaponizing them all while Mar-a-Lago membership hits $1 million and the man they call “the voice of American children” smiles at fourteen-year-olds in his own club, and while a former soda lobbyist tells you the real problem is your baby’s formula.

More and more people are waking up to the fact that the Trump administration thinks Americans, specifically moms, are absolute idiots. From the brazen lies out of DHS after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street, a nurse and a U.S. citizen, whom Kristi Noem immediately labeled a “domestic terrorist” despite video evidence showing otherwise, to the abduction of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos from his home in a Minneapolis suburb where federal agents using the boy as bait to get his mother to open the door. And we can’t forget the constant denial of the president’s well-documented social calendar with the most prolific child sex trafficker in modern history, even as 3 million pages of Epstein files now sit on a DOJ server with Trump’s name appearing thousands of times throughout.

It is abundantly clear: they think we’ll keep eating the bullshit they’re serving.

But they’re wrong. And here’s one simple thing we can do: talk to each other. Share our stories, our fears, our questions. Build communities of trust and support that don’t depend on influencers or politicians, but on our communities. When we hear a friend repeating MAHA talking points, engage with empathy and facts because they are likely coming from the simple desire to be a good parent. The antidote to their grift is our solidarity. They can’t exploit our fears if we face them together.

Subscribe now

Share

“We have everything we could ever want. It’s about power.”

What sounds like a war cry, or a leaked text from a GOP Signal group, is actually pulled from Netflix’s Members Only: Palm Beach trailer. This quote neatly summarizes the motivation behind the protagonist of the show, millionaire Ro-Mina Ustayev, who upends her life to move from Philadelphia to Palm Beach in pursuit of power, in the form of a Mar-a-Lago membership.

Politics are never openly discussed on the show, but proximity to power is lusted for openly and often. In this show lies a case study about how eagerly the most well-resourced on the Right will bend to power in order to get in the same room as President Trump or Elon Musk, and the uniform of the Right reinforces the ideology. What can the Left learn from watching wealthy women radically transform themselves for access to Trump?

The bargain is clear. In exchange for access to President Trump and Elon Musk, Ro-Mina must accept isolation, xenophobia, and relentless scrutiny under Palm Beach’s strenuous social code. It’s not about wealth. It’s about what you have to do and how you have to look to amass power.

Members Only: Palm Beach follows Ro-Mina’s attempts to gain acceptance into a society of modest blondes with a preference for florals and pastels despite her own penchant for leather and yelling. Three Palm Beach veterans guide her metamorphosis: Rosalyn Yellin (a prominent philanthropist and former Zumba instructor), Gale Brophy (a socialite of the past with mysterious wealth), and Hilary Musser (a property developer celebrating wedding number five). Ro-Mina herself is a former healthcare executive, Uzbekistani immigrant, and aspiring singer/fashion designer. Each woman has embarked on a tremendous transformation to fit into Palm Beach society.

And now it’s Ro-Mina’s turn.

Ro-Mina’s wealth, which is enough to cover the $1 million cost of membership at Mar-a-Lago, does not make her social life any more bearable. Acceptance requires submission to “the Palm Beach way”. Ro-Mina is willing to learn and implement these standards, of which the most important is never showing your chest and legs at the same time, but finds true acceptance still out of reach. It seems new rules are created just for her - when she asks for cash instead of presents on her birthday, she’s chastised by each of her mentors. She shows off her new wardrobe often, but it’s the wrong material. Meanwhile, Ro-Mina’s mentors routinely violate the very rules they claimed were set in stone.

These contradictions are on purpose. The rules aren’t about looking or acting a certain way. They’re about deference to leadership in exchange for more invitations to ever-more enticing rooms

Ro-Mina Ustayev on IMDb

Throughout the season, Ro-Mina repeatedly and proudly shares her immigration story and attempts to merge her Uzbekistani heritage and culture with the customs of Palm Beach society. Instead, she is referred to as Pakistani and eventually, the tension reaches an all-time high when Ro-Mina is told to “go back to her own country” at an etiquette class by one of her mentors. But instead of backing down, she recommits to climbing the social hierarchy. While commenting that immigrants often take better advantage of American opportunity, she even imagines herself at the top of the ladder, leading the entire Palm Beach social scene in her own way. But that seems all but impossible while the old guard of Palm Beach continues to criticize and undermine Ro-Mina’s every move. It becomes clear that it just isn’t about the look, it’s the public display of reverence to the powerful that truly leads to acceptance and praise.

What Members Only Says about the Right – and Left — in this current moment

At Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath, we analyze and brainstorm on right-wing messaging and themes and convert them into actionable ideas to strengthen the Democratic approach. Members Only: Palm Beach showcases how the Right’s promise of power and personal celebrity is enticing enough to convince the wealthiest across America to upend their lives and relocate to Trump’s front door.

The political Right reinforces its power in a way that intensifies the loyalty of its aspirational believers. Conform and defer, and you’ll be rewarded with access, wealth, and validation.

The left mirrors these demands of conformance in less clear-cut ways. The left encourages diversity in image and slogan, but the rules of acceptable behavior are even more strict and numerous. Take the recent attempt to cancel Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers of the Las Culturistas podcast after they discouraged fans from donating to Jasmine Crockett’s campaign to flip Texas’ U.S. Senate seat. Backlash against this expression of diversity of thought as to where Democrat voters’ limited dollars should go quickly ensued.

Those of the left must display humility, tolerance, smarts, confidence, and charm in perfect form, across all demographics, at all times, to be considered marketable. Even then, the payoff still may not cover your ever-increasing rent.

If your goal is to tap the nearly endless resources of influence and cash of the right-wing elite, the decision to conform is easy. At least, it seems worth it to Ro-Mina. The later episodes justify her outer work by featuring a picture of her, floral-clad, next to the President and her mentor, with perfect smiles all around.

Those on the left gain status through a combination of virtue signals—empathy, compassion, collectivism. As evidenced in Members Only, the Right gains ground through a seemingly easy to follow guide to power. Follow the rules, you’ll be rewarded. The clarity is seductive.

If politics is downstream of culture, and culture is composed of group identity, then Members Only shows how the enforced styling of the Right sustains its worldview and prestige. They understand that power is something to be protected, not shared. Being easy to identify shows your dominance. They make the path to power legible, with clear messaging and visuals meant to go viral. Meanwhile, the left demands perfection and makes no promises for success.

The Right is selling access and the left is selling approval. We shouldn’t be surprised that one is much more persuasive. If Democrats want loyalty, they have to offer real, clear, and joyful incentives, not just moral righteousness. Otherwise, they will keep losing to people in pastels who know exactly what they’re dressing for.

Subscribe now

Share

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our latest meeting. As a reminder, here at UNSAB, we listen to right-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

UNASB turned our attention to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which has been a major conversation driver of that has moved health-conscious voters to the right. There’s no better place to start analyzing the MAHA movement from within than through Alex Clark’s Turning Point USA-backed podcast Culture Apothecary.

The health and wellness-focused podcast with half a million subscribers touts its mission as providing a space where “each guest provides their own remedy to heal a sick culture - physically, emotionally, and spiritually.” The message is stickier than ever– more than70% of her audience in the past year are new listeners.

The selected podcast episode, “Debunking MAHA Lies and Explaining Year 1 Trump Controversies,” features Calley Means, a current HHS senior advisor, wellness entrepreneur, and brother of Trump’s nominee for our country’s next surgeon general.

The conversation was far-ranging, covering topics such as vaccines, pesticides, infertility, and public nutrition assistance. There are repeated references to how untrustworthy food companies and medical experts have become. Means describes MAHA’s success as a “cultural transformation” around health. He tempers expectations of radical, immediate change by offering a parallel to the decades-long mission to overturn Roe v. Wade. He explains, contrary to the evidence, that “research has not been cut”, and instead promotes how MAHA is investing heavily into cancer, microplastics, testosterone, and “food as medicine” research. Means also celebrates major MAHA wins like removing soda and candy from SNAP.

Throughout the podcast, there were many calls to action. Listeners were encouraged to call their lawmakers about food label reforms, send the podcast to a liberal in their life, and question their pediatricians about their children’s prescriptions. The message was clear: MAHA isn’t just policy, it’s a well-organized cultural revival.

Key Takeaways

Health is an effective political conversion tool.

Mothers and families feel overwhelmed by the costs and conflicting information each time they visit a grocery store or doctor’s office. MAHA offers individuals something that looks like personal empowerment, which is so much sexier than believing that the government is invested in the public good. Once you’re in the MAHA movement, you’re part of a community of logical, empathic individuals who are seeking a healthier future, and crucially, you should do everything in your power to support MAGA so that the momentum continues.

Simple is good.

Both Means and Clark emphasize non-controversial, feel-good solutions to complex health issues. Eat more whole foods. Get some sunlight and lots of exercise. Brushed aside are how socioeconomics affects access to these factors, or how well-researched western medicine practices do have their place for those patients who need it.

The right is effective at turning the speaking points of the left around.

The promotion of equity is portrayed as opposite to logic. Public health nuance that takes affordability and equity into account is reduced to claiming that promoting whole foods is racist. Ultraprocessed foods are cast as a construction of the left. “They accuse us of being sexist for suggesting that moms should cook whole food for their kids.”

Trust in medicine, government, and research is incredibly low, and the right does not expect this to change.

Instead, they are planning incremental changes over the next few decades to radically upend what healthcare means in America. Under this system, short-term policy losses are to be expected. They are priming their audiences for the long game.

Making What We Learned Actionable

Fact checking isn’t enough.

MAHA is selling a message of a stronger, healthier, and cheaper future. The left needs to move towards a framework where public health helps you thrive, not just protects you from harm.

MAHA invests in speaking to moms and influencers directly.

The left communicates top-down. By investing in direct storytelling from families or communities, the left can make its message more relatable and accessible.

The rise of MAHA comes from its relatable identity as a group of individuals and families concerned about their health and seeking a system that’s easier to understand.

If Democrats want to compete, they need to build an equally compelling vision of an America where good health is easy and empowering. Cultural movements win when they make people feel strong.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

• Back to the Basics: The Venn Diagram of Progress

• The Dizzying Rise of MAHA Warrior Calley Means, RFK Jr.’s Right-Hand Man

• Is Joe Rogan Really Turning on Trump?

• Built for a Different War: Why Progressive Institutions Can’t Compete in Today’s Media Battlefield

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved in UNASB? Click here.

Subscribe now