Our news cycle attention span has been reduced to the time it takes to swipe to the next TikTok or Instagram Reel, making Steve Bannon’s strategy to “flood the zone” succeed far better than even he could have imagined.

Up until this spring, it was hard to go a day without hearing Kristi Noem’s name in the news or a report about the disturbing effects of her DHS policies on people’s lives.

In an effort to surface what now qualifies as ancient history, it might be time for a wellness check on the Noem family.

Share

Here’s a 2026 refresher.

In January, Ms. Noem, still Secretary of DHS, defended the aggressive actions of armed federal agents that resulted in communities rising up across the country to protest unlawful detentions, culminating in the shooting deaths of two innocent people — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — killed by ICE and CBP agents in Minneapolis in separate incidents, weeks apart. She called them domestic terrorists before any investigation was complete. Video footage contradicted her within days. She did not apologize.

In February, the Senate Judiciary Committee launched a joint probe into massive spikes in deaths at immigration detention facilities. Arizona lawmakers opened inquiries into a $70 million cash purchase of a warehouse converted into a 1,500-bed detention facility without notifying local officials. House lawmakers confronted Ms. Noem about the deployment of Penlink — powerful cellphone location-tracking software used without warrants to sweep up data on anti-ICE activists and undocumented residents.

In March, Ms. Noem spent two days before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees defending her immigration enforcement record, declining to answer questions about her alleged affair with subordinate Corey Lewandowski, her use of luxury private jets, and more than $220 million in public funds spent on advertising that starred herself, on horseback, in full makeup, in front of Mount Rushmore. The very next day, Trump removed her as Secretary of Homeland Security and announced her appointment to the newly created, vaguely defined “Shield of the Americas.”

Now we get to the chicken or the egg part.

Only a few days later, on March 31st, the Daily Mail dropped a bombshell alleging that her husband, Bryon Noem, had been living an alternate life in the “bimbofication” fetish scene, spending tens of thousands of dollars on fetish models over a period of years. That same day, a spokesperson for Ms. Noem released a statement: she was “devastated” and “blindsided,” and asked for privacy and prayers.

The jokes came quickly. Late night television, podcasts, conservative commentators, progressive media — everyone had a take.

Subscribe now

Bryon became the Noem everyone was talking about. Kristi slipped into the shadows with her privacy and prayers.

She became the victim. Someone to give space to. And the media went almost entirely silent on the lives she had efficiently and cruelly destroyed, complete with tasteless and gleeful coverage mid-destruction from CECOT.

Was this a 5D chess move or an accidental result? Honestly, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the outcome: what’s the last piece of the Noem accountability story anyone remembers from the past 90 days? The Inspector General probe into Lewandowski’s contract manipulation? The perjury referral sitting unanswered at the DOJ? The federal lawsuit filed by Minnesota and Hennepin County over the Minneapolis killings? The New York Times’ 80-source investigation into DHS governance failures, published April 14th, that generated a fraction of the engagement of an SNL sketch?

The zone was flooded. It worked.

So let’s be precise about what we’re actually talking about.

Bryon Noem is an adult who engaged in consensual transactions with adult performers for his own gratification. That is irrelevant. Two consenting adults doing what they need to do is not the story. No, the story is that Bryon stood at Kristi’s side, hand in hand at church on Sundays, dutifully seated behind her as she deflected questions from Congress about her alleged affair with a subordinate — and all the while, both of them were privately living by a philosophy they publicly weaponized against other people.

Because while she may not have seen her husband’s fetishes coming, Kristi Noem has spent years as a judge. As governor of South Dakota, she relentlessly targeted the LGBTQ community — restricting trans healthcare, banning drag on campuses, creating a whistleblower hotline against gender expression, and signing legislation that explicitly opened the door to discrimination.

She built a political career on the premise that some people’s private lives are the government’s business.

Specifically: queer people’s lives. More specifically: trans people’s lives.

Bryon reportedly sought help through a Christian rehabilitation program for what sources described as sex addiction. According to Megyn Kelly, who claims to have obtained a text, he attempted a 12-step ministry called Pure Desire. Then, per the Daily Mail, continued messaging a dominatrix even after the story broke. [Daily Mail, April 2026]

Again, Bryon’s preferences aren’t shameful. But the gap between the standard they demanded of everyone else and the one they applied to themselves, is.

The Noems reserved “you do you” for their own lives and served up legislation for everyone else’s.

Meanwhile it’s been four months since Ms. Noem was reassigned. It’s anyone’s guess what she actually does at the Shield Of The Americas. And the media has moved on from how Kilmar Abrego Garcia is only one of 280 people who gets to see his loved ones again. That is precisely what “flood the zone” was designed to produce.

So no, the Noems don’t get to quietly retire into privacy and prayers. Not while the families of Renée Good and Alex Pretti and the disappeared CECOT prisoners are still waiting for any form of federal accountability. Not while the perjury referral gathers dust at a DOJ that won’t touch it. Not while ten open investigations into DHS corruption sit in the dark because balloon breast jokes got more oxygen than 80 sources and months of reporting.

Bryon doesn’t deserve kink-shaming and isn’t the villain of this story, but the story doesn’t end with Kristi as the sympathetic protagonist, either. We can remember Renée Good’s and Alex Pretti’s names.

We can remember what was buried and who benefited from the burying. We can hold the facts in our heads long enough to make them mean something.

Update: Shortly after this article was published the New York Post announced that Kristi Noem is divorcing her “cross-dressing husband Bryon.” We can’t claim that the Noem’s decision was made after this UNASB article reached them, but we cannot verify that that it did not influence their decision. Perhaps even the couple themselves needed a little refresher on their actions over the past year…

Last month I wrote about the diverse visions of identity the MAGA movement trades in: TradWife and the Dissident Right, being two cultural concepts that seem to occupy opposite ends of the right wing spectrum on aesthetic and culture but reflect a similar type of image: a heroic alternative to a lonely reality. My piece put forth that the Right’s most powerful tool isn’t policy or outrage—it’s identity. A story about who you will become when you join.

My DM’s about this piece had some version of the same question: are these people actually reachable?

Share

My answer, having spent months inside the right-wing media ecosystem as a part of Unfortunately Not A Sound Bath (UNASB), is YES! Our movement is losing support that should be foundational. These folks aren’t fringe defectors, they are ordinary folks in real pain who reached two doorways and walked through the one that welcomed them.

It used to be that the ‘door’ to our political movement was a tent flap that was held wide open to welcome everyone. That has changed. What happened to being a ragtag group?

We, the left, haven’t been as open as the right. We’ve been self-righteous and sometimes smug about being accessible.

I’m looking at you, my friend who turns up your nose at TikTok influencers, but are happy to share your insights in longform essays.

I’m looking at my colleagues who don’t want to see their stuff cut up into clips for YouTubeShorts even though it’s what could get us a foothold into wider audiences. I’m looking at those of you who look for offense before someone who “looks the part” has even said a word to earn a rebuke.

Subscribe now

UNASB members are researching the behaviors of six distinct right-wing personas this quarter — six different entry points into conservative media, six different wounds, six different promises made and kept just barely well enough to hold their coalition together, for now. Sitting with all of them, persona by persona, I don’t see a wall. I see doors we’ve been locking closed – either because of our smugness, because having persuasive conversations feels too difficult, or because, quite frankly, summoning good manners and civility towards someone who clearly has no respect for you or openly disapproves of who you are, is flatly difficult at the best of times.

Except it is costing us. At the ballot box, in legislation, in policy, everywhere.

At some point, if it’s endlessly costing you, even among persuadable voters, that’s a call to look hard in the mirror.

At the Skoll World Forum last spring, Rachel Kleinfeld — one of the country’s leading researchers on polarization and democracy — said something that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about:

“There will always be a hard core that will never agree with us, but there may be many others who look or vote differently and will agree with us — if we let them save face, if we let them move around a polarizing issue rather than insist that they come directly to our side.

Pluralists make room for such half-agreements, for give and take. Because we think in terms of addition, not subtraction. If we want positive change and we live in a diverse world, we just can’t shrink the coalition of people who could be on our side in important fights.”

Rachel Klienfeld Clip:

I’ve crafted identities and messaging that could be persuadable to these groups. I want to hold Kleinfeld’s frame as we look at these six personas and their alternatives.

My question isn’t how we win the argument, but how we leave the door open.

Enjoying this read? Share with your friends!!!

Share

Our political challenge is like any hard relationship where someone has said or done something that put real distance between you, and you’re faced with the choice of how to move forward from a wound. Advancing together doesn’t require forgetting. It doesn’t require pretending the hurt wasn’t real or significant.

It requires deciding that what you could build together is worth more than the satisfaction of being owed an apology.

That is what magnanimity actually means — not letting people off the hook, but refusing to let the hook become the end of the story.

The Right has been telling half of America that they are the forgotten ones, the wronged ones, the ones the system was built to exclude. Some of these folks are genuinely unreachable. But based on how things are going, a lot of them are probably looking for a new door to open in the midterms. Now we have to be big enough to hold it open.

Donald Trump has made a career out of being an overly combative bull in a china shop, even to his supporters.

His older daughter, Ivanka Trump on the other hand has always been the better behaved, more elegant version.

But Ms. Trump – yes, that’s still her professional name – has always also known exactly what she was doing. Her father’s gut instincts in the moment have gotten polished in Ms. Trump. With a heavy dose of message discipline and a weaponization of nice you probably couldn’t pay her father to implement, even on a rested, hydrated, no Social Truth day.

All of that dangerous elegance is quietly and effectively on display in Ivanka’s April 8 conversation with Steven Bartlett on Diary of a CEO. This episode is a switch from our usual fare at UNASB, because Bartlett is not known as a right-wing podcaster. There is no verbal kayfabe on display, and guests have run the gamut from Brené Brown and Neil DeGrasse Tyson to Graham Hancock, who can best be described as a “pseudoarchaeologist.” Bartlett talks to anyone, with curiosity, without judgement – which is a thing that UNASB’s crew is learning to do – in order to understand and better engage with entire media bubbles and communities that wouldn’t ordinarily open up enough to have a conversation. In other words, Bartlett is doing what Democrats have, arguably, failed at over the last few years.

Which is how we get to nearly two full, seemingly eye-opening hours of conversation with Ms. Trump. Some details we learn about Ms.Trump:

• She has warm memories of her grandmother, and still takes care of her. Which is deeply moving. Because you have to wonder at the heartbreak of a nonagenarian who outlived her daughter, Ivana, who died unexpectedly in 2022. Throughout human history, there are few, if any, words to describe parents who outlive their kids. Because it’s not the normal way of life, nor is it meant to be.

• She never doubted that her parents loved her, even if they were not always present. And they often weren’t because both were building empires and that was just the deal. This is where the grandmother enters the picture – she stepped in to make sure a teenager actually got up before noon and ate a proper meal. It’s incredibly heartwarming.

• She talks about living through her parents’ very public divorce, and being hounded by paparazzi on the way to school at the age of 9 – something no child should have to live through.

• She has enormous admiration for her mother – who we forget was an athlete before she became the first of three Mrs. Trumps. As far as she is concerned her mother was a trailblazer who set the bar for motherhood, glamour, femininity, and grit in the face of a lot of mocking headlines.

• As someone born into incredibly privileged circumstances, and with two famous headline-making parents, she is all about looking for the signal in the noise. There’s also an incredibly involved story about eagles and crows and shrugging off your haters (the crows) by simply flying so high that you lose them in sheer altitude (the soaring eagle). So in other words ::checks notes:: when they go low, she goes high?

• She thinks her father has an authenticity that is hard to fake. That we’re just listening to the wrong things about him. And oh yes, she found out he was running for office two weeks before he announced.

Truly, you would have to be heartless to not appreciate all of the above, or soften at least a bit.

But we did say “seemingly,” yes?

The UNASB challenge was “if you know nothing about her, what would you come away with?” Well, if you didn’t know her, or about her, Ms. Trump is a polite, measured, rational, elegant – literally not a hair out of place, no make-up mussed despite two calls for tissue – scion of a famous family whose father just happened to be president twice, with everything that choice (thank you, 2016 Electoral College) says about American society. More importantly, she is someone who loves her family – a wife, a mother, a daughter robbed abruptly of her beloved mother, and a caring and caregiving grandchild. And, at least for the women in the audience, she is – despite a bit of the “poor little rich girl” flavor that pervades the conversation – utterly relatable on expectations. Chances are high she owns “underestimate me – that’ll be fun” merch, and you know what, not gonna argue with that.

If you truly knew not a thing about Ivanka or the Trumps, that is.

Because upon closer listening, unless you’ve truly been living under a very large, and truly sheltering flat rock – in which case, could we come join you, just for a bit? we’ll bring snacks and help with the laundry – it’s really hard to buy a lot of things that come out of the conversation.

• She takes enormous pride in having passed multiple, incredibly important policies on child tax credits and human trafficking. Except of course it’s extremely unlikely she’d have come within any distance of serious policy were her father not president. That’s called Nepo Baby 101. And to not mention that even once, when she is fully aware of all else her upbringing and parentage affords her, is unconvincing at best.

• Then there is the “sacrifice” she makes to close down her business in order to serve in the government. Um, that’s called ethics 101. Next.

Ms. Trump also remarks how becoming a mother and stepping into DC’s political world expanded her bubble and her mind. Except a couple of personal anecdotes suggest the bubble is still somewhat smaller than it could be, especially after sitting in the heart of international power.

• She unironically talks about how her parents’ divorce was some of the biggest headlines in the world. Respectfully, no. No doubt that’s how it seemed to a 9-year-old. Understandably so. But “the world” is a big place, and between 1990 and 1992, the rest of the world, and indeed much of the US, was paying far more attention to any one of the following events: the release of Nelson Mandela from prison, the first Gulf War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the LA Riots. For grown-up Ivanka, post White House and two presidential inaugurations later to somehow not have gotten that is, at best, curious.

• As she talks about parenting and being Donald Trump’s daughter, she mentions how he always made time for her. She has memories of him interrupting a meeting to talk to her, and then put her on speaker phone to brag about her and her grades. Which is cute, except for the weird invasion of a child’s privacy on speakerphone for the benefit of – what now feels like part and parcel of – Donald Trump, and his ability to make anything and everything about poor him. Again, as a parent of three young children, to still laugh that off is weird.

• And finally, for someone who talks about authenticity, service, and sacrifice there is not one single mention of January 6. Or how she quietly chose to exit the scene after her father left the White House the first time, and has not gone back. And why should she? Her selfless move to shut down her business was never going to leave her without, and oh yes, there’s the matter of being married to Jared Kushner. Who also would have been absolutely nowhere near the policy, international diplomacy, or serving as Trump’s “special peace envoy” if he weren’t his son-in-law.

Guess we’re heartless monsters after all, for insisting on such details.

Side note: We’re not alone. The comments are FULL of what Bartlett doesn’t do.

No pushback, no hard questions, absolutely nothing about the big elephants in the room: January 6, corruption, policy by tweet in the first administration, unhinged Truth Social screeds in the current administration, the elevation of Trump into a “dear leader” figure and what any of that means for American democracy, and alarming and obvious senescence.

But in “letting the subject talk,” we learn a lot.

And that’s perhaps a really important lesson from the UNASB experiment: anyone on the Democratic side wondering how on earth we got to this juncture in our 250th year, could take a lesson in simply approaching the conversation with curiosity letting the person talk.

Would it make you grind your back teeth into dust in the process? Yes, probably. But the alternative is to not listen, not learn, and not see the patterns play out in real time. That is to our detriment on the left. And it’s why we continue to get caught by surprise when our talking points don’t land with voters – or for that matter Uncle Joe at Thanksgiving three weeks after an(y) election that didn’t go the way we wanted. In that, Ms. Trump does have one incredibly good point about tuning out the haters and the noise that any therapist has probably said at least once to their patient:

“You have a choice only in how you respond.”

I’m not one to believe that money buys happiness, but it sure has the ability to buy a more pleasant and well-provided luxury. For the rest of us, and apparently like Ms. Trump, there is only choosing in how we respond. That includes how we choose to listen to people who we share no common ground with, how we choose to employ curiosity over emotion, if for no other reason than to not be surprised again this November.

WHAT UNASB IS READING

• Oops, We Invited Nazis to Our Christian Nationalist Conference

• ‘Tone-Deaf’ to ‘Very Cool’ What Young Men Thought of Trump’s U.F.C. Fight

• Leak Exposes Members of Peter Thiel’s Secretive ‘Dialog’ Society

• Inside the Conference Recruiting Young Women to be Tradwives

This timeline we find ourselves stuck on is never short on dystopian imagery. From a wrestling pit on the White House South Lawn to masked men zip tying innocent civilians in the streets, the daily sights of our new reality are often shocking and exhausting.

One sight that never begins to look normal, no matter how many times I’m exposed to it, is former hippies who suddenly identify with the far right. There is something uniquely unsettling about seeing someone who used to espouse a “live-and-let-live” ethos now spouting about small government (except when it comes to your personal life and choices) and arming ourselves – literally and figuratively – against the powers that be, all while proclaiming the need for fermented foods and wild game for a healthy diet.

Share

Should this be so surprising, though? After all, hasn’t this person’s views about politics and the wider world always been built upon an innate distrust of authority?

Isn’t the hippie-turned-homesteader’s thirst for historical or mythic answers to society’s problems or their need to find “natural” cures for their health concerns more fundamental to them than any political identity ever was?

Viewed from this angle, the conversion from lefty to far right – right into wanting to knock down “the deep state” – should be seen less as a political conversion and more as a manipulation of the former hippie’s remarkably consistent beliefs. This is someone who always felt on the outside of our political culture but who ultimately would socialize – and vote with – their Democratic friends and neighbors. They still perceive themselves as outsiders, but have been manipulated to side with the far right, based in narratives that question science and data in the name of ‘natural’ cures and vague references to ‘health.’

Like any good conmen, MAHA influencers know their mark. They understand their audience’s distrust of authority and their sense of betrayal at the hands of American institutions, particularly when it comes to health. With a wink and a nod as if to tell their followers that they get it and they know what’s really going on, influencers offer content that scratches that distrustful itch – all while advertising supplements and “natural cures” that “they” don’t want you to know about.

Subscribe now

Unfortunately for us all, the MAHA influencer has it easy – too easy, in fact. The insurance industry, big pharma, and the other entrenched interests with a stake in America’s uniquely hellish for-profit healthcare system have given them more than enough material to work with. The influencer doesn’t need to create a boogeyman for their podcast or vlog. Insurers who pick patients’ pockets and drug companies who keep medications unaffordable for the average person have already done that for them.

MAHA already had its foot in the door, playing to the audience’s suspicions. Then COVID came along, creating a split between mainstream left and center-left Americans and our more alternative friends. While the first two rolled up their sleeves for a new vaccine, the latter rejected modern medicine. They didn’t believe the media or the experts (it didn’t help that, despite their best efforts, the authorities often mishandled public response). That’s when MAHA offered them the soothing fiction and the righteous validation they craved.

It will take time and a great deal of effort to welcome our friends home from their excursion into MAHA, but it’s an endeavor worth pursuing.

The people pulled into MAHA’s orbit were never mainstream Democratic voters and they never will be, but it is infinitely better to have them within a big tent. After all, it will take as many friends and allies as possible to force out this wildly destructive and antidemocratic movement. Leaving them in MAGA’s farm league would hardly be a winning strategy.

To bring them out of MAHA, we will need to remember our common ground. We may strongly believe that the solution to inflated healthcare costs and our country’s terrible health outcomes is sweeping federal reform or even single payer healthcare. They may think that individual solutions like paying out of pocket to see a naturopathic doctor or making dietary changes is a better approach.

Remember, however, that at the root, we have a shared baseline: the system is dysfunctional.

We will also need to listen without judgment. Everyone needs to feel heard; MAHA influencers know this and play on it to exploit their audience. Even though it may mean enduring demonstrably false stories about natural cures or historic precedents that never happened, we need to be able to listen to our MAHA-influenced compatriots while resisting the urge to correct or contradict. To do so would only help MAGA. After all, no one wants to be in a party where they feel unwanted or misunderstood.

When we do take our turn to speak, we should be careful to make our conversation partners feel heard by validating their concerns around personal autonomy, distrust of authority, and the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical and insurance interests.

We can also always return to what we do have in common: our belief in the need for a better system of healthcare, lower costs, better outcomes and greater freedom of choice.

The most important thing we can do is resist the urge to debate the issues. A well-reasoned argument may carry the day in a court of law (at least it should), but it does little to rebuild trust in a real life conversation. If we can resist that urge while respecting our partners in conversation and taking care to highlight our common ground, we can rebuild connection and dispel the belief that MAHA is the only refuge for skeptics. When we leave the door open for judgment free conversation, there’s no telling who we can welcome back.

Christian Hanley is a consultant serving Democrats, nonprofits, and labor organizations. He writes on overcoming disinformation at christianhanley.substack.com.

“Is MAHA just like the hippie town you grew up in?”

Since I was raised in Eugene, Oregon, a very hippie town, I get asked this a lot. I didn’t know how to answer this question until I gave Alex Clark’s Culture Apothecary a listen. Clark is a leading podcaster in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement–a key part of the MAGA coalition–with over 1.2 million followers on YouTube and Instagram. Discussing Clark’s episodes with members of Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath gave me a new window into a movement known for specific campaigns against vaccines and food dyes, but that is propelled by a network of influencers, snack and supplement companies and unelected government officials like RFK, Jr.

The answer to my friend’s question: it’s complicated. The MAHA movement has adopted and built upon many of the practices I grew up with, from eating organic food to using non-Western medicine. Yet, hippies sought to expand our options for healthy living, whereas MAHA uses political and commercial authority to narrow those options in ways that would make my hippie neighbors squirm.

Share

Was my childhood MAHA-coded?

Growing up, my parents opted into many hippie practices. They bought tofu, yogurt and organic juice produced by local co-ops. My mom attended our community farmer’s market nearly every week and shopped organic when possible. We avoided Red 40 food dye, candy and processed food, much to my disappointment. Our neighbors were vegan. There is nothing inherently Republican about this, and yet, our lifestyle–which was normal for our community–now sounds similar to many MAHA adherents.

In my first job out of college, chronic migraines forced me to take medical leave and reduce my hours at work. I was terrified I wouldn’t be able to work again and my mom made sure I had options. In addition to visiting a headache specialty clinic, I tried acupuncture, saw a naturopath, took a mindfulness-based stress reduction class, tried biofeedback, and did an elimination diet. My neurologist wrote numerous referrals for these treatments, and ultimately, helped me choose a regimen that included a mix of Western and traditional treatments, diet changes and supplements. My mom helped cover costs when insurance didn’t, and taught me to advocate to busy doctors. It was an extreme privilege to have these options, and I wish they were more widely accessible.

When I listen to Alex Clark’s guests, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. advisor Calley Means and naturopathic medicine advocate Razi Berry, I’m transported back to my childhood and my struggle with migraines. Her guests speak much more powerfully to my experiences searching for solutions to mysterious ailments than any Democrat telling me about insurance subsidies. Except, there is an individualistic, commercial and emotional twist that makes me feel shame. Clark’s guests make me think that if only I tried a little harder, paid a little more money, or swallowed yet another supplement, my health would be fixed. The ads offer recommendations of beef sticks, makeup and snacks free of seed oils to complete that story in just one click. Rather than feeling like I have more options, as I did when I was sick, I worry that unless I consult people like Clark, I will inevitably make the wrong choice. My own journey reminds me that making Americans healthy will require more than individual willpower, commercial products and the right influential voice.

Subscribe now

A wellness perspective

To talk through my feelings of familiarity and shame, I called my childhood friend Rachel Hinnen of Vorfreude Dairy Beef, who practices acupuncture and turns retired dairy cows into sustainable beef outside of Portland, Oregon. “If MAHA is evangelizing many of the hippie practices we grew up with, why do I feel so uncomfortable listening to them?” I asked.

When I called, she was quick to list the benefits of many of hippie practices now co-opted by MAHA–including grass-fed beef, non-Western medicine and even raw milk–to manage chronic illness and steward the environment. But she thinks MAHA leadership–the podcasters and politicians–are manipulative and overly simplistic.

“MAHA tells us that eliminating food dyes is the answer to our health, but that’s just more smoke and mirrors. It doesn’t matter if we remove red dye if we don’t have a system to truly support people’s health. Things like universal healthcare and food accessibility are important, long-term changes that would go a long way to offer that support,” she said.

Her farmer and acupuncture community want their experience to be incorporated, rather than marketed as a silver bullet. They are on edge waiting to see whether proposed policies to ban or replace single pesticides, ingredients or types of care, as MAHA is attempting through RFK, Jr.’s FDA, will cause more complications. Rachel helped me understand how even those who follow some MAHA practices believe the movement is using their political power to advance single solutions and oversimplify complex systems.

Expanding options for healthy living

Listening to Clark’s podcasts, talking with Rachel and following political news about MAHA helped me see how different MAHA and hippies really are. My hippie neighbors understood that the system didn’t serve everyone equally, so they opted-out of mainstream life and sought to expand options for healthy living aligned with values like environmentalism and anti-capitalism. They set up co-ops and community composting, not businesses or influencers with mass reach and revenue. Their activism focused on stopping government overreach, not using government to replace the status quo. My parents are decidedly not hippies, and yet, we were invited to participate in the community that hippies created, without shame or judgment for not fully adopting their lifestyle–a lesson the left could desperately remember.

MAHA isn’t the only option for improving American healthcare. But, the left has work to do to offer improvements.

As a narrative strategist, I’ve seen how important it is to acknowledge feelings and fears, and paint a picture of a better future. MAHA is an expert at acknowledging real concerns with our health systems, and the left could easily do that too.

Our main solution can’t mostly sound like, “Vote for us, and you’ll get your insurance subsidy back.” While valuable, those subsidies may not do enough to re-open a rural hospital, make a much-needed procedure affordable or prevent a doctor from rushing off to their next patient. What about, in addition to insurance subsidies, we work towards a future where a doctor actually has time to listen?

To be sure, some MAHA beliefs, like being anti-vaccine, are wedge issues that may be extremely difficult to overcome. But, it’s also important to remember that MAHA is an extremely broad tent. Could MAHA adherents support campaigns for healthy school lunches; bringing fresh, organic food to communities facing poverty; or working with farmers to expand organic farming?

How many MAHA adherents might actually support free, universal healthcare?

Helping Americans expand their options for healthy living to address their difficult experiences with food and health systems, is a good place to start. There may be more we can fight for rather than argue against.

UNASB recently dipped our toes back into the (triple-filtered, fluoride-free) waters of the MAHA movement with Culture Apothecary, the Turning Point USA wellness podcast hosted by Alex Clark. This was the third time UNASB has listened to Clark over the past 18 months. Culture Apothecary is “rooted in conservative values,” claiming to empower its listeners to lead “healthier, counter-cultural” lives, by making “one informed decision at a time.”

In the episode “Why Smart People Are Ditching Their Doctor For A Naturopath,” Clark speaks with Razi Berry, founder of the Naturopathic Doctor News & Review (NDNR) journal, about flaws in the American medical system, preventative and “root cause” based healthcare, and getting soda pop, synthetic fabrics, and fluorescent lighting out of hospitals.

Checking in on how such prominent members of the MAHA movement are feeling about said movement’s progress felt important 1.5 years into the Trump administration, and with midterms just months away.

“Corporations are rigging the system,” Clark tells Razi Berry. “You know, you’re seeing this like, disinterest in politics completely. [The American people] feel like every single side is bought and paid for… I think a lot of the pesticide, glyphosate stuff, at least with the MAHA space, that’s really making people upset” she says, referring to the Trump executive order in February that invoked the Defense Production Act to mandate increased production of the glyphosate-based weedkiller, Roundup. Glyphosate is a MAHA-detested and widely used pesticide that has been implicated in lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer for its known links to cancer. (After the executive order was issued, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. was notably silent on the issue, despite campaigning on a platform of removing toxins just like this one from our food and water supplies.)

“The vibe shift is palpable, of people just saying, I give up. I’m over this,” Clark continues. “And so, I know my audience isn’t going to like to hear this, but what I predict… I think we’re going to swing the other way now … we’re going to elect some extreme socialist like AOC.”

Our meeting covered common MAHA rhetorical tactics, talking points, and strategies. We discussed potentially effective ways for us to talk to our MAHA friends and family and, importantly, how the left can welcome MAHA voters back into our coalition.

Subscribe now

SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS, VAGUE SOLUTIONS, BUT DEFINITELY NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

“I’m not blaming doctors,” Berry insists over and over again. “Most doctors go to medical school because they want to help people.” It is the system, and the lobbyists who uphold the status quo, who are to blame for the lack of thorough and supportive medical care Berry says most Americans are receiving.

But what do Berry and Clark suggest we actually do when the “Foundation for Optimum Health” that naturopathic medicine seeks to establish before administering medication has become inaccessible? When attempts to “Stimulate The Body’s Self-Healing Mechanisms” fail, because the approaches prioritized in naturopathic medicine (nutrition, botanical medicine, movement, hydrotherapy) have been rendered moot by the systemic constraints that American capitalism has placed on people’s ability to access the basic building blocks for good health?

What do we do when the liposomal phospholipid complex supplements we’re taking simply aren’t absorbent enough to sop up the systemic forces making so many of us so sick?

Here’s what we don’t do: socialized medicine.

Similar to episodes we’ve previously listened to of Michael Knowles and Joe Rogan, Clark taps into listeners’ fears about the systemic problems affecting Americans’ lives today, then provides them with no concrete solutions to the problem from the Right. Instead, she rails against potential left-wing (“socialist”) solutions and AOC, warning her listeners to stay wary.

Spending the majority of podcast time discussing problems and vaguely criticizing “the left,” “socialism” and “AOC,” without providing much in the way of critical thinking about solutions, is a common strategy in the right-wing podcast-sphere. Solutions are like politicians: easy to challenge, easy to loathe. Whereas the vague offerings that Berry proposes – “reconnect with your body,” “seek root causes” – feel more like customizable invitations, do-it-yourself calls to action, easy to interpret broadly and helpful for growing an audience. Fear keeps people listening; solutions make people critical and offer more opportunity for disagreement.

The message is less about inviting behavioral or practical change than it is about shifting the Overton window further to the right, in the process fostering an identity shift in Clark’s listeners, encouraging them to identify as counter-cultural, as people who question conventional medicine, conventional processes, and conventional politics.

“IT’S IN THE LITERATURE”

Another similarity to Knowles and Rogan, Berry makes vague references to history as a means of legitimizing her claims. “These drugs were what killed our president, George Washington,” she says of early pharmaceutical interventions, explaining that naturopathic medicine arose as a backlash against conventional medical treatments of the late 1700s and mid-1800s. It feels jarring to hear the founder of a medical journal that explicitly rejects Randomized Control Trials in favor of anecdotal reports claim “this is all in historical documents.” But it’s a common right-leaning rhetorical strategy we’ve seen before. Like Knowles’s explanation of English Common Law and its relations to U.S. birthright citizenship, or Joe Rogan’s allusions to Christopher Columbus, vague and factually dubious historical references pepper many a right-wing podcast. They’re little legitimacy tokens designed to seduce the reader into a belief in their accuracy of the information being presented.

CENTERING THE INDIVIDUAL

Clark, like most right-leaning public figures, tends to conveniently ignore that we exist in a collective society, and instead emphasizes the role of individualism in making healthcare decisions.

Throughout the episode, Clark and Berry tell the listener to re-center their own agency, rather than offer collective solutions to the healthcare system. They support this approach with anecdotes of others who have cured their autoimmune conditions, emphasizing how great it is to be able to pay out-of-pocket for hour-long appointments with naturopathic doctors who take your entire health and trauma history into consideration. As listeners, we hear “your experience matters,” “your body matters,” and “you can take control of your own health.” In a world where so many people feel let down by their doctors, health insurance plans, and American healthcare infrastructure as a whole, this messaging has obvious psychological appeal. Instead of looking for solutions from a healthcare system that has repeatedly failed us and then overcharged for it, we are told to re-center our own agency, then given anecdotal evidence of others who have done the same, and cured their autoimmune conditions in the process! None of this is inherently “Republican.” Democrats can, and probably should, communicate at the individual level, before diving into how a system meant to support 350 million people is going to be overhauled so you can be healthy.

PETER THIEL’S WET DREAM: SYSTEMS FALL APART, DEREGULATION PREVAILS

“Fire Your Doctor” (and then quit your health insurance, too!) is emblematic of the Tech Right’s plan for the future and the MAGA playbook. (See how it all connects?!) Sow mistrust in systems → encourage people to seek solutions outside of established systems → systems lose resources and crumble → leaving a vacuum for billionaires and for-profit corporations to create new and unregulated solutions that serve only a privileged few.

The narrative consistency is striking. From Walsh & Bongino on the Iran war to Sankar & Ryan on AI to Berry & Clark on medical care: institutions are the problem; individuals are the solution. While the villains vary (bureaucracy, legacy media, conventional medicine…) the heroes remain the individual thinkers, the rebels, those questioning or toppling the status quo.

Clark’s branding of her podcast as a force for “counter-culture” fits perfectly within a system that values rule-breaking and disdains regulation. Except, as we continue to learn and re-learn in UNASB, that these counter-cultural forces are becoming increasingly mainstream.

Share

KEY TAKEAWAYS

MAHA is built on real, relatable, existential fears.

At first glance, their worldview is neither unreasonable nor uniquely right-wing. I (progressive, toddler mom, pregnant person, owner of a wheat allergy that magically vanishes when I eat bread in European countries) also do not want glyphosate or microplastics in my food or water supply! Historically, critiques of environmental pollution, corporate influence on public health, and industrialized food systems have come from the left. They should be viewed by Democrats as openings, opportunities to build broad coalitions by building trust while taking care to avoid mockery and shaming.

Most people come by their MAHA allegiance honestly, through medical trauma and personal experience.

UNASB members shared stories of friends who took the COVID vaccine and then entered years-long battles against cancer or infertility, family members who were ignored by doctors after years of chronic illness, or told their symptoms were psychosomatic. Often these struggles were followed by heated, lengthy, expensive battles with health insurance companies over rejected claims and poor coverage. While MAHA voters try to express their frustration, loss of trust, and desire for more control over their own health outcomes, the Democratic coalition has a tendency to respond to these expressions with facts and studies and whitepapers, insistence on Science! as! Truth!, and condescending reminders of how nuanced and complicated these issues are. Amid the veracity of some of these rebuttal tactics, they tend to miss the emotional core of the conversation that MAHA voters seem to be longing for.

Americans Want to Feel in Control

At one point during this podcast, Razi Berry says that “people need to reassert their priorities, because I don’t hear people saying like, ‘Well, I can’t get my roots done because my insurance company won’t pay for it.’” Obviously, this is a gross minimization of the staggering cost of medical care in this country (shoutout to my $13,248.36 emergency c-section). It’s giving “stop buying so much avocado toast.” Clark’s interview with Razi Berry was just as rife with the privileged ignorance about and indifference to the economic realities of most American voters as many of our moderate Democratic establishment politicians tend to be. But the tone of their conversation was empowering and even inviting, offering its listeners the illusion of control in a world that feels increasingly unhealthy and unaffordable. It also offers our coalition an opening to have real conversations with fellow skeptics of the US healthcare system.

What We’ve Been Reading

• How Cult Dynamics Could Be Shaping U.S. Politics

• The Return of Blaming and Shaming in Public Health

• Former Pro-Trump Podcaster: ‘Does This S**t Look Like He’s Serving The F**king People?’

• Can the E.P.A. Survive Lee Zeldin?

• ‘Both Parties Kind of Get it Wrong’: The Young Men Who May Sway the Midterms

Subscribe now

Living the ‘Tradwife life’ is actually quite darling. While I lacked the requisite husband, circa 2017, I was living closely to it and its ideals. I didn’t discover the concept and the aesthetic on my For You Page or as a skeptical follower lurking from a distance, instead I recognized my own life in these flawlessly curated images. I spent my days doing things I deeply believed in: I rose early to milk goats whose bleats I could hear from bed, and often stayed up late wiping the brows of women in labor as a birth doula. I lived in a picturesque, hand built tiny home in an orange orchard with a view of a meadow and the mountains. My shelves were full of mason jars of jam I made. Both my shower and my chest freezer were outdoors.

Subscribe now

At the time I felt like I was on my way to accomplishing my dream of one day having a farm, a family, and a community I tended to, I was so close to that reality.

Photos from my personal ‘Gram page during my own Tradwife adjacent time

At the time I didn’t know about the horseshoe theory of politics; the idea asserts that instead of being a linear continuum the far-left and the far-right are not opposites but that they share many values and nearly meet, like the ends of a horseshoe.

Image Credit: roots metals

I thought raw milk, supporting the health of women and babies during the intrapartum period, and making food from scratch were crunchy, hippy ideals. I had little idea that these evidence-based values would be seized on by the far-right to win over women concerned about the industrialization of agriculture and healthcare. I couldn’t imagine that then these values would be further manipulated to push for the restriction of access to women’s reproductive health services and reduce the accessibility of childhood vaccines. I didn’t see that agrarian societies and ideals were often aligned with authoritarian agendas. This IG-worthy life came with a strong dose of judgement about me and my ‘lifestyle’ from the family who owned the farm.

I upset the balance and order of life they had created. I was an outsider. I didn’t come from an intact, nuclear family. I wasn’t inclined to obey the unspoken norms of their quietly conservative family. I thought of money in terms of weeks and months, not decades and generations. I was going through a rocky time in life, I was managing health issues, a career transition, a break-up, and had recently lost a parent figure. I wasn’t my best self. I tried hard to fit the culture and the sensibilities, but I failed. I was ultimately asked to leave because they didn’t want “people like me on their farm.”

Parting ways with the couple and their farm still stings because I cared about them as people and there are so many parts of that life I still yearn for.

Share

This quarter in UNASB, each participant created and trained a YouTube account on a specific right-wing persona, then spent weekly time on the account collecting data to track how ideas and trends spread in that ecosystem. My persona is the Dissident Right, and here is UNASB’s descriptor for my persona:

“The furthest right on this map. He thinks mainstream conservatives (Ben Shapiro, the GOP establishment, even Trump) are either compromised or too cowardly to address the real issues: demographic change, Jewish influence, the failure of liberal democracy. He communicates in memes, irony, and coded language that’s legible to insiders and confusing to everyone else. The humor isn’t just for fun — it creates deniability and works as a loyalty test.”

My feed doesn’t quite match the UNASB persona, probably because it has a little bit of me in it. My feed is a lot of clips showing how to disarm attackers by Delta Force veterans, ads for AI upskilling courses so you’re not ‘left behind by your peers’, and hot takes full of misogyny. From what I can see Mr. Dissident Right feels left behind by a society that doesn’t have a place for him. He yearns to protect his family and his country, to be celebrated for his masculinity. It took me a while to see through the signaling and recognize this archetype in my life.

Screenshot of my Dissident Right’s YouTube Homepage

I’ve come to recognize this persona as a permutation of the survivalists and apocalypse preppers I’d been close to earlier in my life. Pre-Tradwife era, my community was largely people who wanted to be ready for when Collapse happened. They were contestants on Naked and Afraid and who lived on pieces of land so remote they required a day’s hike to reach a road. They knew how to handle a gun for hunting and self-protection. Their everyday life included almost no plastic and they knew how to turn an animal hide into a pair of nice fitting pants. I’ve tried my hand at many of these skills and I identify with the urge. Why? Because this modern world feels so fragile. How much of our daily lives hinge on the Strait of Hormuz being open or Hong Kong shipping chips to us? In an effort to be anti-fragile I found much kinship with people who are actively practicing living outside of this fragile system. I’ve often wondered if people with this urge didn’t fit into society in the first place or if we chose this life because we see how much of the motivations are driven by capitalists wanting to control us.

A couple of weeks ago I read Yesteryear, a novel in which a Tradwife influencer is forced to actually live the pioneer life she’s been curating for millions of followers. This experience is told in parallel. Her curated dream of handsewn curtains, and perfect sourdough is almost split screened with the actual nightmare of isolation, restriction to obeying her husband, and illness that was a part of a pioneer woman’s life. I kept thinking about the goat farm, about how it looked from the outside and the actual toll it took trying to fit in there.

The juxtaposition of this book’s Tradwife with my Dissident Right persona created a click of clarity.

Cover of Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke

The Right’s most powerful political tool isn’t policy, rhetoric, or outrage—it’s the cohesion of inspiring identities.

Both the Tradwife Movement and the Dissident Right are selling a myth about who you will be if you join.

For women, deliverance into beauty, belonging, and being genuinely celebrated for the vast amounts of invisible, emotional labor it takes to run a household, even one that doesn’t aspire to farm-style, wabi-sabi perfection. For men, a restoration of purpose, relevance, and a place in a world that stopped requiring them. The Right Wing is selling an incredibly tangible dream: America will be Great and so will You.

The Right built and tapped into content ecosystems that meet people in their loneliness and give them an identity that perfectly fills their fantasies for their life.

The Left is still publishing 50-page PDFs on our economic plan instead of YouTube Shorts that map our solutions to people’s pains.

Share

Take the woman the Right thinks of as a Tradwife: she’s making her husband’s lunch box before his 5am shift and nurturing her sourdough starter on a Saturday. She’s angry at the FDA and asking why Europe bans what American companies put in her children’s cereal. She wants clean food, healthy kids, and a government that protects families instead of Monsanto. The Right brought her in through food and health, not partisan media, and she came willingly because someone finally names her instincts as wisdom. But here’s what the right doesn’t want her to know: her rage at the industrial food system isn’t a conservative position. It’s a critique of corporate regulatory capture.

She’s three YouTube Shorts away from being a progressive, food justice activist. We just need to make those three Shorts.

Then there’s the Dissident Right, he senses the fragility of the system we live in and he knows the lies we’ve been told. His uncle probably served in Vietnam and his family still carries the wounds of returning soldiers -- many drafted -- openly disrespected. He knew mainstream politics was just kabuki theater by a young age. He never trusted the official story. He knows that like the guys at the pub, most people, and all politicians, are either too comfortable or too cowardly to say and do the right and true thing. Or they’re voices shouting into the wind. He didn’t come this far to be managed. Let’s not sanitize this energy, let’s aim it. We agree: liberal democracy has been captured.

A small group of people are making decisions that affect everyone and aren’t accountable to anyone. He is right about the problem; let’s correctly identify the people responsible.

I try to mostly remember the parts of the farm I loved: the delicious goat milk, the smell of thousands of orange blossoms, the quiet, cozy mornings working alone in the barn and doing something real with my hands while the world was still asleep. My yearning was and still is not a political position but it is political material. This is what the right has understood and the left has not.

People don’t vote based on logic, they vote for a future they can see themselves in.

The Right has been reflecting carefully angled and filtered mirrors to the American people for over a decade. What is on the ballot is not whether we have a better policy plan, it’s whether we have a better story for people to play their part in; including people like me who know what it’s like to be asked to leave. We must build a story where all people can have an important part to play.

Another photo from my personal Instagram page during my Tradwife adjacent era

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