Remaking the Spaces Between Us and Bridging Divides with Diana Smith

Remaking the Spaces Between Us and Bridging Divides === [00:00:00] So welcome everyone. Today we have Diana McLean Smith. McLean Smith, and she is the author of a book. I'll let her introduce herself and the title of the book and a little bit about the book. We're here to [00:01:00] talk today about basically what unites us rather than what divides us. So I'll let her jump right in. Well, first, Cheryl, it's great to be on your show. I love The concept of trying to figure out how we can bring people together obviously, because that's what the book is about. The book is remaking the space between us, how citizens can work together to build a better future for all. And I started writing it. After having worked in organizations for about 30 years as what some people call a systems change agent which is trying to transform systems so that they are more effective themselves, but also foster the growth of. the people within and so they can solve problems that cut across groups and come up with creative solutions that they might not otherwise be able to come up with. So, I conceived of the book after that career, [00:02:00] and it was during the pandemic that And Trump was president and the pandemic was raging and there was a racial reckoning and, you know, all hell was breaking loose and people were fighting each other and things were getting increasingly polarized and it looked very familiar in terms of my work in organizations. And so I decided that I wanted to do some research to see if I could What was driving the division that we ourselves as citizens could affect? It was obvious that factors like the media and social media and self serving politicians you know, all of that was driving a lot of the division we saw. But those kinds of factors we couldn't control. There's nothing you and I can really do about that. So I was trying to figure out, is there something I could understand better that would make us less vulnerable to [00:03:00] being manipulated by those factors? And is there something that we might be doing already as a people to overcome our divisions and work together on what are really basically common problems, whether it's immigration or climate change or gun violence or economic decline in communities, these are common problems that we're all affected by. Is there something that people are already doing to solve those? So I set out to do research on two things. What's, what is it that we can control? That will help explain why we're in the situation we're in, and what is it that we can control that can get us out. Well, thank you. I think that's a great introduction, and I really appreciate so many things that you just said. There are definitely a lot there to unpack. But I think the thing that jumped out at me most when you were talking, because I think a lot of what, you know, divides us, and it's interesting, I kind of come from, I have had a career in the corporate space for the last 20 plus [00:04:00] years, and I found that, like you, there was I wouldn't say the same types of division, but it was a different, It was a different type of division. I can't quite put my finger on exactly how to explain it at this point. But if we go back to, you know, politics for just a minute, I think you accurately described it in just, was it two words? No, three words. I don't know. Self serving politicians. I think that politicians by nature, I mean, if I were running a campaign, I'd do the same thing, so I'm not criticizing them, is they like us to believe that they are out there to help us, and they're out there to solve our problems, and they're out there to bring about this change, when in reality they're self serving politicians. And I'm not saying that, you know, they're 100 percent all in it for themselves. I do believe on some level they really do want to bring about this change that they, you know, talk [00:05:00] about, whatever that change may look like, is, in my opinion, irrelevant to this kind of, to this conversation. But they, it's important to recognize that they are also in it for themselves. And even if they have a desire to bring about this change, like you said, I'm not sure it's, it's within their power to do so. And certainly, you know, when you're president of the United States or you're a senator, or you're even a governor or serving in your state legislatures, the amount of power you have. to facilitate that change isn't as great as I think we as individuals think it is. I believe, and you know, after, you know, skimming through your book a little bit, because I just got it the other day, and much of the work that I've done, I think we underestimate the power that we as individuals have. To [00:06:00] facilitate that change. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Well, there are two things in what you said, and I would like to address both. The first has to do with the phrase self serving politician, which I introduced into the conversation. The reason I use that phrase is to differentiate politicians who are self serving from those who are not. And I think one of the problems we have in terms of coming together. is that we no longer differentiate groups, people within groups. They become this sort of monolithic mass, okay? Whether it's MAGA or Democrats or working class people or African Americans or politicians, okay? And so I think some politicians are profoundly self serving but some are not. You know, I, I think of, Some of the politicians I've met recently, including people like Adam Kinzinger, okay, who gave up his future as a [00:07:00] politician in order to put country first. And he's not the exception. There are a lot of people out there and a lot of them serve, for example, on the January 6th committee. But there have been a number that you could cite over the years who have dedicated their life at the expense of a lucrative career to serving the public. So I think we have to sort of think about the way we think about politicians and differentiate. You know, the other part of that is, of course, anybody who's doing anything, including you, including me, is in part doing it for ourselves. It would be kind of weird if every moment of every day was spent. not thinking about what do we want, what do we need, okay? So all of us have that. I think the Problem becomes when that overrides everything else and is at the expense of other people's needs, and doesn't include negotiating with people whose needs or interests or circumstances are different from your own. I think that's when it [00:08:00] becomes a problem. And sadly, as I think your comment suggests politicians in Washington are being driven to being less of themselves, less effective, more self serving than the other way. I think they're becoming more problematic rather than less problematic, more extreme rather than more moderate more inclined to say my way or the highway than to collaborate or compromise. So the question is, why? How did that happen? Okay. And I think it's a really complicated question. Part of it has to do with money and politics. Part of it has to do with our two party system. Part of it has to do with the absence of things like ranked choice voting. But if we want to get to the question you, or not the question, to the point you made, which I think is absolutely spot on, I think is the one we can affect, is that they're getting, they have less and less power in [00:09:00] Washington, and so they're acting more and more extreme. And people actually have more and more power. We are, especially among the citizenry which is on the extreme ends, is exerting enormous influence over politicians rather than the other way around. And what I worry about most is that because the press makes money by focusing on the extreme citizen, not the 67 percent that represent a more pragmatic and flexible political mindset. according to More in Common, okay? But by focusing so much on the extremes, that we are ceding the power we have as citizens to those extremes. And I would like us as citizens to take it back, and to start taking it back by not waging culture wars, [00:10:00] but by working together. in communities, in our communities, working together on problems we have in common, whether it's gun violence, whether it's immigration and its impact on the community, whether it's the impact of climate change through floods and fires You know, whatever the problem is, if we start working together across divides on these common problems, we're going to start to get to know each other again, and we're going to start to break down the stereotypes and the polarizing images we have of each other, and we're going to start to be able to cooperate with each other. And the reason why I think that's such a powerful way of going Is because literally millions of people are already doing it across the country, working on common problems in organizations across the U. S., trying to come up with solutions that work for everybody. I agree. And I [00:11:00] think there's once again, there's a lot to unpack there. And as we talk about, you know, one of the things that you brought up is, is money in politics. And I, what I. I think people tend to think when we talk about money in politics is that all the money that funds campaigns, which I agree totally, you know, we need to reform that part of, you know, of the political system because oftentimes it does, and not always, but you know, it does come down to whoever has the most money wins a campaign. And But that it's not true. And I think where I find it most common to be not true is at a very hyper local level. For example, my uncle ran for office, the state office in Wyoming, and he literally was up against a person, an incumbent who'd been there for years and years and was very well funded, you know, [00:12:00] for a local campaign. Nothing like we have on the, you know, federal level, but he had no money, none, and he very much retail politics, and you can do this when you're at this hyper local level, because he's from a town of, I don't know, probably under 5, 000 people, and so he just went around and knocked on doors and talked to people. And I know it was interesting and he won his election this time by I think he had 3, 000 votes and the other had 900 votes or something, which is a significant margin. Yeah, it was a significant margin. Yeah, and it was simply from going around and just simply talking to people. He was able to raise a little bit of funds to, you know, put some flyers on doors when he, you know, people weren't there to answer their doors and, you know, a couple of ads in the local newspaper, that type of thing. And across the whole [00:13:00] state of Wyoming, I'm from Wyoming, so I'm a little bit more familiar with that space. I've never heard of it. Virginia now, but I hope, yeah he just, it's, it's a different environment. And across the whole state, these non incumbents, I'll call them, were the ones that won elections across the state, because I think people were so ready for, you know, Something new, something different a type of change and the people who won these campaigns were people who just did a lot of retail politicking and I think we've gotten away from retail politicking where, you know, the politicians come talk to the people face to face or even in town hall meetings if you're in, you know, large cities where, you know, it's just not possible to go around and knock on doors all the time, you know, just holding town hall meetings and coming in and talking and I know that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Her rise to fame came because she did a lot of retail politicking even in New York. [00:14:00] You know, and you know, like I said, we're going to bring up names and topics that I'm sure are going to be very polarizing to one side or the other. But putting all of that aside, when you get down to talking directly to the people, and you have a conversation with the people, I think solving our problems is more simple. And when we talk about money and politics, going back to that idea, what I have found is when I look at issues, rather than listening to what the media feeds me about the issues, or what the politicians feed me about the issues, I try to follow the money. You know, why are you promoting this particular idea? Why are you promoting this particular solution to a problem? And oftentimes, when you follow the money, it's because the politician themselves [00:15:00] is invested in, financially, in the solution to the problem. And when that happens, I, you know, even if it's not a cultural issue or You know, we talk about gun violence and you brought up, you know, climate change and things like that. When you follow the money, it leads you to believe that what people are promoting, the ideas and the solutions they're promoting, have more to do with sometimes lining their pockets than it does with their, what they're portraying as these altruistic views. And I must admit, I'm a little bit jaded on all politicians. Because of that, because of my research extensively into the financial benefit that a lot of times these politicians and oftentimes, you know, people will go into politics and they'll be dirt poor when they enter politics and they leave very rich people, even if they, you know, You know, like you say, Adam Kinzinger, you know, [00:16:00] drops out. Well, they've got a very lucrative career ahead of them lobbying. They've got a very, they made a lot of money while they were in politics because where they, you know, chose to, to place their, their interest in various solutions. And like I said, I have to admit, I'm pretty jaded across the board because of that. And I'm a little disappointed. And that's my motivation for getting people back to. Simple, down to Earth. Let's talk to each other about the solutions that we can create, because I found that, you know, I'm very much pro 2A, you know, I'm, I'm very much in favor of, you know, our f Second Amendment rights. But when I talk to people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum, I can, I totally understand where they're coming from. I mean, nobody likes gun violence. Nobody likes what's happening. It's horrific, [00:17:00] some of the things that are going on. And yes, guns play a significant role in that. You can't deny that. And so when we both understand that both of us really want this gun violence to end. We may have a difference of opinion in how we get there, but we can have a rational conversation about that because we are both coming at it from the angle that we want the end solution. And so I think that when we, instead of letting the national narrative drive our ideas and solutions. When we talk to each other at a local level about what the solutions can be and then we go to our politicians and say, hey, here's what we think, here's what we feel, here's what we've come up with. Now are you interested in [00:18:00] talking to us about this type of solution? I found that You know, it doesn't work that way yet, but that's kind of my dream, I guess you'd say. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's happening already. I mean, I think your dream is coming true. I just think the media is not covering it. But, you know, there are literally thousands of organizations working on these kinds of things. I do want to go back to the cell. I think you are, Jay. Yes, I am. I will admit. Yeah. And jaded to the point where it's not helpful because we live in a democracy and we do have to elect people and it would be better if we elected good people. And so painting everybody with the same dark brush, I think makes it less likely that good people will get into politics because they see no place for themselves. So you're creating a kind of self fulfilling prophecy with that kind of broad brushstroke. And so I want to give you a exceptions to your rule, okay? Not [00:19:00] to say that they are the dominant group, but to say we need more people like this. And, by the way, Adam Kinzinger before he ran for office served in the Air Corps, I forget which, the Army Air Corps or the National Guard Air Corps. So he served our country in the military and, and so there's an organization called New Politics which is a citizen led organization that makes a point of recruiting people who have served our country and getting them ready to run for office. Okay, these are people who really want to serve and that's their motivation. I mean, maybe it's possible. Adam Kinzinger got into politics as a way of making money, but it's kind of hard to believe. But there's a guy named Lucas comes. I don't know if you are familiar with him. A. U. N. C. E. He ran against Josh Hawley in Missouri. for the Senate and he's a Democrat and because he's a Democrat, he lost, but people loved him. He went around the retail politics you're talking about. He went around [00:20:00] and, and you know, talk to people ear to ear. And a lot of people said, God, I would give anything to vote for you. I like you so much better, better than Holly, but you know, I just can't get beyond your party platform. I mean, they just couldn't separate him from the Democratic Party and these people had completely given up on the Democratic Party, which suggests the Democratic Party is in a lot of trouble, just like the Republican Party is, which is, you know, now being led by President Obama. Trump and Vance and MAGA, but has left other Republicans in the party out in the cold because they don't identify with that side of the Republican Party, so both parties are in a lot of trouble. But Lucas Kuntz, first of all, he came from a working class family, his family went bankrupt because his sister had open heart surgery several times so he knew what it was like. To have to struggle, which many people who run for office [00:21:00] do not. So, you know, that sort of gives him one leg up. He's just an ordinary guy. He went to Yale on a Pell Grant. Then he became a lawyer and then he volunteered for the military. And became a Marine, and he served in Iraq, and he served in Afghanistan, he learned Pashto, and he has an absolute passion for service, okay? So, when you talk about all politicians being self serving I, I just, I just think it's going to get us in trouble. So I, I'd like to ask you to, to look, one of the things that hurts us is we don't look for disconfirming data. We don't look for the cases that are different from what we assume. Would you be willing to just keep an open mind and look for cases that don't fit your Oh, definitely. And like I said, I can find, you know, a whole lot of And I find it interesting Like your uncle. Yeah, my uncle, definitely. But I've also noticed that there have been A dramatic increase in the [00:22:00] number on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, that have served in the military, that are, you know, getting into politics, which I think is wonderful. I think that's, I do. I think that's honorable. And then there's another, there's another fellow by the names of James Tallarico, T A L L A R I C O, who's a state representative in Texas, and he studied to be a pastor, but he served, not in the military, but with an organization, a national organization called Teach for America. So he served by helping educate kids in zip codes that don't have a lot of money. And he's another example. And, you know, he, I think this is just the beginning of his career. So, but you, you said you, you were talking about the power of people working together on problems like gun control. Okay, or gun violence. And there's an organ. It would be for your listeners. I would look up the Tennessee 11 because it's a great example of what [00:23:00] you were talking about. The Tennessee 11 were 11 citizens who came together after a school shooting in Tennessee and there were Second Amendment enthusiasts, gun rights enthusiasts, activists, really committed to gun rights, and they, there were people who were very committed to gun control because they had seen the effects of gun violence in their neighborhood. And so this group of 11 with very different views came together and the first thing they did Well, first of all, they were a problem solving group. They weren't just there to have a theoretical discussion about gun rights. That was not, that was not of interest to them. They were trying to solve a problem. They were trying to figure out what do you do when people have such disparate views of guns? What do you do to reduce the chance of gun violence? shootings in schools. What are the things we can do? Okay. Or, or any kind of gun violence. And so they came together and the first thing they did, which was so smart, [00:24:00] is they shared their experiences of guns. What was the, what, what was the role of guns in their lives? What was their experience? And so this was like a, a, an incredible eye opener. for both of them. And Judy Woodruff on America, American, America at the Crossroads. If you Google that show and you look up Tennessee 11, you can see a 20 minute description of what they did interview. They interviewed them. They showed them at work. And you see, you get a granular up close and personal view of how this group. over the course of some number of weeks, went from completely different views to agreeing on the kind of legislation that they could both live with, and then they went and presented it to the Tennessee legislature. which declined it, okay? But this has [00:25:00] happened many times in U. S. history, where when you first try to bring something in front of a legislature, they decline it. But you keep coming back, and you, you improvise, you improve the legislation, you come back another time, you build support, you build a coalition, you keep coming back, and you keep coming back. This is what happened in Maine, where there was an alliance of citizens that eventually got rinked. Ranked Choice Voting passed in May. At first, they didn't succeed, but they kept coming back. They kept coming back. And so this is the kind of thing that I think citizens can do, but I don't want to throw the baby politicians out with the bathwater, okay? Because they have a role to play too. And I'll come back to that in a moment, but I, I, I know I've said a lot and I want to throw it back to you and get your reactions and see what I'm missing. I'm not sure you're missing but I, I totally, there's so many things I agree with. And I, like I said, [00:26:00] that, you know, when we as citizens come together, like the Tennessee 11, come, come up with solutions and then bring those to our politicians. You know, one of the things, the disappointing part of that was that, you know, the politicians didn't, you know, for better or for worse, initially take that on. And maybe it was because the legislation needs, needed to be massaged. And, you know, there's a lot of things that we as citizens don't think about that, you know, politicians do think about. But I think where I've become jaded is not, I think there's a whole bunch of people out there right now in particular, trying to run for office that are just your average everyday person. And where I've become jaded is more with the system and not with the people. Because The system itself says, just like your example with the Democrat, he was just because he ran on the Democratic ticket [00:27:00] and was aligned, not maybe not ideologically, but just by virtue of the fact that he was running on the Democrat ticket, people automatically assumed that he aligned himself with the Democratic platform, which may or may not have been true. And so, I, you know, I don't know the solution to this two party system. I agree with you. Can we take that first, that example for a second? Because I think it's really important. Is that okay? Can I is? Oh, yeah. Sure. So, first of all, the, the perspective I take to this is how will it serve me and others if I take a jaded stance? Okay. And I think it won't serve me. I think it will lead me to give up prematurely. I think it will lead me to close off. seeing certain toeholds that might be able to move forward. In the Tennessee example, even if there were self serving reasons they declined the legislation, there was [00:28:00] some interest at stake that the people didn't see that they have to take into account to move forward. Okay? So if I take a jaded view and just say it's hopeless, I won't come back again. I won't try to continue working. If I take a jaded view, of the data that Lucas Kuntz got, which is you know, it's your party, not you, and say, you see, it's stacked against us, there's nothing we can do, I'll give up. But if instead what I say is, Boy, that data that he got, which is great data by the way, he has a sub stack newsletter I really recommend because he quotes people verbatim and it's really interesting information. If I ignore that information, if I don't look at that, I give up an opportunity for the Democratic Party to reinvent itself. Which, by the way, I think it ought, I'm not a Democrat, by the way, and I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independent because I think both parties have [00:29:00] fallen into a lot of trouble. But I'm not giving up on them, okay? I think, I think as somebody who cares about the future of our country, I have to have an investment in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party reinventing themselves so that they can better represent the people. Okay, so I see this as a great opportunity to really rethink what the Democratic Party stands for. It may even require them to rename themselves because they've so sullied their image. I don't know. Okay, but I don't see much to be gained from being jaded. So help me understand why you are coming back to being jaded so often in this conversation, which, from my point of view I'm hoping we'll plant seeds of hope, not despair. Okay, maybe I'm, I always get in trouble with this because [00:30:00] I, I probably should choose my words better. Maybe jaded is a different word because I feel like the angle I come at it from is when I recognize where people's motives lie, or that it helps me make better and more informed decisions. And so, understanding that a lot of people get into politics. For very altruistic, very good reasons. Have you know, a lot of good intentions and all that kind of thing. But then they get into a system that I do think needs to be reformed and I do think will only be reformed when. We, as citizens, understand that the system itself takes good people and, you know, who knows, we'll see my uncle, I have grand hopes that he won't end [00:31:00] up in a bad place, but what happens is, is when these politicians, and this is more on a national level than a local level, but it does play into all levels. Is that they get into the system and once they're in the system, and I saw it happen many times and I'm, I'm a libertarian more by nature than anything else. So, you know, far be it for me to vote for one candidate on one side or the other, because if I vote for my libertarian candidate, as a lot of people say, I disagree, but a lot of people say, is throwing my vote away. We'll get into that in a different, you know, line of thinking. And so. They get into the system and then once they're in the system, I don't know if you remember years ago, Eric Cantor was the, oh, he was a very powerful person in the, House of Representatives from Virginia. He's from Virginia. That's why I'm a little more familiar with it. And Dave Brat just came out of nowhere and just beat him hands down. [00:32:00] And now it was another example of retail politics. You know, Dave Brat had no money. He's going up against this person with a tremendous amount of money. But then once, and Dave Brad is still, he got voted out the next cycle, but what happens when you get into that system is if you're not willing to play the game and go along with the things that the politicians want you to go along with when you're in the system, then they say, okay, we're not going to fund your campaigns and you're not going to have any money and you're not going to have any, any any of our support in getting reelected. And that's what happened to Dave Bratt. He got into the system. He wasn't willing to play the game. He wasn't willing to you know, vote the way that they wanted him to vote. He was more willing to You know, buck the system, then he didn't have the support anymore and no more money. And no, you know, and they actually went after him and made sure that he did not get elected again, where [00:33:00] before he just kind of came out of nowhere and Donald Trump, love him or hate him. You know, he, he was another example of coming onto the stage and everybody just expected that Hillary Clinton was going to win. And he came out of nowhere and went, Oh, guess what? I won. And then. The system said, no absolutely we don't like you, we don't want you, you're, you don't, he's, Like I said, you can love him or hate him. He is a fiercely independent person who doesn't want to play the game. Well, I shouldn't say that. This is my opinion, 100 percent my opinion, so don't, you know. I know, totally, I value that. No, go ahead. When he first got in I think he wanted to play the game. I do, but he still had that fiercely independent streak about him. And so everybody, and I think there were a lot of people in the system that were really upset with the fact that he took away from Hillary Clinton what a lot of people thought was [00:34:00] rightly his, her, I should say her, her place. You know, she kind of stepped back with Barack Obama and said, okay, You know, I'm not going to contest this primary anymore and you move forward and yes, he won legitimately and all that good kind of stuff. But it was with a tacit understanding that when Barack Obama was done that they would do everything to put all their power and money and everything behind Hillary Clinton so that she could have her day. And, So when Donald Trump came in, he kind of had, and I didn't vote for him in 2016, because I just didn't know, I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, and I just didn't know, I didn't know what to think. I was a bit baffled, he was brash, he was, he wasn't your typical politician, you know, there's just a whole lot of different things that I was uncertain about. Understood, yep. So when he got in there, I, but I, I thought he's [00:35:00] elected. He's our president now. I need to give him a fair chance. So I really tried hard to see what was going on behind the scenes. And this jaded part of me was like, okay, I know. All of the story, the back story that I just told you, he, he went in there, he tried to get all these, you know, put all these people in his cabinet that were your typical politicians that would help him learn the ropes because he admitted he didn't, he didn't know how to play this game. He knew how to play the game of business, you know, but he didn't know how to play the game of politics. And I think there were a lot of people who went to great lengths to undermine him and to you know, the whole Russia thing was debunked and after years and years of, of really doing everything they could to undermine him, you know, it's like, okay, why are you doing this? What purpose does this serve? How is this making our country better? How is this bringing us together? How [00:36:00] is it helping him solve problems? And I was like, this, I really didn't like that. I was really turned off by that. And I, so I just was like, okay. So to me, jaded. is more like, I need to understand people's motives. I need to understand why they're doing what they're doing. I need to understand that once people get into this system and you know, there were some other people that I've seen get into the system and kind of going back to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Cortez. I kind of liked the way she got into it. I kind of liked her ideals. I kind of, I thought she was going to come onto the stage and really be somebody who was going to fight for that little person. I disagreed with what she did with Amazon up in Brooklyn but I understood why she did it. And so I was like, okay, at least I agree with your motives and I understand, but I think she's another example to me, anyway, of somebody who got into the system and then became part [00:37:00] of the system rather than being that fiercely independent minded person who said, I'm not going to play your game the way you guys like to play the game. I'm here to represent my people. And so when I look at politicians, I try to look at them from that perspective of willing to buck the system. Yeah, no, I understand. I, and, and like you, I, I have a lot of respect for people who are independent and can maintain their independence in a system that's trying to suck them in and systems are very powerful. So it's very hard to resist, which is why I'm putting my chits on. Citizens, not politicians, and we spent our entire time talking about politicians, right, and I think you and I both agree that citizens are the solution. Yeah, I think, I think we're the problem. And I think we're the solution. I agree. Yeah. And, you know, [00:38:00] and, and, you know, I think, you know, The most recent election demonstrates the way in which we can be a problem, but groups that I uncovered while I was doing my research it's just incontrovertible evidence. that when we work together on actual problems, not just talking theoretically we can come up with creative solutions. And I think one of our biggest, and we talked about this before we actually started recording, one of our biggest, um, difficulties is that we have such a short term horizon. So, you know, the idea that you would be discouraged when they went to the Tennessee Legislature, I'd say, you know, that's just the nature, that's always been the nature of a democracy. Democracies are not the fastest moving system around. And they're not meant to be, they're meant to be slow. Yeah, but the other thing is, is that I think we're up against a [00:39:00] legacy. From our evolution, which is that long, long, long, many millennia ago, we learned how to form groups and cooperate within groups. So we could hunt together and take down the big mammoths, which was really hard to do as an individual. Okay. So we built groups. And once we built groups, we learned how to cooperate within groups so we could actually get the mammoth, right? At the same time that we learned to cooperate within groups, we learned to compete against other groups for limited resources. And that legacy comes down to today. We're very, very good at colluding and agreeing with people within our own groups, and we're not very good at listening, understanding, and cooperating with people who are in another group. Okay? Whether it's another race, or another party, or another gender, we struggle with that. Now, that struggle [00:40:00] is what prevents democracies from moving more quickly. If we could work more quickly across groups, because we've learned how to listen and cooperate across groups. Okay. And to invent solutions, not find solutions, because I don't think they're findable oftentimes. We have to create them by listening very closely to the underlying motivations, interests, needs, concerns of one another, and then out of that, create new solutions. I think if we do that, democracy will move much faster. And so then the people always say, well, is that possible? Well, yeah, I mean, literally thousands of people. Thousands of groups, millions of people are already doing it. And, you know, if you go on my website, remakingthespace. org, you'll see plenty of resources and, References to them, or I have a Substack newsletter, remaking the space at [00:41:00] Substack. And it's just, it's just irrefutable that we're capable of it. And so I think the time has come to figure out how we can work across groups. I think, by the way, as a libertarian, I would hope you would appreciate this. The less able we are to work across groups, the more dependent we are on government to do it for us. Oh, yeah. Oh, totally. So, so I think there's an enormous opportunity and an enormous challenge for us to take another evolutionary step and move beyond just knowing how to cooperate within groups. We've got that nailed. We have. I would do. We got that nail for millennia. Yeah, exactly. And you know, I'd say there's been a trend over the past hundred years, 100 years, to migrate towards learning to cooperate across groups. [00:42:00] And it's, by the way, that's not a coincidence. It's because the nature of the problems we face right now cross boundaries. If you think about climate change, pandemics, mass migration, all of these cross boundaries. Yeah. You can't solve them in any one group. They have to, you have to cooperate across groups to solve them. So, that's my plea is that we remain hopeful. We do not need to trash government to remain hopeful about our own capabilities. And the only reason I say that is one of the essays in my book is about a little known committee in Congress that bucked the system and created its own norms and got an enormous amount done. I highly recommend if people get the book Remaking the Space Between Us, that they read that [00:43:00] essay on Congress, which I think is called Rebuilding the People's House, or Reinventing the People's House, or Reimagining the People's House, something like that. I mean, I should have it here, actually. I wrote the damn thing. Let me see if I can find it. Renovating the People's House. Okay. And it's about a committee in Congress called the Committee for the, the Committee for the Modernization of Congress, and it was headed by Derek Kilmer, and initially Thomas Graves, who was a Republican, And then, um, Timmons both, both Republicans, vice chairs are Republicans. And they just threw out the rule book, threw out the rule book and decided they're going to create their own norms. And they had extraordinary dialogues. They made enormous progress. It was incredible. So I highly recommend. That as a, [00:44:00] as to see what's possible even within the system. Yeah, and I, it's interesting because I think that this, our discussion here, has made me even more acutely aware of the fact that oftentimes we're saying the same thing, we're just using different, different ways, agreed, and different language. Yeah. And because, You know, I, I'm sure, and I totally take responsibility for this, it sounds like, you know, being jaded and these types of things, I want to just throw the baby out with the bathwater. And you don't. I don't know, but I do, I do think there needs to be significant reform and, you know, taking politics off the table and going back to a business because we kept using the word cooperative, which is really at the core of what my message is. Yeah. In, after my, after my. You know, well not in, I should say in the midst of my 20 year career in business, [00:45:00] I started working with the National Rural Electrical Association, NRECA, I can't remember, National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association, that's what it is. Rural what association? Rural what? Cooperative. Rural Cooperative Association. So if you've studied, and I think you'd find this very, very interesting, if you go back and look at when electricity first started coming onto the market, it was readily available to big cities. Obviously, the cost benefit analysis for building out the infrastructures to support electricity was much better in urban areas than it was in rural areas, which left rural areas It's kind of out in the cold. Out in the lurch. Yeah, exactly. Literally, yeah. But, guess what? A cooperative movement started, and really this cooperative movement started That's a great story. Yeah. The Rochedale Principles of, you know, cooperatives started in about 1868, but this was in the early [00:46:00] 1930s, 1940s, and what happened was these rural areas got together, formed cooperatives to solve a problem, and decide, and right now, there's nothing. Yeah, there's over 900 elect electrical cooperatives, and I actually get electricity from one of them, Rappahannock Electric, but even in northern Virginia where it's more populated, Dominion is actually a cooperative also, but it serves more on the outskirts of northern Virginia. What's the name of the organization again? 'cause I'd love to do some research on it. It's the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association. N Electrical, N-R-E-C-A Cooperative. Yeah. And I actually work Rural Electric Cooperative. Yeah. I work REPA. Wow. Cool. I worked for Touchstone Energy, which was the marketing arm of NRECA. [00:47:00] NRECA is more the legislative, they do a lot of the legislative stuff that, you know, monitors all the regulations involved with, you know, facilitating electricity to all of these rural communities. And I can tell you right now, if it weren't for this movement, we would not have electricity. I mean, maybe something else would have come up in the interim. But this is what really started the movement to get electricity into rural areas. And they've taken some of that, they haven't been as successful, which is a little bit discouraging to me, because I live in one of those rural areas, to bring internet. because we have that same problem. Internet is struggling to get into rural areas, even to this day. And, you know, that should be a solvable problem. You would think, and I can guarantee you, I know because I pay close attention to this issue. The government has doled out millions and millions of dollars to grants and all these different things to companies to like [00:48:00] Verizon and places to get. To use the infrastructure of the electrical system to get, you know, other needs, you know, internet to these rural areas. And, you know, once again, Elon Musk, love him or hate him, I have Starlink right now, and that's my saving grace. It's Starlink, you know, and he found a way to solve a problem. He's very good at that. Yeah, he is. He's very good at that. Like I said, and this is where I'm not jaded. I find that many figures that are very controversial also, they, they come with a lot of issues in terms of their outreach or whatever. But they think outside the box. They do, and they solve problems. And so this whole cooperative movement, when I started 2012, 2011, right around that timeframe, I fell in love with the cooperative movement. I absolutely fell in love [00:49:00] and I had a lot of people when I first, I was all excited. I went out there to, you know, like, look, I found this business model that I think is great and I think could solve a lot of problems. And they're like, Oh no, that's socialism. That's communism. I was like, no, it's not. There's nothing. It's all voluntary. Number one. I know, I know. I mean, that's one of the things I, I, when I was writing the book, I. I felt like writing, when I was talking about our, our evolutionary legacy, starting with cooperating within groups, and I, I, I felt like saying, and by the way, they did not do that for an ideological reason. No! Okay, they did it because they needed to to survive. Yeah. Okay. So this is not about Survival about this is what we need to do to survive guys. Do you want to survive? Okay and but you know these words like cooperative and I and I can't tell you the number of people who edit it out of My writing for [00:50:00] fear that it will communicate an ideological misunderstanding message. And I have to put it right back in because I refuse to be a captive to these assumptions people make about what cooperation involves. And it's so good to hear you. And by the way, that, that exactly that notion of the electoral cooperative, there've been food cooperatives, there've been all sorts of cooperatives for the last 150 years. Well, and the thing that's most interesting to me is that the cooperative movement is far more robust in Europe. Spain actually has a huge cooperative it always has. Yeah. Yep. Exactly. Even parts of Africa and things and it's. Back to words, word choice is interesting. I'm like you, when I put the word cooperative on, I, people want to edit my stuff out, and I'm like, no, that's part of who I, my message. I think we need to educate people because it's, it's, it [00:51:00] is one where I think we can't afford to just play the political correctness game. It's, it's such a problem and it's such an important notion, the idea of cooperating across groups. Yes. People prefer collaborating, you know, because then it's less, it's less of a signal, but it really is cooperating across groups. I mean, that's what it is. And these cooperatives have a noble history in the U. S. And so I think we need to save the word from people and hijacking it. Yeah, and most, and mostly I think we need to build the spirit, the idea that we can work across divides to solve common problems. And that if we do that, we can come up with uncommon solutions that are at least as good as Elon Musk's. Yeah. Okay. So, we all have an inner Elon Musk in us. Yeah, exactly, exactly. Hopefully a little less insane, but. Yeah, I agree. But equally, equally creative. Yes, I agree. I, [00:52:00] by the way, think his, you know, I'm a big proponent of electric vehicles and he's been at the forefront of it. And, and he, he leapfrogged everybody, not just in the car. Mm hmm. With the car. But by creating an infrastructure to support, which created barriers of entry for everybody else, which he now is. I think backing away from, because you can see how we can make money from sharing the infrastructure, but that infrastructure was a brilliant competitive move. This part so anyway so Cheryl I now understand that you are not jaded in a jaded sense. Right, exactly. Yeah, you simply have decided it's time to invest in people working together in this cooperative way. And we should stop focusing so much on politicians whose incentives are not aligned with ours right now and who enter a system that [00:53:00] then eats them up and spits them out. And and I'm all for that. Obviously. And that's, and this is beautiful, you know, because it's clear that. From an ideological perspective, we don't necessarily agree on everything. But we found common ground on probably the most important part of who we are. Yes. And what our message is. Agreed. Agreed. And so, this just demonstrates, I think, to people that we can do this. Agreed. And that it's good. I mean, I feel much better walking away from this conversation than I felt walking away from many conversations in my life. Well, that's great. So do I. That's very important. Because I feel like I learned something. Yeah, me too. I mean, yeah. And it is not to assume that when you say jaded necessarily what you're meaning it is definitely a a flag for me. Around the potential for people to [00:54:00] give up, which is why I responded the way I did. But as we talked through, I began to see more in more in more nuance and more detail how you were thinking about it. And then I think that's how we arrived on the common ground of. People power. Yes. And the one thing I've learned, well, I should say I've learned, but I should have learned it better by now because my husband tells me the same thing. Pick your words better. Well, I don't, I wouldn't worry about that so much because I think we worry so much about the words we use. I think it is when people react to a word is to talk it through. Yeah. Because that's where the learning lies. But if you didn't use the word, we wouldn't have had the learning. That's true. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll bring that up with my husband next time he Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Well, I appreciate this and I appreciate you, Cheryl. This is this has been a worthwhile use of time and I totally agree with your listeners as well. Yes. I hope so too. Thank you. I hope [00:55:00] that maybe by us setting a small example that we can plant a seed that hopefully will grow in someone else. I think we can all do that. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you so much. Yeah. Go ahead. And once again, give everybody, you know, the contact information and whatever websites you want to point them to. I know you already did once, but just for repetition sake. Do you want me to say it again now? Oh, okay. Sure. Well, the book is Remaking the Space Between Us. Hold on. Remaking the Space Between Us, How Citizens Can Work Together to Build a Better Future for All. And it can be found at Amazon, obviously, and if people go there and buy it, and if they like it, or even if they don't, if they could leave a review, that would be great. And then I have a website, which is Remaking the Space Between, no, just RemakingtheSpace. org. pardon me, RemakingTheSpace. org, and there are a bunch of resources [00:56:00] there that people might find useful. And then my SubStack newsletter, which I try to publish every two weeks and I'm pretty close to doing every two weeks is called Remaking the Space and it's at SubStack which is a newsletter platform. And those three places should be, I think be useful for people. All right. Well, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate the conversation. Thank you, Cheryl. Appreciate you. And have a great rest of your day. All right, you too. Bye bye. Take care. Bye bye.