Is America broken?
Summary
In this episode of The Gray Area, host Sean Illing interviews Alana Newhouse, editor-in-chief of Tablet, about her essay ‘Brokenism.’ Newhouse introduces the concept of ‘brokenism’ as a new framework for understanding the current political moment. She argues that the most vital debate in America is no longer between left and right, but between ‘brokenists’—those who believe core institutions are decayed beyond repair and need to be replaced—and ‘status quoists’—those who believe existing institutions can and should be reformed.
Newhouse explains that this distinction emerged from her own frustrations and conversations with people like Ryan, a reader who contacted her. She suggests that focusing on the health and functionality of institutions—like healthcare, education, and government—allows for more generative conversations that cut across traditional ideological lines. The framework helps to understand widespread public outrage and pessimism about the future.
The conversation explores whether institutions are truly broken or if perceptions are distorted by technology and the information environment. Newhouse posits that the digital revolution set new expectations for immediacy and responsiveness that many legacy institutions have failed to meet, creating a cascading sense of failure. She and Illing also discuss related concepts like ‘horseshoe theory’ and the collapse of trust in authority, linking them to this new institutional divide.
Newhouse clarifies that being a ‘brokenist’ regarding institutions does not mean being a nihilist or advocating for violent overthrow. Instead, it means being willing to imagine and build alternatives—a ‘buildist’ mindset. She draws on Jewish diasporic history as a model for honestly assessing societal health and preparing for change. The episode concludes with a reflection on the utility of this new language for diagnosing political problems and moving toward constructive solutions.
Recommendations
Articles
- Brokenism (essay) — Alana Newhouse’s essay for Tablet that coins the term and lays out the thesis that the central political divide is between those who want to repair institutions (status quoists) and those who believe they are beyond repair (brokenists).
- Everything is Broken — An earlier essay by Alana Newhouse, described as a ‘personal cri de coeur’ about broken aspects of American society, which prompted reader Ryan and others to contact her.
Concepts
- Horseshoe Theory — The idea that the far left and far right are closer to each other than they are to the mainstream of their own sides. Discussed as a status quoist argument to dismiss extremes, but also seen as evidence of a realignment in American politics.
Topic Timeline
- 00:04:13 — Introducing the concept of Brokenism — Alana Newhouse is welcomed to the show. She summarizes her thesis that the most interesting debate is not between left and right, but about the viability of American institutions. She defines the two emerging sides: ‘brokenists’ who believe institutions are decayed and not reformable, and ‘status quoists’ who believe they can be fixed. This framework aims to move beyond partisan defenses.
- 00:07:40 — The story of Ryan and relatable frustration — Newhouse discusses a reader named Ryan who reached out after her earlier essay ‘Everything is Broken.’ Ryan, a third-generation African-American veteran, articulated a deep feeling that American society is broken. Their friendship revealed that the key determinant for having a conversation was not left/right ideology, but how people viewed the health of institutions. This personal story anchors the broader feeling of institutional failure.
- 00:11:46 — Concrete examples of institutional brokenness — Sean Illing asks for concrete specificity on what is broken. Newhouse suggests asking people about vulnerabilities in their own lives, such as having a child with special needs. She argues that within minutes, people will describe how systems fail them—paying out of pocket, fears for the future—and that this feeling of life being harder than for previous generations indicates a non-functioning society. Institutions feel like ‘concrete’ or ‘molasses.’
- 00:19:31 — Technology as the catalyst for institutional decay — Newhouse addresses the question of how so many institutions could decay simultaneously. Her explanation centers on technology, comparing it to the industrial revolution. The digital age created new expectations for immediate responsiveness, setting a new ‘goalpost’ that many legacy institutions raced toward and failed to reach. This comprehensive technological change exposed and accelerated institutional weaknesses across the board.
- 00:33:06 — Horseshoe theory and the scramble of ideological categories — The discussion turns to the meaninglessness of conventional left/right categories. Newhouse explains ‘horseshoe theory,’ where the far left and far right are closer to each other than to their respective centers. She sees this not as a reason to dismiss extremes, but as evidence of a realignment into a new circle: one side containing extremes from both old teams (united by a desire to burn the system down) and the other containing centrists. This scramble makes old political language less useful.
- 00:41:53 — Jewish history as a lens for assessing societal health — Newhouse explains a powerful passage from her essay linking ‘brokenism’ to Jewish historical experience. She describes how a diasporic history demands studying surroundings for signs of decay and not taking societal stability for granted. She encourages all readers to adopt this mindset—to honestly assess what is healthy, what needs firming up, and what is a dangerous crack—because loved ones are in the ‘building’ too.
- 00:48:00 — From brokenism to buildism: imagining alternatives — In the concluding segment, Illing expresses concern that brokenism could lead to nihilism. Newhouse clarifies that she doesn’t advocate burning things down without a plan. She points to practical moves, like states dropping college degree requirements for government jobs, as examples of quietly reimagining systems. She suggests the term ‘buildist’ might be better, emphasizing the need to imagine more opportunities and options to create better lives, moving from frustration to constructive action.
Episode Info
- Podcast: The Gray Area with Sean Illing
- Author: Vox
- Category: Society & Culture Philosophy News Politics News Commentary
- Published: 2025-02-10T11:00:00Z
- Duration: 00:53:43
References
- URL PocketCasts: https://pocketcasts.com/podcast/1d3ce9a0-ae3d-0133-2e33-6dc413d6d41d/episode/5738a2dc-62f6-41a5-9d95-87d1b0d33c93/
- Episode UUID: 5738a2dc-62f6-41a5-9d95-87d1b0d33c93
Podcast Info
- Name: The Gray Area with Sean Illing
- Type: episodic
- Site: https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast
- UUID: 1d3ce9a0-ae3d-0133-2e33-6dc413d6d41d
Transcript
[00:00:00] Support for this show comes from the Working Forest Initiative.
[00:00:04] The working forest industry is committed to planting more trees than they harvest.
[00:00:08] More than 1 billion seedlings are planted in U.S. working forests every year.
[00:00:13] From biologists to GIS analysts, hiring managers, accountants, and more,
[00:00:18] working forest professionals have dedicated their focus towards sustainability,
[00:00:22] using their expertise to help ensure a healthy future for America’s forests.
[00:00:27] They say they don’t just plan for the future, they plan it.
[00:00:31] You can learn more at workingforestinitiative.com.
[00:00:57] I love the chaos and cluster effery that’s taken over the United States government
[00:01:00] the last couple of weeks.
[00:01:02] In the episode, Newhouse uses a concept that she calls brokenism.
[00:01:06] She uses it to argue that the most important political divide in the country
[00:01:10] is not between the left and the right,
[00:01:12] but rather between those who want to repair America’s institutions
[00:01:14] and those who want to destroy them.
[00:01:17] It’s a real eye-opener.
[00:01:19] After listening, I kind of wanted to go back in time to when it was first published
[00:01:23] so I could play it for everyone, tell people,
[00:01:25] pay attention.
[00:01:26] This might be coming.
[00:01:27] But that is impossible.
[00:01:30] So instead, we’ve brought the episode forward in time,
[00:01:33] to now,
[00:01:34] to play it for everyone,
[00:01:35] to tell people,
[00:01:37] pay attention.
[00:01:38] This might be happening.
[00:01:40] Okay, here’s the show.
[00:01:44] If this country doesn’t give us what we want,
[00:01:47] then we will burn down this system and replace it.
[00:01:51] There’s a lot of outrage across the country right now.
[00:01:54] Often it’s hard to define,
[00:01:56] but it’s rooted in a fundamental belief that the country is broken,
[00:02:01] that our institutions are rotten and dysfunctional.
[00:02:05] Let’s talk about how Joe Biden said his build-back-better agenda
[00:02:09] cost zero American tax dollars.
[00:02:13] This union representing more than 4,000 Columbus teachers and staff
[00:02:17] striking for the first time in roughly 50 years,
[00:02:19] a sign experts say of mounting frustration nationwide.
[00:02:23] This outrage is one of the very,
[00:02:26] very few things that people on the left and right share.
[00:02:30] And it’s a source of widespread pessimism about our future.
[00:02:35] Of course,
[00:02:35] there will always be many cleavages in the country,
[00:02:39] but maybe the biggest,
[00:02:40] most salient division right now is between those who want to fix the
[00:02:45] institutions we have and those who want to burn it all down and start fresh.
[00:02:53] I’m Sean Illing,
[00:02:54] and this is The Gray Area.
[00:02:56] My guest today is Alana Newhouse.
[00:03:11] She’s the editor-in-chief of an online magazine called Tablet,
[00:03:14] and she’s the author of a recent essay for the site called Brokenism.
[00:03:20] Brokenism isn’t just a title of her piece.
[00:03:22] It’s also a term she’s coined.
[00:03:24] And while I’m still in the midst of the process of figuring out how to fix it,
[00:03:26] still not entirely sure what I think of her broader thesis, Newhouse did something valuable
[00:03:32] in that piece. She gave me a new language for thinking about this political moment.
[00:03:39] This distinction between what she calls brokenest, the people who think we need a total reset,
[00:03:45] and the status quoist, the people who think we can reform our current order, is certainly
[00:03:51] provocative. And even if you reject her basic framework, it’s very much worth wrestling
[00:03:58] with. So I invited Alana onto the show to talk about it.
[00:04:13] Alana Newhouse, welcome to the show.
[00:04:16] Thanks so much.
[00:04:16] So we’re here to talk about your essay on brokenism.
[00:04:21] Which I have to say, really landed for me. And I’m still working out what I think about it,
[00:04:28] frankly. But I just wanted to start by saying that.
[00:04:32] I’m still working it out too. So maybe we can work it out together.
[00:04:36] Let’s try. So let’s actually just start with you summing up your thesis
[00:04:40] in that piece. Tell me about what you think is now the most vital debate in America.
[00:04:47] The debate that I find the most interesting, and that I think is going
[00:04:51] to be the one that is going to take us through the next, call it five to 10 years,
[00:04:56] isn’t a debate between Republicans or Democrats, or between the left and the right,
[00:05:01] or even between progressives and conservatives. The debate that I find myself most drawn to,
[00:05:08] and I think a lot of other people increasingly want to participate in,
[00:05:13] is a debate about our institutions, and about the viability of them and the health of them.
[00:05:20] The two sides that I…
[00:05:21] I saw emerging, I roughly call brokenists and status quoists. And in the piece, I try to
[00:05:31] articulate the vision that each side has. And I hope that I express sympathy and interest in
[00:05:40] both arguments, because I feel drawn to both sides. My sense of the status quoist argument
[00:05:46] is that they feel, with a lot of validity,
[00:05:51] that we have a lot of validity. And I think that’s a very important part of the debate.
[00:05:51] I have a lot of institutions in American life that took many, many years to build,
[00:05:55] that actually create safety and predictability and opportunity for a lot of people. And that
[00:06:03] there’s an almost nihilistic, burn-it-all-down energy that they feel coming from other people
[00:06:10] in American life. Because inevitably, they see problems in those institutions,
[00:06:15] and they want to fix them. On the other side, there are people who I call brokenists,
[00:06:21] and those are people for whom the broken aspect of the big blocks of institutional life that they
[00:06:31] have to interact with, whether that’s a university, whether it’s their health insurance,
[00:06:37] whether it’s a government entity, what they’re feeling in almost in a 360 way is a sense of decay
[00:06:46] and a sense that these things simply don’t work anymore.
[00:06:51] And that I think, in the case of many brokenists, there’s a feeling that
[00:06:55] not only do those institutions not work, but that they’re not reformable.
[00:06:59] And that we would be better off spending our energy building new replacements for them,
[00:07:05] rather than trying to reform them. So the tension is between those two sides.
[00:07:12] Yes. And I think you really do a service here in giving us that language.
[00:07:17] It’s a very useful distinction. There’s a man you quote in the piece,
[00:07:21] he’s a reader who reached out to you. His name is Ryan. And he said some very relatable things
[00:07:29] for me. And his perspective, his frustration really, serves as a kind of anchor for your
[00:07:36] essay. Can you say a bit about him and what he articulated to you?
[00:07:40] Yes. I met Ryan because two years ago, I wrote a piece called Everything is Broken,
[00:07:46] which was my personal creed of core about the broken aspects of American society that
[00:07:51] were affecting my life. And in the wake of that essay, I got hundreds of emails and DMs and texts
[00:08:00] from people. One of them was from a man named Ryan, who was about my age, lives in Ohio,
[00:08:07] former vet, actually third generation African-American veteran. And Ryan reached out and
[00:08:14] said, this piece spoke to me so deeply because this is what I feel too. I feel that American
[00:08:18] society is so broken and I don’t understand why.
[00:08:21] We ended up actually becoming friends. We had a lot more in common than
[00:08:25] I think either of us expected when he reached out. And over the course of a year of texting
[00:08:33] and sharing articles and just becoming friends, we were having conversations about how our thought
[00:08:40] was developing. And one day, Ryan said on the phone with me, I realize I’m having conversations
[00:08:47] with people. Sometimes they’re people who see themselves as on the right. Sometimes
[00:08:51] they’re people who see themselves on the left. And the thing that determines whether or not I can
[00:08:57] talk to them is actually how they think about institutions. I don’t care whether they come
[00:09:03] from the left or come from the right, whether they’re a libertarian or socialist. I care whether
[00:09:08] or not they look at these institutions and they think they’re remotely healthy. Because if they
[00:09:12] do, I think they’re nuts. And if they don’t, I can have a conversation. Yeah. I need to be honest
[00:09:20] about my ambivalence here.
[00:09:21] You know, I mean, I think of myself as an old school leftist. I guess I’m a class warrior,
[00:09:26] for lack of a better phrase. I see that not only as the most important axis of power,
[00:09:31] but also the most politically potent. But you may be right that deep down, the real debate now is
[00:09:38] between brokenness and status quoist. I mean, I guess I would say, in the interest of maybe trying
[00:09:45] to push a little bit against both of our instincts, that sometimes there’s a tendency for the most,
[00:09:51] engaged, politically conscious types like you and me to assume that the rest of the country feels
[00:09:58] the way we do. You know what I mean? When the reality is that I think a lot of people are just
[00:10:02] living their lives. And while they may be caught up in the general polarized atmosphere, I’m not
[00:10:08] sure they have very deep ideological commitments or even very strong opinions. I just think a lot
[00:10:12] of people are very alienated from all of it. But then again, maybe that kind of widespread
[00:10:17] detachment is itself a symptom of…
[00:10:21] The reason why I like the frame is because as a reporter, it actually allows me to hear people
[00:10:30] and hear their concerns differently. It takes me out of rubrics that are familiar and allows me to
[00:10:36] really listen. And so you brought up the issues of class and of economic concerns. I hear them
[00:10:44] more clearly and loudly when I see them through the dichotomy of how our institutions are
[00:10:51] serving people. Let’s talk about Medicaid. Can Medicaid actually properly get people the
[00:10:58] support that they need? That’s a class issue, right? But it’s also a health of the institution
[00:11:03] issue. And maybe if we take it out of the left-right dichotomy, we can have the conversation
[00:11:10] that we want to have because it doesn’t get people rooted in their defenses and their biases.
[00:11:17] It allows us to say, well, wait a minute. What if we say,
[00:11:20] instead of whether or not we’re going to have a health of the institution, we’re going to have a
[00:11:21] We believe in Medicaid or don’t believe in Medicaid, believe in a social safety net. What
[00:11:24] if we talk about the effectiveness of the social safety net? How is ours working? And as long as
[00:11:31] we have it, can we improve it? Is it possible even? Because if it isn’t, that starts a whole
[00:11:37] new conversation. For me, that’s generative and that feels exciting because it also feels
[00:11:42] future-oriented. Let’s take just a quick step back here
[00:11:46] because I want to make sure that this is as non-abstract as possible. So if you were floating
[00:11:51] this thesis to an intelligent person who maybe isn’t super political, who doesn’t follow the
[00:11:57] news that closely, and they just asked you, what exactly is broken? What institutions? Is it public
[00:12:05] education, Congress, the courts, whatever? What would you say for someone who was looking for
[00:12:10] concrete specificity when you talk about the brokenness of institutions?
[00:12:16] What I would say is that a broken nest would be willing to,
[00:12:21] to play with the idea that the frustrations that you feel aren’t normal. So I might ask the person
[00:12:32] a little bit about their life, and I may find out that they have a child with special needs.
[00:12:38] And if they have a child with special needs, I am willing to bet, unless they’re a billionaire,
[00:12:43] that within 10 minutes, they will start to talk to me about everything they had to pay for out
[00:12:47] of pocket, about all the things they couldn’t afford,
[00:12:51] all the things they couldn’t afford, and all the things they couldn’t afford to pay for.
[00:12:51] All the worries they have about the future, all the ways in which they do not feel that
[00:12:56] American society has been set up to make it possible for them to not be afraid for their
[00:13:04] future. If it takes me 10 minutes, I’d be surprised. So all I have to do, frankly,
[00:13:11] is find a vulnerability or a soft point in any person’s life and ask them how hard it is for them
[00:13:18] to manage that soft point.
[00:13:21] And whether or not they remember their parents having a similar soft point and whether or not
[00:13:26] they imagined or recall their parents having the same difficulty that they had. And for many people,
[00:13:33] the answer is no. My life feels much harder. And the institutions that I have to wend my way
[00:13:41] through feel like, as one reader said to me, half the time they feel like concrete and half the time
[00:13:48] they feel like molasses. That’s…
[00:13:51] not a functioning and well-organized society.
[00:14:05] Coming up after the break, are things really broken beyond repair? The Civil War,
[00:14:12] Reconstruction, the 60s, we’ve been through a lot in this country’s history.
[00:14:16] What is so special about today?
[00:14:21] Support for The Gray Area comes from Wix. When you’re in a creative flow, it feels great. You’re
[00:14:31] spitballing a growing list of ideas, thinking big picture, next steps, but then reality hits. Okay,
[00:14:37] how do I actually make this happen? It can happen in any creative endeavor, even one like building
[00:14:42] a website. But you don’t need to get stuck there. The right tool like Wix can help you get unstuck.
[00:14:48] Wix can help you make a great-looking website, and you can do it your way.
[00:14:51] Wix is packed with actually useful AI features and agents built specifically for SMB,
[00:14:57] so you can grow your business without burning out. You can get a custom,
[00:15:01] ready-to-use website in minutes with Wix’s AI website builder, or choose from designer-made
[00:15:06] templates. They offer lots of built-in solutions tailored to your business, from e-com to services.
[00:15:12] And you can rest easy knowing that your Wix site is backed by 99.99% uptime and enterprise-grade
[00:15:18] security. Their data shows 280 million businesses are using Wix.
[00:15:21] And they’re not just building a website. They’re building a website. They’re building a website.
[00:15:21] Around the world rely on Wix for their websites.
[00:15:25] Ready to create your website? Go to Wix.com. That’s Wix.com.
[00:15:34] Support for the show comes from Mint Mobile. We all have that stubborn friend who insists
[00:15:40] on doing things the hard way. Like your friend whose car only starts 60% of the time. Or your
[00:15:46] other friend who never drinks water and for some reason always has a headache. Well, let’s make
[00:15:51] sure you’re not the friend who’s overpaying for wireless in 2026. Go with Mint Mobile instead.
[00:15:58] Same coverage, same speed, just without the inflated price tag. The premium wireless you
[00:16:04] expect. Unlimited talk, text, and data, but at a fraction of what others charge.
[00:16:09] Ready to stop paying for more than you have to? New customers can make the switch today
[00:16:13] and for a limited time. Get unlimited premium wireless for just $15 per month.
[00:16:18] Switch now at mintmobile.com slash gray area.
[00:16:21] That’s mintmobile.com slash gray area. Upfront payment of $45 for three months,
[00:16:27] 180 for a 12-month plan required. Or $15 a month equivalent.
[00:16:34] Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Over 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy.
[00:16:40] Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. Additional terms apply.
[00:16:45] See mintmobile.com.
[00:16:51] Support for the show comes from Bombas.
[00:16:55] It’s the new year, so you probably have a long list of resolutions to make your life happier
[00:17:01] and more productive. Everyone has their own system. Here’s mine. I take last year’s resolutions and
[00:17:07] change I resolve to I resolve not to. This year, I’ve resolved not to drink less wine,
[00:17:14] not to do more exercise, not to be a more patient, attentive, and gracious husband and father,
[00:17:21] and not to drink less wine. I’ve resolved not to drink less wine, not to do more exercise,
[00:17:21] not to make smoother segs and ads for Bombas. If you’re trying to hit the gym or get more active,
[00:17:28] the all-new Bombas sports socks are engineered with sport-specific comfort for running, golf,
[00:17:33] hiking, skiing, snowboarding, and all sport. For those every day around the house resolutions,
[00:17:39] Bombas also has you covered with the super luxurious Sherpa Sunday slippers and new squishy
[00:17:44] Saturday suede slip-ons for comfort on the go. You may know I’ve tried out Bombas myself. I’ve
[00:17:50] been rocking it for a long time. I’ve been rocking it for a long time. I’ve been rocking it for a long time.
[00:17:50] I’ve been rocking the sports socks for over a year now. They are my favorite. I work out in
[00:17:56] them. I run in them. I use them basically every day. You can head over to bombas.com slash gray
[00:18:03] area and use code gray area for 20% off your first purchase. That’s B-O-M-B-A-S.com slash gray area
[00:18:12] code gray area at checkout.
[00:18:20] A lot of things are in a bad way, no question. And as you know, to say that American institutions
[00:18:35] are broken is not to say that they are unfixable. What makes you so sure, or mostly sure,
[00:18:45] if that’s more accurate, that it’s the latter and not the former? Because I mean, even as you
[00:18:50] acknowledge, you know, I’m not sure. I’m not sure. I’m not sure. I’m not sure. I’m not sure. I’m not sure.
[00:18:50] Right. We’ve, we survived a civil war and reconstruction and the industrial revolution
[00:18:57] and the chaos and violence of the sixties. And somehow we always emerged on the other side of
[00:19:03] that stuff. Right. So I had a friend who read my piece who said, it doesn’t make sense. Like,
[00:19:09] how did everything break at the same time? Like, what’s your theory about how is that possible?
[00:19:14] All these institutions started different times in history and they all just decayed simultaneously.
[00:19:19] So what’s your smart explanation for that? Which of course is the easiest question to answer
[00:19:24] because it’s technology. Yeah. We had an economic revolution and I think we all thought we were
[00:19:31] just going to get email or something. Like it was just going to make our lives easier.
[00:19:35] But just like with the industrial revolution, these revolutions are comprehensive and they
[00:19:42] change every aspect of our lives. That change has a cascading effect. And what technology did
[00:19:49] to all of those institutions, it forced a coming to terms with how modern it could be,
[00:19:57] which meant if you create basically a new goalpost, now, all of a sudden you can judge
[00:20:03] how far everything is from that goalpost. So you create a new technology and you say,
[00:20:08] every system has to be immediately responsive. Every system is going to try to become immediately
[00:20:14] responsive. Some of them will be able to get to the standard you just said,
[00:20:19] a lot of them are going to fall apart on their way racing toward their new goalpost.
[00:20:25] So to me, it seems kind of obvious that technology created this demand and it set up a new system
[00:20:33] that all of these institutions were going to have to be a part of. And some of them are going to
[00:20:38] make it and a lot of them are not going to. And I have no idea which ones are and aren’t.
[00:20:43] What I feel though, is they’re all facing the same challenge. And that’s what I think is
[00:20:48] interesting to look at.
[00:20:49] You talk about following the cracks in the foundation of society, the way a seismologist
[00:20:54] tracks slips in the tectonic plates. And I still don’t really know where the cracks are or where
[00:21:00] they lead. I mean, I guess I have vague ideas, but it’s very hard to isolate causes. And precisely
[00:21:06] because of some of these technological changes, I worry all the time about getting a distorted
[00:21:12] picture of the world by viewing it through the funhouse mirror that is the internet.
[00:21:18] Is it possible to do that?
[00:21:18] Is it possible to do that?
[00:21:19] Is it possible to do that?
[00:21:19] Is it possible to do that?
[00:21:19] Is it possible to do that?
[00:21:19] possible that things really aren’t as broken as they seem? Yes. Maybe it just feels that way
[00:21:25] because we’re more aware of the brokenness that was always there and we’re just confronted with
[00:21:32] it all the time. Yes, absolutely. You know, the same parent I just described, a parent of a
[00:21:38] special needs child who could tell you everything that’s broken about the health insurance landscape,
[00:21:42] about Medicaid, about everything. In the same sentence that they will say Medicaid is deeply
[00:21:49] broken, they will also say, and don’t you dare take it away. I need it desperately, right?
[00:21:55] The imperative for those of us who want to think about these things is also,
[00:22:00] even if it’s not fixable, we probably have the responsibility to create its replacement
[00:22:07] before we burn the original down to the ground. Because if not,
[00:22:12] we might not be able to fix it.
[00:22:12] You might as well live with this half or mostly broken system. It’s better than nothing. I mean,
[00:22:18] just in terms of your question about the cracks, that’s kind of the reason why it’s really
[00:22:24] important to stick with seeing what those cracks are and to talk to the people who tell you they’re
[00:22:31] falling into them. Because they’re the only ones who know. They’re the only ones who can
[00:22:36] help you walk that crack back to its origin point. I have some brokenness and some
[00:22:42] status quoist tendencies. I can be either, depending on the day you ask me. I don’t know
[00:22:48] what the hell that makes me. I guess if I’m hearing you, it makes me like a lot of people.
[00:22:51] Right.
[00:22:52] Somewhere in the middle. I was probably at my most brokenest in the throes of the pandemic.
[00:22:59] Yeah.
[00:22:59] The experience of watching even that be so easily and neatly subsumed by our partisan
[00:23:07] rancor, that was a kind of tipping point for me and a realization that the information,
[00:23:12] environment now in conjunction with all these other forces has really combined to create
[00:23:17] an incredibly unstable situation that I do not think is sustainable.
[00:23:23] I think if you can maintain having both brokenness and status quoist
[00:23:27] ways of looking at the world, or you can feel comfortable with either one of them or both,
[00:23:33] what that allows you to do is judge things at a local level, which is where I think all things
[00:23:42] are going to get.
[00:23:42] It’s a little bit like cleaning out your closet. So there’s a bunch of stuff that you’re going to
[00:23:49] take and you’re going to throw it away, but not every item of clothing. Then there are a bunch
[00:23:54] of things that you’re going to take and be like, these are really important to me. I’m going to
[00:23:56] get them fixed. And then there are things that work great. They do great for you. So you keep
[00:24:02] those. If you have a philosophy about your closet, you’re going to end up with a bad closet. If
[00:24:09] you’re like, nothing here has to change. We’re not changing anything.
[00:24:12] You’re just going to end up with a bunch of stuff you can’t use and a bunch of stuff that doesn’t
[00:24:16] look good on you. And if you walk in and you’re like, we’re throwing everything out, you may lose
[00:24:21] something that was really important to you that actually worked really well, that maybe it was
[00:24:24] from your grandmother. You don’t want that. And I think that American society right now is at a
[00:24:30] place where it would be amazing if we could almost assess everything, look at everything and say,
[00:24:38] how can we make this better for more people?
[00:24:42] How can we make this work better and help more people and make better, safer, more enriching
[00:24:48] lives for more of us? You’re not a fence sitter though, right? You’re a brokenist, right? I mean,
[00:24:54] although you do say there’s this caveat, maybe I should ask you about that. The way you say it in
[00:24:58] the piece is to say that you’re a brokenness with respect to American institutions, but not with
[00:25:02] respect to America itself. And I’m not exactly sure what that really means. I don’t know what
[00:25:07] America is, if not a bundle of institutions girded by a culture, I suppose. So maybe you’re
[00:25:12] just unpack that and explain your staunch brokenism.
[00:25:17] I wouldn’t say it’s staunch.
[00:25:19] I took some liberties there.
[00:25:21] Right. I think that I have a hot hand with my brokenism, meaning I’m not slow to look at
[00:25:30] something and say it’s broken beyond repair. That’s a difference between me and I think some
[00:25:35] of my more status quo friends is that their default is to say, can we fix this? And to take
[00:25:41] that conversation,
[00:25:42] I think sometimes too far past the point of usability and past the point of the legitimate
[00:25:49] use of anyone’s time and resources and energy. So I see too many people throwing too many
[00:25:54] resources down the, what I think is just an abyss of institutions that seem like they’re
[00:26:00] obviously failing and shouldn’t be given those kinds of resources. So I am quicker than a lot
[00:26:06] of other people I know to consign things to the dustbin of history now.
[00:26:12] So that’s what I mean when I say I tend to be brokenist in my impulses.
[00:26:18] In terms of sort of the America question, I mean, here’s where I get a little woo-woo,
[00:26:24] I guess. I think one of the best things about America and one of the most gruesome in some ways
[00:26:30] things about America is its ability to forget the past, to almost like forget the past the
[00:26:37] minute it happens, which is responsible, I think, for both its capacity to,
[00:26:42] to be so future-oriented that it constantly morphs, like it molts almost, but also then
[00:26:49] brings trauma with it, like drags its own trauma with it constantly into the future because it
[00:26:55] won’t deal with it. But for me, what that means though is, is that America has at least historically
[00:27:00] been fertile ground for pretty radical change. And because America has been very open to the
[00:27:07] idea of, well, why don’t we just all wake up tomorrow and do something else? I feel excited,
[00:27:12] about the idea that we could fix stuff and maybe replace stuff. And again, I’m not,
[00:27:17] I’m not European. I was on British radio and the interviewer said to me, so do you,
[00:27:22] you believe that maybe that the British government’s going to fix everything, right? That
[00:27:27] they could fix it and we could all be okay. I was like, I have no idea. I don’t feel super hopeful
[00:27:33] about that, but I have no idea. Europe is different and Europe in some senses lives in its own past.
[00:27:41] America doesn’t.
[00:27:42] And so when I talk about feeling like I immediately will consign an American institution
[00:27:48] to the dustbin of history, it’s almost because America doesn’t mind. Like you want to throw out
[00:27:56] all of the Ivy leagues, literally just throw them in the middle of the ocean. America will be fine.
[00:28:00] It will just make a new thing. And it’s brutal. It can be violent, but that ability to simply
[00:28:06] replace what needs to get thrown in the garbage means that I feel like there’s going to be
[00:28:12] something new.
[00:28:12] in 20 years, whether we can see it now or not.
[00:28:24] So before we put this episode in the dustbin of history, can we talk about why things have
[00:28:30] gotten so extreme on the right and left? Alana and I discuss after one more quick break.
[00:28:42] But how do we make a difference, even if our minds are not the same?
[00:28:49] Support for the Gray Area comes from HIMSS. ED is more common
[00:28:53] than you think, but it can also be simpler to treat than you think too. Through HIMSS,
[00:28:57] you can connect online with a licensed provider to access personalized treatment options
[00:29:02] discreetly and on your terms. HIMSSs can offer access to personalized prescription
[00:29:06] treatment options for ED, if prescribed. And if prescribed, they say their options range from
[00:29:11] personalized products to trusted generics that cost 95% less than brand names.
[00:29:17] HIMS say they bring expert care straight to you with 100% online access to personalized
[00:29:21] treatments that put your goals first.
[00:29:24] You can think of HIMS as your digital front door you can step through to get back to your
[00:29:28] old self.
[00:29:28] It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach.
[00:29:31] They say they put your health and goals first with real medical providers making sure you
[00:29:35] get what you need to get results.
[00:29:36] You can get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight
[00:29:42] loss, and more by visiting HIMS.com slash gray area.
[00:29:46] That’s HIMS.com slash gray area for your free online visit.
[00:29:50] HIMS.com slash gray area.
[00:29:57] Support for the show comes from Shopify.
[00:30:00] Starting a new business has never been easy, but without the right tools, it can feel almost
[00:30:04] impossible.
[00:30:05] Shopify says.
[00:30:06] It can help set you up for lasting success.
[00:30:10] Shopify is the commerce platform used by millions of businesses around the world.
[00:30:14] They say they can help you tackle all those important tasks in one place from inventory
[00:30:19] to payments to analytics and more.
[00:30:21] No need to save multiple websites or try to figure out what platform is hosting the tool
[00:30:26] that you need.
[00:30:27] Everything is all in one place, making your life easier and your business operations smoother.
[00:30:33] Let Shopify be your commerce expert.
[00:30:35] With world-class expertise.
[00:30:36] And everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns
[00:30:41] and beyond.
[00:30:42] You can get started with your own design studio.
[00:30:45] With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that
[00:30:49] matches your brand style.
[00:30:51] It’s time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today.
[00:30:57] You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify.com
[00:31:02] slash box.
[00:31:03] Go to Shopify.com slash box.
[00:31:05] That’s Shopify.com.
[00:31:06] That’s Shopify.com slash box.
[00:31:14] Support for the show comes from Shopify.
[00:31:16] Starting a new business has never been easy, but without the right tools, it can feel almost
[00:31:20] impossible.
[00:31:22] Shopify says they can help set you up for lasting success.
[00:31:26] Shopify is the commerce platform used by millions of businesses around the world.
[00:31:30] They say they can help you tackle all those important tasks in one place from inventory
[00:31:35] to payments to analytics.
[00:31:36] And they have their own platform to help you do that.
[00:31:37] They’re known for their free software, which is called Shopify.com.
[00:31:38] They’re known for their free software, which is called Shopify.com.
[00:31:38] They’re known for their free software, which is called Shopify.com.
[00:31:38] No need to save multiple websites or try to figure out what platform is hosting the tool
[00:31:42] that you need.
[00:31:43] Everything is all in one place, making your life easier and your business operations smoother.
[00:31:49] Let Shopify be your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory
[00:31:54] to international shipping to processing returns and beyond.
[00:31:58] You can get started with your own design studio.
[00:32:01] With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that
[00:32:06] matches your brand.
[00:32:06] your brand style. It’s time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. You can sign up for
[00:32:13] your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at shopify.com slash box. Go to shopify.com
[00:32:20] slash box. That’s shopify.com slash box.
[00:32:36] You remind me of that great Gore Vidal line, we are forever the United States of amnesia.
[00:32:54] We learn nothing because we remember nothing. I think there’s a lot of truth to that.
[00:32:59] One perhaps symptom of some of this brokenness, for you at least, is the fact that our conventional
[00:33:06] survival.
[00:33:06] ideological categories are sort of meaningless now. I don’t even know what the hell the left
[00:33:12] and the right really even refers to at this point, which is why you invoke something that’s called
[00:33:18] the horseshoe theory. Yeah. The horseshoe theory is the idea that the extremes are closer to each
[00:33:23] other than they are to the mainstream cohorts on their own side. So you go so far right that you
[00:33:29] sound like the left, you go so far left that you start to sound like the right. And of course,
[00:33:34] that’s a perfect status quoist argument because you basically say the extremes are
[00:33:41] ignorable. Both of them are fringe and moderate centrists on both sides need to come together
[00:33:50] and we’re the adults in the room. On the one hand, I’m sympathetic to that idea because
[00:33:55] it’s very hard to look around American politics and not see examples of horseshoe theory.
[00:34:00] And I mentioned some of them in the piece. You see Glenn Greenwald on Tucker Carlson,
[00:34:04] Glenn is a historic leftist. Now he’s on Tucker Carlson, which is obviously a right-wing program
[00:34:09] with a right-wing host. And we see these elements happening all the time now. And so you do see this
[00:34:16] coming together of voices and platforms that feel like they’re taking the extremes of the left and
[00:34:22] the right and they’re combining them. So it’s hard not to see that status quoists are right
[00:34:28] when they identify that coming together. On the other hand,
[00:34:34] the point of the horseshoe theory, which is rhetorical, is to tell you to dismiss them.
[00:34:40] And that’s where I feel it starts to actually be its own political argument, which you can
[00:34:46] then disagree with or not. Now it’s not actually about who’s legitimate in politics, but it’s just,
[00:34:52] that’s just not your side. So the way that I see it is that instead of it being a horseshoe with
[00:34:57] extremes on both sides, it’s just a new circle. And there are two sides to the new circle.
[00:35:02] On one side,
[00:35:04] people who would be considered on the far extremes of both of their respective teams.
[00:35:10] And on the other side are people who are centrists.
[00:35:12] Yeah. I mean, in some way there’s, there’s an alignment really. The horseshoe theory sort of
[00:35:16] folds into your framework. For me, at least to say that horseshoe theory is correct is not to say that
[00:35:22] the far left and the far right share the same beliefs. Instead, I think it’s about how
[00:35:29] a certain kind of dogmatism leads to the same posture in people, regardless of where
[00:35:34] they are.
[00:35:34] They start out ideologically. So yeah, the far left and the far right may want to build very
[00:35:41] different worlds if they want to build anything at all, but they both probably agree that the
[00:35:46] system should be burned down. And in that sense, they may have more in common with each other than
[00:35:51] normie centrist types do on the left and the right. And that I think is instructive.
[00:35:56] To me, these frameworks are only useful if they actually help us understand what’s happening in
[00:36:02] society. And I’m not so sure about that. I’m not so sure about that. I’m not so sure about that.
[00:36:04] I’m not so sure that the left-right framework is useful anymore. I don’t think it helps anyone
[00:36:09] understand anything, let alone convince anyone. Let’s even put aside convincing other people as
[00:36:15] a goal, right? I don’t even think it makes it clear to anyone. But when I start talking to
[00:36:20] people about the health of institutions, all of a sudden they come alive in both directions.
[00:36:26] People want to defend the institutions that they feel are central to their lives,
[00:36:30] and they want to make them better. Other people want to,
[00:36:34] destroy the institutions that they see as obstacles to them leading good lives.
[00:36:40] But that becomes a great, exciting, generative conversation. And the conversations around that
[00:36:47] that I’m in, people leave feeling good, because they feel like they thought about something,
[00:36:54] and they kind of have marching orders that are different.
[00:36:57] Yeah, I think that’s part of the problem. We’ve inherited this language, really,
[00:37:00] from the 20th century, this kind of left-right, liberal-conservative,
[00:37:04] that just doesn’t really map neatly onto the political reality now. And we just don’t
[00:37:09] really have a new language that does. And so we’re in this interregnum, or whatever,
[00:37:15] this in-between space that makes conversation really difficult, and makes situating yourself
[00:37:23] in this political space difficult. I mean, I even struggle with it. I mean, I still very
[00:37:28] much think of myself as of the left, but it’s not so simple anymore. And it’s because of this
[00:37:34] scrambledness, if that’s even a real word. No, that’s right. And the thing that I tried
[00:37:40] in the piece to basically talk about, I think I used this metaphor of when I was in gym class
[00:37:46] in elementary school, our teacher at some point, you know, we had two volleyball teams, and our
[00:37:51] teacher at some point split both teams, and then we combined them to create new teams. And that
[00:37:57] kind of is what I feel like is happening now. There are still two teams. They just look different.
[00:38:04] And they’re sussing themselves out in unusual ways. And as a result, a bunch of people who are
[00:38:09] standing in the middle are trying to figure out which side they belong to, because they’re in
[00:38:15] flux. And we are clearly in a cataclysmic time of change. The question, I think, for us is,
[00:38:24] how do we get out of it with the most possibility for a better future?
[00:38:31] I don’t know. I guess I find it easier to talk about the
[00:38:34] symptoms and the indicators that I do about the solutions. And it’s something you definitely
[00:38:40] touch on. And it’s a recurring theme for me in the show and in some of my writing.
[00:38:45] This collapse of trust in authority and in mainstream institutions like media
[00:38:51] is a major red flag. And if you’re looking for symptoms of the brokenness,
[00:38:57] that’s a really good one. But I also think it’s important to be honest and acknowledge that
[00:39:03] that
[00:39:04] collapse of trust is not just a result of people being blinkered by misinformation online,
[00:39:12] right? That there is an actual cultural divide, and it is playing out in our dominant institutions.
[00:39:18] Like the conversation, for instance, about woke capitalism. What’s interesting about that,
[00:39:25] to me, is that it illustrates this gap between elites and a lot of the public. And I’m setting
[00:39:32] aside here ideological questions. I’m not saying that it’s a good thing. I’m not saying that it’s
[00:39:34] about, you know, what’s right or wrong or good or bad or whatever. The relevant point here for me
[00:39:39] is that the intellectual and political culture in a lot of our dominant institutions, from media to
[00:39:47] academia to corporate America, often doesn’t reflect the ideological diversity of the country.
[00:39:56] And that’s true even if you think part of the problem is that huge chunks in the country are
[00:40:01] just deeply wrong about deeply important questions. And they believe a lot of the questions are wrong.
[00:40:04] And they believe a lot of the questions are wrong. And they believe a lot of the questions are wrong.
[00:40:04] And they believe a lot of the questions are wrong. And they believe a lot of the questions are wrong.
[00:40:04] Maybe that’s true. But the existence of this cultural divide is generating a lot of tension.
[00:40:11] And if you’re a status quoist, that’s not helping your cause.
[00:40:17] Yeah. Like you see it on these massive corporations and you start to think to yourself,
[00:40:23] it’s something about it makes me feel uneasy. And I think that you’re right that
[00:40:28] on some level where we’re playing out mistrust with these institutions,
[00:40:33] I might take us one step back and say, I’m not trying to be, although I feel sympathy with
[00:40:40] Luddites, I’m not actually a Luddite, but it’s hard not to look at the past and say like local
[00:40:46] communities were high trust communities. And a lot of things emerged from local communities,
[00:40:53] even American, the American elite used to be geographically organized. So we had a Midwest
[00:41:00] elite. We had a Southern elite. We had a Eastern seaboard elite. We had a West coast elite.
[00:41:04] And those elites were connected to the non-elites in their region. They’re invested in living in
[00:41:11] the same region. It’s high trust. And then they had corporations that were rooted in those
[00:41:17] geographical areas. If you lived around IBM, IBM is a major multinational corporation, but you also,
[00:41:25] it was your local industry. These things created trust.
[00:41:30] The trust has broken down all throughout the pyramid of our lives. If we don’t have
[00:41:36] local life in this country that feels generative and enriching and like potentially a place of
[00:41:43] opportunity for people, I think a large part of what we’re trying to build on top of that will
[00:41:48] come apart. You wrote something that was, I think, very important and very powerful in your piece.
[00:41:53] And now I’m quoting, to see the cracks in the building before it collapses, that’s a Jewish
[00:41:59] experience.
[00:42:00] To argue about whether the building can be saved or has to be evacuated, that’s a Jewish debate.
[00:42:07] To find a way to somehow invent an entirely new building, that’s a Jewish act. To dismiss the
[00:42:13] cracks as unimportant and suppress questions so that the next day’s news shocks you all over
[00:42:20] again. I wish you luck in your efforts, but don’t confuse
[00:42:25] your approach with the values of Jewish engagement.
[00:42:29] That’s a lovely piece of work.
[00:42:30] And there’s a lot going on there. And I am not Jewish, and I don’t have any connection
[00:42:35] with what you’re describing, really. So I want to give you space to explain what that passage
[00:42:39] really means, because to the extent I do think I understand what you’re saying, it’s important.
[00:42:45] I talked a little bit about America’s brutal and terrifying and kind of magical ability to
[00:42:51] live outside of history or to forget the past the minute it happens. For me, the dynamic,
[00:42:57] part of the reason why I can live inside of that,
[00:43:00] country and access that without it feeling almost inhuman is because I’m also rooted
[00:43:07] in another tradition, which is deeply historical and actually demands constant remembering
[00:43:16] almost in a daily way. For me, the dynamic between those two has been very useful. I feel
[00:43:25] that I can understand many sides and many arguments.
[00:43:30] About the health of a society, because I both feel the imperative of the past and the
[00:43:36] whole of the future. The argument that I was trying to make in that paragraph was that Jews
[00:43:43] historically have lived in lots of societies that have come apart, and they either came apart
[00:43:48] internally or externally. Usually they expelled their Jews or they murdered them. Sometimes they
[00:43:56] came apart in ways that allowed the Jews to leave before that happened. And I think that’s a really
[00:44:00] important point. So the point is, is that we have a diasporic history that has demanded that we
[00:44:09] study our surroundings and that we watch for signs of decay or danger, and that we not take for
[00:44:19] granted the notion that just because the society has been around for a little while, that it’s
[00:44:24] going to be around forever. So what I was encouraging my readers, not just Jewish
[00:44:30] readers, but other Jewish readers, to do is to think about the fact that we have a diasporic history.
[00:44:30] But all readers to do, sort of take that from the Jewish playbook and start to ask yourself,
[00:44:39] what looks healthy here? What looks like it could use a little firming up? What looks like a building
[00:44:46] that’s about to fall down on my head? Be honest with yourself, because your loved ones are in
[00:44:51] that building with you. Part of the key to Jewish history has been in being able to engage with the
[00:44:59] world around us. And I think that’s a really important part of the Jewish history.
[00:45:00] Richly and creatively and smoothly, but also to be honest about it.
[00:45:08] You’ve talked about it in this conversation. You talk about it in the essay itself,
[00:45:12] how we’re in this cataclysmic period of flux, something like that. And I just worry that there
[00:45:19] is an impulse, a temptation to exaggerate the stakes or to exaggerate the level of brokenness
[00:45:26] in order to imbue the…
[00:45:30] The moment with a historical weight that maybe doesn’t quite merit, which is just a really
[00:45:34] stuffy way of saying maybe things aren’t really that bad, comparatively speaking. They’re actually
[00:45:38] maybe as good as they’ve ever been. You know what I mean? And part of it is I just, I continue
[00:45:43] to believe that it’s just really, really hard to even determine what cleavages are real and
[00:45:50] unbridgeable and what cleavages are being manufactured and in some ways are just sort
[00:45:54] of byproducts of our cultural and technological environment, which doesn’t make them
[00:45:59] inconsequential.
[00:46:00] Right. But it does sort of make them contingent. You know what I mean?
[00:46:04] I suspect, particularly in this country, I don’t think that there’s a huge threat of us
[00:46:11] throwing in the garbage institutions that are working really well for a majority of the people
[00:46:20] they’re meant to serve. I think I would ask you to ask yourself, or maybe I would just ask you,
[00:46:28] what’s the worst that could happen?
[00:46:30] I’m thinking about your question, honestly. It’s a good one. And I don’t know what the answer is. I
[00:46:37] suspect that whatever the worst that can happen is not just worse than we imagine. It may be worse
[00:46:43] than we can imagine. And I guess I would say one thing I don’t think you quite do in the piece,
[00:46:50] and if you think I’m wrong about this, please tell me. But I’m not sure you really reckon with
[00:46:57] what it would mean. And this gets at what you’re asking.
[00:47:00] What it would mean, materially and politically, to reject or abandon our institutions. I’m not
[00:47:08] sure you can rebuild society, really, until a prevailing order has collapsed. And the transition,
[00:47:15] at least historically, from one order to another is usually really violent and bumpy and ugly,
[00:47:19] which is why I think a committed brokenness, and as I said on some days, I feel like I am one,
[00:47:26] should really think long and hard about what would come after,
[00:47:30] how hard it was to build the society we have, however screwed up and flawed it might be. And no
[00:47:38] doubt is. We’re not making a movie here. We’re actually talking about how things work in life.
[00:47:46] And I think that the second state, maybe at this point there are three of them, has just
[00:47:54] undone its requirement for a college degree in order to work for the
[00:48:00] government. That is a move to quietly reimagine the importance of a college degree
[00:48:09] in the American economy moving forward. That’s a brokenness move. Nobody shut down all the
[00:48:16] colleges overnight. Nobody decided that people with college degrees were going to be prejudiced
[00:48:22] against, that they couldn’t get jobs, right? What quietly happened and is happening is that
[00:48:29] some people are saying, what if we don’t think about things the way that we’ve always thought
[00:48:34] about them? What if we imagine that we add a second way of thinking about it? To me, that’s
[00:48:41] what I see happening and that’s what I want to encourage. I don’t want to encourage people just
[00:48:46] taking things and throwing them in the middle of the ocean, especially not before they’ve created
[00:48:51] some viable soil on the ground to build something new, but I don’t even think they should do it
[00:48:55] then. I think we should be making moves like that.
[00:48:59] Imagining a future where maybe people don’t have to go into massive debt in order to have jobs.
[00:49:03] And so when I talk about brokenism, I don’t mean that we should burn things to the ground.
[00:49:11] I mean, we should imagine more. Imagine that there’s more opportunity. Imagine there were
[00:49:19] more options. Imagine there were more ways of getting people better, safe, happier,
[00:49:27] richer in whatever way you want.
[00:49:29] Think about it, lives. And what if the roots that we’ve created right now,
[00:49:36] what if we just make more of them? That’s how I think of it.
[00:49:40] I like that you went there. I mean, in some ways, I’m talking to myself as much as I’m talking to
[00:49:46] you. I am someone who, if I’m being honest and I try to be, I incline towards cynicism.
[00:49:52] And I’m working really hard to resist that. And what I was getting at was maybe speaking
[00:49:59] to the brokenness out there and to the brokenness in me, right? That to be a brokenness maybe isn’t
[00:50:03] necessarily to be a fatalist or even worse, a nihilist. And I think we’re seeing this a lot.
[00:50:09] And I think we’re seeing more of it on the right than the left with all the caveats that that
[00:50:13] implies. But a politics of contempt for the present order, however justified, can become
[00:50:21] just pure negation in the absence of any coherent alternative vision. And that is the road to
[00:50:28] ruin.
[00:50:29] That I worry we’re on, particularly for people who are feeling more like brokenness, right? Because
[00:50:34] it’s like, well, what the hell is the next step after that? If things are broken, then it’s like,
[00:50:38] you know, you pack up your shit and you go home and you wait for the apocalypse, right?
[00:50:42] But politically, that’s a dead end. And I don’t want to stop there.
[00:50:46] Yeah, I think that this is the challenge with the piece, actually, which is that the language is at
[00:50:52] once evocative, but it’s also a little wrong. A friend of mine said, you know, you actually don’t
[00:50:57] mean brokenness, you mean we founders.
[00:51:00] Or another friend was like, I’m a brokenness, but I call myself a buildist. Like, I want to build
[00:51:04] stuff.
[00:51:05] I like that. I like that.
[00:51:06] You like buildist. Okay, we’ll put you down.
[00:51:08] Yeah, I mean, it’s a little clunky, but I like the sentiment.
[00:51:11] Right. The challenge for me, of course, is that I feel like what I was trying to do,
[00:51:16] because I’m sort of a newspaper girl at heart, I believe in the idea of mirroring back
[00:51:22] to readers what I feel they’re telling me. And so I was trying to mirror back the feeling that I feel
[00:51:29] right now, in this moment, which is a feeling of frustration. And I was just trying to sit with
[00:51:37] people with their frustration. But you’re right, that after you sit for a little bit with your
[00:51:42] frustration, the question for me then is, well, then what? What do we do when a reader looks at
[00:51:49] me and says, thank you for articulating my frustration. I realize you’re right. I am
[00:51:54] exasperated. I do want something new. Now what?
[00:51:59] And that’s where I think the term will start to fall apart a little bit. So hopefully it’ll
[00:52:04] capture its moment. Maybe we’ll move really quickly through brokenism into buildism. And
[00:52:09] nobody will remember my term because it was such a flash in the pan and everyone just moved right
[00:52:14] into an optimistic building phase. So I now have what to hope for.
[00:52:20] I think that brought us to a natural conclusion. I guess I’ll just end by
[00:52:24] echoing what I’ve said earlier, which is, I think you did a public service.
[00:52:29] By framing the debate in this way, regardless of how I feel, which, as I said, varies
[00:52:36] by the day, I do think it’s really important to have a language, to have terms that capture a
[00:52:43] moment and clarify the stakes. And I think you did that in this piece. And for that, I commend you.
[00:52:51] Thanks for this conversation. It was really thought-provoking and
[00:52:54] challenging. And maybe I’ll write about it next.
[00:52:58] I want a new house.
[00:52:59] Thank you so much for being here.
[00:53:00] Thank you so much.
[00:53:18] Eric Janikas is our producer. Patrick Boyd engineered this episode.
[00:53:22] It was edited by A.M. Hall. And Alex Overington wrote our theme music.
[00:53:29] I really enjoyed that conversation. As I told Alana at the beginning and at the end,
[00:53:36] I still don’t really know if I’m a brokenist or a status quoist. And I suspect that’s where a lot
[00:53:44] of people are as well. But that language, that distinction is genuinely useful. And it did give
[00:53:52] me a new way to just think about what’s wrong and where the real fault lines are.
[00:53:59] Let us know what you think about this one. Are you a brokenist or
[00:54:03] are you a status quoist? Drop us a line at thegrayareaatvox.com. And if you appreciated
[00:54:09] this episode, please, as always, share it with your friends on all the socials.
[00:54:23] Thank you.