March 30, 2025 • 49 mins
America's political divisions seem insurmountable, yet beneath the surface lies a compelling counternarrative: the moderate middle hasn't disappeared—it's just been silenced. In this episode, Dr. Lura Forcum, president of the Independent Center, to discuss the surprising vitality of centrist politics (and centrist voters) in a polarized age.
The numbers tell an unexpected story. With 35% of Americans identifying as moderate (compared to 36% conservative and 26% liberal), and nearly half of voters calling themselves independents, the politically homeless constitute a sleeping giant in American politics. Research from the Independent Center reveals these voters often hold nuanced positions that transcend partisan binaries—typically leaning left on social issues while favoring conservative economic approaches.
We discuss the psychology driving our political dysfunction and Dr. Forcum explains how we've transformed political parties from governing partners into tribal identities—"in-groups" we cooperate with and "out-groups" we compete against. "Democracy wasn't designed for this kind of outgroup behavior," she says. When we view opposing parties as enemies rather than collaborators, we are attacking democracy's essential foundation.
Perhaps most hopeful is Dr. Forcum's observation that local politics still functions because it demands cooperation: "Trash needs collecting, roads need paving—these necessities force us to work together." This pragmatic approach to governance closely resembles what independent voters want nationally. By building a stronger independent identity and embracing political participation beyond partisan warfare, these moderate voters might hold the key to breaking America's political deadlock.
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dr. Forcum (00:00):
So I think this explains so much of our
political process right now, andI want people to be aware of
this, because democracy reallywasn't designed for this kind of
outgroup behavior.
Right, If you're going to lookat the other party not as
somebody that you need to workwith and govern with, but as the
(00:20):
other side and it's okay totake from them, it's okay to
harm them.
You don't need to cooperatewith them.
You's okay to harm them.
You don't need to cooperatewith them, you compete with them
.
That, to me, is a reallyserious problem.
Shawn (00:37):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
In an era dominated by extremes, trumpism pulling the
Republican Party to the farright and a Democratic Party
grappling with its identity amidprogressive and centrist
tensions, many Americans feelpolitically homeless.
Nearly half of all voters nowidentify as independents,
(01:00):
reflecting widespreaddisillusionment with the
two-party system.
Yet, as polarization deepens,moderates and centrists seem to
be vanishing from the politicalstage, squeezed out by
gerrymandering, primary battles,the dominance of ideological
extremes and, frankly, justdisgust with the whole process.
In this Trump era, we areexperiencing an asymmetric
(01:24):
increase in extreme politicalattitudes among both elites and
citizens, along with the rise ofthe alt-right movement.
Political polarization in theUnited States has reached
unprecedented levels, with thegap between Democrats and
Republicans wideningdramatically in recent years
(01:48):
years.
According to a 2023 PewResearch study, only 38% of
Americans have a positive viewof the Republican Party, which
is down from 66% in 1994.
And the Democrats fare prettymuch just as poorly, with 39% of
Americans having a positiveview of the party.
Meanwhile, surveys show thatmoderates remain a significant
portion of the electorate 35% ofAmericans identify as moderate,
(02:09):
compared to 36% conservativeand 26% liberal.
These moderate voters oftenhold nuanced views that defy
partisan binaries, making thempivotal in tight elections.
My guest today is Dr Lura Forcum.
She's a consumer psychologistand former marketing professor,
and currently the president ofthe Independence Center, which
(02:31):
focuses on researching thevalues and priorities of
independent voters.
Dr Forcum's research suggeststhat moderate and centrist
voters tend to lean left onsocial issues and right on
economic matters.
By amplifying the voice ofthese moderate voters, dr Forcum
and the Independence Center aimto turn down the temperature on
heated political debates andpromote more thoughtful, nuanced
(02:55):
discussions about policy issues.
Their work highlights that manyAmericans share common ground
on various issues, despite theperception of deep divisions
perpetuated by partisan rhetoric.
But who are these centristvoters, what issues resonate
with them, and can they stillshape policy in a polarized
nation?
We discuss this and also whetherthere's hope for bridging
(03:17):
America's political divide andwhat it might take to appeal to
this elusive middle ground.
Could a new centrist movementemerge to challenge the status
quo, or are we too far gonealready?
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
(03:40):
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
.
Let's do a deep dive, dr Forcum.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Dr. Forcum (04:00):
Great.
Thank you so much for having me, Shawn Great Thank you so much
for having me, Shawn .
Shawn (04:02):
So it's probably not too controversial to say that we're
living through a political erain the United States in which
it's really difficult to imaginethat any moderation or any
centrism exists.
You know, while centrism made upthe backbone of American
politics for decades, it reallyfeels as if extremism on both
the left and the right, butprimarily on the right right now
(04:24):
, is ascendant.
And in that world it's reallyhard to imagine how we bring
down the temperature, how wedevelop policies that are
palatable to the majority of thepopulation and, I guess,
frankly, how we maintain sometype of civic peace.
And if you stretch that out, itfeels like we're living through
a very existential moment forthe country.
But the reality is that thepopulace, the voting public, is
(04:45):
largely centrist.
If we remove questions aboutparty affiliation and ask about
policy, we often do get clearmajorities across the partisan
aisle that agree on a lot ofpositions.
So that suggests to me thatthere must be some I don't know,
let's maybe call it a third wayto do politics that might help
us bridge the divide, and I knowthat this is some of the stuff
(05:06):
that you study at theIndependence Center, so I'm glad
to have you here to talk aboutit.
Dr. Forcum (05:10):
Yes, absolutely.
I totally agree with you.
There's more space in thecenter than we really think
about or hear about in the mediaor from politicians.
Shawn (05:21):
And I suppose you know.
Building off of that, that iswhat we hear from the media and
from politicians.
It does seem like we are anextremely divided country, and
not just that we are Republicansand Democrats, because, you
know, in our modern politicalhistory that's what those are,
the two parties that we have tochoose from.
It feels like we arediametrically opposed to each
(05:41):
other, that we can't livetogether, but centrism must
still exist.
I think the research that youdo suggests that it does so.
Who is the political centristin the United States, and what
does he or she want?
Dr. Forcum (05:53):
So the Independence Center, where I work, we do
quite a bit of polling andresearch and focus groups trying
to understand people who areindependents, who they may lean
right or lean left, but theyreally say neither party is my
home.
And what we saw in the lastelection was they're really
(06:14):
concerned about issues likeaffordability and inflation and
I think those drove a number ofvoters in the last election.
I have other research I'veworked on that is specifically
designed to get at this issue ofwhat are the real groups of
voters within the Americanelectorate.
(06:34):
So that was a research projectcalled Beyond Polarization, and
the reason we named it that thisis with my colleague, erin
Norman.
The reason we named it that wasbecause we feel like political
labels like right and left,republican and Democrat actually
obscure a lot of areas whereeven within the same party,
people view policy differently,right, and where, across party
(06:59):
lines, there's surprisingagreement.
So I could go a little bit moredeeply into that research.
But the striking thing aboutthat was, you know, if you
believe, that the parties aremade up of individuals who are
just fundamentally differentfrom each other in terms of
their beliefs, their morals,their values.
(07:22):
We expected we'd be able tofind that empirically with data
and we didn't.
Shawn (07:29):
Well, let's talk about a specific policy area, or, I
guess, a basket of goods, ofpolicies, so we can maybe kind
of ground this in something thatseems real to people.
So that has you know.
When I say Project 2025, thatshould mean something to a lot
of people in the United States.
Right, it's a basket of rightwing extremist policies that
(07:50):
have been embraced.
They were embraced by DonaldTrump when he was running for
office and now seem to beembraced, or at least embodied
in some of the proposals thathe's pushing, and that trickles
down to the Republican Party.
The fascinating thing about thisis that, while Trump won the
election, most voters have anegative view of the policies
that are embodied in Project2025.
(08:11):
And so one of the things thatI'm worried about is the
influence that politicians thatenjoy a wide populist appeal
have over the electorate to swaythe electorate, have over the
electorate to sway theelectorate right, such that
people that may disagree with aparticular policy, but, like the
policymaker, can change theirview.
And so that would suggest then,or it would require, that there
(08:36):
is a counterbalance to that,and so the question I have here
is that if people actually dofeel that some of the proposals
are extreme and yet we live in aworld in which politicians
benefit from extremism and themedia benefits from highlighting
that extremism.
How do you think that moderatepoliticians and a responsible
(08:59):
media could better highlight thecommon ground?
How would they go about doingthat and how should they?
Dr. Forcum (09:06):
Oh well, you, just you.
You're only asking me to solvethe whole problem.
That's no big deal.
I want to just sort of talkabout one aspect of what you're
talking about, because I thinkwe bring different frames with
how we look at things, sincewe're trained differently.
And one of the things to methat's very interesting about
(09:26):
Project 2025 and this sort oflarger dynamic that you're
noting with the ability ofpoliticians to bring people
along with them on certainpolicy positions, is that I see
this in-group, out-group dynamicbecoming increasingly
influential and characteristicof the of US politics, and I
(09:50):
don't know if this is somethingthat people study within
political science, but withinsocial psychology, in-groups are
.
You know, these historicallywould have been our tribes,
right, but now they're like ourneighbors, our neighborhood, our
community, our family andfriends, right.
That's our in group and our outgroups are the people who are
(10:14):
against us.
They are the people who are notlike us.
So, you know, in recent historyit's been people from rival
nations, right, like at somepoint history it's been people
from rival nations, right, likeat some point Russia would have
felt like a strong outgroup to alot of Americans.
And the problem, I see, is thatnow we have.
The in-group is our politicalparty and the out-group is the
(10:38):
opposing party.
And so when somebody is lookingat Project 2025, if you're a
Republican and that's yourin-group, I think you look at
that document and say, yeah,this is fine and it's because we
trust within the in-group andwe believe that the in-group is
for people we cooperate with andwe can trust them to look out
(11:02):
for us.
We can trust them that they'regoing to do the right thing.
We trust them that we have thesame values.
The out group is the totalopposite of this.
Right, we compete with outgroups, we take from out groups.
We don't owe them things and wedon't trust them.
And so when it's an out groupthat is proposing a bundle of
(11:23):
policies like Project 2025, wecan't understand why anybody
would look at it and not beconcerned.
And so I think this explains somuch of our political process
right now, and I want people tobe aware of this, because
democracy really wasn't designedfor this kind of outgroup
behavior.
Right, if you're going to lookat the other party not as
(11:46):
somebody that you need to workwith and govern with, but as the
other side, and it's okay totake from them, it's okay to
harm them.
You don't need to cooperatewith them, you compete with them
.
That, to me, is a reallyserious problem and I you know
fixing the incentives of electedofficials and media is really
(12:07):
difficult.
But I do think there's a reallystrong need for individual
citizens to understand how thisin-group, out-group dynamic
creeps into our politicalprocess, because I think that's
how we start to name it and saythis is really unhealthy Right.
Shawn (12:24):
So let's stick with this idea of the lens that we see
this through, or at least let mepreface my next question by
saying or acknowledging that Iam seeing this through a very
particular lens.
But I think this is a narrativethat we hear, which is you know
that both parties have theirextremists that are probably
dominant in the party and that,particularly on the right, that
(12:46):
it's very difficult to findcommon ground, that it's very
difficult to find moderates,people in the Republican Party
that are willing to work withDemocrats, and I'm sure there's
a fair grievance on the otherside that it's very difficult to
find moderate Democrats thatare willing to work with
Republicans.
But, assuming that those peopleexist, they seem to be kind of
lost in the wilderness right nowand it's hard to pinpoint who
(13:08):
those folks are.
So I guess this is atwo-pronged question, specific
to some of the work that you'vedone at the Independence Center
with the research and thepolling.
What are some of the findingsand policy preferences that you
think might be ripe for commonground to build some type of a
centrist coalition off of?
And then, what advice would yougive to the Democratic Party
(13:28):
right now, which is the outparty it's the opposition in
trying to build and find thatcommon ground.
Dr. Forcum (13:34):
So it's, you know, really interesting actually some
recent polling that theIndependence Center did just
prior to Donald Trump'sinauguration.
We're trying to get a baselineas part of an effort to hold
elected officials the presidentand Congress accountable.
In order to do that, we thought, well, we need to understand
(13:56):
what people are expecting, andwe will go back and poll them
later in the year or early nextyear and find out the extent to
which those expectations weremet.
Expectations were met, but whenwe asked them about these kind
of policy preferences, we saw,across the board, interest and
support for fiscalresponsibility and addressing
(14:17):
the deficit, and so I think thisis surprising, because that's
not something that peopletypically associate really
strongly with the democraticplatform, but we find it, and so
I think that you know we coulddo a lot more research to unpack
what that means to people.
When they say it, I don't thinkthat what they are currently
(14:40):
seeing the Trump administrationpursue necessarily comports with
financial or fiscalresponsibility in the deficit,
right?
So I don't think that Democratsare looking at this and saying,
hey, this is what we had inmind, but that is one of the
issues, and I think it could bedone much better, and my advice
(15:01):
would be on both the left andright.
We need Congress to step in,retake the power of the purse.
Need Congress to step in,retake the power of the purse
and, instead of having theexecutive make executive order
based changes that aresupposedly in service of more
fiscal responsibility, why haveCongress do it right?
(15:23):
We don't need a change that'sgoing to bounce back and forth
every four years when theadministration changes hands.
We need Congress to actually belooking at these programs and
saying could some of thesethings be more efficient?
Are they fair?
Do they follow the law?
And right now neither side isdoing that.
Shawn (15:54):
So when we talk about building coalitions and making
policy, there are two approachesat which there are at least two
approaches at which this can bedone.
And one is externally, andthat's really at the grassroots
voter level, right?
So the pressure that the votercan put on the government and on
Congress and on the presidencyto make change.
And then the other is internal,that's the elite, so the, the
electeds making the policy.
And so I have two questions.
The first question is if wefocus on the external.
(16:16):
I could imagine that if we areinterested in, or if we believe
that a coalition of centrist andmoderate voters managed to
realize policy that speaks to abroad base within the electorate
, realize policy that speaks toa broad base within the
electorate, that that is goodfor democracy.
I could imagine that in ourcurrent environment, this
(16:37):
extreme hyper-polarizedenvironment that we're living
through, actually turns them offfrom participating, and I'm
afraid that we might be livingthrough a period like that.
So how do you think we couldactually encourage more moderate
voters to engage in thepolitical process in this period
of time when it doesn't seemlike there's much purchase in
that?
Dr. Forcum (16:53):
Yeah, I totally agree with you that they are
that likely a lot of centristand independent voters are
wanting to drop out of this.
I think it's it's gotten sortof punishing to participate in
politics, because it's like youcan't even talk to people
without being sure that theyagree with you, right, like it's
the third rail of aconversation, and so one of the
(17:18):
things that the IndependenceCenter is trying to do is sort
of create this identity thatsays, hey, you might not feel
like you are strongly a part ofeither one of these parties, but
it's still.
We want you to participatepolitically.
And the other thing we'retrying to say is you don't have
to vote for a third partycandidate to be an independent.
(17:40):
You can be an independent andvote straight ticket Democrat.
You can vote straight ticketRepublican.
But the thing that we think isreally powerful about these
independent voters is that theytend to swing vote, they tend to
split ticket vote, and by doingthat, they're keeping the
parties accountable because youcan't.
(18:01):
You actually, you know theydelivered the election to Trump
this time, but to Biden lasttime, and if you can't count on
this, baked in support from yourbase, to me this seems like one
of the few sort of pressurepoints that's even available to
us, because this isaccountability.
These are voters who care moreabout you addressing the issues
(18:24):
that concern them than they careabout a particular party
holding power, and so, where wesee independents being very
concerned about affordabilityand inflation, our expectation
is that they are going to turnout in the midterm and vote
according to whether that wasdelivered or not.
(18:46):
So to me it seems like this isreally the only thing that's
available right, because if Iwant to to your earlier point if
I want to change themotivations of people who have
already been elected into officeor change the incentives of the
media, I mean these are massiveprojects that groups with
(19:07):
incredible financial resourceshave been working on for years
with little effect, so I can't.
I'm not sure how available thatis to us, but I do think trying
to motivate people and sayinglike, yeah, I know politics kind
of sucks right now, but but wethink that you are an important
part of making it better.
And I'm not even telling youhow to vote.
(19:28):
I'm not saying get out thereand vote third party.
I'm saying like, get out thereand vote for the things that you
think are the difference, evenif it's not along party lines.
Shawn (19:41):
So the flip side of this is the internal folks, so the
elites, the elected officials.
I think there's this generalcommon knowledge or sense that
moderates in the party havealways played a very in both
parties.
The Republican and Democratichad always played a very
important role in wellmoderating policies that come
(20:02):
out of the party but alsorepresenting the country, even
if they reside within one partyor the other.
By moderating, by embracingcentrism, they're also embracing
bipartisanship, whichostensibly means that ultimate
policy is a balance and it's anegotiation that represents a
wider swath of the populationthan just one party or the other
(20:23):
could.
Increasingly, we've seenmoderates in Congress pushed out
of office, either choosing toretire or pushed out by more
extreme politicians, and theRepublican Party has done a very
good job, especially in theTrump era or we could even we
could say that the Tea Partyprobably started this of
primarying their own and thenreplacing some of the moderates
(20:45):
with more extreme members.
Democratic Party has seen someof this as well.
But if we want to make thisreal in this last congressional
election or it was also thepresidential election, but in
2024, manchin and Sinema, two ofthe maybe last remaining
centrists, whether or not youagree with them in the
Democratic Party chose to retireas opposed to run again because
(21:06):
they just didn't see themselvesas having a chance retire as
opposed to run again becausethey just didn't see themselves
as having a chance.
But the reason I think this isimportant is because we have
built our democracy on thisprinciple that we need moderates
in government, and we're losingthem, and so I'm going to paint
with a broad brush here and youcan disagree if you want, but
it does seem like at least rightnow, and if we agree that both
(21:29):
parties are going through sometype of a transition that the
Republican Party seems to befirmly in the Trump camp right
now.
The Democratic Party is alsoevolving right now, but they're
relatively quiet, and so Ipersonally feel as if we can't
really expect to see much out ofthe Republican Party right now
in the way of moderation, andthe Democrats haven't figured
(21:51):
out how to do that yet.
So the question I have is howdo you think that the Democrats
if we were to expect them to bethe responsible party here to do
that how could they build anenduring coalition that attracts
Trump voters in such a way thatthey could moderate future
messaging that is appealing and,I suppose builds the Democratic
(22:13):
base and provides some type ofa balance to the policy that's
coming out of DC now.
Dr. Forcum (22:18):
Yeah.
So from the outside, it's veryhard for me to see why they are
sort of pursuing the line that Isee them pursue, which is not
to open their arms todisaffected Trump voters and say
hey, thank you for your support.
Like you know, you're welcomehere, right.
(22:43):
Like, what I hear Democrats sayis we don't want those voters.
If you ever voted for Trump,you're a bad person and we don't
want you, and I don't see howthey can build a coalition as
long as that is the message, youknow.
I don't hear the same thingfrom Republicans, which I find
really curious.
(23:03):
For all their criticism ofDemocrats and the left, I don't
ever hear them saying we don'twant your votes.
If you ever voted for aDemocrat, we don't want you.
And so I'm very curious aboutwhat it is internally within the
Democratic Party that it makesit so hard to say you know, I
(23:25):
don't even think I would saytook you a while, but at least
you're here.
But it seems like there shouldbe a lot of potential responses
to voters who no longer arealigned with the Trump message
to come to come to a differentparty, sort of somebody who
(23:45):
enjoys observing politics reallytruly from an independent
vantage.
I don't have a team, I am a trueindependent.
I am dissatisfied with both ofthem.
What has surprised me fromwatching is that, rather than
the Republican takeover by Trumpbeing an opportunity for
(24:06):
Democrats, it seems to reallyweaken the party.
Being an opportunity forDemocrats, it seems to really
weaken the party, and thatsurprises me.
Maybe it wouldn't surprise apolitical scientist, but it
surprised me because and itseems like you know, what's
happened is they've kind ofgotten stuck in saying, well,
we're not that guy, but theydon't really have an argument
(24:26):
about who they are and whatthey're offering.
But they don't really have anargument about who they are and
what they're offering, and Ithink until they have that, it's
going to be really hard to winover not, you know disaffected
Trump voters and to build thecenter coalition that we're
talking about, even absent theissue that they seem to
fundamentally not want to opentheir arms to people who who may
(24:47):
have previously not supportedthem.
Shawn (24:50):
How much research have you done and, if you've done any
, about how much independent andI suppose conservative or
Republican voters really caredabout some or do care about some
of the culture war issues?
Dr. Forcum (25:07):
That is a great question and I don't have data
on it.
I really I wish I did, becauseI think it's a really important
question.
My read my personal read of thelast election is that voters
were giving Republicans inCongress and the White House a
mandate that was about economics, right, because you know
(25:30):
Republicans were the only onesaying, hey, this wasn't great,
it could be better or a verystrong version of that.
And Democrats message was no,the economy is fine, look at all
these numbers which is just notpersuasive to voters, right?
That's like saying you know youfeel financially stretched and
(25:52):
we're saying you're wrong aboutyour feelings.
So I really think the mandatethat they got was around
affordability and inflation.
I don't think it was one aboutsocial policy at all, but they
certainly have interpreted it.
It seems to me that Republicanshave interpreted this as a
social mandate around socialpolicy, but unfortunately I
(26:15):
don't have data that really canspeak to that issue.
Shawn (26:19):
So the reason I ask is because I think this might be,
this might touch on part of thereason that Democrats are really
struggling with reaching out toTrump voters right now.
I think there's a schism withinthe Democratic Party wherein,
you know, we all place, ifpolicy preferences are a basket
of goods, we have some that aremore important to us than others
(26:41):
, and I think there is a largesegment of the Democratic Party
that identifies, like humanrights or civil rights issues as
being crime, right, that itkind of that people have to
clear that bar before they'llhave a conversation about
anything else related to policy,and that if people don't clear
(27:01):
that bar, then it is not to pickon Hillary Clinton here, but it
is somewhat deplorable, right.
And I think there is thiscontingent in the Democratic
Party that is really strugglingwith this idea that Trump voters
could embrace Trump for theeconomic policy per se, while
also disagreeing with hisculture war positions, like that
Trump didn't clear that bar,the culture war bar, and so
(27:24):
therefore he shouldn't you know,nobody should support him at
all, and so therefore, I thinkDemocrats are just struggling
with seeing, I suppose, thehumanity in Trump voters not
necessarily Republican, but inTrump voters, and I think that's
going to be a very difficulthurdle in the future.
Dr. Forcum (27:41):
Yeah, no, I definitely understand that, but
I also want to kind of highlightthat this is also really
typical of outgroup thinking,right, which is to look at an
outgroup and paint them with avery broad and negative brush.
So one interpretation that youcould make about Republican
(28:02):
voters is, yeah, they care abouttheir pocketbook more than the
well-being of these groups thatDemocrats were vocally
advocating to protect.
But you could make a differentattribution, right, and if you
know and talk to Republicans,that's one thing that I suspect
(28:23):
would make you make a differentattribution, because you might
talk to Republicans who saythings like, um, you know, I, uh
, I support these things, but Igot to feed my family, right.
Or I support these things, butI don't think that the, the way
the Democrats are talking aboutthem is a reasonable
(28:46):
conversation, right.
So, like you could imaginedifferent ways to kind of
attribute viewpoints to voterswho disagree with you, and to me
, it's sort of like I seedemocracy as being more
effective when we're willing toentertain the possibility that
people disagree with us forreasons that aren't really about
(29:07):
character, right, that theycould have good and decent
reasons for making the decisionsthat they did, and I certainly
have seen a lot of stuff onsocial media that is just like
incredibly negativecharacterizations of Trump
voters.
Like incredibly negativecharacterizations of Trump
voters, and while, on one hand,I understand that tendency, on
(29:28):
the other hand, you know,republicans are doing the same
thing to Democrats, right, andit's just.
It's not creating anenvironment where we can govern
effectively and I think we needto stop even though it's highly
bonding to get together withmembers of your own in-group and
denigrate the out-group.
We are social animals, but it'snot leading us to a politics
(29:52):
that's very productive and it'snot the corrective that we need
to the environment where we areright now and having two parties
(30:16):
that are in just entrenchedwarfare with one another rather
than governing right.
Are we going to fail the CRthis week?
Are we going to shut down?
The government Like this isabsurd.
Shawn (30:28):
So one of the things, one of the areas in which your work
and research touches on, isbranding and rebranding.
So this conversation is makingme wonder if the Democratic
Party needs a rebrand, if itneeds a facelift, and if so, how
do you think they should goabout doing that?
What would that look like?
Dr. Forcum (30:48):
I mean.
So I'm sure you've beenwatching this too, but you know,
for the past 10 years or soI've been looking at what I
assume is a realignment of thetwo parties in ways that it's
not clear to me how it's goingto shake out.
Republicans were the party oflimited government, equality
(31:09):
under the law and fiscalresponsibility, and I don't see
any of those as strong talkingpoints right now, either as
talking points or points ofaction, and so it's really hard
for me to say where that processwill ultimately end.
And I think there's a lot ofopen space for Democrats right
(31:30):
now if they would take it to say, hey, fiscal responsibility is
really important.
We can make wise decisionsabout what is fair and equitable
use of our resources.
We can do that.
We don't have to just be thecounterpoint to the Republican
Party.
We can have our own positionabout what fair use of our
(31:56):
resources actually looks like.
And getting back to this pointof in-groups and out-groups, one
of the things that I wish Icould say to every voter in
America is it's very tempting tolook at your own party and say
that's the in group.
They're looking out for me,they will take care of me, and I
think that's what many of thebase of both Republicans and
(32:18):
Democrats have said.
What I would say to you is youare not the in group.
And Democrats have said what Iwould say to you is you are not
the in-group.
The in-group is people andcorporations who are incredibly
wealthy and making contributionsand getting laws passed and not
passed in their favor, and youare not included in that group.
So I think that the DemocraticParty to get back to your
(32:41):
original question, no-transcript.
Shawn (33:09):
So every election has some type of a narrative, and
one of the narratives in, I'mjust calling it, the Trump era
but these elections in which youknow Trump has participated in
so about 2015 on, probably moreso from 2020 on one of the
narratives is that we areengaged in some type of an
existential battle in the UnitedStates between democracy and
authoritarianism.
I guess I'm wondering from youhow much of this do you think is
histrionic, how much do youthink is this is politics and
(33:32):
how much do you think thisactually resonates with voters?
Dr. Forcum (33:36):
You know that's a great question, and I think
about that a lot because I sortof have looked at the aftermath
of this most recent election asbeing what I assume is really
profoundly disorienting toDemocrats.
If what you've been saying topeople is this is an existential
(33:56):
threat, this is the end ofdemocracy, and people ignore you
and elect this person intooffice anyway, right Like, I can
imagine that you would justfeel sort of lost.
And why doesn't anyone shareyour view of reality?
And so this is where I suspectalthough I don't have evidence
to support this, but I suspectthat telling voters they are
(34:20):
responsible for stopping theflow of authoritarianism and
putting it into demagoguery andprotecting democracy is just a
little too much to ask of peopleto do at the ballot box, and I
think they're going to have tooffer a different message,
because at this point I suspectthey seem to many voters like
the little boy who cried wolf,where you kept talking about
(34:43):
awful stuff and it just hasn'tmaterialized.
And I'm not trying to downplayany of the negatives of the
Trump administration.
I think there are a number ofthings that are concerning and
that I would like to see donedifferently, that I assume
courts will step in to interveneand that I would like to see
Congress step in to address.
(35:03):
But I suspect most voters wouldtell you this is not actually
having an effect on my dailylife.
Shawn (35:12):
So in the green room we were talking a little bit about
where the centrist experiment ifwe can call it that might be
working and where it isn't.
And you had said that you feellike it's succeeding a bit more
at the local and state level andthat actually where we're
seeing some of the air on fireis at the federal level.
And so I guess I'm wondering ifyou could flesh that out a
(35:34):
little bit more like what youmean by that, and then, drawing
on the work that you do at theIndependent Center, what
strategies do you think or doyou recommend that centrist
voices, both on the I supposeyou know that lean left and lean
right, or just our purecentrist, pure independence,
could be employing to build thistype of a coalition?
And I'm just going to say,maybe bring us back to some type
(35:57):
of sanity.
Dr. Forcum (35:59):
So, yeah, what we were talking about earlier is
something that I've noticedquite a bit in my community and
state, and maybe you have too,which is that you know, within
my town, especially right withinmy county, we have certain
needs that you just can't argueabout, right, like the trash has
(36:22):
to get picked up, kids have tobe able to attend school, we
have to pave roads, we have tohold elections, and that sort of
forces us to work together andsolve our local issues and
business in a way that you don'tsee at the federal government
level, right?
So Congress has not as much todo with our daily lives.
(36:45):
You know, there's commerce,there's national defense, and
those are certainly big andimportant issues, but it's not
the same thing as if my kidcan't go to school.
I am in major trouble becausethat's my childcare and also I'd
like for my kids to be able toread, and so it's like, by
(37:05):
forcing us to remain connectedand cooperating with one another
, it almost subsumes thispolitical red blue divide, left,
right divide, back into one ingroup right, where we're all
residents of this town and wehave overriding concerns and we
(37:27):
have to figure out how to worktogether.
And, of course, in the federallevel.
It's very easy for it just tobe a spectator sport and I think
that that is the differencethat we're seeing.
I also think people are verytempted to feel like they're
participating in politics bywatching this spectacle and
(37:47):
talking about it with each other, but that's not actually
political engagement.
It's kind of getting us allangry and combative with each
other in a way that's not evenproductive.
It's not even productive andyou can certainly fundraise and
get a lot of clicks and resharesand donations from people who
(38:08):
are outraged with the other side, but what you can't do is solve
the business of the country andthis is like the really big
problem that I see, that where Ithink, you know, maybe people
would feel better if they didfocus more on their state and
local government and let's kindof take some of the take some of
the energy and and heat awayfrom the national issues.
Shawn (38:32):
So the state of play right now.
If we were to look at the gameboard here, our economy is shaky
right now.
Not sure where that's going togo.
The two parties are at completeloggerheads, right, and we're
staring down, as you mentioned,and actually by the time that
this episode releases, we may bedeep into a government shutdown
(38:52):
or it may have been avoided.
Once again, we'll see.
But that's kind of the state ofplay.
And so, to a lot of partisans,we are in an existential
situation right now, right, andit does feel very dire.
But I have a feeling that youare a bit more hopeful.
So that's my question Do youhave faith that we weather this?
Dr. Forcum (39:14):
I do.
Actually, I think that whathappens when you have change
that is too extreme or toodrastic, right, you start to
motivate people's behavior inways you didn't anticipate.
So when you're really faroutside the lines, I think
that's when you get a corrective, and it can come in lots of
(39:39):
different forms.
Right, it might be a hugegroundswell of democratic
support.
It might be a huge groundswellof independence, running for
office and winning.
But I don't think within oursystem, which has a lot of
processes and structures andinstitutions baked into it,
(40:00):
precisely to moderate extremism,I don't think that we're going
to be stuck with Republicansrunning amok and nothing that
Democrats can do.
I think that it might take ussome time to sort out, but we're
at the Independence Center.
We're trying to look past thesefour years and say you know,
(40:23):
there are constructive thingsthat you can do.
Don't just wring your hands,don't just drop out of politics.
It actually matters more thanever that, even if you don't
feel like a partisan, that youparticipate politically.
And you know, I think it'sreally hard to predict when
you're talking about thedynamics that we're looking at
(40:45):
right now, where it seems likequite a bit of extremism, I
think it's hard to predict howvoters will respond when you are
outside the normal lines, andso I guess I'm hopeful, not in
the sense that I can predictwhat will happen, but in the
sense that there are manymechanisms for people to respond
to things that they don't like,and I'm confident that we will
(41:10):
see responses.
It might just be difficult forus to predict what those are.
I really hope that what we'regoing to see is people who look
at this extreme polarizationthat we're in right now and just
say, like this is, you know,this is not.
This doesn't feel good orhealthy or productive to me, and
(41:30):
I want to find a different wayor better way to participate in
politics.
It doesn't have to be like this.
Shawn (41:36):
What are some projects that you are working on at the
Independent Center right now?
Dr. Forcum (41:40):
Yeah, so we are in a phase of trying to grow our
audience, because we want to beable to talk to and, more
importantly, listen toindependent voters to the
largest extent that we can.
So we have a weekly newsletterwhere we reach out to this
community.
(42:00):
We are regularly running thingslike focus groups or polls,
where we're just trying tounderstand what is important to
you as a voter, regardless ofyour political stripe, and what
are the issues that matter toyou.
That's really one of our coreactivities right now.
(42:21):
In the future, we hope to havesome local meetups, because the
larger thing that we feel likeit's important for us to do is
create an identity where peoplefeel like, hey, I'm not a
neither I'm actually anindependent, and I think feeling
like you're just not part ofeither party isn't actually
(42:44):
meaningful to most people and Idon't think it will correlate to
necessarily politicalengagement, right.
So if we want people to feellike they belong to something
meaningful that results inpolitical participation, then we
need to create the sense ofidentity, which I hope to do by
getting people together inperson just to meet each other
(43:06):
and hear other people who wantto question what a particular
party or elected official isproposing and ask if things
could be done better ordifferently, and so those are
our big things that we're doingthis year.
We're a fairly new organization.
We're just about a year old andwe're very small, so we're very
(43:26):
much in this building phase.
Shawn (43:29):
All right, final question you ready for it?
Mm?
Hmm, what's somethinginteresting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately, and it doesn't have to
be related to this topic, but itcan be.
Dr. Forcum (43:39):
Okay, I have tried to take up watercolor painting.
Oh, this is.
This is totally unrelated topolitics, except that maybe
there's some parallels in thatwatercolor is not very
cooperative and it doesn'tbehave the way I expect it to
much like voters.
So I've got a book that I'mworking through and I'm
(44:04):
practicing and sometimes it'slike, wow, this is amazing, I
could be an artist.
And sometimes it's like this isimpossible and terrible.
Why am I doing this in my sparetime?
But that's my new hobby.
I'm like a month and a halfinto it and it's it's.
It can be very relaxing, but Ihave a whole lot to learn.
Shawn (44:26):
Don't you think a lot of artists probably are in that
space?
Well, I suppose some of themost self reflective artists
right they.
You know, some days they feellike this is great and other
days they feel like they'rehorrible.
Dr. Forcum (44:37):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think too that, like youknow, as a culture we sort of
massively underestimate how muchpractice goes into being an
artist.
I think that we're we assumethat everybody must be a prodigy
and they just picked up a brushand it was.
It was magic, it was a SistineChapel, but this is making me
(44:59):
appreciate just all of thepractice and work that goes into
all different kinds of arts.
So it's been a good and adifferent way to use my brain,
which I'm always looking forsomething, you know, something
to stretch how I normally thinkand do things.
Shawn (45:15):
I think in a lot of ways we live in a zero sum society or
a binary.
In some ways it's an either or,and so one of those is you're
either a scientist or you're anartist, and I've always wondered
for the folks, that kind ofblur, that line, if having their
hands in both those areas makesit a little difficult sometimes
(45:36):
to really find.
You know, your tribe.
Dr. Forcum (45:40):
That's a great point , and actually, you're making me
think of something that thatyou referred to earlier, that I
didn't get to touch on, and thatis that you know when you are
proposing, when you're able totell a policy story or political
story.
That's really extreme, right,like that is a zero sum story
(46:02):
that you're telling.
It's either close the bordersor open them entirely, and in
almost every case, policyconversations are so much more
complex than that.
It's so much more appealing tous, though, to hear a really
simple story, and so I thinkthat's why we like these binary
accounts right, whether you'reeither a writer or you're a math
(46:24):
person.
Right, you're an artist oryou're not, and so I understand
the appeal of these binariesthat we're just see everywhere,
but I also think our politicswould be so much more effective
and so much more humane if wecould step away from the
binaries, and that's whatindependents are doing, but, you
(46:46):
know, as individuals, we can doit too.
You don't have to be one thingor the other.
Shawn (46:52):
Dr Forcum, thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for the work that you'redoing.
I really appreciate it.
Dr. Forcum (46:57):
Thank you so much for having me.
Shawn (47:10):
When we take stock of the American political environment,
it's clear that the pathforward is complex, but
complexity shouldn't lead toinaction.
If you're feeling politicallyhomeless, if neither party feels
particularly comfortable to youor representative of your
preferences particularlycomfortable to you or
representative of yourpreferences, remember that
you're not alone.
Engage with local politics,where nuanced views often find
more traction.
Consider supportingorganizations that promote
(47:33):
bipartisanship and electoralreform, like the Independence
Center.
Most importantly, keep theconversation going.
We have to engage these ideaswith friends and family across
the political spectrum andchallenge the notion that
extremism is the only option.
This across-the-aisle posturingis maybe the only way we can
(47:54):
work towards a politicallandscape that truly represents
the diverse views of allAmericans and saves us from a
really bleak future.
Views of all Americans andsaves us from a really bleak
future.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you.
So I think this explains so much of our
political process right now, andI want people to be aware of
this, because democracy reallywasn't designed for this kind of
outgroup behavior.
Right, If you're going to lookat the other party not as
somebody that you need to workwith and govern with, but as the
(00:20):
other side and it's okay totake from them, it's okay to
harm them.
You don't need to cooperatewith them.
You's okay to harm them.
You don't need to cooperatewith them, you compete with them
.
That, to me, is a reallyserious problem.
Shawn (00:37):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
In an era dominated by extremes, trumpism pulling the
Republican Party to the farright and a Democratic Party
grappling with its identity amidprogressive and centrist
tensions, many Americans feelpolitically homeless.
Nearly half of all voters nowidentify as independents,
(01:00):
reflecting widespreaddisillusionment with the
two-party system.
Yet, as polarization deepens,moderates and centrists seem to
be vanishing from the politicalstage, squeezed out by
gerrymandering, primary battles,the dominance of ideological
extremes and, frankly, justdisgust with the whole process.
In this Trump era, we areexperiencing an asymmetric
(01:24):
increase in extreme politicalattitudes among both elites and
citizens, along with the rise ofthe alt-right movement.
Political polarization in theUnited States has reached
unprecedented levels, with thegap between Democrats and
Republicans wideningdramatically in recent years
(01:48):
years.
According to a 2023 PewResearch study, only 38% of
Americans have a positive viewof the Republican Party, which
is down from 66% in 1994.
And the Democrats fare prettymuch just as poorly, with 39% of
Americans having a positiveview of the party.
Meanwhile, surveys show thatmoderates remain a significant
portion of the electorate 35% ofAmericans identify as moderate,
(02:09):
compared to 36% conservativeand 26% liberal.
These moderate voters oftenhold nuanced views that defy
partisan binaries, making thempivotal in tight elections.
My guest today is Dr Lura Forcum.
She's a consumer psychologistand former marketing professor,
and currently the president ofthe Independence Center, which
(02:31):
focuses on researching thevalues and priorities of
independent voters.
Dr Forcum's research suggeststhat moderate and centrist
voters tend to lean left onsocial issues and right on
economic matters.
By amplifying the voice ofthese moderate voters, dr Forcum
and the Independence Center aimto turn down the temperature on
heated political debates andpromote more thoughtful, nuanced
(02:55):
discussions about policy issues.
Their work highlights that manyAmericans share common ground
on various issues, despite theperception of deep divisions
perpetuated by partisan rhetoric.
But who are these centristvoters, what issues resonate
with them, and can they stillshape policy in a polarized
nation?
We discuss this and also whetherthere's hope for bridging
(03:17):
America's political divide andwhat it might take to appeal to
this elusive middle ground.
Could a new centrist movementemerge to challenge the status
quo, or are we too far gonealready?
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
(03:40):
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
.
Let's do a deep dive, dr Forcum.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Dr. Forcum (04:00):
Great.
Thank you so much for having me, Shawn Great Thank you so much
for having me, Shawn .
Shawn (04:02):
So it's probably not too controversial to say that we're
living through a political erain the United States in which
it's really difficult to imaginethat any moderation or any
centrism exists.
You know, while centrism made upthe backbone of American
politics for decades, it reallyfeels as if extremism on both
the left and the right, butprimarily on the right right now
(04:24):
, is ascendant.
And in that world it's reallyhard to imagine how we bring
down the temperature, how wedevelop policies that are
palatable to the majority of thepopulation and, I guess,
frankly, how we maintain sometype of civic peace.
And if you stretch that out, itfeels like we're living through
a very existential moment forthe country.
But the reality is that thepopulace, the voting public, is
(04:45):
largely centrist.
If we remove questions aboutparty affiliation and ask about
policy, we often do get clearmajorities across the partisan
aisle that agree on a lot ofpositions.
So that suggests to me thatthere must be some I don't know,
let's maybe call it a third wayto do politics that might help
us bridge the divide, and I knowthat this is some of the stuff
(05:06):
that you study at theIndependence Center, so I'm glad
to have you here to talk aboutit.
Dr. Forcum (05:10):
Yes, absolutely.
I totally agree with you.
There's more space in thecenter than we really think
about or hear about in the mediaor from politicians.
Shawn (05:21):
And I suppose you know.
Building off of that, that iswhat we hear from the media and
from politicians.
It does seem like we are anextremely divided country, and
not just that we are Republicansand Democrats, because, you
know, in our modern politicalhistory that's what those are,
the two parties that we have tochoose from.
It feels like we arediametrically opposed to each
(05:41):
other, that we can't livetogether, but centrism must
still exist.
I think the research that youdo suggests that it does so.
Who is the political centristin the United States, and what
does he or she want?
Dr. Forcum (05:53):
So the Independence Center, where I work, we do
quite a bit of polling andresearch and focus groups trying
to understand people who areindependents, who they may lean
right or lean left, but theyreally say neither party is my
home.
And what we saw in the lastelection was they're really
(06:14):
concerned about issues likeaffordability and inflation and
I think those drove a number ofvoters in the last election.
I have other research I'veworked on that is specifically
designed to get at this issue ofwhat are the real groups of
voters within the Americanelectorate.
(06:34):
So that was a research projectcalled Beyond Polarization, and
the reason we named it that thisis with my colleague, erin
Norman.
The reason we named it that wasbecause we feel like political
labels like right and left,republican and Democrat actually
obscure a lot of areas whereeven within the same party,
people view policy differently,right, and where, across party
(06:59):
lines, there's surprisingagreement.
So I could go a little bit moredeeply into that research.
But the striking thing aboutthat was, you know, if you
believe, that the parties aremade up of individuals who are
just fundamentally differentfrom each other in terms of
their beliefs, their morals,their values.
(07:22):
We expected we'd be able tofind that empirically with data
and we didn't.
Shawn (07:29):
Well, let's talk about a specific policy area, or, I
guess, a basket of goods, ofpolicies, so we can maybe kind
of ground this in something thatseems real to people.
So that has you know.
When I say Project 2025, thatshould mean something to a lot
of people in the United States.
Right, it's a basket of rightwing extremist policies that
(07:50):
have been embraced.
They were embraced by DonaldTrump when he was running for
office and now seem to beembraced, or at least embodied
in some of the proposals thathe's pushing, and that trickles
down to the Republican Party.
The fascinating thing about thisis that, while Trump won the
election, most voters have anegative view of the policies
that are embodied in Project2025.
(08:11):
And so one of the things thatI'm worried about is the
influence that politicians thatenjoy a wide populist appeal
have over the electorate to swaythe electorate, have over the
electorate to sway theelectorate right, such that
people that may disagree with aparticular policy, but, like the
policymaker, can change theirview.
And so that would suggest then,or it would require, that there
(08:36):
is a counterbalance to that,and so the question I have here
is that if people actually dofeel that some of the proposals
are extreme and yet we live in aworld in which politicians
benefit from extremism and themedia benefits from highlighting
that extremism.
How do you think that moderatepoliticians and a responsible
(08:59):
media could better highlight thecommon ground?
How would they go about doingthat and how should they?
Dr. Forcum (09:06):
Oh well, you, just you.
You're only asking me to solvethe whole problem.
That's no big deal.
I want to just sort of talkabout one aspect of what you're
talking about, because I thinkwe bring different frames with
how we look at things, sincewe're trained differently.
And one of the things to methat's very interesting about
(09:26):
Project 2025 and this sort oflarger dynamic that you're
noting with the ability ofpoliticians to bring people
along with them on certainpolicy positions, is that I see
this in-group, out-group dynamicbecoming increasingly
influential and characteristicof the of US politics, and I
(09:50):
don't know if this is somethingthat people study within
political science, but withinsocial psychology, in-groups are
.
You know, these historicallywould have been our tribes,
right, but now they're like ourneighbors, our neighborhood, our
community, our family andfriends, right.
That's our in group and our outgroups are the people who are
(10:14):
against us.
They are the people who are notlike us.
So, you know, in recent historyit's been people from rival
nations, right, like at somepoint history it's been people
from rival nations, right, likeat some point Russia would have
felt like a strong outgroup to alot of Americans.
And the problem, I see, is thatnow we have.
The in-group is our politicalparty and the out-group is the
(10:38):
opposing party.
And so when somebody is lookingat Project 2025, if you're a
Republican and that's yourin-group, I think you look at
that document and say, yeah,this is fine and it's because we
trust within the in-group andwe believe that the in-group is
for people we cooperate with andwe can trust them to look out
(11:02):
for us.
We can trust them that they'regoing to do the right thing.
We trust them that we have thesame values.
The out group is the totalopposite of this.
Right, we compete with outgroups, we take from out groups.
We don't owe them things and wedon't trust them.
And so when it's an out groupthat is proposing a bundle of
(11:23):
policies like Project 2025, wecan't understand why anybody
would look at it and not beconcerned.
And so I think this explains somuch of our political process
right now, and I want people tobe aware of this, because
democracy really wasn't designedfor this kind of outgroup
behavior.
Right, if you're going to lookat the other party not as
(11:46):
somebody that you need to workwith and govern with, but as the
other side, and it's okay totake from them, it's okay to
harm them.
You don't need to cooperatewith them, you compete with them
.
That, to me, is a reallyserious problem and I you know
fixing the incentives of electedofficials and media is really
(12:07):
difficult.
But I do think there's a reallystrong need for individual
citizens to understand how thisin-group, out-group dynamic
creeps into our politicalprocess, because I think that's
how we start to name it and saythis is really unhealthy Right.
Shawn (12:24):
So let's stick with this idea of the lens that we see
this through, or at least let mepreface my next question by
saying or acknowledging that Iam seeing this through a very
particular lens.
But I think this is a narrativethat we hear, which is you know
that both parties have theirextremists that are probably
dominant in the party and that,particularly on the right, that
(12:46):
it's very difficult to findcommon ground, that it's very
difficult to find moderates,people in the Republican Party
that are willing to work withDemocrats, and I'm sure there's
a fair grievance on the otherside that it's very difficult to
find moderate Democrats thatare willing to work with
Republicans.
But, assuming that those peopleexist, they seem to be kind of
lost in the wilderness right nowand it's hard to pinpoint who
(13:08):
those folks are.
So I guess this is atwo-pronged question, specific
to some of the work that you'vedone at the Independence Center
with the research and thepolling.
What are some of the findingsand policy preferences that you
think might be ripe for commonground to build some type of a
centrist coalition off of?
And then, what advice would yougive to the Democratic Party
(13:28):
right now, which is the outparty it's the opposition in
trying to build and find thatcommon ground.
Dr. Forcum (13:34):
So it's, you know, really interesting actually some
recent polling that theIndependence Center did just
prior to Donald Trump'sinauguration.
We're trying to get a baselineas part of an effort to hold
elected officials the presidentand Congress accountable.
In order to do that, we thought, well, we need to understand
(13:56):
what people are expecting, andwe will go back and poll them
later in the year or early nextyear and find out the extent to
which those expectations weremet.
Expectations were met, but whenwe asked them about these kind
of policy preferences, we saw,across the board, interest and
support for fiscalresponsibility and addressing
(14:17):
the deficit, and so I think thisis surprising, because that's
not something that peopletypically associate really
strongly with the democraticplatform, but we find it, and so
I think that you know we coulddo a lot more research to unpack
what that means to people.
When they say it, I don't thinkthat what they are currently
(14:40):
seeing the Trump administrationpursue necessarily comports with
financial or fiscalresponsibility in the deficit,
right?
So I don't think that Democratsare looking at this and saying,
hey, this is what we had inmind, but that is one of the
issues, and I think it could bedone much better, and my advice
(15:01):
would be on both the left andright.
We need Congress to step in,retake the power of the purse.
Need Congress to step in,retake the power of the purse
and, instead of having theexecutive make executive order
based changes that aresupposedly in service of more
fiscal responsibility, why haveCongress do it right?
(15:23):
We don't need a change that'sgoing to bounce back and forth
every four years when theadministration changes hands.
We need Congress to actually belooking at these programs and
saying could some of thesethings be more efficient?
Are they fair?
Do they follow the law?
And right now neither side isdoing that.
Shawn (15:54):
So when we talk about building coalitions and making
policy, there are two approachesat which there are at least two
approaches at which this can bedone.
And one is externally, andthat's really at the grassroots
voter level, right?
So the pressure that the votercan put on the government and on
Congress and on the presidencyto make change.
And then the other is internal,that's the elite, so the, the
electeds making the policy.
And so I have two questions.
The first question is if wefocus on the external.
(16:16):
I could imagine that if we areinterested in, or if we believe
that a coalition of centrist andmoderate voters managed to
realize policy that speaks to abroad base within the electorate
, realize policy that speaks toa broad base within the
electorate, that that is goodfor democracy.
I could imagine that in ourcurrent environment, this
(16:37):
extreme hyper-polarizedenvironment that we're living
through, actually turns them offfrom participating, and I'm
afraid that we might be livingthrough a period like that.
So how do you think we couldactually encourage more moderate
voters to engage in thepolitical process in this period
of time when it doesn't seemlike there's much purchase in
that?
Dr. Forcum (16:53):
Yeah, I totally agree with you that they are
that likely a lot of centristand independent voters are
wanting to drop out of this.
I think it's it's gotten sortof punishing to participate in
politics, because it's like youcan't even talk to people
without being sure that theyagree with you, right, like it's
the third rail of aconversation, and so one of the
(17:18):
things that the IndependenceCenter is trying to do is sort
of create this identity thatsays, hey, you might not feel
like you are strongly a part ofeither one of these parties, but
it's still.
We want you to participatepolitically.
And the other thing we'retrying to say is you don't have
to vote for a third partycandidate to be an independent.
(17:40):
You can be an independent andvote straight ticket Democrat.
You can vote straight ticketRepublican.
But the thing that we think isreally powerful about these
independent voters is that theytend to swing vote, they tend to
split ticket vote, and by doingthat, they're keeping the
parties accountable because youcan't.
(18:01):
You actually, you know theydelivered the election to Trump
this time, but to Biden lasttime, and if you can't count on
this, baked in support from yourbase, to me this seems like one
of the few sort of pressurepoints that's even available to
us, because this isaccountability.
These are voters who care moreabout you addressing the issues
(18:24):
that concern them than they careabout a particular party
holding power, and so, where wesee independents being very
concerned about affordabilityand inflation, our expectation
is that they are going to turnout in the midterm and vote
according to whether that wasdelivered or not.
(18:46):
So to me it seems like this isreally the only thing that's
available right, because if Iwant to to your earlier point if
I want to change themotivations of people who have
already been elected into officeor change the incentives of the
media, I mean these are massiveprojects that groups with
(19:07):
incredible financial resourceshave been working on for years
with little effect, so I can't.
I'm not sure how available thatis to us, but I do think trying
to motivate people and sayinglike, yeah, I know politics kind
of sucks right now, but but wethink that you are an important
part of making it better.
And I'm not even telling youhow to vote.
(19:28):
I'm not saying get out thereand vote third party.
I'm saying like, get out thereand vote for the things that you
think are the difference, evenif it's not along party lines.
Shawn (19:41):
So the flip side of this is the internal folks, so the
elites, the elected officials.
I think there's this generalcommon knowledge or sense that
moderates in the party havealways played a very in both
parties.
The Republican and Democratichad always played a very
important role in wellmoderating policies that come
(20:02):
out of the party but alsorepresenting the country, even
if they reside within one partyor the other.
By moderating, by embracingcentrism, they're also embracing
bipartisanship, whichostensibly means that ultimate
policy is a balance and it's anegotiation that represents a
wider swath of the populationthan just one party or the other
(20:23):
could.
Increasingly, we've seenmoderates in Congress pushed out
of office, either choosing toretire or pushed out by more
extreme politicians, and theRepublican Party has done a very
good job, especially in theTrump era or we could even we
could say that the Tea Partyprobably started this of
primarying their own and thenreplacing some of the moderates
(20:45):
with more extreme members.
Democratic Party has seen someof this as well.
But if we want to make thisreal in this last congressional
election or it was also thepresidential election, but in
2024, manchin and Sinema, two ofthe maybe last remaining
centrists, whether or not youagree with them in the
Democratic Party chose to retireas opposed to run again because
(21:06):
they just didn't see themselvesas having a chance retire as
opposed to run again becausethey just didn't see themselves
as having a chance.
But the reason I think this isimportant is because we have
built our democracy on thisprinciple that we need moderates
in government, and we're losingthem, and so I'm going to paint
with a broad brush here and youcan disagree if you want, but
it does seem like at least rightnow, and if we agree that both
(21:29):
parties are going through sometype of a transition that the
Republican Party seems to befirmly in the Trump camp right
now.
The Democratic Party is alsoevolving right now, but they're
relatively quiet, and so Ipersonally feel as if we can't
really expect to see much out ofthe Republican Party right now
in the way of moderation, andthe Democrats haven't figured
(21:51):
out how to do that yet.
So the question I have is howdo you think that the Democrats
if we were to expect them to bethe responsible party here to do
that how could they build anenduring coalition that attracts
Trump voters in such a way thatthey could moderate future
messaging that is appealing and,I suppose builds the Democratic
(22:13):
base and provides some type ofa balance to the policy that's
coming out of DC now.
Dr. Forcum (22:18):
Yeah.
So from the outside, it's veryhard for me to see why they are
sort of pursuing the line that Isee them pursue, which is not
to open their arms todisaffected Trump voters and say
hey, thank you for your support.
Like you know, you're welcomehere, right.
(22:43):
Like, what I hear Democrats sayis we don't want those voters.
If you ever voted for Trump,you're a bad person and we don't
want you, and I don't see howthey can build a coalition as
long as that is the message, youknow.
I don't hear the same thingfrom Republicans, which I find
really curious.
(23:03):
For all their criticism ofDemocrats and the left, I don't
ever hear them saying we don'twant your votes.
If you ever voted for aDemocrat, we don't want you.
And so I'm very curious aboutwhat it is internally within the
Democratic Party that it makesit so hard to say you know, I
(23:25):
don't even think I would saytook you a while, but at least
you're here.
But it seems like there shouldbe a lot of potential responses
to voters who no longer arealigned with the Trump message
to come to come to a differentparty, sort of somebody who
(23:45):
enjoys observing politics reallytruly from an independent
vantage.
I don't have a team, I am a trueindependent.
I am dissatisfied with both ofthem.
What has surprised me fromwatching is that, rather than
the Republican takeover by Trumpbeing an opportunity for
(24:06):
Democrats, it seems to reallyweaken the party.
Being an opportunity forDemocrats, it seems to really
weaken the party, and thatsurprises me.
Maybe it wouldn't surprise apolitical scientist, but it
surprised me because and itseems like you know, what's
happened is they've kind ofgotten stuck in saying, well,
we're not that guy, but theydon't really have an argument
(24:26):
about who they are and whatthey're offering.
But they don't really have anargument about who they are and
what they're offering, and Ithink until they have that, it's
going to be really hard to winover not, you know disaffected
Trump voters and to build thecenter coalition that we're
talking about, even absent theissue that they seem to
fundamentally not want to opentheir arms to people who who may
(24:47):
have previously not supportedthem.
Shawn (24:50):
How much research have you done and, if you've done any
, about how much independent andI suppose conservative or
Republican voters really caredabout some or do care about some
of the culture war issues?
Dr. Forcum (25:07):
That is a great question and I don't have data
on it.
I really I wish I did, becauseI think it's a really important
question.
My read my personal read of thelast election is that voters
were giving Republicans inCongress and the White House a
mandate that was about economics, right, because you know
(25:30):
Republicans were the only onesaying, hey, this wasn't great,
it could be better or a verystrong version of that.
And Democrats message was no,the economy is fine, look at all
these numbers which is just notpersuasive to voters, right?
That's like saying you know youfeel financially stretched and
(25:52):
we're saying you're wrong aboutyour feelings.
So I really think the mandatethat they got was around
affordability and inflation.
I don't think it was one aboutsocial policy at all, but they
certainly have interpreted it.
It seems to me that Republicanshave interpreted this as a
social mandate around socialpolicy, but unfortunately I
(26:15):
don't have data that really canspeak to that issue.
Shawn (26:19):
So the reason I ask is because I think this might be,
this might touch on part of thereason that Democrats are really
struggling with reaching out toTrump voters right now.
I think there's a schism withinthe Democratic Party wherein,
you know, we all place, ifpolicy preferences are a basket
of goods, we have some that aremore important to us than others
(26:41):
, and I think there is a largesegment of the Democratic Party
that identifies, like humanrights or civil rights issues as
being crime, right, that itkind of that people have to
clear that bar before they'llhave a conversation about
anything else related to policy,and that if people don't clear
(27:01):
that bar, then it is not to pickon Hillary Clinton here, but it
is somewhat deplorable, right.
And I think there is thiscontingent in the Democratic
Party that is really strugglingwith this idea that Trump voters
could embrace Trump for theeconomic policy per se, while
also disagreeing with hisculture war positions, like that
Trump didn't clear that bar,the culture war bar, and so
(27:24):
therefore he shouldn't you know,nobody should support him at
all, and so therefore, I thinkDemocrats are just struggling
with seeing, I suppose, thehumanity in Trump voters not
necessarily Republican, but inTrump voters, and I think that's
going to be a very difficulthurdle in the future.
Dr. Forcum (27:41):
Yeah, no, I definitely understand that, but
I also want to kind of highlightthat this is also really
typical of outgroup thinking,right, which is to look at an
outgroup and paint them with avery broad and negative brush.
So one interpretation that youcould make about Republican
(28:02):
voters is, yeah, they care abouttheir pocketbook more than the
well-being of these groups thatDemocrats were vocally
advocating to protect.
But you could make a differentattribution, right, and if you
know and talk to Republicans,that's one thing that I suspect
(28:23):
would make you make a differentattribution, because you might
talk to Republicans who saythings like, um, you know, I, uh
, I support these things, but Igot to feed my family, right.
Or I support these things, butI don't think that the, the way
the Democrats are talking aboutthem is a reasonable
(28:46):
conversation, right.
So, like you could imaginedifferent ways to kind of
attribute viewpoints to voterswho disagree with you, and to me
, it's sort of like I seedemocracy as being more
effective when we're willing toentertain the possibility that
people disagree with us forreasons that aren't really about
(29:07):
character, right, that theycould have good and decent
reasons for making the decisionsthat they did, and I certainly
have seen a lot of stuff onsocial media that is just like
incredibly negativecharacterizations of Trump
voters.
Like incredibly negativecharacterizations of Trump
voters, and while, on one hand,I understand that tendency, on
(29:28):
the other hand, you know,republicans are doing the same
thing to Democrats, right, andit's just.
It's not creating anenvironment where we can govern
effectively and I think we needto stop even though it's highly
bonding to get together withmembers of your own in-group and
denigrate the out-group.
We are social animals, but it'snot leading us to a politics
(29:52):
that's very productive and it'snot the corrective that we need
to the environment where we areright now and having two parties
(30:16):
that are in just entrenchedwarfare with one another rather
than governing right.
Are we going to fail the CRthis week?
Are we going to shut down?
The government Like this isabsurd.
Shawn (30:28):
So one of the things, one of the areas in which your work
and research touches on, isbranding and rebranding.
So this conversation is makingme wonder if the Democratic
Party needs a rebrand, if itneeds a facelift, and if so, how
do you think they should goabout doing that?
What would that look like?
Dr. Forcum (30:48):
I mean.
So I'm sure you've beenwatching this too, but you know,
for the past 10 years or soI've been looking at what I
assume is a realignment of thetwo parties in ways that it's
not clear to me how it's goingto shake out.
Republicans were the party oflimited government, equality
(31:09):
under the law and fiscalresponsibility, and I don't see
any of those as strong talkingpoints right now, either as
talking points or points ofaction, and so it's really hard
for me to say where that processwill ultimately end.
And I think there's a lot ofopen space for Democrats right
(31:30):
now if they would take it to say, hey, fiscal responsibility is
really important.
We can make wise decisionsabout what is fair and equitable
use of our resources.
We can do that.
We don't have to just be thecounterpoint to the Republican
Party.
We can have our own positionabout what fair use of our
(31:56):
resources actually looks like.
And getting back to this pointof in-groups and out-groups, one
of the things that I wish Icould say to every voter in
America is it's very tempting tolook at your own party and say
that's the in group.
They're looking out for me,they will take care of me, and I
think that's what many of thebase of both Republicans and
(32:18):
Democrats have said.
What I would say to you is youare not the in group.
And Democrats have said what Iwould say to you is you are not
the in-group.
The in-group is people andcorporations who are incredibly
wealthy and making contributionsand getting laws passed and not
passed in their favor, and youare not included in that group.
So I think that the DemocraticParty to get back to your
(32:41):
original question, no-transcript.
Shawn (33:09):
So every election has some type of a narrative, and
one of the narratives in, I'mjust calling it, the Trump era
but these elections in which youknow Trump has participated in
so about 2015 on, probably moreso from 2020 on one of the
narratives is that we areengaged in some type of an
existential battle in the UnitedStates between democracy and
authoritarianism.
I guess I'm wondering from youhow much of this do you think is
histrionic, how much do youthink is this is politics and
(33:32):
how much do you think thisactually resonates with voters?
Dr. Forcum (33:36):
You know that's a great question, and I think
about that a lot because I sortof have looked at the aftermath
of this most recent election asbeing what I assume is really
profoundly disorienting toDemocrats.
If what you've been saying topeople is this is an existential
(33:56):
threat, this is the end ofdemocracy, and people ignore you
and elect this person intooffice anyway, right Like, I can
imagine that you would justfeel sort of lost.
And why doesn't anyone shareyour view of reality?
And so this is where I suspectalthough I don't have evidence
to support this, but I suspectthat telling voters they are
(34:20):
responsible for stopping theflow of authoritarianism and
putting it into demagoguery andprotecting democracy is just a
little too much to ask of peopleto do at the ballot box, and I
think they're going to have tooffer a different message,
because at this point I suspectthey seem to many voters like
the little boy who cried wolf,where you kept talking about
(34:43):
awful stuff and it just hasn'tmaterialized.
And I'm not trying to downplayany of the negatives of the
Trump administration.
I think there are a number ofthings that are concerning and
that I would like to see donedifferently, that I assume
courts will step in to interveneand that I would like to see
Congress step in to address.
(35:03):
But I suspect most voters wouldtell you this is not actually
having an effect on my dailylife.
Shawn (35:12):
So in the green room we were talking a little bit about
where the centrist experiment ifwe can call it that might be
working and where it isn't.
And you had said that you feellike it's succeeding a bit more
at the local and state level andthat actually where we're
seeing some of the air on fireis at the federal level.
And so I guess I'm wondering ifyou could flesh that out a
(35:34):
little bit more like what youmean by that, and then, drawing
on the work that you do at theIndependent Center, what
strategies do you think or doyou recommend that centrist
voices, both on the I supposeyou know that lean left and lean
right, or just our purecentrist, pure independence,
could be employing to build thistype of a coalition?
And I'm just going to say,maybe bring us back to some type
(35:57):
of sanity.
Dr. Forcum (35:59):
So, yeah, what we were talking about earlier is
something that I've noticedquite a bit in my community and
state, and maybe you have too,which is that you know, within
my town, especially right withinmy county, we have certain
needs that you just can't argueabout, right, like the trash has
(36:22):
to get picked up, kids have tobe able to attend school, we
have to pave roads, we have tohold elections, and that sort of
forces us to work together andsolve our local issues and
business in a way that you don'tsee at the federal government
level, right?
So Congress has not as much todo with our daily lives.
(36:45):
You know, there's commerce,there's national defense, and
those are certainly big andimportant issues, but it's not
the same thing as if my kidcan't go to school.
I am in major trouble becausethat's my childcare and also I'd
like for my kids to be able toread, and so it's like, by
(37:05):
forcing us to remain connectedand cooperating with one another
, it almost subsumes thispolitical red blue divide, left,
right divide, back into one ingroup right, where we're all
residents of this town and wehave overriding concerns and we
(37:27):
have to figure out how to worktogether.
And, of course, in the federallevel.
It's very easy for it just tobe a spectator sport and I think
that that is the differencethat we're seeing.
I also think people are verytempted to feel like they're
participating in politics bywatching this spectacle and
(37:47):
talking about it with each other, but that's not actually
political engagement.
It's kind of getting us allangry and combative with each
other in a way that's not evenproductive.
It's not even productive andyou can certainly fundraise and
get a lot of clicks and resharesand donations from people who
(38:08):
are outraged with the other side, but what you can't do is solve
the business of the country andthis is like the really big
problem that I see, that where Ithink, you know, maybe people
would feel better if they didfocus more on their state and
local government and let's kindof take some of the take some of
the energy and and heat awayfrom the national issues.
Shawn (38:32):
So the state of play right now.
If we were to look at the gameboard here, our economy is shaky
right now.
Not sure where that's going togo.
The two parties are at completeloggerheads, right, and we're
staring down, as you mentioned,and actually by the time that
this episode releases, we may bedeep into a government shutdown
(38:52):
or it may have been avoided.
Once again, we'll see.
But that's kind of the state ofplay.
And so, to a lot of partisans,we are in an existential
situation right now, right, andit does feel very dire.
But I have a feeling that youare a bit more hopeful.
So that's my question Do youhave faith that we weather this?
Dr. Forcum (39:14):
I do.
Actually, I think that whathappens when you have change
that is too extreme or toodrastic, right, you start to
motivate people's behavior inways you didn't anticipate.
So when you're really faroutside the lines, I think
that's when you get a corrective, and it can come in lots of
(39:39):
different forms.
Right, it might be a hugegroundswell of democratic
support.
It might be a huge groundswellof independence, running for
office and winning.
But I don't think within oursystem, which has a lot of
processes and structures andinstitutions baked into it,
(40:00):
precisely to moderate extremism,I don't think that we're going
to be stuck with Republicansrunning amok and nothing that
Democrats can do.
I think that it might take ussome time to sort out, but we're
at the Independence Center.
We're trying to look past thesefour years and say you know,
(40:23):
there are constructive thingsthat you can do.
Don't just wring your hands,don't just drop out of politics.
It actually matters more thanever that, even if you don't
feel like a partisan, that youparticipate politically.
And you know, I think it'sreally hard to predict when
you're talking about thedynamics that we're looking at
(40:45):
right now, where it seems likequite a bit of extremism, I
think it's hard to predict howvoters will respond when you are
outside the normal lines, andso I guess I'm hopeful, not in
the sense that I can predictwhat will happen, but in the
sense that there are manymechanisms for people to respond
to things that they don't like,and I'm confident that we will
(41:10):
see responses.
It might just be difficult forus to predict what those are.
I really hope that what we'regoing to see is people who look
at this extreme polarizationthat we're in right now and just
say, like this is, you know,this is not.
This doesn't feel good orhealthy or productive to me, and
(41:30):
I want to find a different wayor better way to participate in
politics.
It doesn't have to be like this.
Shawn (41:36):
What are some projects that you are working on at the
Independent Center right now?
Dr. Forcum (41:40):
Yeah, so we are in a phase of trying to grow our
audience, because we want to beable to talk to and, more
importantly, listen toindependent voters to the
largest extent that we can.
So we have a weekly newsletterwhere we reach out to this
community.
(42:00):
We are regularly running thingslike focus groups or polls,
where we're just trying tounderstand what is important to
you as a voter, regardless ofyour political stripe, and what
are the issues that matter toyou.
That's really one of our coreactivities right now.
(42:21):
In the future, we hope to havesome local meetups, because the
larger thing that we feel likeit's important for us to do is
create an identity where peoplefeel like, hey, I'm not a
neither I'm actually anindependent, and I think feeling
like you're just not part ofeither party isn't actually
(42:44):
meaningful to most people and Idon't think it will correlate to
necessarily politicalengagement, right.
So if we want people to feellike they belong to something
meaningful that results inpolitical participation, then we
need to create the sense ofidentity, which I hope to do by
getting people together inperson just to meet each other
(43:06):
and hear other people who wantto question what a particular
party or elected official isproposing and ask if things
could be done better ordifferently, and so those are
our big things that we're doingthis year.
We're a fairly new organization.
We're just about a year old andwe're very small, so we're very
(43:26):
much in this building phase.
Shawn (43:29):
All right, final question you ready for it?
Mm?
Hmm, what's somethinginteresting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately, and it doesn't have to
be related to this topic, but itcan be.
Dr. Forcum (43:39):
Okay, I have tried to take up watercolor painting.
Oh, this is.
This is totally unrelated topolitics, except that maybe
there's some parallels in thatwatercolor is not very
cooperative and it doesn'tbehave the way I expect it to
much like voters.
So I've got a book that I'mworking through and I'm
(44:04):
practicing and sometimes it'slike, wow, this is amazing, I
could be an artist.
And sometimes it's like this isimpossible and terrible.
Why am I doing this in my sparetime?
But that's my new hobby.
I'm like a month and a halfinto it and it's it's.
It can be very relaxing, but Ihave a whole lot to learn.
Shawn (44:26):
Don't you think a lot of artists probably are in that
space?
Well, I suppose some of themost self reflective artists
right they.
You know, some days they feellike this is great and other
days they feel like they'rehorrible.
Dr. Forcum (44:37):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think too that, like youknow, as a culture we sort of
massively underestimate how muchpractice goes into being an
artist.
I think that we're we assumethat everybody must be a prodigy
and they just picked up a brushand it was.
It was magic, it was a SistineChapel, but this is making me
(44:59):
appreciate just all of thepractice and work that goes into
all different kinds of arts.
So it's been a good and adifferent way to use my brain,
which I'm always looking forsomething, you know, something
to stretch how I normally thinkand do things.
Shawn (45:15):
I think in a lot of ways we live in a zero sum society or
a binary.
In some ways it's an either or,and so one of those is you're
either a scientist or you're anartist, and I've always wondered
for the folks, that kind ofblur, that line, if having their
hands in both those areas makesit a little difficult sometimes
(45:36):
to really find.
You know, your tribe.
Dr. Forcum (45:40):
That's a great point , and actually, you're making me
think of something that thatyou referred to earlier, that I
didn't get to touch on, and thatis that you know when you are
proposing, when you're able totell a policy story or political
story.
That's really extreme, right,like that is a zero sum story
(46:02):
that you're telling.
It's either close the bordersor open them entirely, and in
almost every case, policyconversations are so much more
complex than that.
It's so much more appealing tous, though, to hear a really
simple story, and so I thinkthat's why we like these binary
accounts right, whether you'reeither a writer or you're a math
(46:24):
person.
Right, you're an artist oryou're not, and so I understand
the appeal of these binariesthat we're just see everywhere,
but I also think our politicswould be so much more effective
and so much more humane if wecould step away from the
binaries, and that's whatindependents are doing, but, you
(46:46):
know, as individuals, we can doit too.
You don't have to be one thingor the other.
Shawn (46:52):
Dr Forcum, thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for the work that you'redoing.
I really appreciate it.
Dr. Forcum (46:57):
Thank you so much for having me.
Shawn (47:10):
When we take stock of the American political environment,
it's clear that the pathforward is complex, but
complexity shouldn't lead toinaction.
If you're feeling politicallyhomeless, if neither party feels
particularly comfortable to youor representative of your
preferences particularlycomfortable to you or
representative of yourpreferences, remember that
you're not alone.
Engage with local politics,where nuanced views often find
more traction.
Consider supportingorganizations that promote
(47:33):
bipartisanship and electoralreform, like the Independence
Center.
Most importantly, keep theconversation going.
We have to engage these ideaswith friends and family across
the political spectrum andchallenge the notion that
extremism is the only option.
This across-the-aisle posturingis maybe the only way we can
(47:54):
work towards a politicallandscape that truly represents
the diverse views of allAmericans and saves us from a
really bleak future.
Views of all Americans andsaves us from a really bleak
future.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.