Welcome back to HPR Talk, the official podcast of the Harvard Political Review. Each week we'll dive into the ideas and conversations shaping politics today. For the next 15-20 minutes, you'll hear about some of the latest news pieces produced for the HPR this week. And the ideas behind them. I'm Tristan Martinez, I'm a sophomore in L.A.T. House here at Harvard College, and you are listening to UHPR Talk. [Music] Diving into the articles this week, we have won by Staff Rider Sophia Lickdorfield, which is an interview with Ned Price, titled "Making Foreign Policy Less Foreign." Now, Ned Price is a very esteemed individual in U.S. foreign policy, having worked in the U.N., CIA, National Security Council, and State Department. He's a huge resume. Now, with Sophia, they tackled some pretty deep issues, such as balancing transparent accountability and informational security in government agencies. How to react when implementing policies that may go against one's personal beliefs or ethics, as well as just the general state of American foreign policy, which is a lot more nuanced than many may believe. Next article we have up is titled "Reporting Without Fear or Favor," an interview with Peter Baker by Staff Rider Ishaan Mane. Now, Peter Baker is a venerated figure in journalism. He's worked for decades across the New York Times, MSNBC, and the Washington Post, and several different countries, including Afghanistan and Russia. Currently, he is a political analyst for MSNBC, and the Chief White House correspondent for the New York Times. The interview covers a lot of the history of White House Corp. and especially focusing on the President Trump's White House today, which has had some pretty significant changes from past administrations, particularly in his rhetoric. A good portion of the interview is about fact versus opinion-based reporting and analysis, the benefits and trade-offs of each and what roles they should play in different scenarios. Now, I think that there is a lot of wisdom to be found in these two articles, and I really cannot recommend that you check them out enough. And the final article for this week we have is called "The Rise of the Reluctant Independent by Staff Rider Melanie Goldberg." No, I found that this article really resonated with me, and I think it will for you as well, so I brought the author on for an interview. Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with. Hi, I'm Melanie Goldberg. I'm a first year at the college. Just really quickly, could you give your general thesis to this article and your own words? Yeah, I think that throughout history, or the last few decades at least, the political parties, both Republican and Democratic, to Maine ones, obviously, have basically garnered support from a voter base that has stayed relatively consistent, whether it's scandals and other issues. And in the past few years or so, people have felt that I think both the Democratic and the Republican Party are migrating towards their extremes, and the candidates who keep being proposed reflect those extremes. And so what's left is this rise of kind of a reluctant group of independence, not out of, you know, choice to be that way, but out of indecision because they do not have an option. And what made you want to run about this topic? I think this resonated a little bit with me. I feel like a lot of the political candidates that have been coming out on both sides are more extreme than my personal views are. But I think it's also resonated with my family and their friends. I live in a pretty liberal area in at home in California. And I think people were pretty upset about the results of the election, but they weren't necessarily favorable towards Harris either. And so I think it was just kind of my surroundings and people expressing the frustration with both political parties that encouraged me to talk about this. Yeah, and so your article goes over sort of how we got here and you go over two interesting loyalty checks almost the Iran contra fair and the Lewinsky scandal. Why are these two events so important to your argument? Well, two reasons. Well, first off, the Clinton Lewinsky scandal is such a crazy moment because the Democratic Party, and the approval rating going up nine percentage points after the Lewinsky scandal is just a crazy fact. And it honestly just proves the point really well because it's the idea that even though these candidates had scandals and issues, people stood behind them because they thought their policies represented their party and their ideals. And then the Iran contra fair, I think, regulars are pretty well liked president or at least was and I think he's thought a very well. And when people mentioned him, especially Republicans mentioned him, this is not something that gets brought up. But when people mention more recent candidates, they bring up their scandals first. And so even though this was kind of a really dividing point his presidency, when Republican approval ratings remains strong, it just kind of proves the point once again that people in the past were much more supportive of the candidate that was from their party because for whatever reason, it just felt more unified. And so even though this was a pivoting scandal and his campaign in his presidency, it didn't really matter to Republicans. And those are just two examples, especially because Reagan is so well liked that was kind of an obvious one to go for. And so now you're saying that nowadays the candidates aren't so well liked, it's more about the party or voting against the other person in a way. Yeah, I think it's kind of a mix of that. I think it's I think it's that people are voting unless your unless your ideals kind of align with the extreme represented in the candidates that each party is proposing. I think that most people are voting not because they like their candidate, but because they dislike the other one. I knew a lot of people in my area who were like, I don't like Trump, I don't like Harris, but I dislike her less than Trump. And it was kind of a way to evils. Obviously, I think a lot of people would disagree or were different in terms of like quote, quote, how evil I don't necessarily agree. This is just what I've heard. And so I think I think it's interesting because people are now voting not because they like their candidate, but because they dislike the other candidate or they're just not voting. People are just upset. They just don't like the candidates. And you talk about this last election, particularly, you know, currently under a president Trump as sort of the peak of this mass polarization. And would you say that Trump is the cause of this spike or is he sort of just a natural culmination of an ongoing process? I mean, I'm not like a human psychologist and I don't really study the human population, but for my understanding it's kind of a mix of both is that he is the first political care that is very reckless in what he does, like nobody expects it. That's good in some ways. That's bad in others. And I think because of that people, especially Republicans have a difficult time siding with somebody who is so reckless. I also think his policy still has a fairly all represent traditional conservative ideals. Like for example, his terror policies are not particularly historically conservative considering Republicans historically have preferred open markets and less regulation as opposed to more. And so I think people on the right side are more at least pretty frustrated. I mean, especially on the left, they're always fresh. They're always fresh in this Trump. But I think even within the Republican Party, there was a lot of frustration that this person who doesn't necessarily represent traditional conservative ideals is leading the party. And I've heard that and also the statistics show, which is that a significant portion of Republican voters, like even after January 6 for example, left the party because they don't align with those ideals. And that's just very different from what we've seen in the past, which is that even through scandals on both sides of the aisle, these voters are staying with their president. And these people that are leaving their parties or leaving their president do think they might flock to certain third parties like the green or libertarian party that perhaps better represent their beliefs or maybe they're just going to stay independence and vote more independently for Republican or Democrat. I mean, I'm not 100% sure. I know people in the third party that Joe Stein got a lot more votes in this past election than they have previously. I personally don't believe that a third party is actually very viable. Just because it has never been. And because I think that the traditional ideals of levels of conservative are pretty well opposed. And there at least was in the past, you know, more bipartisan cooperation. And I think right now it's just a really intense period of political polarization in our country. So I think I'm I hope that the party is eventually kind of moderate and go back a little bit towards the middle on both sides. But I I'm not 100% sure that's just my gut that a third party has never been that successful. People try to watch them all the time. Elon Musk was talking about it for a bit. And it just like doesn't go off the ground. Because even though I think people are pretty frustrated, they're at least cemented in the idea that they're on that spectrum from liberal to conservative. Right, right. But you mentioned third party candidates like Jill Stein or in this last election as well. It was you know Robert F. Kennedy Jr. going back a little more Ross Perot figures like them have historically been quite popular. And even though they win some argue that they significantly contributed to the outcome of those elections.
Do you think that those instances are related to this trend of the reluctant independent? Yeah, of course. I mean, John F. Kennedy's literal campaign strategy was to play videos everywhere that said, "Don't like Trump. Don't like Harris. I'm neither." And said, like, "Don't you shouldn't be forced to choose the lesser of two evils, choose me instead." That being said, I do not believe Robert F. Kennedy Jr. represents an independent or a third party ideal. I think he and we lead currently is serving in the Trump administration. So I don't believe that he's actually like a third real independent. I think it would be interesting, though, to have an independent, a real independent candidate rise to the talk, who actually represented kind of a mix of liberal conservative traditional ideals at least. I don't know how feasible that is, but I think that would be really interesting. And I think that I think our K-Juneer did in his campaign prove a point, which is that he became well-known by showing these videos everywhere, because people didn't like either really Trump or Harris, or at least they didn't, they really hated one. But then the last that shows that, as you said, this rhetoric is just so powerful. It resonates with millions of Americans and it can swing entire election cycles. Of course. I mean, I think people, there's a termings of psychology called group polarization, which is that when people talk to other people who have the same views, they become more entrenched in their beliefs, and their beliefs become more extreme. And I think since online and social media and every type of communication, you can talk to anyone who has the same views as you. And it's interesting because the number is proved that the majority of voters in this country are lying in the center, center writers on the left, yet the views that are shown by the candidates by politicians that are up and coming and by just the most vocal constituents are those on the extreme, which is really weird to think about considering. It doesn't represent the majority of the people in this country. And I think that's basically because it's not necessary. I think those extreme views are not actually the majority of the population, but rather just the most vocal part of the country. And so I think these reluctant independents are forced to kind of not side with either and just be stuck in the middle together. Yeah, and you mentioned the current New York mayoral race. What role does this play in your argument? Oh, for sure. I think, well, first I have an article coming up this week about that, so you should check it out. But I think the rise of democratic socialism is super interesting. New York is definitely a hyper liberal city. So I think that mom, Donnie being so successful, at least in the democratic primary so far, is kind of proof that you know, people at least are vocalizing that they want something more extreme. I think this is also in a liberal city. So it is curved that way. But I also will say that I think people are so frustrated with the traditional Republican democratic candidates that they are looking for something that's even more on the French. I don't think that would work nationally just because there are so many people that don't agree with those views. But I think it does make sense in a hyper liberal city that like people are flocking towards someone who's able to whether this will happen or not, promise them things that they really want, like decreased kind of income inequality through things like tax transfer programs. So I think it does make sense for people to appeal to that because they're so dissatisfied with the system. So it's almost like the extremism of certain candidates made them so dissatisfied with the establishment as a whole that even in some situations they'll turn down a more moderate candidate like Cuomo for a slightly more extreme candidate like Zora Moldani, just because they're not establishment. They're not mainstream Democrat who's been in the game for 40 years, career politician. Yeah, I agree. I think I mean Cuomo has his scandals, but I also think that people are just frustrated with the system and whether or not it's a good idea for them to look elsewhere. They are. And I think Mom Donnie has kind of curved a lot of people's opinions and saying that he can do a lot of these things that are very good for a lot of people if they can happen. So I think people are really incentivized by the promise of those ideals. Yeah, it's a very interesting process for sure. That's all the questions I have prepared. Do you have anything else you'd like to leave the audience with? Yeah, sure. I think one last thing is like well first off I hope you check out the article. But on top of that I think the biggest thing that everyone can do to kind of help these more moderate voters, which by the way are the majority of our population, is to just have a little discourse. Don't stop talking to that relative. You know, disagrees with you. You know, don't walk away and gossip about that person who has a weird political belief. Even if you disagree, just like have a conversation with them and also start supporting candidates who you think represent your ideals and talk to other people on both sides of the aisle within your own party. There's just a lot of disagreement and polarization happening in this country. And I wish it weren't like that. I think a lot of people wish that as well. So I think the best thing you can do is educate yourself on it and kind of try and fix it. I think that's an incredible point to leave off on. Thank you so much for coming on. Yeah, of course. Thank you so much for having me. Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of HPR Talk. You can check out these articles and more at theharvardpoliticalreview.com. If you've got any questions, comments or feedback, we would love to hear from you. Just send us an email at Tristan Martinez at
[email protected]. Until next time, this is Tristan, signing off. [BLANK_AUDIO]
PodcastTranscript AI