We Made This Political Podcast

Lura Forcum and Lauren Hall host We Made This Political with congressional reporter Paul Kane of NOTUS, who explains how he moved from planning for law school to a 26-year career covering Congress and what makes a good congressional reporter. Kane argues that communications technology and the collapse of local and regional news have reshaped Congress, enabling “radical transparency” without reliable context and weakening accountability, illustrated by Rep. Tom Kean Jr. not being seen publicly since March 5th. The conversation covers low legislative output in 2025 and recent Congresses, the Senate’s procedural paralysis and focus on nominations, changing incentive structures favoring fundraising and attention over legislating, and norms that no longer enforce behavior because punishment can be monetized. Kane critiques media’s focus on controversy, highlights Gabe Fleisher’s Wake Up to Politics, and ends with cautious hope in growing, less click-driven journalism and stories like Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester’s.00:00 Welcome and Guest Intro00:55 Paul Kane Origin Story02:30 Reporting Lessons From Local Politics05:03 What Makes a Great Hill Reporter09:35 How Congress Changed With Phones14:23 Radical Transparency Tradeoffs15:53 Missing Congressman Case Study20:03 Low Information Voters and Swings24:15 Approval Ratings and Cynicism27:03 Why Lawmaking Has Stalled32:09 Coalitions to Gridlock33:14 Fundraising and Selection Effects35:19 McHenry’s Incentive Shift42:13 Rules Fail and Punishment Backfires45:42 Chaos Era New Normal48:48 Media’s Role in Polarization53:50 Independent News and New Models57:00 Hopeful Signs and ClosingResourcesFind Paul’s Work: Paul’s final Washington Post column: https://wapo.st/4uBtWDUPauls’s interview with former Representative Patrick McHenry (NC-10): https://535.news/interviews/patrick-mchenry-jun-3-2026/Norms in Congress (NOTUS): https://www.notus.org/analysis/congress-there-are-no-rules-mike-johnson-republicans-legislationPaul’s NOTUS bio and article listing: https://www.notus.org/paul-kanePaul’s Blue Sky profile: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:vqueu3b2o4xv4kcscj4dxdwfPaul’s X/Twitter profile: https://x.com/pkcapitolOther Writers Discussed in the Episode:Gabe’s Wake Up to Politics Newsletter This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wemadethispolitical.substack.com

On We Made This Political, hosts Lura Forcum and Lauren Hall interview Nate Smolensky, a strategist for independent candidates and author of Common Ground From the Ground Up, about why independent identification is rising (about 45% and growing) and what people want from politics: less pessimism, more authenticity, problem-solving, and respectful engagement. Smolensky distinguishes independents as candidates and voters not beholden to either major party and argues the parties optimize for base-driven, alienating messaging—accelerated since 1994 and amplified by social media—while blocking competition through spoiler narratives. He highlights several independent campaigns polling competitively and explains “second option” strategies in one-party strongholds. The conversation also explores existential fear politics, voter empowerment, and Smolensky’s “collaborative discourse” approach—moving from win-lose argument to learning, “yes-and” additive conversations, and policy discussions that incorporate multiple perspectives.00:00 Independents Can Break Gridlock00:19 Meet the Hosts and Nate01:54 Why So Many Independents02:20 Authenticity Over Policy04:28 What Independent Really Means07:17 Representation Gap and Median Voter09:15 Parties Cater to the Base11:28 Politics as Market Segmentation14:15 How the Strategy Took Hold17:09 Independent Candidates Rising20:00 Spoiler Effect and Vote Shaming28:08 Existential Threat Messaging32:43 Independents as Fulcrum34:27 Earn My Vote Messaging37:20 Collaborative Discourse Explained40:24 Stop Trying to Convert45:20 Zero Sum vs Additive51:42 Yes And Policy Thinking55:48 Moral Beliefs vs Policy58:06 Hope and Where to Find01:00:22 Closing Thanks and OutroResources* Nate’s book Finding Common Ground This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wemadethispolitical.substack.com

On We Made This Political, hosts Lura Forcum and Lauren Hall talk with writer Ben Appel about his memoir Cis White Gay: The Making of a Gender Heretic and how identity, group loyalty, and the need for belonging shape belief and punish dissent. Appel describes returning to school at Columbia at 33 after a career in hairdressing and personal struggles, and how campus culture, critical theory, and political sloganeering pushed him to question reductive binaries, self-censorship, and seeing government as good only when it serves “my side.” The conversation covers polarization, the lack of ideological viewpoint diversity in education, pressures to conform, debates within gay communities such as marriage equality, and concerns about medicalizing gender-nonconforming youth and the difficulties faced by detransitioners. Appel finds hope in stepping back from social media, connecting with people, and focusing on everyday respect and curiosity, including talking to Trump voters as fellow human beings.00:00 Talk to Trump Voters00:19 Meet Ben Appel01:53 Why Write Cis White Gay06:57 Parroting Politics13:14 Life Experience at Columbia19:23 Starved for Viewpoints23:23 Critical Theory as Dogma25:40 Binary Thinking and Trump31:54 Language Policing in Academia36:09 Identity Buckets Debate37:40 Growing Up Effeminate40:42 From Inclusion to Medicalization44:15 Critical Theory Distraction50:22 Performing Identity Wrong52:40 Gay Marriage Clash01:03:18 Detransitioners Aftercare Gap01:07:09 Finding Hope Offline01:15:05 Wrap Up and CreditsResourcesBen’s Substack Ben Appel’s NewsletterBen’s book, Cis White Gay This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wemadethispolitical.substack.com

Lura Forcum and Lauren Hall host We Made This Political live with guest Corey Nathan, host of Talking Politics and Religion Without Killing Each Other, to discuss how to disagree without dehumanizing. Corey shares his shifts from an observant Jewish upbringing to becoming a born-again Christian, how family and church conflicts shaped his commitment to healthier civic conversation, and his critique of American evangelicalism as tied to colonialism and power. Lauren describes her complex religious background and conversion to Catholicism, emphasizing perspective shifting, resisting silos, and distinguishing toleration from relativism. Lura, Lauren, and Corey explore curiosity as a practice, fear and existential framing as drivers of polarization, when firm boundaries and pushback are necessary (especially against leaders harming vulnerable groups), and why civic renewal efforts and everyday people still give them hope.00:00 Meet the Hosts00:56 Introducing Corey Nathan02:30 Corey’s Faith and Politics Shift06:43 Lauren’s Interfaith Upbringing10:19 Why Lauren Became Catholic13:03 Evangelicalism and Empire Critique18:34 Earning Worth vs Grace20:36 Repairing the World Together23:51 Holding Tension Not Binaries28:26 Weaponized Faith in Politics30:37 Keep Reading the Scripture34:20 No Neat Answers35:13 Pets and Polarization35:59 Jesus and the Pharisees37:39 Curious Over Furious40:30 Cultivating Curiosity42:17 Grace and One Degree45:06 When to Push Back50:16 Fear Shuts Down Dialogue55:03 Most People Are Nuanced56:51 Hope and Civic Renewal01:00:42 Where to Find Corey01:01:34 Closing and CreditsResourcesFind Corey on Substack here.Find his podcast Talkin’ Politics and Religion Without Killing Each Other here. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wemadethispolitical.substack.com

In this episode of We Made This Political, Lura Forcum and Lauren Hall talk with Emma Adams, founder and co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG). Emma shares her journey from refugee resettlement volunteer to leading a national organization advocating for ethical governance. The discussion covers MWEG’s mission, peacemaking principles, and fostering bipartisan cooperation. The episode offers insights on navigating political and social conflicts with dignity, understanding, and practical skills for resilience and change.00:00 Introduction and Hosts’ Backgrounds00:49 Guest Introduction: Emma Adams02:02 Emma’s Journey to Advocacy03:31 Founding of Mormon Women for Ethical Government06:34 MWEG’s Mission and Advocacy Areas08:17 Empowering Women in Leadership16:09 Peacemaking and Conflict Transformation20:22 Navigating Political Identity and Engagement26:20 Challenges and Criticisms of Radical Moderation35:13 Skills Building and Philosophy37:02 Parenting and Professional Life39:55 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Parenting43:45 Political Violence and Community Response59:38 Hope and Optimism in Challenging TimesResourcesMormon Women For Ethical Government This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wemadethispolitical.substack.com

Show Notes:Episode 35: Josh Lewis on Classical Conservatism in a MAGA WorldGuest: Josh Lewis, founder of Saving Elephants podcast and blogAbout Josh:Josh Lewis is a CPA and longtime student of conservative thought who founded Saving Elephants to reignite classical conservatism as a tradition rooted in prudence, gratitude, and community—rather than populism or personality-driven politics. He brings a practical, institution-focused perspective on how enduring conservative ideas can address polarization, civic decay, and the pressures facing younger generations.Episode Summary:In this wide-ranging conversation, hosts Lauren Hall and Lura Forcum discuss the meaning of conservatism in 2025 with Josh Lewis. They explore why political labels have become more tribal than informative, the unique challenges millennials face in understanding conservative principles, and why prudence has been replaced by winning in modern politics. Josh shares his personal journey of stepping down from state Republican Party leadership in 2016 and offers insights on how we might rebuild a politics centered on long-term thinking rather than short-term gains.Key Topics Discussed:Political Labels & Identity* Why “conservative” is so contested in 2025* How labels have shifted from informative to tribal and dehumanizing* The contextual nature of conservatism vs universal ideologies* Being “politically homeless” in modern AmericaMillennials & Conservatism* Why millennials formed their understanding of conservatism during the Bush era* The impact of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and 2008 financial crisis on conservative credibility* How millennials bridge the analog and digital worlds* The unique economic challenges facing younger generationsGenerational Economics* The structural decisions that created barriers to economic prosperity* Why “playing by the same rules” doesn’t guarantee the same outcomes anymore* The role of credentialing, regulation, and crony capitalism* Student debt and the ecosystem that encouraged it* Growing inequality within the millennial generationPrudence vs Winning* How winning replaced prudence as the core conservative value* The “invasion of the body snatchers” moment in the Republican Party* Why prudence requires thinking beyond our own lifetimes* The tension between conservatism and democracy’s short-term focus* How conservative institutions (Senate, judiciary) were designed to slow democracyTrump & the Republican Party* Josh’s 2016 decision to step down from Republican Party leadership* The hostile takeover and subsequent transformation of the party* Finding fellow travelers and maintaining relationships across disagreements* The distortion field effect of Trump’s demand for loyaltyStructural Reforms* Removing TV cameras from Senate chambers* Expanding the House of Representatives* Reforming the filibuster to require physical presence* The need for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role* Why feedback channels in democracy are being cut offConservative Intellectual Tradition* Edmund Burke as the central figure in conservative thought* Yuval Levin as an accessible modern conservative thinker* The importance of understanding the French Revolution debates* Russell Kirk, Thomas Sowell, and William F. Buckley Jr.* Reading list: 50 conservative thinkers worth your timeReasons for Optimism* Unprecedented reduction in global poverty* Technological and economic progress in recent centuries* The importance of recognizing how well we’re doing historically* The risk of losing progress by pretending “we’ve never had it this bad”Key Quotes:* “I often tell people I’m a classical conservative in hopes that will throw them off enough to think, well, that adjective’s probably doing a lot of work here.”* “Conservatism is almost entirely contextual. What are we conserving? I’m not trying to conserve the Ottoman Empire of the 16th century—I’m trying to conserve the American tradition.”* “We use political labels as shorthand almost exclusively to either say you are on my team, or I don’t like you.”* “Prudence is not just cold calculating what this is going to get me in the future. It’s wedded to a sense of morals and requires humility and sacrifice.”* “The modern Republican party has fallen victim to exactly the same kinds of tendencies in democracy that it previously criticized.”Connect with Josh:* Saving Elephants podcast and blog (savingelephantsblog.com)* Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France”Resources Mentioned: * Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” and “10 Principles of Conservatism”* Yuval Levin’s “The Great Debate,” “The Fractured Republic,” and “American Covenant”* Thomas Sowell’s writings* Jonah Goldberg’s “Suicide of the West” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wemadethispolitical.substack.com