• Ten years of Trumpism: America’s lost decade
    Jun 23 2025
    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode Summary  It seems forever ago, but it has officially been 10 years since Donald Trump announced that he was running as a Republican presidential candidate in 2015. A lot of terrible things have happened since that time, but if you think in terms of the issues that have propelled Trump politically, his two presidencies have been a “lost decade” for his own supporters.Trump done almost nothing to help the people he promised: Food costs are higher than ever before, unauthorized immigration has remained low, and health care is still out of reach for far too many people. Instead of trying to create his own policies to bring jobs to blighted heartland areas, Trump and Republicans are trying to close rural hospitals, terminate disaster-preparedness funding, and cancel the green jobs programs that former president Joe Biden enacted that mostly benefit Republican-voting areas.Despite promising to be a completely different kind of politician, Trump has been a total pawn of the far-right activists who began flooding into the Republican Party in 1964. Less than six months into his second term, aside from his tariff obsessions, Trump’s policies are barely different from those of George W. Bush, right down to the Middle Eastern wars, the billionaire welfare handouts, and the harsh cuts to anti-poverty programs.At the same time, however, in the past ten years, Democrats have also barely changed a thing. Despite losing multiple times to Trump and his congressional allies, the national Democratic Party has continued to be governed as a gerontocracy, and instead of copying Republicans’ billion-dollar investments in advocacy media, Democrats have instead spent almost all of their funds on old-school television ads and door-knocking efforts, hoping that Americans will magically make the connection between Republicans and their very unpopular policies.All of this got me thinking about doing a podcast episode to mark the political milestone, and after reading the Trump 10-year retrospective that Paul Campos posted at the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog, I realized I needed to invite him and his colleague Erik Loomis onto the program for a live-streamed discussion of the topic which we recorded June 19th, two days before Trump decided to launch airstrikes against Iran.The video of our conversation is available. The full audio and transcript are available only to paying subscribers.Theory of Change and Flux are listener supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe to stay in touch!Related Content—Donald Trump was never anti-war, and only lazy journalists and naive supporters thought otherwise—Why MAGA is the ultimate ‘globalist’ movement—January 6th was only the beginning of Trump’s insurrection against America, his attacks on California are his next major step—How labor unions preserved collective memory and why their decline has hurt Democrats so much (Erik’s first TOC appearance)—Why understanding a Nazi legal theorist can help you understand Trump’s domestic political strategies—How atheist technologists like Elon Musk are learning to love the fundamentalist Christian RightAudio Chapters00:00 — Ten years of Trumpism as America's 'lost decade'07:59 — The historical context of Trump's rise11:18 — Why Republicans are both isolationist and imperialist19:21 — Democratic leaders haven't changed a bit in response to Trump28:18 — Right-wing media and the doomed quest a 'liberal Joe Rogan'39:04 — Republicans spend billions on ecosystems, Democrats do not48:09 — Economic vs. social justice is a false and damaging choice58:50 — ConclusionMembership BenefitsIn order to keep Theory of Change sustainable, the full audio and transcript for this episode are available to subscribers only. The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests. You can also subscribe to the show on YouTube.About the ShowTheory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.
    Show More Show Less
    10 mins
  • As Evangelicalism grows increasingly unhinged, where is Mormonism going?
    Jun 21 2025
    Episode Summary  Over the years on this program, I’ve often said that the political differences dividing Americans are really just artifacts of much deeper epistemic divides. In the episode before this one, we explored how those differences manifest psychologically—but psychology alone cannot explain why so many people feel so alienated that they willingly support political leaders like Donald Trump whom they acknowledge to be deceptive and chaotic.The truth is that most of Donald Trump’s supporters back him because they feel like their religious viewpoints are being shunted aside by scientific and educational progress that they cannot refute or even understand. The tension between recalcitrant belief and modernity has always been the core conflict motive of Christian fundamentalism, but how this works specifically in terms of doctrines varies widely across epistemic communities. That’s why in this episode, we’re going to focus on just one faith tradition, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormons. Our guide to Mormon epistemology is going to be Luna Corbden, the author of a book called “Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control,” which discussed various cultural and linguistic methods that the church used on its members to keep them coming back for more. In a lot of ways, not much has changed within LDS Mormonism since Corbden published in 2014, but some things have—and they’re revealing some deeper divisions between the institutions of the Latter-Day Saint Movement and its longtime rival of Evangelical Protestantism.The transcript of this audio-only conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe on Substack or Patreon and get unlimited access.Related Content—The long and tangled history of Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism—Religious authoritarians have always been at war with democracy, regardless of whether anyone else realized it—The Christian right was a theological rebellion against modernity before it became a political movement—How Mormons, evangelicals, Native Americans, and tourists mix in the state of Idaho—Salt Lake Tribune cartoonist Pat Bagley on politics, Utah, and being an ‘emeritus Mormon’—Luna Corbden on the Mormon Stories PodcastAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction04:06 — Challenges of free will and information control14:08 — Mormonism created new doctrinal controversies while solving for classical Christian dilemmas20:12 — Centralization and doctrinal evolution in Mormonism26:47 — Intellectual Mormonism’s conflicted epistemology35:42 — Sweeping embarrassing doctrines under the rug doesn’t make them disappear40:01 — Scientific claims and the Book of Mormon44:40 — Spiritual polygamy remains an actual practice in today’s Mormonism53:49 — Former Mormons and active progressive Mormons are reconciling58:42 — Reclaiming self-worth and autonomyAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So we're going to have a discussion here about Mormonism and Epistemology and all that. But before we get into it, I did want to talk a bit about your book specifically and what you meant by agency, because for people who are not familiar with Mormonism, the term of agency is a core doctrine and something that is very important.So what does Mormonism mean by the concept of agency?LUNA CORBDEN: Yeah, It is a core doctrine to, or what they call the plan of salvation or in recent, the, recent thing they call it is the plan of happiness. When I was still in it was the plan of salvation. And the idea is that in the war of heaven, Jesus and Satan both stood up and had a different plans for the, future progress of their brothers and sisters, spiritual humanity at that point.And Jesus wanted to send everybody down. We can make our own choices, and if we made the wrong choices, we'd have to be punished for them for some reason. And then Satan was like, we're Lucifer. we'll actually just force everyone to make the right choices and then that way we can save everyone and no one has to be punished.And there was a huge war in heaven over that. And Lucifer's obviously the bad guy, and he got cast out and we ended up in this. That's the. How Mormonism solves the problem of evil, which is not something they talk about in Mormonism, but you get out of it and you're like, oh, that's how they're solving the problem of evil is basically free will. It's basically free.Will we have the ability to choose good versus evil? We need evil in order to be able to choose good, because if our only choice was good, then it's not really a choice, and that's really central. So the idea is we ...
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 7 mins
  • The Big Beautiful Lie: Jessica Fulton on What the 2025 Budget Bill Really Means for Black Households
    Jun 20 2025
    In this episode of The Electorette, host Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with Jessica Fulton, interim president and VP of Policy at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, about the 2025 budget bill—rebranded by conservatives as the "Big Beautiful Bill"—and the devastating consequences it could have for Black households. Rooted in the Joint Center’s policy brief, Centering Black Households in the 2025 Tax Debate, the conversation exposes how proposals like extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would continue to funnel wealth to high-income, disproportionately white households—while offering temporary, shallow benefits to working-class families. Jessica explains how policies that sound equitable on the surface—like tax deductions for tipped workers, child tax credits, and overtime exemptions—actually reinforce economic exclusion. Together, they explore how tax policy has long been used as a tool of racialized wealth-building and why understanding these “wonky” details is essential to building a more equitable economy. They also touch on the dangers of cutting Pell Grants, dismantling agencies that support Black-owned businesses, and using budget reconciliation to pass policies that will have generational consequences. This episode is a powerful call for greater transparency, stronger advocacy, and inclusive policymaking that truly supports all families—not just the wealthiest. Episode Chapters: (00:00) Tax Code, Wealth, and Racial Inequality The Federal Tax Code perpetuates racial inequality, with implications for Black households, through policies like the 2025 Budget Bill. (12:23) Tax Policy and Racial Disparities Changes to child tax credit privilege higher-income households, exclude poorest families, and perpetuate systemic inequities. (23:56) Tax Policy and Worker Income Nature's financial burdens on low-income workers, tax treatment of tips and overtime pay, and erosion of worker protections. (27:28) Tax Policies and Working Class Disadvantages Tax policies can privilege certain workers, have political motivations, and create disparities between demographic groups. (39:47) Tax Code and Racial Disparities Examining how race affects taxation and economic disparities, and the importance of understanding and challenging these systems. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
    Show More Show Less
    43 mins
  • Things Do Not Have to Be This Way: Dismantling American Patriarchy with Anna Malaika Tuu
    Jun 18 2025
    Author and scholar Anna Malaika Tubbs joins The Electorette to discuss her powerful new book, Erased: What American Patriarchy Has Hidden from Us—a sweeping, incisive examination of how American patriarchy was built to exclude, erase, and control. In this conversation, Anna unpacks the nation’s gendered social order, from its origins in the Constitution to its modern-day consequences in law, politics, motherhood, and racial injustice. Drawing on personal experience, global perspective, and deep historical research, Anna explains how stories like that of Sacagawea—an Indigenous girl forced to guide the Lewis and Clark expedition—have been co-opted to prop up a false narrative of inclusion. She also traces how the legacy of patriarchal power lives on in institutions like the Supreme Court, and how it has shaped political identities and movements across generations. Anna Malaika Tubbs is a Cambridge Ph.D. candidate in Sociology and a Bill and Melinda Gates Cambridge Scholar. Erased is the follow-up to her debut The Three Mothers, and was an instant New York Times bestseller, a USA Today national bestseller, and named an Amazon Best Book of the Year (So Far) for 2025. This conversation explores what it means to be seen, to be heard, and to reclaim stories that were never told truthfully to begin with. Episode Chapters (00:00) American Patriarchy With Anna Malaika Tubbs American patriarchy, its impact on society, and reimagining narratives through personal and historical lenses. (12:31) Deconstructing American Patriarchy Through History Sacagawea's story is used to serve agendas, revealing erasure of matriarchal and non-binary identities and shared struggles of marginalized groups. (22:13) American Patriarchy and Women's Resistance Black women challenge American patriarchy, influenced by Supreme Court decisions, advocating for inclusive reproductive justice. (37:09) Black Feminist Motherhood and Reproductive Justice Black feminism, motherhood, and American patriarchy are discussed, with emphasis on accessible reproductive choices and dismantling societal norms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
    Show More Show Less
    47 mins
  • More Than a Seat: Amanda Edwards on Legacy, Leadership, and the Fight for Texas’s 18th Congressional District
    Jun 12 2025
    In this episode of The Electorette, Amanda Edwards, candidate for Texas’s 18th Congressional District, joins host Jennifer Taylor-Skinner for a powerful conversation about legacy, leadership, and what it means to truly serve. A native of Houston’s 18th District, Edwards shares her deep personal ties to the community and reflects on the seat’s profound history—once held by trailblazers like Barbara Jordan and Sheila Jackson Lee. Edwards discusses the impact of Governor Greg Abbott’s delay in calling a special election, which has left nearly 800,000 residents without representation during a time of crisis. From federal budget cuts to hurricane preparedness, she outlines why this moment demands urgent, community-centered leadership. The conversation also delves into the disconnect between elected officials and constituents, with Edwards highlighting her commitment to restoring trust and accountability. She shares personal stories—like her father’s battle with cancer and her post-Harvey recovery work—and lays out her vision for building policies that support education, economic opportunity, and reproductive justice. Edwards makes a compelling case for re-engaging disillusioned voters and ensuring that representation is not just symbolic, but truly transformative. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
    Show More Show Less
    45 mins
  • The Sisterhood of Ravensbrück: Inside Hitler’s All-Female Concentration Camp
    Jun 10 2025
    In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with bestselling author Lynne Olson about her powerful new book, The Sisterhood of Ravensbrück. The conversation unearths the little-known history of French women—many from the resistance—who were captured and sent to Ravensbrück, the Nazis’ only all-female concentration camp. Though they faced starvation, disease, forced labor, and the constant threat of execution, these women refused to surrender their dignity—or their purpose. They built a covert network inside the camp, shared banned news, sabotaged Nazi efforts, and supported one another through quiet but unwavering acts of resistance. Olson’s research and storytelling illuminate the strength of ordinary women in extraordinary circumstances—and how their defiance, though often silent, continues to echo today. This episode is a tribute to their memory, their courage, and a timely reminder that resistance takes many forms—and every act counts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
    Show More Show Less
    41 mins
  • America’s political divide is psychological, not ideological
    Jun 10 2025
    Episode SummaryPolitics in the United States and everywhere else has always been about policy—which party wants to do this, which party wants to do that. But in the 21st century, a new dimension has been added: true and false.That reality has become a serious problem for left-of-center political parties, because they have traditionally oriented themselves around an affinity for science and reason.As a result, right-wing parties with policies that are inherently anti-populist—policies that take money from the middle class and the poor and give it to the rich—are nonetheless able to get the votes of many lower- and middle-income people. Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, and a host of other right-wing authoritarian leaders are proof that this is indeed the case.We’re going to talk about these questions in today’s episode with Eric Oliver, a political science professor at the University of Chicago. He argues that American politics has become divided along epistemic and psychological grounds between “intuitionists” who think with their guts and “rationalists” who prefer science and logic.Originally the divide between the two epistemologies cut across political partisanship, but since he came along, Trump seems to have attracted the support of former Democratic intuitionists like Robert Kennedy Jr., a trend that Oliver and his co-author Thomas J. Wood all but predicted in their 2018 book, Enchanted America: How Intuition and Reason Divide Our Politics.You can also check out his podcast, 9 Questions, which will soon be distributed additionally via the Flux podcast network.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep going. Please become a paying subscriber and get unlimited access.Related Content—Tulsi Gabbard and the art of ‘post-left’ grifting—Despite its lofty language, Marianne Williamson’s self-help politics leads nowhere—Covid contrarians got much more wrong than public health officials, don’t let them forget it—Originally, staunch libertarians saw themselves as centrists—not any more—Why political extremism often derives from personal insecurity—The Christian right was a theological rebellion against modernity before it was a political force—The forgotten history of how William F. Buckley tried to steal away the John Birch Society’s supportersAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:19 — The intuitionist and rationalist spectrum07:04 — Intuitionism was originally cross-ideological, but Trump consolidated it11:47 — Intuitionism in everyday life15:24 — How to measure intuitionism vs. rationalism17:42 — Where Moral Foundations Theory falls short28:21 — How views about everyday scenarios can correlate with political opinions33:40 — Democrats' epistemic disadvantage countering Trumpian intuitionism38:52 — Case study: Lucy's contradictory beliefs43:16 — Conspiracy theories existed long before the internet46:05 — Conservatism vs. reactionism57:03 — Democrats are perceived as the status quo party01:00:44 — How intuitionism fueled conspiracy theories during the Covid-19 pandemicAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: The book here we're talking about today is not a newly released one, but on the other hand, I think that what you guys put into it and your general thesis and research, it really did accurately describe the phenomenon of Trumpism and the enduring popularity of it.J. ERIC OLIVER: This didn't start as a book on Trump. It actually started as a book on conspiracy theories. So, um, a few years earlier I had started doing research on conspiracy theories. I had some room on a survey and I put some items on, 'cause I had a long interest in conspiracy theories and came back with these very large percentages of Americans who were endorsing conspiracy theories.And this is in the early mid two thousands that. These data were coming in. And my co-author, Tom Wood, was a graduate student with me at the time. And I said, wow, we're getting back these crazy numbers. Let's see what's going on here. 'cause is this measurement error or is this really something that's kind of floating beneath the radar, at least a political science. And so we started doing more research into why people believe in conspiracy theories and to the extent that they do. And the two things that kept. Popping up again and again we're kind of what we would call magical thinking, so having a lot of paranormal and supernatural beliefs as being a very big predictor of whether or not people believed in conspiracy theories.So if you believe in UFOs or ESP or even general sense that there is a God who will respond to your prayers, ...
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 10 mins
  • Republican men see masculinity as under attack, but most Americans seem to disagree
    Jun 3 2025
    Episode Summary Many people expected that Donald Trump's fate would be decided by women last year. It was, after all, the first presidential race since the Republican-dominated Supreme Court had decided to roll back a national right to abortion.But Trump upended that possibility by deciding to run a campaign that was focused very heavily on men and trying to attract the votes of men who didn’t commonly participate in voting.That’s why I wanted to bring Juliana Menasce Horowitz onto the show today. She’s a senior associate director of research at the Pew Research Center where she and several colleagues have come out with a very interesting report about how gender is presented in American society and how people think they present in that regard.The transcript of this audio-only episode is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep doing this. Please subscribe to stay in touch and get unlimited access.Related Content—Tradwives, Instagram farmers, and performative gender roles—Male pop-culture is obsolete, and men are suffering because of it—Trump, Nietzsche, and the politics of gendered religious despair—Seeing the bigger story behind Moms for Liberty’s narrative—Yes, fitness and politics have a history—How an oversharing Christian blogger inadvertently documented his own radicalizationAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction04:15 — Less of a partisan divide on whether men are valued for being caring11:57 — Why the Pew Research Center no longer uses terms like “Baby Boomer” or “Gen Z”20:07 — The challenge of sampling smaller demographic groups27:04 — Does self-reporting introduce error in polling?30:16 — Age differences in self-perception of femininity and masculinity32:43 — Influence of family and media on gender identity37:10 — Role of religion and coaches in gender identity38:29 — Marital status and gender identity41:40 — Societal acceptance of non-traditional gender roles46:26 — Republican voters seem to think hobbies are biologically based52:06 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: You have so many interesting findings in the report here, but one that really stands out in particular is that the Republican men that you talk to really seem to see the topic of masculinity and being a man quite a bit differently compared to other demographic groups.JULIANA HOROWITZ: Yeah, sure. So yeah, that's something that we sought throughout the report. We asked several questions about, um, you know, to, to sort of get at some of the topics that have been out there in the, in the public discourse and the political narrative about men and masculinity.And one of the things that we wanted to look at is whether the public perceives masculinity as being under attack. And so we asked the question about, um, you know, about whether people think other people in the [00:02:00] US have mostly positive or negative views of men who are manly or masculine. And, and for the most part, Americans don't see masculinity as being under attack based on that question. But Republican men were the most likely to say that people in the US have mostly negative views of men who are mainly or masculine. Um, and then we also asked some other questions that got at, um, you know, different traits that people think society does or doesn't value in men. And personal ratings of masculinity and femininity. So basically how people see themselves and through, you know, throughout the survey, through all these different topics, including the self ratings Republican men really stand out in being different from democratic men and from Republican women and democratic women,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, they do. And just zooming out on the question a little bit. So only 25% of the entire sample said that people have a mostly negative viewpoint of manly or masculine men, but among Republican men, that was 45% who said that?And that was, as you said, pretty unusual. So what was the finding with Republican women? What did they think on that same topic?HOROWITZ: Right, so among Republican women, we saw that about a quarter of Republican women said that people have mostly negative views, um, compared to 20% of democratic men and only 13% of Democratic women. So Republican women and democratic men actually had fairly similar views on this. And then democratic women were the least likely to see masculinity as being under attack. Under attack. And one of the things that's interesting too, is that for those who say, especially for Republicans actually, who say that people have negative views of men who are masculine, um, the vast majority of those Republicans say that that's a bad thing, right? So it's bad that people have ...
    Show More Show Less
    55 mins