Finding a way to profit in chaos does place one and all under suspicion. The monetization of opinions in this day and age devolves into sides, not deep inquiries. I doubt there are 1000 people in the general population that could hear, let alone understand the significance of the argument you are making, and to me that is the bigger issue. You are correct in everything idea you question. Mainstreaming questioning will be tricky, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't question. That you question democrats and never trumpers equally is to your credit. Reading your piece ,the echo of truth that will remain is the stark fact the status quo has no answers. ipso facto trump would have lost, if any answers were to be had. ipso facto the post election pivot-those answers were admissions of the void. But opinions are profitable, and therein lies our doom. ipso facto Nate Silver. We are drowning in a sea of 'who has answers' as opposed to who is brave enough to ask questions. Brava to you and it's a tough road, yet the only one to bring meaningful change. As a developmental and neuropsychologist I know when I am speaking to desert people who have never seen the ocean about the ocean. It's a fact that only way to the ocean conversation is questions. It's how our cognition functions. Keep asking, as deep questions are the only thing that will save us on the heros journey.
Karen, this is so lovely thank you so much it means a lot. And thank you for being so generous in amplifying these pieces on Blusky. I agree. A lot of what I'm trying to question as you know are these systems that are hard to name because they are so deeply ingrained in us. One of my favorite speeches of all time is David Foster Wallace's "The is Water" commencement address to liberal arts students from 2005. It's exactly as you're explaining. He asks, what if the purpose of our education is not some grand devotion to the system (whatever it may be) but in having the simple awareness to understand what's all around us, for him it's like two fish swimming in water and one says to the other, hey how's the water, the other says, what the hell is water. We need more people, especially those in power to notice the water.
Your article hit on several points that I have felt as vague questions around the foggy edges of my mind. I am a Bulwark subscriber, but I often find myself wondering what these folks offer other than an expression of the panic and bewilderment that I share. I can never stop thinking that these are the folks who never asked the question “what are my strategies doing to American political discourse?” In their earlier careers, they functioned from an ethic that prioritized winning at the expense of reason. They relied on arguments from fallacies, won elections, and now voice their confusion about why voters fall easily for such blatant lies. I heard Tim Miller complain that people who criticize him for having worked for a fervently anti-gay party forget that Obama claimed to be against gay marriage to get elected. Yes, that’s true, but Obama didn’t run an election on a “God, guns and gays” message that increased anti-gay sentiment. He should check the statistics on the increase in gay hate crimes during the 2004 election. I listen to these folks now and wonder how do we address the bigger structural problems that they helped create. They helped create a mess and, then, they wonder why the people trying to wade through it don’t clean it up. The Democrats certainly carry a large share of the blame, but other than being appalled by the consequences that they helped create, these former Republicans spend their time complaining that the Democrats aren’t doing enough or doing the right things to fight back. I’m frustrated by the Democratic Party’s lack of strategy in dealing with Trump as well, but the real problems are, as you clearly delineate, deeper than what voters think. Thanks for your clarity.
Thank you so much for this, Walden. That is exactly my critique. These consultants (and they're in both parties) are narrating America's decline from the same seats that created it just new branding. It's all dressed up in this sort of "moral outrage" machine that makes us think they are helping to solve the problem when they are really just exacerbating it. I think a lot of them are sincere in this which makes it even more dangerous. I've been writing lately on this and will continue to do so. Appreciate your comment!
You are wrong if you think these guys uniquely created the mess we’re in. Bill Clinton played a role. So did Obama. But there is a real question about whether you are going to bring a knife to a gunfight by eschewing altogether some of these tools like the focus group. The problem is no one has figured out the right balance between strategy and authentic values. A politician who is never strategic or engages in compromise can devolve into a rigid scold and worse, a loser. But someone who has no moral center and is all strategy will often come off as inauthentic and even if successful will often fail us in the clutch. And even those who have a moral center may miscalculate on when to step forward and when to step back. That’s just life. I think we ought to applaud the Bulwark crowd for having moral courage. Their efforts at authentic criticism have only recently become profitable. When Sarah founded it and for many years, it was not.
So, as some sort of anarcho-democratic mixed-economy socialist, I clearly have very little in common politically with the folks at the Bulwark. But let me suggest another perspective. During WWII, the U.S. was part of a coalition that included the Stalinist-governed Soviet Union. Fighting fascism was that important. The coalition worked and there are still people alive who insist the allies simply wouldn't have won without the soviets. After the war, of course, that coalition divided in two and the Soviet Union became our main antagonist/enemy. Of course, the people at the Bulwark haven't sent masses of people to a gulag and killed off those who disagree with them politically. So, then, what am I saying? Right now, the fight against Trumpism is so important that all of us in the U.S. who are against it must unite. But, once we have won that war, then once again people like me will be on one side of a very serious political battle about the future of this country and the people at the Bulwark will be on a different side of that battle.
Thank you as always, Barbara—I really appreciate your perspective, and I understand why people see The Bulwark as playing a helpful role in opposing Trump. They’ve been consistent in sounding the alarm, and that does matter. But my concern is less about their stated goals and more about the media and political ecosystem they continue to operate within—an ecosystem that many people rightly associate with the failures that enabled Trump in the first place.
The Focus Group podcast, in particular, often feels like a case study in how political professionals talk about the public without ever really engaging them. Voters are treated like variables in a strategy memo, not as people with agency and legitimate grievances. It’s politics filtered through marketing, not through a deeper reckoning with what’s broken. And that's the hard truth to reckon with for people at places like the Bulwark.
To give a bit of a counter-example, take someone like Bari Weiss—whose politics, I think, you and I might both take issue with in many ways. But her publication, The Free Press, at least attempts to challenge parts of the dominant echo chamber and bring a critical lens to how the system gave way to Trump in the first place. There’s real nuance there, even if it’s sometimes problematic—and yes, Weiss has platformed people with openly authoritarian leanings, like Peter Thiel. But the difference is that The Free Press is at least wrestling with the roots of our crisis, not just reacting to and amplifying the symptoms.
That’s what I find missing in The Bulwark’s work. They oppose Trump, but not always Trumpism—the deeper system of elite capture, institutional decay, and top-down cynicism that helped usher him in. And I worry that by reinforcing that system—even in critique—they’re making the problem seem more manageable than it really is.
I agree with your sentiment that our political ecosystem is incredibly damaged however not with your analysis that The Bulwark is contributing to that. Sarah Longwell listens to the voters opinions and I have heard her defend the participants opinions from her colleagues on multiple occasions.
Thanks for engaging, Craig—I genuinely appreciate it. I don’t doubt that Sarah Longwell listens to voters in the literal sense. My concern is how that listening is used: to validate a strategy of narrative containment, not transformation. The political ecosystem isn’t just damaged because of misinformation or extremism—it’s damaged because we’ve built an entire professional class around managing dissent without addressing its root causes.
Focus groups can be a tool for insight. But when they become the centerpiece of a political worldview—when they replace organizing, policy vision, and structural critique—they flatten politics into performance. What gets called “defending democracy” often amounts to defending the very consensus that alienated so many voters in the first place.
So yes, she listens. But what’s being done with that listening? That’s where my critique lies.
That's fine, but is profiting off their pain really any better? What are they doing to materially change the reality of the people who've been hurt by the system? These are the critiques I bring up in the piece. I'm not criticizing their personal character, I don't know them.
I think what they offer to me is very real honest discourse from multiple perspectives - most disagree with DJT regime, of course, but they disagree amongst ea other … not spec to the focus group , a recent discussion about ending subsidies for Tesla. This was a great conversation - bc Sarah was against subsidies of any kind, Tim thought it was something the L&R could align on, can’t remember JVL take. Then specific to the Focus group - discussing how similar the progressives are to the centrists . This is IMPORTANT folks- very very important. For so long we’ve also wanted the person in the diner exploration of what DEMS want - also very important. I’m tired of talking about what Rs want - really tired.
There are many many people I listen to - these are by no means the only source of info - but we need the info they generate , bc it’s Informative - it gets citizens talking about politics.
Perhaps the biggest problem in America is the lack of knowledge and education about civics and political process. This is the best experience in that sense - Americans are talking about politics and economics - and list of us will come out a great deal smarter. I cannot tell you how much hope this gives me.
I absolutely realize by listening to them that there are things I agree on, things I disagree with them on, and appreciate all they’ve done - isn’t it the best thing they could have done to address these issues ? Of apathy and low info - and everyone has to earn a living.
The Dem party has not been listening to constituents - neither has msm -so it hardly seems like the time to say hey, do less focus groups.
I Listen to msnbc regularly , olberman , find out , Molly jong fast, Rick Wilson , some of the younger People (can’t remember their names of the top) etc etc.
I disagree and think there is a place for resistance journalism. They amplify stories and frame them. Not everyone has to run for office- these are journalists and former strategists doing what they do and what their skills are in the service of the right cause. I admire them and frankly what at this point it has to be said is their courage.
What would walking away from the system look like? Just trying to imagine in specific, concrete terms what that work would be. I ask this with full appreciation of your analysis.
Thank you Mary Beth for this question and for reading! In my critique of The Bulwark, I wasn’t arguing that individuals there are insincere. I was arguing that the institutional and cultural framework they defend — however earnest their intentions — can no longer sustain real democratic renewal. Walking away, for me, means seeking foundations deeper than managed narratives and procedural defenses.
More broadly, when I talk about "walking away from the system," I don’t mean retreating from political life altogether. I mean recognizing that the legitimacy crisis we’re facing can’t be solved by simply doubling down on the same elite structures, procedures, and messaging that helped create it.
To me, walking away means beginning the work of rebuilding political and civic life on different foundations. It could mean creating spaces where real solidarity matters more than spectacle, where belonging is fostered rather than assumed, and where material dignity is treated as essential to democratic life. It could mean seeking new ways of participating politically that do not simply reproduce the failures of the existing institutions. It could mean rethinking where and how trust is built — locally, communally, relationally — rather than solely relying on distant national frameworks. I know this is still vague...I don’t pretend to have all the answers, or a simple prescription for what comes next. In some of my other pieces, I critique "performative liberalism" this is sadly what a lot of the resistance stuff became. I think if we can't define what's next we can at least learn from the failure's of what's been.
But I do think these are exactly the kinds of questions we should be asking more seriously:
What would it mean to rebuild a political life capable of sustaining human dignity, solidarity, and belonging? What kinds of structures, loyalties, and practices would that require?
I believe that if real democratic renewal is possible, it will begin with questions like these — and with the courage to admit that the existing order cannot simply be defended into permanence.
Disagree. I admit that turning focus group interviews into a podcast is a bit tasteless. But the focus group interviews happened. Sarah Longwell regularly sits down with these people face to face and listens to their views to better inform her own. She shows them respect and receives it in return.
I refuse to see this as a negative. Most of us are busy with our lives and we can't sit and listen to focus groups. But we can still dip a toe in the water by listening to the podcast or reading transcripts of interviews and get a sense, even though it's a flawed one, of what Americans who are very different from us are thinking. This is an important function not to be dismissed just because Sarah can be labeled as an elite person or as a consultant.
Thanks for taking the time to engage thoughtfully — I really appreciate it. I completely agree with you that actually listening to ordinary Americans — especially across difference — is important, and not enough people in politics or media do it seriously. It's good that Sarah Longwell makes the effort to sit with people face to face, and I don't necessarily dismiss the value of that.
My critique isn't about the act of listening itself. It's more about how that listening is framed, packaged, and used — especially when it becomes a kind of content product. When focus groups are turned into entertainment/ click bate or used to affirm certain elite narratives without really grappling with why so many people have lost faith in the system, it risks reducing those conversations to spectacle instead of genuine understanding.
I think you're absolutely right that tools like podcasts or transcripts can help more people dip a toe into broader public opinion — and that's valuable. My concern is whether the framing invites real reckoning with the system’s failures, or whether it ends up reinforcing a sense that the problem lies mainly with voters' attitudes, rather than with the structures that failed them.
Thanks again for pushing the conversation deeper — this is the kind of exchange that actually moves things forward.
Good grief! Commentary on a commentary analyzing individuals opinions on actions by politicians addressing purported problems faced by individuals. Oh my!
I’m a bulwark fan, and I don’t agree with you but I’m intrigued by your position and I’m going to think about it some more. Thanks for working hard on this! I may be able to find some common ground with you if I work on it.
Thank you for this insightful perspective. I only recently found the Bulwark. I couldn’t figure out why it feels like constant shouting. Maybe this is it. I will hear it with anew lense now.
Great column, and thanks for throwing a jab at the all-too-smug & self satisfied Bulwark crew, yukking it up & slurping coffee as they bloviate and snicker about the end of Western Civilization. Har har har.
I am personally disappointed with some of the Bulwark postings. I love the Bulwark(subscriber). It is comprised of mostly/all never Trump Republicans, which I wholeheartedly embrace. I am of the opinion however, that this group should take some responsibility for the predicament that we are in rather than blaming it on Democrats. There was plenty of time to regroup and create a movement/ new party(?) in that space, but nothing. Be a force for the resistance/path forward.
I completely agree Evelyn. Just because the Bulwark people are ex-pats of the current gross Republican party doesnt mean they dont hold they values they once did. I mean, like Liz Cheney who of course stood up against Trump’s lawlessness, and who voted 80% of the time with Trump’s policies, they havent changed their core values, have they? Sarah Longwell certainly goes out of her way to bash Dems, like Tim Walz who is a bridge to a certain demographic is there ever was one. At first I had a subscription but I cancelled it. They are the cool kids but are they helping? I dunno. I dont think so. Its all a casual yak for them and I wont give them money or my ear anymore
I don’t think this is fair at all! The Focus Group podcast is only one of MANY podcasts they do, the vast majority of which are educational and actually intended to attack the status quo, to educate. And the Focus Group podcast absolutely “contextualizes” the respondents it questions. And Sarah and the gang largely treat the Trump voters with more respect than I am inclined to give them in so far as the try to figure out what semi-normal or understandable issue might lie beneath some of the absurd things people say. And if you think they are “centrist,” guess what? So are most Americans. This just strikes me as a cheap shot at the structure of the focus group itself, and there is a lot more wrong with that than what’s wrong in politics. How would YOU suggest they do better as capturing the voter sentiment?
Finding a way to profit in chaos does place one and all under suspicion. The monetization of opinions in this day and age devolves into sides, not deep inquiries. I doubt there are 1000 people in the general population that could hear, let alone understand the significance of the argument you are making, and to me that is the bigger issue. You are correct in everything idea you question. Mainstreaming questioning will be tricky, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't question. That you question democrats and never trumpers equally is to your credit. Reading your piece ,the echo of truth that will remain is the stark fact the status quo has no answers. ipso facto trump would have lost, if any answers were to be had. ipso facto the post election pivot-those answers were admissions of the void. But opinions are profitable, and therein lies our doom. ipso facto Nate Silver. We are drowning in a sea of 'who has answers' as opposed to who is brave enough to ask questions. Brava to you and it's a tough road, yet the only one to bring meaningful change. As a developmental and neuropsychologist I know when I am speaking to desert people who have never seen the ocean about the ocean. It's a fact that only way to the ocean conversation is questions. It's how our cognition functions. Keep asking, as deep questions are the only thing that will save us on the heros journey.
Karen, this is so lovely thank you so much it means a lot. And thank you for being so generous in amplifying these pieces on Blusky. I agree. A lot of what I'm trying to question as you know are these systems that are hard to name because they are so deeply ingrained in us. One of my favorite speeches of all time is David Foster Wallace's "The is Water" commencement address to liberal arts students from 2005. It's exactly as you're explaining. He asks, what if the purpose of our education is not some grand devotion to the system (whatever it may be) but in having the simple awareness to understand what's all around us, for him it's like two fish swimming in water and one says to the other, hey how's the water, the other says, what the hell is water. We need more people, especially those in power to notice the water.
Your article hit on several points that I have felt as vague questions around the foggy edges of my mind. I am a Bulwark subscriber, but I often find myself wondering what these folks offer other than an expression of the panic and bewilderment that I share. I can never stop thinking that these are the folks who never asked the question “what are my strategies doing to American political discourse?” In their earlier careers, they functioned from an ethic that prioritized winning at the expense of reason. They relied on arguments from fallacies, won elections, and now voice their confusion about why voters fall easily for such blatant lies. I heard Tim Miller complain that people who criticize him for having worked for a fervently anti-gay party forget that Obama claimed to be against gay marriage to get elected. Yes, that’s true, but Obama didn’t run an election on a “God, guns and gays” message that increased anti-gay sentiment. He should check the statistics on the increase in gay hate crimes during the 2004 election. I listen to these folks now and wonder how do we address the bigger structural problems that they helped create. They helped create a mess and, then, they wonder why the people trying to wade through it don’t clean it up. The Democrats certainly carry a large share of the blame, but other than being appalled by the consequences that they helped create, these former Republicans spend their time complaining that the Democrats aren’t doing enough or doing the right things to fight back. I’m frustrated by the Democratic Party’s lack of strategy in dealing with Trump as well, but the real problems are, as you clearly delineate, deeper than what voters think. Thanks for your clarity.
Thank you so much for this, Walden. That is exactly my critique. These consultants (and they're in both parties) are narrating America's decline from the same seats that created it just new branding. It's all dressed up in this sort of "moral outrage" machine that makes us think they are helping to solve the problem when they are really just exacerbating it. I think a lot of them are sincere in this which makes it even more dangerous. I've been writing lately on this and will continue to do so. Appreciate your comment!
You are wrong if you think these guys uniquely created the mess we’re in. Bill Clinton played a role. So did Obama. But there is a real question about whether you are going to bring a knife to a gunfight by eschewing altogether some of these tools like the focus group. The problem is no one has figured out the right balance between strategy and authentic values. A politician who is never strategic or engages in compromise can devolve into a rigid scold and worse, a loser. But someone who has no moral center and is all strategy will often come off as inauthentic and even if successful will often fail us in the clutch. And even those who have a moral center may miscalculate on when to step forward and when to step back. That’s just life. I think we ought to applaud the Bulwark crowd for having moral courage. Their efforts at authentic criticism have only recently become profitable. When Sarah founded it and for many years, it was not.
So, as some sort of anarcho-democratic mixed-economy socialist, I clearly have very little in common politically with the folks at the Bulwark. But let me suggest another perspective. During WWII, the U.S. was part of a coalition that included the Stalinist-governed Soviet Union. Fighting fascism was that important. The coalition worked and there are still people alive who insist the allies simply wouldn't have won without the soviets. After the war, of course, that coalition divided in two and the Soviet Union became our main antagonist/enemy. Of course, the people at the Bulwark haven't sent masses of people to a gulag and killed off those who disagree with them politically. So, then, what am I saying? Right now, the fight against Trumpism is so important that all of us in the U.S. who are against it must unite. But, once we have won that war, then once again people like me will be on one side of a very serious political battle about the future of this country and the people at the Bulwark will be on a different side of that battle.
Thank you as always, Barbara—I really appreciate your perspective, and I understand why people see The Bulwark as playing a helpful role in opposing Trump. They’ve been consistent in sounding the alarm, and that does matter. But my concern is less about their stated goals and more about the media and political ecosystem they continue to operate within—an ecosystem that many people rightly associate with the failures that enabled Trump in the first place.
The Focus Group podcast, in particular, often feels like a case study in how political professionals talk about the public without ever really engaging them. Voters are treated like variables in a strategy memo, not as people with agency and legitimate grievances. It’s politics filtered through marketing, not through a deeper reckoning with what’s broken. And that's the hard truth to reckon with for people at places like the Bulwark.
To give a bit of a counter-example, take someone like Bari Weiss—whose politics, I think, you and I might both take issue with in many ways. But her publication, The Free Press, at least attempts to challenge parts of the dominant echo chamber and bring a critical lens to how the system gave way to Trump in the first place. There’s real nuance there, even if it’s sometimes problematic—and yes, Weiss has platformed people with openly authoritarian leanings, like Peter Thiel. But the difference is that The Free Press is at least wrestling with the roots of our crisis, not just reacting to and amplifying the symptoms.
That’s what I find missing in The Bulwark’s work. They oppose Trump, but not always Trumpism—the deeper system of elite capture, institutional decay, and top-down cynicism that helped usher him in. And I worry that by reinforcing that system—even in critique—they’re making the problem seem more manageable than it really is.
Evelyn, all very good points, and I agree.
Thank you as always for reading and for bringing up good points as well. I really appreciate it and enjoy the dialogue.
I agree with your sentiment that our political ecosystem is incredibly damaged however not with your analysis that The Bulwark is contributing to that. Sarah Longwell listens to the voters opinions and I have heard her defend the participants opinions from her colleagues on multiple occasions.
Thanks for engaging, Craig—I genuinely appreciate it. I don’t doubt that Sarah Longwell listens to voters in the literal sense. My concern is how that listening is used: to validate a strategy of narrative containment, not transformation. The political ecosystem isn’t just damaged because of misinformation or extremism—it’s damaged because we’ve built an entire professional class around managing dissent without addressing its root causes.
Focus groups can be a tool for insight. But when they become the centerpiece of a political worldview—when they replace organizing, policy vision, and structural critique—they flatten politics into performance. What gets called “defending democracy” often amounts to defending the very consensus that alienated so many voters in the first place.
So yes, she listens. But what’s being done with that listening? That’s where my critique lies.
Hard disagree. Some of Sarah‘s guests might talk like consultants, but she shows huge compassion for the people she listens to.
That's fine, but is profiting off their pain really any better? What are they doing to materially change the reality of the people who've been hurt by the system? These are the critiques I bring up in the piece. I'm not criticizing their personal character, I don't know them.
They only recently became profitable. I would think that you would applaud an honest media company being profitable.
I think what they offer to me is very real honest discourse from multiple perspectives - most disagree with DJT regime, of course, but they disagree amongst ea other … not spec to the focus group , a recent discussion about ending subsidies for Tesla. This was a great conversation - bc Sarah was against subsidies of any kind, Tim thought it was something the L&R could align on, can’t remember JVL take. Then specific to the Focus group - discussing how similar the progressives are to the centrists . This is IMPORTANT folks- very very important. For so long we’ve also wanted the person in the diner exploration of what DEMS want - also very important. I’m tired of talking about what Rs want - really tired.
There are many many people I listen to - these are by no means the only source of info - but we need the info they generate , bc it’s Informative - it gets citizens talking about politics.
Perhaps the biggest problem in America is the lack of knowledge and education about civics and political process. This is the best experience in that sense - Americans are talking about politics and economics - and list of us will come out a great deal smarter. I cannot tell you how much hope this gives me.
I absolutely realize by listening to them that there are things I agree on, things I disagree with them on, and appreciate all they’ve done - isn’t it the best thing they could have done to address these issues ? Of apathy and low info - and everyone has to earn a living.
The Dem party has not been listening to constituents - neither has msm -so it hardly seems like the time to say hey, do less focus groups.
I Listen to msnbc regularly , olberman , find out , Molly jong fast, Rick Wilson , some of the younger People (can’t remember their names of the top) etc etc.
I disagree and think there is a place for resistance journalism. They amplify stories and frame them. Not everyone has to run for office- these are journalists and former strategists doing what they do and what their skills are in the service of the right cause. I admire them and frankly what at this point it has to be said is their courage.
What would walking away from the system look like? Just trying to imagine in specific, concrete terms what that work would be. I ask this with full appreciation of your analysis.
Thank you Mary Beth for this question and for reading! In my critique of The Bulwark, I wasn’t arguing that individuals there are insincere. I was arguing that the institutional and cultural framework they defend — however earnest their intentions — can no longer sustain real democratic renewal. Walking away, for me, means seeking foundations deeper than managed narratives and procedural defenses.
More broadly, when I talk about "walking away from the system," I don’t mean retreating from political life altogether. I mean recognizing that the legitimacy crisis we’re facing can’t be solved by simply doubling down on the same elite structures, procedures, and messaging that helped create it.
To me, walking away means beginning the work of rebuilding political and civic life on different foundations. It could mean creating spaces where real solidarity matters more than spectacle, where belonging is fostered rather than assumed, and where material dignity is treated as essential to democratic life. It could mean seeking new ways of participating politically that do not simply reproduce the failures of the existing institutions. It could mean rethinking where and how trust is built — locally, communally, relationally — rather than solely relying on distant national frameworks. I know this is still vague...I don’t pretend to have all the answers, or a simple prescription for what comes next. In some of my other pieces, I critique "performative liberalism" this is sadly what a lot of the resistance stuff became. I think if we can't define what's next we can at least learn from the failure's of what's been.
But I do think these are exactly the kinds of questions we should be asking more seriously:
What would it mean to rebuild a political life capable of sustaining human dignity, solidarity, and belonging? What kinds of structures, loyalties, and practices would that require?
I believe that if real democratic renewal is possible, it will begin with questions like these — and with the courage to admit that the existing order cannot simply be defended into permanence.
Disagree. I admit that turning focus group interviews into a podcast is a bit tasteless. But the focus group interviews happened. Sarah Longwell regularly sits down with these people face to face and listens to their views to better inform her own. She shows them respect and receives it in return.
I refuse to see this as a negative. Most of us are busy with our lives and we can't sit and listen to focus groups. But we can still dip a toe in the water by listening to the podcast or reading transcripts of interviews and get a sense, even though it's a flawed one, of what Americans who are very different from us are thinking. This is an important function not to be dismissed just because Sarah can be labeled as an elite person or as a consultant.
Thanks for taking the time to engage thoughtfully — I really appreciate it. I completely agree with you that actually listening to ordinary Americans — especially across difference — is important, and not enough people in politics or media do it seriously. It's good that Sarah Longwell makes the effort to sit with people face to face, and I don't necessarily dismiss the value of that.
My critique isn't about the act of listening itself. It's more about how that listening is framed, packaged, and used — especially when it becomes a kind of content product. When focus groups are turned into entertainment/ click bate or used to affirm certain elite narratives without really grappling with why so many people have lost faith in the system, it risks reducing those conversations to spectacle instead of genuine understanding.
I think you're absolutely right that tools like podcasts or transcripts can help more people dip a toe into broader public opinion — and that's valuable. My concern is whether the framing invites real reckoning with the system’s failures, or whether it ends up reinforcing a sense that the problem lies mainly with voters' attitudes, rather than with the structures that failed them.
Thanks again for pushing the conversation deeper — this is the kind of exchange that actually moves things forward.
Good grief! Commentary on a commentary analyzing individuals opinions on actions by politicians addressing purported problems faced by individuals. Oh my!
I’m a bulwark fan, and I don’t agree with you but I’m intrigued by your position and I’m going to think about it some more. Thanks for working hard on this! I may be able to find some common ground with you if I work on it.
Thank you for this insightful perspective. I only recently found the Bulwark. I couldn’t figure out why it feels like constant shouting. Maybe this is it. I will hear it with anew lense now.
I agree with all of this. I’ve asked them where they get these people and no one can tell me. How are they picked? Why do they participate?
I consider the Focus Group podcast a farce.
Great column, and thanks for throwing a jab at the all-too-smug & self satisfied Bulwark crew, yukking it up & slurping coffee as they bloviate and snicker about the end of Western Civilization. Har har har.
I am personally disappointed with some of the Bulwark postings. I love the Bulwark(subscriber). It is comprised of mostly/all never Trump Republicans, which I wholeheartedly embrace. I am of the opinion however, that this group should take some responsibility for the predicament that we are in rather than blaming it on Democrats. There was plenty of time to regroup and create a movement/ new party(?) in that space, but nothing. Be a force for the resistance/path forward.
I completely agree Evelyn. Just because the Bulwark people are ex-pats of the current gross Republican party doesnt mean they dont hold they values they once did. I mean, like Liz Cheney who of course stood up against Trump’s lawlessness, and who voted 80% of the time with Trump’s policies, they havent changed their core values, have they? Sarah Longwell certainly goes out of her way to bash Dems, like Tim Walz who is a bridge to a certain demographic is there ever was one. At first I had a subscription but I cancelled it. They are the cool kids but are they helping? I dunno. I dont think so. Its all a casual yak for them and I wont give them money or my ear anymore
I don’t think this is fair at all! The Focus Group podcast is only one of MANY podcasts they do, the vast majority of which are educational and actually intended to attack the status quo, to educate. And the Focus Group podcast absolutely “contextualizes” the respondents it questions. And Sarah and the gang largely treat the Trump voters with more respect than I am inclined to give them in so far as the try to figure out what semi-normal or understandable issue might lie beneath some of the absurd things people say. And if you think they are “centrist,” guess what? So are most Americans. This just strikes me as a cheap shot at the structure of the focus group itself, and there is a lot more wrong with that than what’s wrong in politics. How would YOU suggest they do better as capturing the voter sentiment?