Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss Gavin Newsom's new communication style on social media and what it means, if anything, for political communications moving forward.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man who lays a new podcast blueprint every time he steps to the mic. Tunde. Ogon Lana Tunde, are you ready to get the people chanting tea to the izzo?
[00:00:39] Speaker B: Yes, sir.
[00:00:41] Speaker A: Now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast app, doing so really helps the show out. Now recording on September 9, 2025. And over the past few weeks, California Governor Gavin Newsom and has appeared to adopt a new style, new for him, style on social media, postings by his office, and one that seemingly imitates or mimics the style of President Trump.
Now, Trump's posting style on social media has been up until now, like, completely unlike other, any other elected official or media people and so forth, and is oftentimes looked down upon by some politicians, some media members, and some voters for a variety of reasons. But it also undoubtedly has been pretty successful for him over the past decade and a half or so. So, to get us started, Tunde, what do you make of Newsom's new social media approach in the Trumpian style, so to speak? Do you think he's figured out kind of the method to what appears to be, or had appeared to be Trumpian madness, or is he making a fool of himself?
[00:01:45] Speaker B: I think it's the former, not the latter. I mean, he's making a fool of himself in a traditional way. I just think it's, you know, I'd say this, I'm sure everyone who's seen it has their own opinion. I would say on the surface, it appears stupid and fun. And he is, you know, obviously for those of us who can see it for what it is, he's, he's, he's making fun and putting in jest the way that the President United States has been behaving for years.
So in that sense, it kind of is what it is. But I would say in just thinking about this and preparing for this discussion, I just kind of like that. It's more of a sad thing for all of us as American culture, because I was kind of more like this. This is what it's come down to, you know, like. And, you know, I know that's the base of our discussion, the fact that we are in an environment where that type of behavior has shot Gavin Newsom to the top of social media rankings.
And so I guess I'll leave it with this and hand it back between the President of the United States and the fact that this year In June of 2025, California passed Japan.
Now it's the world's fourth largest economy.
We've got the leader of the world's largest economy in the President United States and the governor of the largest economy within that economy, being the governor of California, both behaving in a way that serious adults in any other period of time in the last few hundred years would probably look at and say, what the hell is this? And so that's kind of what I just feel like. I feel like it's really a mirror for us as Americans, if we want to see it that way, to look and say this is what we have come to accept from our leaders.
And I'll hand it back to you.
[00:03:41] Speaker A: Well, I think you're correct that this is what it's become. I mean, sad. Whether you say it's sad or not would depend on your perspective, so to speak. I'm reminded of a couple of things here. One would be 48 laws of power went through your actions, not your argument. And so what?
Historically, a lot of times, politicians and media members, at least in their public facing and their media facing stuff, it was about being articulate and having these arguments and making people feel good, making people feel a certain way. But you think Obama, you think Reagan, you think Kennedy, this style and the substance to, to their way they spoke and communicate, which move people.
I think we have to kind of look at this and say, hey, maybe that's not what, what moves the needle as much anymore in the social media era. Maybe people don't want to listen to a 30 minute long speech and be moved out of their seat. They want to read something that is kind of, that hits you more than it persuades you. It makes you think about it and think about it in a way of, oh, that's a crazy kind of way to say something or say something, like crazy thing to say or crazy way to say it, so to speak. So maybe the way our attentions are and the things that we kind of look for and notice in the modern media environment is maybe that's what the innovation here, something that Trump met, whether he identified this or whether this is just who he is and the world came to him and then Newsome seemingly is at minimum checking this out, like, okay, well let me, let me do this kind of style and see what happens for me as well. Is this something that Works also well. And so the second thing I'm reminded of also is amusing ourselves to death. And so like, to me, like I would say, and I'm not saying this is a negative, but this seems like a slippery slope. Like I could definitely see if we're going down this path now. It seems like we're not too far away, five, maybe five, 10 years from politicians cutting pro wrestling, WWE style promos, you know, where they get in and maybe have their shirts off. Like we've seen the, the memes now Newsom with his shirt off, have his shirt off and you know, whether it's AI generated or something and talk what you going to do, brother? And all this other stuff. And you know, like, I, I think we're going that direction, you know what I'm saying? And so that amusing ourselves spoke to the nature of video communication and how that lend or how that makes entertainment be the primary mode of presentation. And so I think that's kind of again, what, what we're seeing here. And so I think that it's a style that may resonate more now than we would look at in the past. And so when you're going direct to the consumer, so to speak, direct to the voter, and you don't have to pass through a media ecosystem in order to talk to people, you know, whether you're getting going on the news or whatever, then maybe this is what moves the needle for at least a large number of people.
[00:06:33] Speaker B: Yeah, well, it's interesting you bring up, you know, what could happen in the future and more of a WWE style entertainment situation just further down the path.
[00:06:44] Speaker A: Of being entertaining, being engaging in this type of, in your communication, prioritizing that.
[00:06:50] Speaker B: Yeah, well, what I mean is we're already there. It's just I agree with you that it will morph and see more comical and probably I guess I'll say speak for myself and not project on you or anyone else. Someone like me that does appreciate, like you said, the Ronald Reagan to kind of Obama style of oratory from a leader, someone that you can listen to a speech and it'll give you some uplifting feeling. Right.
I'm a fan of that. So I'm not a fan of the direction the culture seems to be going. But I gotta coexist in this world, so I gotta live with it.
And so my point, James, is how, how many times in the last decade have we seen again, some people who have run for Congress specifically, not so much Senate and presidential, use guns in their campaign advertising. There was a guy, I think in the 2020 to remember the guy that.
[00:07:44] Speaker A: Was going to hunt rhinos. Like, I was going to say, where.
[00:07:48] Speaker B: He had guys that looked like they were literally Marines or some sort of military force kicking in the door of residential homes with shotguns and saying he's going rhino hunting, but not the animal. Rhino. R I N O Republicans.
[00:08:03] Speaker A: This is a Republican primary. Yeah, correct.
[00:08:05] Speaker B: So this was a primary exactly where he was doing that type of commercial against people in his own party.
So imagine what he would want to do to people on the other party. So my point is just saying that we're already here, James.
[00:08:19] Speaker A: No, you're right. Touche.
Kick it in the door. Hunting rhinos is.
[00:08:25] Speaker B: And so I just.
[00:08:26] Speaker A: WWE wouldn't even do that.
[00:08:28] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. But. But my point is just saying that, like. Yeah, I think it's going to get worse. I think that it unfortunately. Like, here's the interesting thing. When I look at these memes from both Trump and Newsom, they're very interesting because I think that's the point, man. What was that?
[00:08:47] Speaker A: I think that's the point.
[00:08:48] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, here's what I'm going to say, though. We live in this world where we live in a world where we have the most advanced technology that humans have ever had that we know of. Right. And so. But at the same time, these images are very primal.
[00:09:03] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:09:03] Speaker B: Think about, like, what you said. This is. They're trying to show the men with these big muscles and behaving like heroes, you know, whether it's, you know, they're flying on the back of an eagle or, you know, whatever. And so it's just.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: It's just so over the top, too, though. Like, it's not like they're trying to convince anybody that that's what they. These guys look like with their shirt off or that they fry eagles in their spare time. Like it's. It's over the top intentionally.
[00:09:27] Speaker B: Yeah. And then think about it, though, James. I wonder if that was different, whether it was a cave painting from the Neanderthals all the way to, you know, let's say the Egyptians having gods like Osiris and Isis that had the heads of, you know, animals or something like that. Is. Is this much different of trying to. And that's what I mean by.
[00:09:47] Speaker A: It sounds like the same thing. Now, the only thing, though, is that they. They, like, out loud, considered their leaders gods. Yeah. You know, so we're supposed to not say that our leaders are gods, so to speak, or worship our leaders. So. But I think you make an excellent point that While, yes, that there's advanced communication tools and advanced technology used to get these messages. These messages are actually more primal than a oratory speech or something like that. It's hitting us. It's trying to hit us at a deeper point than any of that other stuff that you might have been accustomed to.
[00:10:19] Speaker B: It's interesting because as we're talking, it is true. Like Artie's men. Like, first of all, out of the two men, one of them, meaning the president, for some Americans, he has become a messianic figure. I mean, they do seem to revere him.
Like, he seems to want to be revered, almost like some sort of demigod type of thing. So I do think there's something to that, James, where probably this is a human thing, that there's a certain percentage of our population at all times, whether today or a thousand years ago, that want to.
Whether they want to or whether they're wired to, I don't know. But can look at a human being, another human that's leading them, and actually look at them like a deity.
[00:11:03] Speaker A: And remember, there's a thing of like, they want to think that somebody's in control, you know, that somebody, like, and so putting that on another person, like, hey, hey, that person has it all under control. Control is very comforting.
So I think you're really onto something with that. And I mean, the next piece, I wanted to ask about this because the other thing that really stands out now, much has been made about the reaction, let's say, from a hypocrisy standpoint on, like, Fox News, where they were like, oh, Newsom is embarrassing himself and so forth. But I would say also that when Trump started doing this, initially in the same circles, they, they were saying, oh, this is, you know, this is not the way you're supposed to communicate. I mean, Jeb Bush wasn't over there saying, yeah, this is what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like, so it seems like there is a initial reaction, so to speak, anytime somebody kind of does this and steps out of line.
And so Newsom, though, is not the first person to do this. He's, he's, you know, second person to do this.
So why do you think now, I mean, and I don't want to look at the hypocrisy angle because that's been covered. But just why do you think, do you think there's more to it than hypocrisy from Republicans and right wing media looking at him like this? But also a lot of Democrat establishment Democrats have been looking down at this and saying that he shouldn't be doing this and so forth. So what do you make of kind of the negative reaction that he's gotten from establishment figures on the right wing or even from his own party?
[00:12:32] Speaker B: Good question. I think there's. You probably, you know, we don't have time in this discussion, but probably you need to split those both up because I think that clearly the, the emotional.
[00:12:43] Speaker A: Motivation, if you're more interested in one.
[00:12:45] Speaker B: I'm just gonna say the emotional motivations for each would be different. I think the Republicans actually would be more concerned about this behavior because it's getting traction. So maybe the first time that a Democrat appears that he may be able to play at a certain level that President Trump and other Republicans have been playing at and be effective with it. So that'd be more a fear thing, I think, with the Democratic Party, they clearly are in this position because a lot of their established leadership and the people who have led the party for the last decade plus, you know, just aren't with the modern communication. And therefore they have been losing and will continue to lose if they don't get on, you know, the kind of modern communication style of social media, for better or worse. I mean, it's just, it is what it is. And I think Gavin Newsom is a great example of that, which is six, seven months ago, you know, he was, he was almost Persona non grata in a Democratic Party as the leader of a big state, you know, And I think now he's resurrected himself and everyone's talking about him. So clearly it works. And I would.
[00:13:46] Speaker A: Well, amongst. He's right amongst voters and people. He has. But the, the party kind of elders, so to speak, are still, you know, kind of looking at, they're, they're looking at this down as well.
[00:13:56] Speaker B: Well, and that's not new for those party elders of the modern Democratic Party. Right. I mean, we could cite many other examples where they have not listened to their own base and their voters. I mean, for the first time in my lifetime, you know, the unions generally supported a Republican candidate.
[00:14:13] Speaker A: So, you know, you mentioned to me, just offline, I want you to, you can touch on, on the Tim Walls thing when last summer, he's calling like his weird calling the Republicans and the right wing folks weird was gaining a lot of traction. And the reports were that the establishment Democrats were like, you got to stop doing that.
[00:14:31] Speaker B: Yeah. And similarly, James, actually, it's good you brought that up because the reaction of the Democrats opponents, in this case the Republican Party and their establishment, was Very similar to the reaction with Gavin Newsom, which is, it's like the rare time that I saw the Republican Party kind of off their game on defense.
And, you know, it's just like, and it's kind of like, you know, not to change topics, but kind of like the Epstein case currently for the president, meaning there's only a few times where I've seen them unable to deal with a topic that looks like it satisfies the majority of either their base or the collective voter bloc. And let me, before you go, before.
[00:15:11] Speaker A: You go off, let me, let me get in on this. Well, I just want to finish and.
[00:15:14] Speaker B: Say Democrats don't seem to be able to take advantage of those openings. That's, that's what.
[00:15:18] Speaker A: Well, I would say actually the biggest problem is that they're looking for openings like the Epstein thing. And they think, I think that the biggest problem that the Democrats have, since that's where we were, is, oh, I think a lot of them still think, especially the people in charge, you know, not the rank and file necessarily, but they think that this is a passing phenomenon like that, oh, this type of Trump style or Trump himself or whatever, you know, this is going to be around for a while and then, then it'll either he'll, he'll do something else and then people will move on and go back to what it was before. And so they're trying to hold on to kind of the way they did business in the 80s and the 90s and not recognizing that things have changed. And I mean, the Newsom's talking about this, and when he's explaining why he's doing what he's doing, it's like, yo, things have changed. I've realized this. And this is a recent revelation for him. You know, like, things have changed and you can't behave in the way that you did in 1995 or 2005 and expect to get results. I think an example of this is the Democratic Party's reliance on identity politics at this time and where that doesn't resonate as much as it did maybe in 1995, but this Newsom talking like this on Twitter does. And so where they're saying, no, no, no, you don't need to be doing this. You need to be doing this other stuff, this tried and true stuff. And it's like, well, that other, this older tried and true stuff isn't moving the needle the way that it did that it should. And so, and I think the Epstein is another example of this. The Democrats just released this picture that Trump supposedly drew or gave to Epstein and has a signature on it. And they're like, yeah, because in 1995, if that thing came out, it'd be a big deal for Trump. This thing is going to hit 20, 25 is going to hit. It's going to stick around for a day or two or maybe a week, and then it'll move on. And so they're still trying to. They think that, oh, we can hit them with something the way that we would hit a politician what happened to Nixon, or wait, Something happened in 2005 and that's gonna do it. And it just. That's not the world we live in now. So thinking that this kind of where we are now is transitory and gonna move back to what it was before is a really big handicap. And I think that that's the mindset that leads the Democratic Party to push against this because they're like, hey, you shouldn't be doing this. We have to behave in a way that is different. And I think the reason it's not like that anymore, and I mentioned this a little bit before, is just that our communication with the public was previously mediated through media gatekeepers. And so you had to behave a certain way for the media gatekeepers to find you acceptable, to put you in front of the public like that. That's just not the case anymore. The interaction with the public is not mediated by media gatekeepers anymore. And so going direct to the people may require a different approach than trying to please Dan Rather. And I'm not saying that either one of those with a negative. I'm saying, I'm just calling it like I see it. I'm saying what it is, you know, so to speak. And on the Republican side, I think you're right. Like, their negative reaction is like, you know, this throws them off their game a little bit. They're used to. And their game plan is set up for the Democrats to play in 1995. Hey, the Democrats are going to focus on identity politics. The Democrats, Interestingly enough, the one piece of the 1995 or this, probably you have to go to 1992, pre Clinton. But the one aspect of the Democratic agenda from the past that they don't keep going with is the labor and giving the working man a fair shake. They've kind of left that behind a little bit. But in any event, the Republicans expect the Democrats to play by this antiquated game plan. And they know how to counter punch all that. As soon as they do this, we do this, they have all these counterpunches set up for all of these old things that the Democrats used to do. When these Democrats start behaving a little more unpredictably, then that throws them off their game and they're out there. So, oh, well, they got to throw this at it, throw that at it. And they look baffled, confused, you know, like. So it's interesting to see how those different reactions illustrate kind of the mindset and kind of where these, these political actors are.
[00:19:11] Speaker B: Yeah, the. Well, let me. You got a couple of good things I want to follow up on quickly. Thank you, sir. One is on a serious note, and you're going to laugh, but the modern politics has created an environment where the GOP Republicans are the Harlem Globetrotters, and the Democrats are the Washington Generals. I mean, see, like you said, like, it's like the Globetrotters know everything the Generals are going to do, and they always win every game because that's almost.
[00:19:35] Speaker A: Scripts, you know, it's almost.
[00:19:38] Speaker B: Yeah. So that's all I'm saying is it's. That's where we're at. But I'll say this, a couple things to hit on, and then I know we want to keep it moving.
[00:19:45] Speaker A: Just to be clear, though, that overstates it. I mean, obviously, they're not winning every time. I mean, the last two presidential elections have gone one way or the other. The last four have been split, you know, so it's not, it alludes to.
[00:19:54] Speaker B: Your point about if you're in a strategic war, warfare with anybody, like a sport. Right. Offense and defense.
The offense knows where the defense is going to be at all times and how they want to defend. And so they know, like, you know what I mean? And that's what I'm saying. It's just, it's like the Globetrotters and the Generals. But what I would say is a couple of things. One is on, on the sense of the Democratic Party establishment not liking this style. That's been the problem with the Democrats is, and I, and I, I want to say this carefully.
It's the response of the intellectual to something that doesn't feel intellectual. And that's been the problem with the Democrats.
[00:20:32] Speaker A: Yeah. Because I said politicians, media, people in the media, some are uncomfortable with this, and then some voters are uncomfortable with this, which.
[00:20:43] Speaker B: It goes back to what we talked about earlier, which is this is primal, this is emotion, this is the heart. And the intellectual doesn't understand that. They look at that and say, well, that looks stupid. Why is Gavin Newsom doing memes now like Trump? This is Stupid. He said they don't get it, that, like you said, this is where people want, this is where the voter is right now. So you either go there and get their attention that way or you keep spinning in the wind and pulling on Superman's cape and doing things that we know don't work. What, you know, one or the other. The next thing was, I kind of, again, we're not going in this topic, but I appreciate bringing up how the Democrats play the Epstein thing, because you're right when you say about this thing recently that was released in the paper, because that is the 1990s version of it, because I think the Democratic establishment is still butthurt by the idea of, like you always say, hypocrisy. And they still don't get it that that doesn't matter. And they're still in the 90s and they're still saying, how come it doesn't work? This guy's a womanizer and he's done this and he's done that and they, these, all these people made a big deal in the 90s under Clinton. And look, they let this go. So, like you're saying, we're going to have this gotcha and release. Now, the thing with the woman drawing and the signature at the bottom, knowing that it's been a decade of Trump now, from the grab and by the you know what to everything else, and nobody cares about that, obviously, like, meaning.
[00:22:03] Speaker A: I know some don't overstate it, though. Some people care. But the people who don't care, the people who don't care don't care. And so they're not going to start caring if you hit them with enough stuff. They've already established they don't care.
[00:22:14] Speaker B: And so going back to your point, the actual way to play the Epstein, to drive a wedge and to try and get a political kind of your voice out would be to talk about the class warfare aspect of it, clearly.
[00:22:25] Speaker A: Or it would be to meme it to death to get it, to have it floating on social media all the time and not try to make some intellectual or gotcha like that. I mean, there is a different way to get the issue is not getting your message in front of you. The issue is getting it in front of people enough that they'll start to internalize it. And that requires repetition and repetition has to be earned these days. I look at Mandani as an example of this, where when he ran a campaign with little to no money against big, big deep pockets in New York, he was able to generate engagement through the way he used social media and people heard about him, people saw him, they saw him a lot. And it started to become a thing. And obviously, of course, the Democrat establishment hates him, too. And that plus he's talking economic messages that they've all but abandoned. But nonetheless, it's about. And when we were talking about the Mandani thing before, the thing that really stood out to me is that, is that the comment that was made that he earned attention.
Earned attention.
He didn't go just spend a bunch of money, buy a bunch of ads and so forth that people halfway pay attention to. He earned attention. What Newsom's doing right now is earning attention, and that is what matters. And it's not just somebody sees it once, you need them to see it 100 times. And so that's kind of. That's the environment we're in now. That may be something that's off putting to the intellectual, because they're like, hey, when somebody sees something, they should contemplate it and they should think about it and they should internalize it and then make a decision and remember that decision. That's just not like, you can't will that into being, you know, and maybe when you had a mass media that dictated all communication, that would reiterate over and over, and when Nixon is caught stealing stuff out of Watergate Hotel, then the news talks about it every day, and that's where everybody's getting their information. So every day when they turn on the news, they're talking about this again. And so they drill it in for you. Now you have to earn that attention. It's not going to just be. You float it out there, you pay for a couple of ads, and then you get it.
So I think that's the, that's the reality that people have to recognize that we're in right now.
And again, I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying that's what is, you know, so. But I wanted. There's one piece I want to get to before we get out of here, and that's just kind of looking forward. So, because you did, you know, I did throw this out there before, and you're like, oh, you know, we don't know how to look in 10 years. So, 10, 20 years. Do you think. Do you think this is the direction that our communication either is or has to go for more people, like. Or is this. Or is Newsom's doing this for some laughs, you know, and then. Or Trump's, you know, going to. Once he moves on, then we're going to just go back to more of the traditional or something in between, something totally different from either two. What do you think? And again, obviously, this is a fool's errand to make predictions, but just, you know, from. From what you see so far. What do you see, man?
[00:25:15] Speaker B: It's interesting, man. I think that based on the current trajectory of things, I think this continues, and I think it leads to the further decline in our kind of culture, our discourse or society.
I could see a Balkanization.
[00:25:31] Speaker A: You mean like that documentary movie from 20 years ago, Idiocracy?
[00:25:35] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:25:35] Speaker A: It wasn't really a documentary, though.
[00:25:37] Speaker B: On a serious note, man, I could see a Balkanization of the United States in the next two generations if this is allowed to continue. Because how do you hold a large country together without either a serious authoritarianism like they have in countries like Russia and China? Because there are vast.
[00:25:55] Speaker A: For the large number of people. Yeah.
[00:25:57] Speaker B: With different cultures and. And, you know, spread out amongst them and, you know that. But so instead of having a democracy where everyone can speak freely and all that, you clamp all the opposition down and you just keep everyone in check. Either that or you're going to start having infighting and conflict and we're going to break apart. Because here's the thing I'll leave on James, that has not lost me. Gavin Newsom has. We're talking about him. He's gotten to the top of social media because of this behavior.
Like I said earlier, the president, United States is on top of the world's largest economy.
Gavin Newsom's on top of the largest economy within that country.
Both men are behaving in ways that seem to me to be unsustainable for those economies to maintain at the top amongst their peers.
If you behave like this forever as a country and as a state and as leaders. So I don't know where it goes, but what I'm saying is it's a reflection on us. What does it mean that Gavin Newsom, by behaving this way, not talking about how he's going to improve maybe the state's health care system or the crime or whatever, or get businesses back because they're high, property taxes, whatever you would expect a government official leading a state to be talking about, he's doing memes, he's making fun of stuff and all that, and that's got him to the top of the algorithms and social media. So we all see it. So as long as that's the formula and the incentive for social media is.
[00:27:21] Speaker A: To put that he's demonstrating the incentive for doing that.
[00:27:24] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
[00:27:25] Speaker A: Trump did it.
[00:27:25] Speaker B: I don't know.
[00:27:26] Speaker A: But he's proving that it's not limited to just Trump to be able to use this kind of behavior system. Yeah, yeah.
[00:27:32] Speaker B: And that's, and that's a great point, James. We give Trump too much attention, too much credit. I guess it's well deserved because he seeks it out. But you're right, James. It shows that this is the, the, the medium and the apparatus of how we communicate. The incentive for that is to drive this stuff to the top of our communication. So it's like, I don't know if it'll look good in 20 years with this. Yeah, because it doesn't feel good today compared to 20 years ago, to be honest with you.
[00:27:57] Speaker A: Well, so my thought is that it's whether it's going to turn out good or bad, and bad being kind of what you're talking about, where you have a nation not being able to stay together anymore or a nation leaving a constitutional and democratic system and going to an authoritarian system, Those would be the bad outcomes. The good outcomes would be a healthy democratic system, rule of law, and all those other things.
Whether it goes one of those two directions is going to depend on the type of men or women that rise to the top in this situation, because it's the techniques that we're talking about that Newsom is taking from Trump and saying, hey, these techniques are working. Let me ape these techniques. These techniques can be put to use in a lot of different ways, though. If you want to make your foil your fellow countrymen, as Trump has done, and Newsom, he plays on that, he doesn't do it as directly, but that will cause a Balkanization. But if you find an outside foil or some other issue to make your foil to say, hey, we're going to go after and make this our thing.
The bottom line is that for a large country to stay together, and particularly not under the rule of military and authoritarian authoritarianism, they need to have to share kind of a goal together. You know, something that we're doing together beyond just, oh, everybody has to do what that guy says because he has a big gun. And so if you can use these tools to get people aligned to say, I mean, just an example would be the space race in the 60s. You know, like, that's something that Americans took pride in. 60s also, you had the fight against communism. Things, all these things were themes that Americans together united them. And so if these techniques are used, if one, if themes that can unite a large chunk of the country, you know, 70, 80% of the country behind something if they don't agree on how to get there. But this is what we want to do. If these tools are used in furtherance of that, then things can be better than they are. They're not going to go back to where they were. I think that should be clear to everyone. Things are not going back. And so it's a matter of these are the type of tools that are at your disposal now and that have proven to be very effective. How are these tools going to be used? Are these tools only going to be used by people that are very selfish and self centered and that want the best for them at the expense of everybody else? Or are these tools also going to be used by people who want to push for a greater good and then therefore can unite people behind themes that aren't corrosive to the nation or to the people of the country and so, or at least a good chunk of them. So I think that's really the, it's going to be the character of the people because I mean what's become clear to me is that when you have people that are bad people, selfish, you know, self centered, all that kind of stuff, whatever system we have isn't going to really make that much of a difference. If you put people in power that are, that are doing things selfishly and that are mean spirit and stuff, that's the way the country is going to work anyway, you know. So I think it really does going to come down or is going to come down to the people and really more people. If Newsom can show the way, more people who want the common good or to want to push for the common good. Taking tools like this and using them because we know people who want for the selfish good, we know they're going to use, you know. So that to me is really the determining factor.
[00:31:07] Speaker B: Well, I got a buzz kill for you because that means, I mean I'm serious man, because think about this and I know we'll. And it's just that the thing is everything's about incentives. The incentives.
Think about social media, what type of people spend the most time on it. Think about the people that have been.
[00:31:28] Speaker A: Elected or, or what it does to people when they spend a lot of time, when it makes them more narcissistic and self centered.
[00:31:34] Speaker B: Social media people elected a Congress since about 2018 that are extremely narcissistic and spend a lot of their time doing selfies and all that stuff on social media and posting all the time these are adults who are supposed to make decisions about, you know, our lives and our future and making laws and all that. And they spend more time on social media than me or you. And we don't. We don't have that type of influence on our society. We're not elected officials in the US Congress. So my point is, is that, that's why I don't think this, this goes better. Because the way that we elect politicians is based on us seeing them and them getting in front of us. The way that people are getting in front of us now is through social media. The incentives of social media incentivize narcissistic and selfish type of behavior and attracts those kind of people more than. It doesn't.
[00:32:22] Speaker A: This is so.
[00:32:22] Speaker B: It's just.
[00:32:23] Speaker A: But once that's an established point that that's the way that's the path, then people who do think for the greater good also can learn how and or can leverage those same tools. I think the problem that we've had looking back is that it was only the people naturally drawn to that that really played in that sandbox in that way. And now if, if the model is established that, hey, whether you like this or not, this is what you got to do, then that can then be opened up to everybody. But we got to close this conversation up. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Fall Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:33:00] Speaker B: I'm Tune in.
[00:33:01] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
