Many of us were on edge this week awaiting the possible criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. Trump himself called for protests ahead of his expected indictment, awakening the possibility of more political violence resembling the Jan 6 uprising. Andy speaks with Atlantic reporter Adrienne LaFrance about her cover story, “The New Anarchy,” which digs into this new era of domestic terror and what to do about it.

Keep up with Andy on Twitter and Post @ASlavitt.

Follow Adrienne LaFrance on Twitter @AdrienneLaF.

Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium.

Support the show by checking out our sponsors!

• Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows: https://lemonadamedia.com/sponsors/

Check out these resources from today’s episode: 

• Read Adrienne’s cover story, “The New Anarchy”: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/us-extremism-portland-george-floyd-protests-january-6/673088/
• Find vaccines, masks, testing, treatments, and other resources in your community: https://www.covid.gov/
• Order Andy’s book, “Preventable: The Inside Story of How Leadership Failures, Politics, and Selfishness Doomed the U.S. Coronavirus Response”: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250770165

Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia.

For additional resources, information, and a transcript of the episode, visit lemonadamedia.com/show/inthebubble.

Transcript

SPEAKERS

Andy Slavitt, Adrienne LaFrance

Andy Slavitt  00:18

This is IN THE BUBBLE with Andy Slavitt. Welcome, as always email me at andy@lemonadamedia.com. I have been responding, if you sent me an email and I haven’t responded, check your spam filter. Everybody is a little bit on edge this week, as they’ve been awaiting the possible criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. Trump himself has called for protests ahead of his inspected indictment. And this makes the possibility of political violence, which was the cover story in this month’s Atlantic. All the more relevant? You know, political violence has been this thing that I think it’s feels like a relatively new occurrence to many of us. It is particularly, I think it’s safe to say driven on the right, although not exclusively, and particularly in the time since Donald Trump, it’s taken on a pretty dramatic increase, its shows itself not only in January 6, but in eruptions in cities like Portland, it shows itself in attempted assassinations of political figures, like Steve Scalise, and Mike Pence, like Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, is just one of those topics. That’s very, very scary to us. And I think in the bubble tends to specialize in or I like it, when we specialize in issues that are seem hard beyond repair, they make us anxious, they make us a little panicky, in some part, because we just don’t know where to start. Well, political violence is without a doubt, one of those topics that is frightening. And I think Adrian de France, who is wrote that cover story of the Atlantic, and as my guest today would tell you that it’s so frightening that we actually numb ourselves to it, we don’t like to think about it, oftentimes. And you know, that is one of the things that allows it to grow and allows it to fester. So Adrienne did something interesting, she not only took a look at our current spate of political violence and tried to put it into some sort of pattern. But she also tried to create a context by looking at the question, if there are other periods in our recent history, or the world race in history, where we’ve had a similar level of political violence, what caused it and how did it end. And she helps us understand political violence in a way, which I think makes us feel more knowledgeable, more at ease, more relaxed, and more understanding of it. Now, you can’t be at ease about this topic, by understanding it better. But that sense that feeling that we hope to give you on the show, that this is an issue that we know how to put into some context that we can allows us to take some of that agency back. And that’s my sincere hope that this show does proud people listen to it. Let’s bring in Adrienne.

Andy Slavitt  03:26

Adrienne LaFrance, welcome to the bubble. In the wake of January 6, and looking at new potential calls for violence, and as we approach the 2024 political season, it’s got us all thinking about what you laid out in your new piece, which is how political violence comes to us how it spreads. And one of the things you noted is that there’s a sort of a numbing effect, that we first see political violence that attracts us, but then it becomes a little bit more part of normal life. And it doesn’t generate the news headlines. Is that happening to us? Are we are we becoming numb to something that’s becoming more regular in our life.

Adrienne LaFrance  04:22

Well, you know, I don’t want to be too sweeping in generalizing people’s reaction to this. But I do think I mean, one of our great qualities as a species is our resilience. And I think that can cut both ways. And so I think that we do have a tendency as humans to compartmentalize and to try to, you know, carry on, which is a good thing, but when it you know, blinds people from understanding, a growing threat of political violence in this case, I think that’s dangerous.

Andy Slavitt  04:51

But the facts the facts say that this is in fact, continuing to go on because I think you know, if you stopped me or For most people on the street, they can name January 6, and they can name maybe one or two other things that appear at the top of their head. But you’ve studied this is the period we’re going through contain just an unusual amount and the continued building of political violence.

Adrienne LaFrance  05:16

Yes, this is important. So I think I mean, there’s this real question of whether the indictments related to January 6 will have what I think is the intended effect, which is to dissuade people from carrying out such acts of violence again, on the other hand, if you look by nearly every measure, and talk to the people who study this most closely, you do see this trend of violence, worsening still. And it’s things like, you know, people bringing firearms to protests, and really serious threats against elected officials. And just the tenor to I mean, this is harder to quantify. But I think it’s something that you can easily see if you just kind of look around the, you know, quote, unquote, political discourse, just the tenor is so coarse, and so divided, and in some cases, so violent. And so really, you know, I could keep going along every measure. And there’s polling that reflects this, too. There’s the violent, the violence itself is increasing, and people’s tolerance for it is too.

Andy Slavitt  06:15

One of the things you do is you try to put it’s in the context of other periods of history, both in the US and outside of the US. And it’s something that I’ve often wondered, because we feel like we’re going through some really unusual times. But you looked at other parts of the world and other parts of our own history. Is this an unusual time? Can you compare this to other times in history?

Adrienne LaFrance  06:42

You know, our country, political violence is part of America from the beginning, we started with a revolution, right? And you have obviously slavery as one of the most horrific aspects of political violence in our history. And, and a lot of people think of the 1960s and the plan. And so we have this really violent record, certainly. But what you see over time is periods of sort of ebbing and flowing.

Andy Slavitt  07:07

Talk about some of the ones that you’ve compare this to.

Adrienne LaFrance  07:11

I mean, I wanted to look at areas that people might not think about most readily. And so I looked at the early 20th century in America, where you had this sustained period of anarchist attacks. And so is just like lots of dynamite bombings, and, you know, poisonings of the soup at a banquet and assassinations and bombings, and it was a really hectic stretch of, you know, off and on about 20 years. And I was drawn to that for a few reasons. One, because I think people sometimes don’t realize how bad it was then. And also, because I was really interested in in not just constraining my examination of political violence to the form of it that’s most dangerous today. So today, everyone will tell you right wing violence is the biggest threat. You know, 120 years ago, it was left wing violence, but the interesting thing is that political violence operates the same way regardless of ideology. And so I wanted to really step back and look for lessons from another time if we could find them to see how we might get through today.

Andy Slavitt  08:15

So what did you learn about how periods of political violence start? What are the ingredients in society that make it ripe for this kind of thing to happen?

Adrienne LaFrance  08:25

So it’s, again, and again, the sort of conditions that we see today in the past also made societies vulnerable to political violence in particular. So you have, for example, highly visible wealth disparity, you have people losing faith in institutions, you have people often in sort of dire straits economically, who feel like they have nowhere else to turn in terms of, you know, what path to choose for their lives, you have deepening division and polarization. I mean, it’s it again, and again, over the centuries, you have a lot of the same conditions that we see today.

Andy Slavitt  08:58

And then you also talk about access to violence or something which where violence becomes seen as acceptable or lack of consequence, and you give it a great quote, I’m not going to give it to precisely about how people in groups, their morality changes when they when they feel like those things that you just mentioned, are experienced by others and others feel like violence is an acceptable answer.

Adrienne LaFrance  09:26

Right. I mean, there’s a lot of literature on this and research into this sort of group think quality and people’s willingness to commit acts in groups that they never would contemplate alone. And that’s certainly a factor that we see today as well.

Andy Slavitt  09:42

So those are the ingredients how it starts. But don’t those ingredients always exist? Or do they not really always exist to the point that that they create violence and is there a spark, which sort of takes those ingredients over the edge and makes it more acceptable for people to say, You know what, I don’t like that, I’m going to include violence as something that’s acceptable.

Adrienne LaFrance  10:05

Right. So I think those ingredients do always exist, but at different levels, right? So in economic boom times are in times when the wealth disparity from the very richest to the very poorest have been a smaller gap. That’s a buffer to protect against violence. I mean, just to give one example, but you do see moments where it’s, it’s worse or better. And it happens that we’re in a moment where it’s worse.

Andy Slavitt  10:31

Yeah, it strikes me that what you’re describing are people who are feeling left out of society, that the government doesn’t represent them any longer. The sense of isolation, that they’re perhaps other people that the government is serving. And, you know, you mentioned ideology. And it’s interesting, because, like, if I see political violence in the civil rights era, you may deploy the tactics. But you understand that people are fighting for certain rights, or our people who are being a violent because they’re in the violent end of sort of environmental protests, who say, okay, I know what the I know, the end game they want. But I don’t know what end game patriot prayer wants. I don’t know what endgame, the proud boys want. Except maybe for Donald Trump to be president. Maybe that’s enough. Is that fair, that there’s not a real plan after the violence? Or is it just about the violence?

Adrienne LaFrance  11:33

I mean, it’s one of the more disturbing aspects of this to me. And one of the scholars I spoke with, I mean, that was her point exactly, is basically like, you have this worldview. And it’s one that has often led to acts of political violence. And the worldview is basically, we’re going to take back our country, and the way she put it to me was okay, you take back your country, then what are you going to do with it, and I this is the ideologically messy or slippery part of it.

Andy Slavitt  11:59

Let’s take a quick break and come right back and talk more to Adrienne dig into what’s going on, particularly today, as we face potentially new calls for political violence, where that’s going to happen. We’ll be right back. Alright, we’re back. Adrian, we were talking about what starts a period of political violence, which we’re clearly and today, you also looked at how they end? How does it happen?

Adrienne LaFrance  12:49

Well, in the case of the anarchy of the early 20th century, I mean, this was one of the more disturbing and disheartening, frankly, aspects of my reporting, as I was really hoping to go back in time and find a blueprint that was like, okay, here’s how they got it, right. We can learn from it, you know, we can have, we can figure it out. And in fact, I’ve from that era, really found more of a cautionary tale. Two of the major things that happened were the start of World War One. And with that, it didn’t make the violence in America stop, but it did have a temporary dampening effect. And then the other thing about that era, that was quite distressing was the Palmer raid. So you know, infamous, totally unconstitutional, but basically, law enforcement had decided they had enough this was after sort of a game of Whack a Mole over many years, where they were trying to fight anarchists, and sometimes, you know, successfully, sometimes not. And they finally decided to just orchestrate this multi city raid that involved sweeping up 1000s of totally innocent people and deporting them. And to me, I mean, you could say that worked, but it’s something that should never be repeated.

Andy Slavitt  13:59

And Palmer was the attorney general, yes, US attorney. And he basically said enough is enough, and essentially, conducted these extra-legal raids. And that was part of what brought this boat that was the government response to the era.

Adrienne LaFrance  14:16

Right, so he had I mean, there were multiple assassination attempts, they, you know, in our anarchists blew up his house. So he had good reason to be mad. But the real takeaway here is for Americans today is you cannot allow a period of real violence to lead to government overreach in this way. It’s just I mean, it was uncanny. It’s sort of the prototypical example of government overreach and unconstitutional overreach.

Andy Slavitt  14:43

Well, let’s talk about the present day. Let’s travel to Portland, Oregon, over the last few years. You reported on what went on in Portland, Oregon. Tell us what your reporting uncovered.

Adrienne LaFrance  14:56

So I was drawn to Portland in part because I felt like I needed a content Very example. And it seemed to me that looking at the United States, this was in recent years, the closest to where, you know, with the exception of January 6, obviously, which people are very familiar with.

Andy Slavitt  15:11

That was just a tour of the Capitol.

Adrienne LaFrance  15:14

That’s what they say. But yeah, so this, I mean, the social contract broke, you had stained violence in the streets, the law enforcement couldn’t get a handle on it. And the other thing that compelled me about Portland was that it became from the outside, so infused with sort of tribal politics that you could just see people trying to weaponize it in a way that got away from this question of what on Earth is actually going on here? And how can we, as a country prevent it from happening again? So I went there. And I think the most important thing for people to understand about what happened there in the summer of 2020, was that it wasn’t just an interruption of protests against police brutality. Certainly, those kinds of protesters were out there in the streets after the murder of George Floyd. But really, what you saw was those protests and that kind of organization being hijacked by a longer standing conflict between right wing provocateurs, who started protesting in Portland, soon after Donald Trump was elected, and would really draw out their political foes into the streets effectively for a fight. And that dynamic sort of erupted and overtook what would have been, you know, probably still very well attended and passionate protests. But it’s really important for people to know that this was right wing provocateurs drawing their political foes out into the streets.

Andy Slavitt  16:35

Well, let’s talk about Antifa. Okay, because Antifa is the sort of get out of jail free card for every right wing protest, or it feels to me, January 6, oh, that was Antifa or that was Antifa disguised as right wing protesters. So it’s hard for me to get to the bottom of like, literal Antifa actually plays. It’s also said in ways with sometimes where people and the right expect people in the left to defend Antifa which, generally speaking, I don’t hear I don’t hear anybody saying, Yeah, we own that. I don’t think people deny that there are extremists, from all points of view. But yet this dynamic is set up, where people would say, well, it’s 50/50. So you know, you can’t really blame either side.

Adrienne LaFrance  17:23

Well, it’s certainly not 5050. I mean, I think you’re right, there’s a lot going on here. And I think the other troubling thing is that people get nervous to even talk about Antifa. Because it’s such a sort of buzzword for the right that if you mention its existence, then all of a sudden, you’re sort of lumped in with the right wing talking points, but it is a real thing. It’s a loosely organized group. And they’re sort of anarchists in the in the classical sense, in many ways. But this is part of why in my piece, I sort of provocatively decided to call the new anarchy, not because the threat we faced is from left wing anarchist today. It’s because the tactics of classical anarchists are being employed by the right so but Antifa is a real thing. And people should not be afraid to talk about it. But it also absolutely is not a 50/50 split in terms of what kind of threat the country faces from domestic from political violence.

Andy Slavitt  18:14

Yeah, it’s tricky, because I think we do ourselves a disservice by not talking about Antifa critically, as well, because you either believe political violence is an appropriate tactic, or you don’t, I suppose there are situations where that might go away. You know, if we were living in the time of slavery, we might all agree that violence is an appropriate response to being enslaved.

Adrienne LaFrance  18:41

Right. And I mean, there’s the long standing debate over the question of when political violence is justified, especially among oppressed classes. So I mean, that’s a real and worthy debate to have.

Andy Slavitt  18:54

Right? Right. And people would say, you know, that the American Revolution was important, you know, that was an appropriate use of violence. And that’s because they won, you know, necessary if they lost, I think we might have seen it differently. But let’s come back to stick with today. You know, one of the characteristics of the political violence today, unfortunately, is targets against political figures, whether it’s Steve Scalise, or Paul Pelosi or Mike Pence, or indeed Nancy Pelosi. I know many lawmakers, Congress people in a very different state of fear these days. Justifiably so. You know, I hate to hate to ask the question this way. But, you know, it feels like we’ve been very, very fortunate that none of these have ended in that actual assassination is an actual death. But doesn’t it feel inevitable that this is not over and that one of these is going to end quite tragically?

Adrienne LaFrance  20:00

Yeah, I mean, I’m with you. It’s horrific to contemplate. But it is something that came up again and again, in my reporting this question of, you know, is what it will take for people to stop and finally condemn this. And when I say people, I mean, ordinary people, but also, crucially, the national leadership, especially among Republicans who have stoked along this violence, you know, will it take a sort of cataclysmic act for them? Finally, to say, this is enough? And, and maybe, but one might also ask, why hasn’t that happened already? Why wasn’t January 6 Enough, even without, you know, people, people died that day, but even without an assassination of a high profile, political figure. So, of course, we hope that doesn’t happen, and it’s not what’s needed. But I understand why people ask the question.

Andy Slavitt  20:45

Let’s take one more quick break, we’ll be right back. Let’s talk about the rather tricky business, of responding to these threats from political violence that we see these violent extremists, because, on the one hand, we feel like we have to create accountability and justice. On the other hand, the state itself is a problematic actor in its response, you talked about examples of overzealous prosecution. Is there a right way to think about how to respond in these situations and avoid some of the traps that make it worse?

Adrienne LaFrance  21:45

I mean, this is one of the hardest questions and you’re right, that there are a large number of Americans who, no matter what are going to believe things that aren’t true are going to believe the election was stolen from Donald Trump when it wasn’t, and how you reach that contingency or that constituency with reality is a real question that we, as a country, we have not yet figured out. And then in terms of balancing the appropriate response. I mean, this is one of the things that worries me most, frankly, is I think, there’s no question to me that you need real accountability for people who commit acts of political violence. And I think, again, that the January 6 indictments are hopefully a deterrent, and, you know, an appropriate one, you’re right, that it’ll be politicized no matter what, and we certainly see that. But the thing that I really do worry about is overreach. I mean, I think about the post 911 years and how it was very easy for the government to sort of set aside people’s civil liberties in the name of national security. And maybe that is what has kept the country relatively safe from outside attacks. But you have to ask what, you know, as just a citizen, what you’re willing to give up in order for a perceived sense of security. And I think we faced that exact question again, today with domestic political violence.

Andy Slavitt  23:03

You indicated some polls in your writing, which showed that a surprisingly large portion of Americans are okay with political violence under certain circumstances, something like one in five. And something like one in 10, I believe in your reporting showed that they would be okay with political violence if it meant restoring Trump to the presidency. And that’s, of course, horrific to consider that people would respond to a poll that way. But I don’t actually doubt that people feel like they’re doing something patriotic, because I do think they feel like their leader has just told them that the Constitution has been violated. And therefore, it’s time for those measures. And that brings us to this week, where Trump’s tweet, or tweet, I’m sorry, his truth. That’s what I call it what he really calls it, the truths. His truth. Right now, nothing ironic. I’m sorry. I don’t know. I don’t see anything around. His truth is that he expects there to be protests from his pending indictment by the New York District Attorney Bragg. How would you interpret that? Is this another call for violence?

Adrienne LaFrance  24:18

Well, so I think Trump does and has always done something masterful, and how he kind of whips people up in that very often he goes right up to the line of plausible deniability. And, you know, knowing what we know about who he is and how he’s activated his base in the past, of course, this is a call for violence. I think he could say no, I just asked people to protest. I want it to be peaceful. And so again, he does this thing where it’s sort of like a wink wink. Just you know, the classic example I always think about is the to the proud boys stand back and standby which is something he said in one of the 2020 presidents debate. And it’s very obvious to anyone who’s even remotely paying attention what he means. But he is careful about not crossing a rhetorical line.

Andy Slavitt  25:13

But it’s unmistakable. I’m not even asking the question of his legal liability for saying that we’ve done some shows on that as everybody else probably. But I’m actually really more of the question of, is this a batch that’s lighting kind of the firewood? And, you know, should we expect out of this experience, and as we get into further into presidential election season to 2024, God help us, more political violence to be stoked?

Adrienne LaFrance  25:42

I mean, it’s absolutely the worry. And, you know, I talked to people at very high levels of Homeland Security and the White House and military, and this is what they’re worried about. They’re worried that political violence will get worse, leading to 2024. I think one of the things that will be interesting about Trump’s pending indictment is whether it works this time. So with January 6, you had weeks and weeks, I mean, more than that, actually months of him laying the groundwork. Even the summer before the election, he was starting to call the election rigged, anticipating the possibility he would lose the stop the steel campaign was highly coordinated, very visible across social media. I don’t think you see as much of that organization taking place. Now, at least not since this weekend. Social media truth posting of former President Trump’s and so there’s some hope, at least, I have some hope that, you know, it’s not as well organized as it was on January 6, and therefore maybe won’t come together, in addition to people maybe being worried about getting indicted, because we saw what happened to folks in January 6. But it’s of course, it’s the worry and people shouldn’t be worried. I mean, we know who this man is and what his values are.

Andy Slavitt  26:55

You mentioned a lot of things in there, which are gonna poke into as we close, before we close, which is this sense that if you were out there, early January of 2021, one thing is different today, which is there are a whole lot of people in jail. Do we expect that it’s a different equation today, that there is this deterrent effect that people will speak their minds, peacefully protest? Write op eds, do all the things we do in non-violent times when we don’t like something, but understand that there’s real consequences here?

Adrienne LaFrance  27:32

I think that is a factor for some people. And that’s a good thing, hopefully. But you have to remember that it takes very, you know, very few bad actors to exact real damage and harm. And especially, I mean, you mentioned one thing that’s different today, which is the endorsement of mainstream Republicans of these tactics. I mean, that’s, that’s really shocking. If you look at history, we haven’t normally had one of the major parties condoning political violence or denying it or denying elections. And we have that today. And it’s tremendously troubling. And the other thing we have that’s different today is the social web. And so the barrier to radicalization or extremism is so much lower. And all it takes, again, is one individual or a handful of individuals to cause real harm. And so while I do hope and believe that the way the January 6 indictments have been handled will be a deterrent for some, is it enough? I don’t know. I hope so. But

Andy Slavitt  28:25

it’s a really great point. It’s a really interesting point about how much organization is actually required here, you talk about this as sort of a cafeteria style, political violence, where, you know, all it takes is one person with violent tendency, access to social media, and some group things that you can find on social media. And, you know, you can have a Steve Scalise, or Paul Pelosi, or one of a dozen other examples that, sadly, we can claim. And it does feel like the internet provides a very different sort of playing field than other periods.

Adrienne LaFrance  29:05

Absolutely well, and you have to remember to that the geographic disaggregation and the scale. So you have, you know, maybe one person who is prone to violence is easily radicalized, who in an earlier era, maybe wouldn’t have encountered the pamphlet on the street corner or the Klan meeting or whatever, and therefore wouldn’t have eventually committed an act of violence. Today, it’s very easy to find a tribe and humans are drawn to being part of communities. So it’s very easy to find a tribe and to develop the perception that many, many people agree with you simply because of the architecture of the web and how, you know, extremists surfaced and how, you know, algorithms encourage people to see material that angers them. And so it has this skewing effect that a worldview that’s quite extreme might actually be normal, and people find real community in In radical groups, and so the social web, I mean, it should be this miraculous force for democracy, and in many ways is, but it’s also a huge danger to, you know, in the context of political violence.

Andy Slavitt  30:12

Yeah, I can assure you that everybody on Facebook likes pickleball, because everybody that I see on Facebook likes pickleball. So it must be, it must be true. The whole thing. The whole, the whole thing is a giant pickle ball. Well, I’m trying to figure out now as we close, what I should feel optimistic about what I should feel concerned about. And you wrote, you wrote in your, in your piece, something to the effect of people effectively saying, hey, just wake me when there’s a civil war, that we’re going to effectively not pay as much attention to as a body politic to the worsening and the trends and the strengthening of political violence, until such time as it becomes out of control, or it’s done way more damage than we think. I guess I just wonder, based on your kind of putting us in the context of history, where we are, where you fit where you think, in your heart of hearts, we are on a journey, you know, what inning of the baseball game are we in?

Adrienne LaFrance  31:16

Oof, I mean, I don’t know history is a long time, our country has been through very difficult moments, and I should disclose I’m an optimist. In my heart of hearts, what I hope is maybe a little bit cheesy, but I really believe that we have enough good people in this country who care and share common values and don’t want, you know, a society to fray into all out violence that if those people can commit themselves to doing sort of the boring work of democracy, including running for office, despite how scary it might seem right now, like what we really need is leadership, I think in so many ways, and my hope is that at every level of government that that decent people will step up and defend civically, you know, the things that we need to keep the country going and not fall apart. And so I actually really am optimistic, but I don’t think it’s, you know, it may get worse before it gets better. I hope it doesn’t. But the biggest thing to me is people can’t just check out and say, oh, this is too depressing. I don’t want to think about it like, no, you have you have to be engaged.

Andy Slavitt  32:24

Well, let’s end on that note, Adrienne, thank you again for being in the bubble. It was a real pleasure.

Adrienne LaFrance  32:28

Thank you so much for having me.

Andy Slavitt  32:43

Next week, a very special week on in the bubble special for us. I hopefully it’s special. For all of you listeners. We’ve done 366 episodes of in the bubble. Next week is our third anniversary. We’ve been doing the show for three years. Some of you may know that this show started. When my then 17-18 year old son said to me, hey Dad, why don’t you do a podcast? And he and I just got on the microphone together with a great help of people from Lemonada. And put out an episode just started interviewing started talking to people that I talked to about politics and society and the pandemic and so forth. Well, next year is the third anniversary we got special guests. Tony Fauci is one of them. Always want to celebrate a birthday with Tony. Second is Ashish Jha, who is leading the pandemic response for the White House then if you know Ashish, we’re going to talk about where things stand with him. So it’s going to be a really great celebratory week. Music and cake, balloons, all the things you have it a third birthday party, crying, tears, diapers, all the things that I remember from third birthday parties. Have a great weekend, folks. Thank you so much for tuning in.

CREDITS  34:06

Thanks for listening to IN THE BUBBLE. We’re a production of Lemonada Media. Kathryn Barnes, Jackie Harris and Kyle Shiely produced our show, and they’re great. Our mix is by Noah Smith and James Barber, and they’re great, too. Steve Nelson is the vice president of the weekly content, and he’s okay, too. And of course, the ultimate bosses, Jessica Cordova Kramer and Stephanie Wittels Wachs, they executive produced the show, we love them dearly. Our theme was composed by Dan Molad and Oliver Hill, with additional music by Ivan Kuraev. You can find out more about our show on social media at @LemonadaMedia where you’ll also get the transcript of the show. And you can find me at @ASlavitt on Twitter. If you like what you heard today, why don’t you tell your friends to listen as well, and get them to write a review. Thanks so much, talk to you next time.