Season 12, Episode Ten September 14, 2025

SPEAKER_03 0:00

This is the listening tube.

SPEAKER_02 0:08

Hello and thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. It's the worst thing to happen to old people. On this episode, the first thing I want to do is address the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I didn't follow Charlie on social media. I'm vaguely familiar with his turning point organization. Most of what I know about Charlie Kirk was what I saw on videos of him debating other people on whatever topic they chose. He welcomed the debate because he did his homework, knew the facts, and could back up his opinion with sound reason. But he never deprived his opponents of the right to disagree. Regardless, some coward who couldn't outwit him decided to silence him. May God bless you, Charlie Kirk, and may God damn the person who killed him. Coming up, I'll have a conversation with the author of Common Ground from the Ground Up, Nathan Smolinsky.

SPEAKER_03 1:11

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_02 1:17

I read with interest about a recent Supreme Court decision that overturned two lower court rulings and allowed immigration and customs enforcement to resume specific tactics they were using in the Los Angeles area to apprehend illegal immigrants. The whole drama began in July when a judge put restrictions on the way law enforcement tries to figure out who's here legally and who isn't. Certain criteria, such as speaking a language other than English or the color of a person's skin, are not allowed to be used as a suspicion to justify a stop or a detention. But in Los Angeles, which is where the lawsuit originated, half of the people are of Latin heritage, and many have never needed to speak English because you can be educated in Spanish if you live in certain school districts, and then live and work in an area where only Spanish is needed to live a full and productive life. I lived in Southern California back in the late 80s and mid-90s and met numerous people who spoke only Spanish. I didn't assume they were in the country illegally. But what if they're hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot looking for temporary work, paid in cash and no need to fill out any paperwork in order to be hired? No need to prove who you are or supply a social security number for tax purposes? Justice Sotomayor called that plainly insufficient to justify any curiosity. Clearly, she's no detective. But you would hope she'd have a better grasp of basic law. The basis of the original lawsuit was that these seemingly irrelevant conditions, such as skin color or language or behavior, could be used to discriminate. The key word there is could. Even California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta, when comparing this Supreme Court ruling with the one two years ago that prevented colleges from using race as a factor for admission, and who I'll point out currently holds the position once occupied by the brilliant legal mind of Kamala Harris, was quoted as saying, How they prevent the use of race to tackle discrimination, but allow the use of race to potentially discriminate is troubling and is disturbing. You see, the lower court rulings assumed guilt until proven innocent. They assumed there was discrimination going on, but proving it is hard when almost everybody has brown skin. Did American citizens get caught up in the sweeps? Yes. A story from the Associated Press cites two cases. Both men were released after about 20 minutes. And just because you don't have brown skin doesn't make you immune from ice detainment. There are plenty of people from Europe and North Africa and South Africa and the Middle East and Asia and just about every part of the world thanks to four years of negligence walking around America's streets. Skin color is probably one of the least reliable indicators of illegal residency, especially in Los Angeles. The lower courts presumed guilt instead of innocence. So did California's Attorney General, and so did three Supreme Court justices. So, who's racist now? A Yahoo News Report quoted the Los Angeles Times as saying the Supreme Court gave immigration agents the right to stop and question people they suspect are here illegally based on little more than working in a car wash, speaking Spanish, or having brown skin. Has the Los Angeles Times not noticed that a lot of the immigration agents also have brown skin? The immigration agents don't see it as a matter of race. But the left and the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the California Attorney General and the Governor do see it as a matter of race. So, who are the racists here?

SPEAKER_03 5:52

Let's go back through the listening tube for this week in history.

SPEAKER_02 6:00

This week in 1787, the United States Constitution is signed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The racists in my previous story cite the Fourth Amendment as the reason immigration agents shouldn't be able to do what they're doing. Read it for yourself and form an opinion. This week in 1789, the United States Department of State is established. Prior to that, it was known as the Department of Foreign Affairs. Most other countries call their equal counterpart the Foreign Minister. We call ours the Secretary of State. That way, they get a big bouquet of flowers on Secretary's Day. America recently changed the name of our Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of War. He still gets flowers, though. A name change I would recommend is to the Department of Education. We should call it the Department of Learnin'. Cause they ain't. I realize the Department of Learnin' don't have nothing to do with it, but it's clear that many of our states have given up on providing a proper education to the children who live there. Reading and comprehension scores are down. It's just sad.

SPEAKER_03 7:25

The 1900s.

SPEAKER_02 7:29

This week in 1966, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, responding to a sniper attack at the University of Texas at Austin, writes a letter to Congress urging the enactment of gun control legislation. Sniper attack at a college in 1966. Why does that ring a bell? This week in 1971, Typhoon Nancy, with possibly the strongest winds ever measured in a tropical cyclone, makes landfall in Osaka, Japan, killing 173 people. Climate change! Said no one. And this week in 1980, after weeks of strikes at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, the nationwide independent trade union Solidarity is established. This was the beginning of the end of communism in Eastern Europe. It was also a time when journalists around the world needed to learn how to pronounce Poznan and Wrocław and Lekpoenza, which doesn't sound at all like it's spelled. Along with Solidarity was glasnost, and it created a wave of freedom seekers that spread. Hungary would open its border with Austria. By the end of the decade, the Berlin Wall would fall. Germany would reunite. But it all started in Poland. Lek Vowenza would become president of Poland and was president in 1993 when the last Russian troops left the country. Just this week, Poland shot down several Russian drones, and Poland is calling on NATO for attention to the matter.

SPEAKER_03 9:28

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound. Send email to thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_02 9:41

My guest this week is an author and former state director of the Florida Forward Party. His book, Common Ground from the Ground Up, is a poignant and timely guide to solving political differences in a productive and non-confrontational way. Nathan Smolinsky spent some time with me in the listening tube. Nathan, you're now living in Florida, but you say you grew up in the bleeding heart of liberal Massachusetts, and you were raised in a family of dissidents or immigrants from the Soviet Union. Yes. How do you think people might prejudge you if that were all they knew about you?

SPEAKER_00 10:29

So, as sort of framed there, there's a contrast. There is the Soviet immigrant mentality is very much, hey, we're in America to be in a free country. We like the free country, we don't want big government, we don't want high taxes. And there is that kind of sentiment. Whereas growing up where I did in Massachusetts, if people are simply judging me as far as my ideological leanings, as far as my personality type that might arise from that, I don't know how they would square those. And I think they might guess that I'm going one way or the other. Either I'm a contrarian or more likely I just go with the community and have this sort of Boston liberal values uh and mindset. Is that who you are? Is it? I I am a contradiction, a juxtaposition. Um, so I am neither one nor the other. But being around those two communities, being around those two sentiments did form uh a great deal of who I am and how I understand the world around me. I am at heart a problem solver. I am someone who thinks very analytically about things, not only when it comes to politics, but when it comes to day-to-day, just what's going on in my life, how do I deal with this problem or another problem, all the things I enjoy doing. I'm an avid chess player. I like things like that that tickle my brain and allow me to apply that analytical mindset. I would say that is very much a guiding part of who I am. And beyond that, I'm a curious person. I'm someone who loves learning more, who loves exploring new things, meeting new people, and sometimes to my detriment, because I always had a great admiration for the kind of people who knew exactly what they wanted and just stuck to it their whole lives. And for me, on some level, everything is just so fascinating. I couldn't imagine pigeon pigeonholing myself in that way. And I just like to see new things, try new things, do new things.

SPEAKER_02 12:56

I I relate with you there. Now, are there any specific experiences that you had that contributed to the the the way you are now and and the the beliefs that you hold?

SPEAKER_00 13:09

Specific experiences, it's hard to point to one moment or another, I would say, as far as the shaping of my political sentiment and just being around all this conflict mentality, as I put it, a conflict mindset. It is a persistent thing throughout my childhood, throughout my formative years, where whenever politics was talked about, it was always in a very fervent tone, and I would hear it from either one side or the other. Very rarely I'd be caught in a room with both, where they're trying to argue at each other. And these were certainly not pleasant moments, but even without that, I became aware that there is a disconnect, that there is a lot of what I saw as unnecessary competition, conflict, and hostility.

SPEAKER_02 14:05

You say that from early on, you became aware of the damage caused by our divisions, those divisions of which you speak. I don't know how old you are, so I'll ask exactly how far back does your early on go?

SPEAKER_00 14:24

Exactly how far back does the early on go? I guess. Probably the first real divisive moment that I was present for, where I was following what was going on and following the kind of argument and sentiment that was festering around it was the 2000 election, the controversial uh finish between Bush Gore, the recount, all that. The Hanging Chad. The Hanging Chad, although I think I was about 10 at the time, so I was a little young to really appreciate the nuances, the details. I just knew, oh my god, there's uh a lot of riled up people very passionate about this on one side or the other, and there is a kind of sports feeling to any radio coverages. It's like, oh, today, uh, you know, positive development for the Gore camp, or today, you know, whatever it was, uh, some legal victory for Bush, and this and that, and just the energy around it seemed a little interesting to me.

SPEAKER_02 15:37

Was there anything else going on uh at that time that caught your attention?

SPEAKER_00 15:43

At that time specifically, I think that was the first moment of real division. I think, you know, the next major so going back, I guess it would be probably the Lewinsky scandal was the biggest hot hot button. Everyone's talking about this. I was a little young for that. Then going forward, the next major, major political moment, probably everything around 9-11, but at least in those early days, you didn't get the same sense of division. There was a sense of fear, there was a sense of what's going on, but it was very much a unified, you know, we're together in this mindset that held for a while until you got to the sort of Patriot Act controversies, until you got to some of what ultimately followed. But I think that the unified response held, you know, I would say comparatively, it held for longer than it did when COVID happened. When COVID happened, this was, we're all in this together for a short while, but the politicization of all of the solutions, all of the government responses, all of the social movements and actions came faster. And you saw, okay, the division is working at a different level than it did. Not to say that these are equal things, but that was certainly something that I observed.

SPEAKER_02 17:25

Well, that that was something I wanted to touch on because I was curious as to whether or not from your perspective, if these issues are similar to today or are different today than they were then. And from what I gather from what you just said, many of the issues are similar, but we're we uh the the two sides seem to be more quick to pounce on them.

SPEAKER_00 17:53

Is that accurate? Yeah, so I would say the politicization has reached further, reached deeper into the sort of issues that have a political coding to them. That's the term that gets bandied about a lot today. And also say the level of distrust has risen, or the level of trust has fallen, however you want to frame that, to an extent that the Democrats push something and the Republicans are going to be immediately, very immediately reacting to that. And likewise, if the Republicans are pushing something or in favor of something, the Democrats are immediately trying to react to that and counterpush more quickly, it seems. So what I would say is we're a little more siloed, maybe a lot more siloed than we were in decades past. We are in our bubbles to a greater degree. We operate in not only echo chambers, but the means through which we process political discourse, process just any kind of conversation around the issues of the day is more and more in our partisan language, in our bubble. And that limits our ability to have a unified front on anything.

SPEAKER_02 19:19

Yeah, I I find it interesting that uh if it let's say one of the parties comes up with a good idea, and I think a lot of people can agree it's a good idea, but the other party will simply disagree with it because it wasn't their idea. What kind of an effect, I would say, what kind of negative effect, I'm going to assume it's a negative effect, does that have on our political discourse as individuals and then our government as a whole?

SPEAKER_00 19:53

I mean, it takes us away further and further from a problem-solving mindset, from actually wanting solutions, and it becomes this never-ending tug of war. It's this sport of uh team, uh, blue team wants this, red team wants this. I'll also add to that point a little bit. It's not just whatever is proposed, the other side reacts against it. It's also limiting it one step before that, as far as guiding politicians as to what they're putting on the table. Because the reality of the political game, the electoral game, is if something does not distinguish you from your opponent, if something doesn't show what team you're on, it's not as valuable to your electoral chances, it's not as valuable to your re-election or election campaign. So when you have these unifying issues or these unifying causes or these things with bipartisan support, there's a lot of incentive for politicians to just not touch them, to say, look, I'm not gonna waste my time with something that does not distinguish me from my opponent. I'm not gonna waste my time with something that does not further my brand in contrast to the other team's brand. That ends up we're more politicized, we're more entrenched, and we get reminded more and more of hey, we're not agreeing on all these important things, and we're just fighting with each other.

SPEAKER_02 21:26

You bring up a good uh an interesting perspective on that, too, because I really hadn't dug that deeply into it. So it's not only that we are divided and we we can't agree on anything the other team brings up, but it we it also influences what is actually introduced in the first place.

SPEAKER_00 21:48

It gets to a point where you know you can't put the blame solely on the politicians anymore because a lot of people aren't interested in that. And in my book, and I know we'll Get to a little more later. But one of the main things I say is common ground from the ground up. And the common ground that I like to focus on is our ability to handle the things we disagree on, not just the things that we agree on. Because I think a lot of the bridge building space, and there are a lot of great organizations that are trying to foster conversations, trying to foster healthier dialogue, trying to bring this about, they tend to focus on here are the things we agree on. And ultimately, the things we agree on become less and less significant over time as we get more riled up, more passionate about these things where we differ.

SPEAKER_02 22:41

Isn't conflict one of the things that makes our lives interesting? You know, man versus man, man versus nature, man versus machine. Have you thought about the unintended consequences of the absence of conflict and division?

SPEAKER_00 23:02

That is a really interesting way to put it. I definitely see the point of we need to be striving towards something. We need to be working against something often. And that drives us, that motivates us. That's a great part of the thrust of dynamic thinking, of great problem solving. Actually, one of the things I talk about in the book, conflict mentality doesn't mean there's no conflict. It means there's no conflict between you and your the person who disagrees with you. What I like to say, your partner in conversation. That doesn't have to be your enemy, but the issue is your enemy. A collaborative game is still a game. You are working against the problem. The problem is a difficult enemy to defeat, but it can be beaten. The conflict that we've positioned ourselves in now, that a great part of this country is entrenched in, that is not a conflict that can be resolved. It's perpetual. It's just us fighting for these short-term political victories against the other side. And the other side will fight back. And the bigger the wins for one side, the more riled up the other side becomes. And there is a pendulum swing that happens over time. If you can shift that conflict to a collaborative us against the problem, there is still very much a problem to solve. There is still very much an enemy to defeat, but we can work together against it.

SPEAKER_02 24:42

I don't dispute the advantages of working together for the common good. But if we're going to find common ground from the ground up, as your book title encourages, shouldn't we first agree on what's in the best interest of everybody? Some groups advocate for even smaller groups of people, even if it's detrimental to the majority. Is that where the ground up part starts?

SPEAKER_00 25:12

So the ground up part is especially when it just comes to why I titled it that way, what it's speaking to, that speaks more to the fundamental rethinking of what our political issues are. But a huge part of that is understanding what the goal is. Yes, it does demand a common goal to a great extent. And to understand that common goal as being common, you really have to reframe the way you are looking at the issue. It is not the goal, we look at the surface level of what the ends of our political policies are that we support. Ultimately, the goal is to address this issue and find a solution that works for the society. So that doesn't mean for the majority, that doesn't mean necessarily this utilitarian view of the one that does the greatest good for the most people or whatever it may be. But we have to figure out all right, given that we have these divergent viewpoints, given that we have all this disagreement and all these different perspectives coming into play, how do we resolve this difficult problem? That is the common goal. And you may find yourself in a position where you work through that and you are left with options that have trade-offs. And then you have to make that evaluation. That's politics. That's politics. But the politics that we're engaged in to a great degree, I think, stops short of that. The trade-offs are not the trade-offs we need to be making, they're just sacrifices for the sake of, you know, a nice, simple, sellable solution that's really more of a political selling point than it is a real solution.

SPEAKER_02 27:14

Are political divisions having a negative effect on our personal relationships?

SPEAKER_01 27:22

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 27:23

I would absolutely say so. Uh, I share some statistics in the book dealing with how many people have lost connection to a close relative because of political differences. But beyond that, there is just the sense of being in conflict all the time, the sense of the hostility and the sense that things just keep getting worse. I think people are aware when you have this conflict mentality that predominates, when you have this chaos that is so fervent in our politics, it's very exploitable. And as it becomes exploited, the whole system becomes more corrupt. And that is just deterioration over time. It's people finding the vulnerabilities, accessing the vulnerabilities. And the problem causers, not that they're necessarily evildoers, they're seeking their own gains and their own ends, as all of us are to a degree, are just much more adept at finding those and exploiting those than the problem solvers are incentivized to deal with that. I think, yeah, there is a profound personal impact and societal impact as well from our division.

SPEAKER_02 28:44

What role does the media play in fomenting our divisions? And what role could the media play to bring more unity and cooperation among us?

SPEAKER_00 28:56

So as far as fomenting our divisions, it certainly does exacerbate things when we have media that is spewing out this constant stream of look how bad things are, and all these partisan talking points, and it builds up and builds up and builds up this harsher sentiment, this stronger sentiment, and this deeper passion around the conflict. Deeper partisan, again, more and more of that mindset. As far as what it could play to resolve the conflict, and I may be within the bridge building space in something of a minority here, I actually don't think the media can do all that much to be healing, because it is operating on the incentives placed before it. And when you have very dry coverage, if you want to put something in the media, in the social media, that's just, hey, these are the facts. This is this unbiased view, or this view where we've gotten a panel of soft-spoken, close-to-the-middle experts with some left-leaning, some right-leaning, and they're all weighing in, and it's thoughtful. Uh, first of all, being thoughtful means you're lagging behind the real-time coverage. Means you're going to take your time and look at the facts and think about things, which on a practical level means your story is going to come out a week later than the event happened, and everyone's going to move on to the next thing. And then when you're that quiet, people just don't gravitate towards it. There's a sense of alarm that fuels media watching. It's, I have to see this, lies are on the line. This is important. This is what I need to be doing right now. And I just don't think, given all those incentives in place, if you put something more unifying within the media ecosystem, it's very hard to position it for success.

SPEAKER_02 31:04

This program is called the listening tube because I listen. You can come here and speak your mind, and I might judge you, I might challenge you, but I don't want to be confrontational. Everyone believes what they believe for a reason, and I'm no different. And because I have my own program, I can say whatever I want. So, what's more important? Listening to what other people say or being able to convey your thoughts and ideas to others?

SPEAKER_00 31:40

I think those two are deeply intertwined. I'm also going to go back slightly and apologize because I don't want to include you of that characterization, uh, in that characterization of what doesn't work in media, because I think long-form content in particular is great at conveying a more thoughtful approach and a deeper understanding of one another. So when I focus on media, the big things are social media creators and cable cable news. Those I think are the most partisan, most politicized, and most prominent purveyors of division within that media landscape. And that's where I think it's not just they're bad actors necessarily, it's that's what works in that sphere. Going back to uh your other question, though, of listening versus being able to convey your ideas, those things go hand in hand. Being able to listen is being able to set a tone to some extent for conversation. Now, people will vary as far as how much they ultimately end up speaking, end up sharing, but this is one of the most important tools that I talk about, one of the most important steps to breaking through your bubble, being a better communicator, being able to engage with differing viewpoints is understanding the golden rule application, the do unto others within this context, which is if you want someone to open their mind to what it is you have to say, one of the best things you can do is to open your mind to what it is they have to say. If you put forward, I'm going to listen to you, I'm going to give you time to speak, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say and why it is that you believe what you believe, then people are going to reciprocate much more often than you might think, with, okay, well, what is it you think about these things? How do you feel? Why do you why do you think you disagree? Or where is it that something isn't resonating with you? And that's the thoughtful tone of conversation where you are positioned to have a more growth, more learning, and ultimately more positive exchange of ideas. That is how you grow. That is how your ideas improve. And that feedback is valuable. And we're not used to looking at it that way. We see it as a threat, but it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity not only to learn about different perspectives and to challenge yourself with those different perspectives, but ultimately to refine and improve your viewpoints and your expression of those viewpoints through those challenges.

SPEAKER_02 34:38

Does an analytical approach negate the passion one might have for a subject?

SPEAKER_00 34:46

I would say it doesn't have to, but on a practical level, I also do feel that it can. It is not the same fire. And sometimes you need that urgency, sometimes you need that fire. One of the biggest things that I preach within the book, understanding your place in conversation and understanding the value of others in conversation, knowing that you cannot be the single arbiter of truth, that you need to be challenged. And one of the things I like to say is if everyone was like me, I mean, yeah, we'd all be nice analytical problem solvers, but to an extent, things would not get done very quickly because there's no one fueling that sense of urgency, that sense of alarm. And sometimes you need that. You need to be challenged. Whatever it is your perception is, I'm a more moderate thinker. Sometimes you need those bold ideas to come from different places so that you can challenge your way of thinking, so that you can access oh, what is it about this idea that is interesting? What is it maybe that doesn't work, or maybe that could work, that could add to a solution? And yeah, that applies to people who have a more emotional relationship with their beliefs and more emotional relationship with the issues. While my book is focused on talking about, all right, where does this hold us back as being able to maintain relationships and express ourselves to those who may not agree? Yes, there is also merit to embracing that fire in other contexts and using that to motivate us and to drive the kind of activist commitment that is at the heart of a great deal of historical positive change.

SPEAKER_02 36:41

Now, your book is called Common Ground from the Ground Up. Uh that's it's a very cool title. I like it. Thank you. Who do you hope reads it? And where would it do the most good?

SPEAKER_00 36:57

So this is a book about politics that is not a political book. I tried very much not to politicize it too much. I tried not to code the language, whether it's blue-coated, red-coated, whatever you want to call this broad center independent space. This is a book on self-improvement, on better, healthier political communication as a means of self-improvement, actualization, and being the best you. As far as who it can reach, my immediate connection, I think on a practical level, is going to be with those aligned with this bridge-building space in this broad movement. But I want to give them something that they can pass along to a friend or a relative who is not in that space, to someone who is being held back by a conflict mindset, who is struggling to break out of their bubble, whether they see that or not. And that accessibility, that ultimate universality, I think is where it can best be positioned to grow and succeed. And I do hope that my readers will pass it along to those who need it most.

SPEAKER_02 38:14

It kind of sounds to me like you hope that independent-minded people read it and then share its insight with those on the extremes of either side.

SPEAKER_00 38:26

Yes. Not just its insight, they can also share the link for the book. They can share the book itself. That's actually preferable for me.

unknown 38:33

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 38:35

Sure. And now uh if someone wanted to read your book, where would they find it?

SPEAKER_00 38:40

How what's the way to get it? Oh, sorry about that. Uh, my book can be found on Amazon or most major online retailers. I'm not sure when it's going to be available in physical stores, but for now, you can check it out on Amazon or you can just look me up on NathanSmolensky.com for more information. Keep doing what you're doing. I I really don't know if I express it enough. I love what you and other thoughtful shows are doing with the long-term conversation format. And I'm excited to be uh listening not only to myself, but uh to all of your other guests and the excellent questions that you will have for them.

SPEAKER_02 39:22

All right, well, terrific. Thank you again, Nathan, and uh good luck with the book. Nathan Smolinsky's book is called Common Ground from the Ground Up. You can find it online now, coming to your local bookstore soon. Learn more at NathanSmolinski.com. Thank you again to Nathan for spending some time in the listening tube. The listening tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2025. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Check out the new website at thelistening tube.com. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Val Ad Infinitum.