PSA: Broaden Your Horizons with the Noble “Partisan Hacks”Pod Save America (PSA) requires no disclosure. The podcast’s commentators—Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Dan Pfeiffer, and Tommy Vietor—are unapologetically Democrats, self-proclaimed “partisan hacks,” happy to put away the humor, stories, and self-reflection when it comes to the serious issue of electing Democrats to office. One familiar with their career profiles would deem them Obamacrats. Why should there be a need for apologies, when the principles the party leadership espouses are acknowledged as universal truths by the mainstream media? Democrats claim to be for equal opportunity, electoral democracy, cultural liberalism, racial and gender equality, labor regulations, environmental protection, international diplomacy, immigration reform, public education, and universal healthcare. What reasonable person could argue with those central tenets?Full disclosure: I am not a Democrat nor was I a fan of Barack Obama’s leadership as president. At the same time, I am not a Republican nor do I advocate for anyone to become one should they have dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. I am, however, an intellectual and a political junkie, one to embrace new experiences and seek to understand perspectives different than my own. After a high school classmate and lifelong Democrat posted her podcast of choice on Facebook, I decided to binge-listen to four years of PSA in six months of 2020 to forge forward in the manner of the Hegelian dialectic. I continue to seek understanding of our political world today, and this podcast has, in some ways, aided my journey.During Obama’s historic “Yes We Can” 2008 presidential campaign and election, my high school classmates (some of whom became old enough to vote) were ecstatic about the “change” his presidency was to bring. I wasn’t convinced. Though John Kerry appealed to me in an earlier election, rural Eastern Oregon rubbed off on me enough to align with John McCain’s Republican Party and therefore find flaws in Obama. Contrary to my peers, I found McCain more authentic and trustworthy than Obama, especially in rhetoric. Later, my Catholic liberal arts university exposed me to and forced me to grapple with opposing viewpoints, a marketplace of ideas I continue to treasure. By the time Obama’s reelection arrived, I wasn’t sold but found him and the Democratic Party a lesser of two evils. Accustomed to taking on a critical lens, I saw Democrats as satisfied enough with a status quo—drones, deportations, dark money, corporate greed in healthcare and education, climate-caused natural disasters, and peaceful order over racial justice—of which any true progressive would be appalled, yet might find the best possibility in our political landscape. An alternative did not yet exist. However, that alternative bore fruit during the 2016 presidential primary. Party infighting exposed the distinction between symbolic progressivism and a real possibility for progressive policy. Like it or not, Democrats were forced to grapple with the problems of an incrementalism for which these time-sensitive issues of the status quo could not wait.PSA embraced this struggle during their early years. Clearly dismayed by an unforeseeable future with the demagogue Donald Trump as president, the commentators treated 2017 as the time for critical reflection on where the Democratic Party stood and what must change. The threat of Trump’s reelection was “an existential crisis,” reason enough to take this reflection seriously, to vow 2020 would be a different story. I was pleasantly surprised at the level of criticism the commentators were willing to dish out in their evaluation, especially focusing on Democrats’ problem of not doing enough to reach the issues most affecting everyday Americans. Furthermore, another pleasant surprise was the dynamics between the commentators, distinctions between mainstream Democrats. Those distinctions between people who worked for and supported Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign (Jon Lovett) versus Barack Obama’s (Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor) became noticeable, as it was most often Jon Lovett sticking out his neck to say Bernie Sanders had made important points about social inequality Democrats needed to remember; Jon Favreau tended to shut down those conversations (as the main host of the show, crafting the direction of the commentary) while Tommy Vietor was least likely to bring them up. Despite having worked for Hillary Clinton in the past, Jon Lovett seemed most likely to bring up criticism of her 2016 campaign, least satisfied with Obama’s status quo, and most likely to stray from the group and remark about needed fundamental changes to the party’s priorities. Jon Favreau, on the other hand, was the most resistant to any need for change within the party, reducing the issue to a strategic fault: the Clinton campaign did not do enough in the key battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In addition, Favreau was the one most likely to defend Obama’s record and become the most defensive to media critique, pointing to lack of mid-term turnout and Republican obstructionism as the primary reasons the Obama administration had not brought about change. It’s the voters’ fault or the other party’s fault, Favreau says, not so much the Democrats themselves. As relieving as blame-shifting becomes, forcing the criticism elsewhere hinders growth and true change. As 2017 proceeded, Jon Lovett gradually persuaded the other PSA commentators to resist less and imagine more a critical and progressive future for the Democratic Party. Living in 2020, at the story’s end, I was ever-more intrigued to unwrap the contents of this podcast, the mental gymnastics the commentators had to flip over the years.The later months of 2017 through early 2018 began to highlight the growing calls for gender equality—instead of revering powerful men, Democrats became the primary force behind the significant movement to hear and believe women’s stories of sexual misconduct. PSA supported the #MeToo movement through their steady reporting of these cases and the significance of the media’s role in their reveal. Considering Pulitzer-Prize journalist Ronan Farrow—Jon Lovett’s romantic partner—was behind the massive investigative unveil of Harvey Weinstein’s accusers, it makes sense PSA would support the movement’s endeavors. With devastation, PSA supported the call of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, long-term ally for sexual assault survivors, for “friend-of-the-Pod” Senator Al Franken to resign the Senate after eight women came forward about his sexual misconduct. Considering Harvey Weinstein was an establishment Democrat and the mainstream media—fresh from highlighting Trump’s dozen accusers—was riding the movement, the Pod’s willingness to sacrifice party over principle in this instance should not have surprised me. The #MeToo wave continued through the eventual reveal of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against nominated-Supreme-Court-justice Brett Kavanaugh. Predictably, PSA invested much of their time digging into the Kavanaugh case, applauding Dianne Feinstein’s disclosure and Blasey Ford’s courage in coming forward, and eager to continue a fight against yet another Trump nominee. The failure to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation only added fuel to PSA’s ever-burning fire that, no matter what else happens, Trump must go.A temporary light upon the shadows of PSA’s sorrow, the ending months of 2018 came with mid-term celebrations followed swiftly by presidential announcements for the 2020 election. 2019 opened a wide window of wonder at future Democratic Party possibilities. A promising primary of nearly 30 candidates left a great deal of space for PSA’s critique, myself leaning in to cherish every minute. All that possibility meant the commentators felt free to critique then-primary-candidate Joe Biden—as did the front-runner’s opponents. Now considered an older institutional centrist with younger anti-institutional progressive opponents (when perhaps he had been seen more progressive as Obama’s Vice President), Biden found himself in the middle of a party finding itself. When revelations emerged of eight women accusing Biden of inappropriate touching, his opponents seized the moment to stand with the accusers. PSA rightfully criticized Joe Biden’s “apology.” At the same time, they and mainstream media moved past it quickly. As Democratic primary debates unfolded, PSA seemed to carry out a symbolic progressivism (wokenism)—aiming for progressive policies while also clearly favoring candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, excusing their less-than-progressive moments even when the polls did not. The commentators would respond that so-called purity tests do not help the party. However, as they once recognized on the show, insufficient self-critique is why the Democratic Party finds itself where it is now.The end of 2019 and beginning of 2020 saw the primary field wean itself down, the original front-runners now the ending front-runners. The state results before Super Tuesday validated the rise of Bernie Sanders; even the Pod admitted the media underrates his success. The February 24th episode “Getting tense out there!” just prior to the South Carolina debate was the first time, in the words of Jon Favreau, “a growing number of establishment Democrats, centrist Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, MSNBC media personalities, and other blue-checkmark pundits are, to put it mildly, freaking the fuck out over the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination.” The PSA commentators proceed to respond to MSNBC pundits’ freak-outs with some rationality against the fear-mongering, some freak-outs of their own, but also reluctant acceptance. Dan Pfeiffer and Jon Lovett become Sanders’ main defenders, with Pfeiffer pointing to, as always, the polls, and Lovett to Sanders’ biggest applause lines, the places where the two see hope. Often the conversation comes down to “electability,” the vague concept PSA finds an inevitable part of the primary conversation despite swearing it off in earlier episodes.After South Carolina’s Clyburn-induced Biden victory, Tommy Vietor led the crew in breathing a collective sigh of relief that the previous episode’s reluctant acceptance of Sanders as nominee was simply a bad dream. Once the mainstream media found an alternative to Big Bad Bernie, all resources fell to Joe Biden. No matter what Biden did—lying about his biography; revising his historical policy stances in finance, criminal justice, and foreign wars; misrepresentations of corporate support in the healthcare industry; supposed “gaffes” (featuring at least covert racism); disrespect of women (Anita Hill, eight cases of inappropriate touching, and one blanket denial of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations after a kid-gloved interview on MSNBC); lack of remorse or responsibility (only justifications); and a generally poor candidacy (low energy, enthusiasm, and responsiveness)—media swept it under the rug because the alternative is worse. Democrats treat not only Republicans as the worse alternative but also left-wing candidates. The same kind of “bad faith” arguments Republicans practice, about which the commentators bang their heads against the wall, PSA passively addresses and excuses when Democrats use it against other Democrats. I suppose I should be thankful they address it at all, but it’s treated as a mild inconvenience for the party instead of the make-or-break nature of potential Berniecrat divisions. For all the criticism they were willing to give in earlier months, PSA settled early on a Biden candidacy. There’s no arguing with the polls, they said, and the voters crowned Biden the winner. Party unity and electability became more important than principle, than bettering the party with a superior candidate—or even challenging the nominee to become that superior candidate. Political pundits almost become fatalists (a weird sort of blame-shifting optimism in the voters). Similar to any hint of criticism toward the Obama administration, the PSA commentators deflect negativity by even a single media source (“the Bernie media”) as feeding into Republican talking points and fear taking it seriously would cost the party an election.Looking back at the 2016 and 2020 elections and now looking forward, has anything changed with the Democratic Party or PSA’s reporting on it? Disappointingly, no. For how helpful I found the first few years of the show—the expansive reporting, critical reflection on the issues and where the party needs to change, progressive principles over party loyalty—when it came down to the election, the threat of real change in the party became too much. Suddenly, the mental gymnastics, even by Jon Lovett, to defend the then-candidate Joe Biden from substantive criticism was more important. The party of “Yes We Can” becomes “No We Can’t...until voters show up for us and conditions are just right.” Now, in 2021, voters showed up, making conditions just right, but many Democrats prefer loyalty to the same old Obamacrat incrementalism, whose neglect of the working class partially led to a Donald Trump presidency, over boldness and progressive change. It’s much easier to say the Republicans are nuts than to admit the Democrats—who do the same thing over again hoping for different results—are not much better. When it comes down to it, the Democrats neglect to prove themselves. Vote for Democrats becomes a self-evident truth.In fairness, PSA has shown increased dissatisfaction with incrementalism, with waiting until the right moment and the right conditions. They now admit the Obama administration made a significant mistake: waiting. Yet, a centrist is unlikely to forge the kind of change they seek. A Democratic majority in Congress can’t move swiftly until its leadership guides their hand. Until PSA and other media are willing to stick their neck out and critique the party when leadership can change, we are going to fall into the same pattern the Obama administration found themselves after the economic collapse, only now, with healthcare, education, criminal justice, climate change, and housing disasters, even worse. When espousing their principles—equal opportunity, electoral democracy, cultural liberalism, racial and gender equality, labor regulations, environmental protection, international diplomacy, immigration reform, public education, and universal healthcare—in the narrowest way possible, claiming victories when things look good, shifting blame when things look bad, and prioritizing electing Democrats above progressive change, the working people may decide enough is enough. While this was an informative, horizon-broadening podcast exposing me to the Democratic “partisan hack” viewpoint, all of its fun moments, it does not itself grapple with Hegelian truth; PSA instead finds its truths self-evident. So, the intellectual exercise stops.