Sharon McMahon
Sharon McMahon illustrates her winning approach as America’s Government Teacher. She’s host of the chart-topping podcast “Here’s Where It Gets Interesting” and bestselling author of The Small and the Mighty. Find her at sharonmcmahon.com
Transcripción
Sharon McMahon:
Reasonable people can and should have good faith disagreements with each other. The idea that unity---air quotes "unity," national "unity"---means we all agree? I'd reject that idea.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Welcome to Good Citizen, a podcast from the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. I'm Ted Roosevelt.
I was a politics major in college and I still find it very difficult to keep up with the news about the government, particularly today in which branch is meant to be doing what. I find it even harder to find an unbiased explanation of what's happening with the functioning of government who's meant to be doing what. Enter today's guest, Sharon McMahon. She's the go-to resource for unbiased political, legal and historical insights. She has a wildly popular substack, she's a bestselling author, an educator, and a podcaster, known for being thoughtful and smart, but importantly never condescending. She's amassed over a million followers using this approach. Writing with both simplicity and depth, Sharon truly understands the power of informed citizenship and she also just happens to be a delightful person to talk to. So I'm pleased to share my conversation with America's government teacher, Sharon McMahon.
So first I'm wondering, do you like that title? Is that one that you sort of embrace wholeheartedly?
Sharon McMahon:
It's flattering. It's not a title I would've bestowed upon myself. I don't go around, you know---
Ted Roosevelt V:
At cocktail parties, introducing yourself that way?
Sharon McMahon:
Yeah, using it as a hotel reservation. "Hi, I'm checking in for America's government teacher?" No.
Ted Roosevelt V:
So you often talk about complex topics like the Supreme Court decisions or constitutional amendments. Are there areas that you see consistently get more engagement?
Sharon McMahon:
Well, of course elections are tremendously galvanizing. Having spent a lot of years teaching law, I really do think one of my specialties is in constitutional law and I really love it and I think that enthusiasm translates. When you watch legal commentators on a news channel, a lot of them do a great job, but they have four minutes to try to tell you what happened and that is it's not enough time to get into the background of the case and how did this case even get to the Supreme Court? Those kinds of things are interesting to people, I have found.
Ted Roosevelt V:
I think they're fascinating. What I'm maybe a little surprised with is just the American attention span is very short right now and a lot of long-form information in media has struggled to capture eyeballs. I wonder if you have an insight into what enables your longer form explanations to resonate with people, that you can keep people attentive for the whole time.
Sharon McMahon:
This is what I have found happens to people. They come across a concept or a phrase or a word or a person that they don't know about in an article and it causes them to give up on reading the rest of it. And then of course, news articles tend to be top loaded with the most new or the most important information, and then information is presented in sort of descending order of importance. I don't write that way. The way that I write about things is very much designed for the average person to be able to understand while still respecting their intelligence. It's not written for an 11-year-old. As I'm writing it, I'm offering explanations for something that I know people won't get. I sort of take your hand and walk you through it step by step so that when we arrive at the end of the article you're like, oh, that makes sense. That has been a very successful formula.
Ted Roosevelt V:
It makes a ton of sense and we spend a lot of time talking about the power of stories on this podcast in particular as it relates to the founding story of this country. There's an inherent tension between the myth of the founding story and that it illuminates the values of our country, but it comes at the expense of maybe being a holistic story. The founding fathers are sort of held on a pedestal, and as we've started to revise that story, it takes away some of the power of the mythology. And you had a quote that said, "we can't build pride on a lie." How do you think about those two tensions---the sort of, a founding story as useful for knitting the country together and as telling history accurately?
Sharon McMahon:
Yeah, it's a great question and I know so many people wrestle with this tension and it's a legitimate tension to wrestle with because there is value in creating moving stories that help people aspire to greatness and help people have a positive vision for the future. Those are useful in not just history, but just personally. So the opposite view of: America's the worst country that's ever existed and we have always sucked and we continue to suck. This country was founded on enslaved labor. We massacred all the Native Americans. We could talk for an hour about all of the reasons people would give to feel like America's the worst. But I think foundationally, I reject the idea that America is either one of those things. Any country that is founded by humans---which, turns out, is all of them---is going to wrestle with this tension of what have we done that has contributed to the moral arc of the universe in a positive way, and where have we fallen short? That's not just the story of America, that's the story of all humans.
Ted Roosevelt V:
How did you get to the point of being known as "America's government teacher"? Why the focus on civics?
Sharon McMahon:
Yeah. Well, it starts of course because I am a longtime school teacher and I taught government and law for a long time, so that's really where I developed the educational background and also the professional sort of skill of teaching these concepts to people. If you can teach an unwilling audience---high school students taking a graduation requirement class---what a filibuster is, then those are useful skills that you can then transfer to other audiences as well.
The reason I started doing what I'm doing now is in part because of the pandemic. We were rapidly approaching a very contentious presidential election around which there was a tremendous amount of rancor and misinformation. Everybody was spending all their time online arguing with each other about things like mask mandates and who should win the election and all these things, and I decided that I could either get into arguments with strangers in the comment section of Facebook or I could start making some little fact-based, nonpartisan explainer videos using all of my years of education and experience teaching government to unwilling participants.
Ted Roosevelt V:
I'm not sure that I would've said that the American public felt like a willing and enthusiastic audience for your message, and yet it's been hugely successful. What do you attribute that to?
Sharon McMahon:
Well, I do agree that overall it is easier for the human brain to seek out information it already agrees with and to consume that information. So you're right in the sense that people don't like being told that what they think is wrong. That feels bad in a lot of people's minds, which is why they eschew that information, which is why they don't seek it out, which is why they reject it. Many Americans are not interested in examining their already held positions. But yet, there are millions who are. Maybe some of them didn't even know that they were like, I am going to rethink that, but a good teacher helps somebody arrive at that conclusion on their own by guiding them to a way to think about a problem that maybe they hadn't considered before. And so the posture of, "let me help you with this"---that makes somebody a little softer, a little more open to hearing what you have to say, a little less antagonistic towards your viewpoint. So I do think that's a big part of it is it's in the posture and in the delivery.
Ted Roosevelt V:
But you also start focusing on civics, that's your initial---and how the American government's built and how it works, but starting on civics feels like safer ground to then build the conversation. Does that feel right? Does that feel like a good description?
Sharon McMahon:
I view it more of building a foundation from which we can have reasonable conversations because reasonable people can and should have good faith disagreements with each other. That actually benefits all of us. The idea that unity---air quotes "unity," "national unity"---means we all agree? I'd reject that idea. So my motivation is in helping create that foundational knowledge so we can have good faith discussions about meaningful issues.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Another thing that I've noticed that you've done successfully, which I find---I don't want to say surprising, but I am impressed by it---is on the preamble. If you look in the comment section, and I don't think I've looked at a comment section of any website anywhere---
Sharon McMahon:
I avoid comments.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Never good--- except for the comment section on the preamble is very, broadly speaking, respectful. It's not 10 people--- I mean, you've got hundreds of thousands that are interacting here. How did you foster a community that enabled people even in an online format to communicate with respect and curiosity?
Sharon McMahon:
I get asked that question sometimes of, "why is it not a hellhole in the comment section? Because that's weird." People follow the example of the leader. And this is true in history, this is true of corporate America. They follow the example of the leader, and I haven't made it my business to get online and be like, "here's 15 insults for Joe Biden and here's 15 insults for Donald Trump and here's why this person's a stupid meathead and I hate him, and everybody who voted for them is also an idiot." That's not how I lead.
And then additionally, I also give explicit instructions of, how do you ask somebody a follow-up question when they have said something you disagree with? What should you be thinking when you are listening to somebody say something you disagree with? What about if you listened to understand their position instead of listening to respond? Instead of listening to wait for your turn---Are you done? Okay, here's my refutation of everything you just said. That's sort of back and forth of like, I'm just going to refute everything that you say and we're just going to keep doing this for all time--- doesn't actually move the needle on changing anybody's mind about things.
Ted Roosevelt V:
I saw an example where a follower was upset that you were normalizing the Trump inauguration and you engaged with them. Can you describe how you addressed that communication?
Sharon McMahon:
Yeah, I think the first thing is humans want to feel understood. They want to feel like--- that's an innate human desire, is to belong, and that sense of belonging comes from feeling like, yeah, these people get me. They accept me for who I am, so I acknowledge their feelings and then I just share in a way that is not an attack. What you're referring to came about because I had reposted a video of a CBS News anchor who was talking about inaugural preparation and they had given her a behind-the-scenes tour. And they didn't like that I posted that, because that seemed to them like "you're normalizing Trump as a leader." When, to me, my motivation in posting that is about showing people what a normal inauguration looks like, that it is normal in American history, that one leader cedes power to another leader when they have lost the election despite wishing that a different outcome had occurred, and so I am going to give you the resources you need to move into this house. The peaceful transfer of power is in the best interest, and then I also told this person that to me, looking at the behind the scenes of an inauguration, these are not symbols of a leader. The United States Capitol is not a symbol of a leader. They belong to all of us. This is as much my capital as it is theirs.
So I think buttoning off the conversation with, I'm not trying to convince you, I'm not saying you need to agree with me, I'm just sharing where I'm coming from--- that disarms people. And she ended the conversation with, it's really been a pleasure talking to you.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Yeah, and I bet in many ways her mind has been changed in a number of ways that maybe she doesn't even recognize in that moment--- an openness to ideas.
Sharon McMahon:
Even if she arrives at a different conclusion, being open to considering the possibility to something is I think... that in and of itself is an admirable thing, is to be like, you know what? I'm going to consider it. I may not arrive at the same conclusion, but I'm going to give it some thought. That is in and of itself a good outcome in my mind.
Ted Roosevelt V:
It reminds me of a turn of phrase you've used that people can be confidently wrong and this is particularly dangerous and common online where we should be wary of misinformation. How can we guard against falling into that trap ourselves?
Sharon McMahon:
Well, some of it is this idea of holding your beliefs loosely and your values close to your heart. Being willing and able to rethink something is useful not just for the investing world or the government or your personal relationships. It is also very, very useful for your own intellectual maturity. Reconsidering your already held positions is often very uncomfortable and that sort of distress tolerance, that's a skill that you can practice and get better at. And unfortunately, I think a lot of Americans have a difficult time sitting with the tension of, I believe this thing and it might not be right, or I am really questioning whether I made the right choice when I voted for that person. And so because it feels uncomfortable, we reject it, but that distress tolerance makes us better people.
Ted Roosevelt V:
You make it your job in many ways to be nonpartisan in your communications as best as you can, and I don't think you belong to a political party and I think you've actually criticized the two party system as being--- it doesn't serve us particularly well. Can you speak to that?
Sharon McMahon:
Most Americans do not feel like their values are--- their beliefs, their values, their priorities are extremely well represented by one party. For example, most Americans are pro-choice to some degree, to varying levels, and really where they differ is in the contours of the restrictions: under the circumstances, the time periods, et cetera. That's how most people think. One party, though, has a posture of complete freedom, and one party has a posture of "we should try to restrict it as much as possible." That's not how most Americans think about this issue. So I think the parties in many ways are very self-serving. They exist to maintain and consolidate their own power. And there's again---the fact that we only have two parties to choose from also is bananas. So many political science studies show that the most healthy and thriving democracies have somewhere between four and nine political parties, that the best democracies in the world have five-ish parties from which to choose. The binary then ends up leaving the majority behind.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Do you find that people are uncomfortable with the fact that you don't pick a side? And I don't mean that as a critique, I just mean that as a comment about humans that you can't plausibly really be agnostic about the sides.
Sharon McMahon:
Some people do. Yeah, it makes some people uncomfortable. I think that's probably true. They want to know upfront, do I agree with you? Because again, their motivation is to find information that supports what they already believe. So it feels uncomfortable to them to not know upfront, here's what we're working with here. People have spent a lot of time investigating these things. I was profiled in The Atlantic, and the writer for The Atlantic was like, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out, is Sharon secretly the leader of a pro-Donald Trump Facebook page? What about her voting records? Is she registered with this party, blah, blah, blah. She spent quite a bit of time trying to figure it out because that would've been interesting for the story.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Right.
Sharon McMahon:
The answer is not that it's a mystery, it's that I just flat out don't belong to a political party and I just flat out don't donate to politicians. I actually don't do those things. I think it also makes people uncomfortable that I am sometimes willing to criticize their preferred party or their preferred side. They don't want to have their side criticized. Because that feels bad and wrong in your brain. And that's why distress tolerance is an important skill to learn because when we start blindly following, giving our unfettered allegiance to a party or a person that has never led human civilization somewhere worth going.
Ted Roosevelt V:
I want to talk about your book a little bit, "The Small and the Mighty." You have a quote in there where you say, the best Americans are not the critics, they are the doers. They are the people who went for broke when everyone else yelled to turn back, they're those who know that one becomes great because of who they lift up, not who they put down. And I wonder about that quote in the context of the Trump administration and Trump's political rhetoric. Is that still true?
Sharon McMahon:
Is what I said still true despite the ascendancy of Trump?
Ted Roosevelt V:
Well, the criticism and putting people down has been quite successful as of late.
Sharon McMahon:
It's been successful in gaining political power. And in many ways it always has been because it appeals to the sort of human's baser instincts. We have hundreds of years of examples: Andrew Jackson being a great example of somebody who had, rose to ascendancy based on his criticism of--- the criticism of the elites. Andrew Jackson's populism was popular, and of course Trump is an admirer of Jackson. Day one, the portrait of Jackson went back into the Oval Office. He took down Biden's Benjamin Franklin and put Jackson back up. He had Jackson in there before. Today though, do historians look back at Andrew Jackson who was an impactful president and think, what a fantastic leader? I don't think we do.
Ted Roosevelt V:
No.
Sharon McMahon:
He did a lot of things, but I don't think we look at the character of Andrew Jackson today and think, what a good man that was. The person who was largely responsible for the Trail of Tears--- I could keep talking about Andrew Jackson, but he's an example of somebody who used really negative rhetoric to ascend to power. Populism is by definition uses a lot of negativity and it plays into the fears that ordinary Americans have. Its positive vision of the future is get these elites out of here and then things will be better for us little guys. Without ever articulating how it would be better for the little guys.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Well, speaking of the little guys, so to speak, your book talks to this. I think there's an inherent presumption that if you are famous in the historical context, you were therefore important, and then the inverse being true. If you are not famous or not known in the broader societal sense that you were not important. And in fact what you do is highlight 12 people who were very important, who have not gotten the sort of attention that they deserved. I'm wondering why you felt the need to write this book?
Sharon McMahon:
There's a few reasons. One of them is these kinds of stories are just really ripe for the picking in the sense that we're hungry for these kinds of stories. I don't know about you, Ted, but I don't need any more billionaires in space.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Agreed. Agreed.
Sharon McMahon:
We're all set. I'm interested in something that I might actually relate to. I grew up in a blue collar family and I knew that there were so many stories waiting to be discovered. I also wrote this book really as a love letter to the reader and a love letter to America in many ways. At a time when Americans feel like this tremendous sense of---many of them---feel like the sense of impending doom. That's not how humans are actually meant to live. We're not meant to live in this state of like, I feel despondent. I can't do anything. I can't fix anything. I have no power. Humans are meant to make change in their immediate communities. Your immediate community changes based on your status and your wealth and your access to power, but doing the next needed thing in our community is something that's available to each one of us.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Sharon, that's probably the best setup to our closing question on this podcast I've ever gotten, which is what makes a good citizen?
Sharon McMahon:
I think there's more than one way to be a good citizen. I think it's important that we all remember that we have important work to do and so does everybody else who is listening to this. And we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from our important work by things that are vying for our attention, by things that are telling us that our important work doesn't matter. There's that phrase from the Civil Rights Movement, that we have to keep our eyes on the prize. And for me, doing what you can, where you are, with the resources available to you, that's what makes somebody a good citizen.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Sharon, I love that. Thank you very much for this conversation. It has been filled with pearls. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with me today.
Sharon McMahon:
I loved it. Thanks for having me.
Ted Roosevelt V:
Sharon, this is such important work and you manage to do it with real warmth and generosity, which is such a valuable lesson to take from this. Thank you for sharing your time. Listeners, please pick up Sharon McMahon's book, "The Small and the Mighty," check out her podcast "Here's Where It Gets Interesting," and find her newsletter, "The Preamble," on Substack. And be sure to share this episode with your friends and followers. It really helps.
Good Citizen is produced by the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in collaboration with the Future of StoryTelling and Charts & Leisure. You can learn more about TR's upcoming presidential library at trlibrary.com.
