In this episode of Frogmore Stew, Grace welcomes Ted Dintersmith, a former venture capitalist turned education reformer and political activist. The conversation begins with a discussion on Ted's past experience in venture capital then transitions to Ted's focus on education reform, noting the outdated structure of current schools and the lack of essential skills being taught, especially in the age of AI. They touch on Ted's political engagement, including his support for Barack Obama and involvement in promoting state-level political candidates. The conversation wraps up with Ted's critiques on modern political fundraising, his initiative 'Moneyball Monday,' and the broader implications of education and political reform for a healthy democracy.

00:00 Introduction and Welcome

00:09 Ted's Journey from Venture Capital to Education

02:17 The State of Education Today

03:31 The Role of Fact-Checking and Critical Thinking

04:06 Challenges in the Current Education System

04:56 The Impact of AI on Education

08:51 Ted's Transition into Politics

10:30 Involvement in Obama's Campaign

14:47 Insights from International Education Models

16:35 New Educational Initiatives in the US

18:49 The Importance of Political Engagement

22:01 Moneyball Monday: Strategic Political Funding

23:09 Challenges in Political Fundraising

30:36 The Need for State-Level Political Focus

35:08 The Influence of Big Money in Politics

36:53 Closing Thoughts and Inspirational Quotes

Copyright 2024 Grace Cowan

• "Blue Sky" - Allman Brothers Band
• The Arena - South Carolina
• The Alliance Coalition - South Carolina
• All Things Frogmore Stew
• SC Votes - South Carolina Election Commission
• The Poets of Rhythm - "South Carolina

Ted, hello. Welcome to Frogmore Stew.

Great to be here.

I know that we're fairly new friends, but I'd never really done any research on you. And so in preparation for today, I came across a title for you called Change Maker. That term really stuck out to me because I feel like you have a past as a venture capitalist and that invokes, change. But I also felt like your next iterations of who you've become since your venture capital days are also in the change maker sect, first it was education, right? You really have a deep background in education. And actually that was the way that I was. introduced to you. I was running for school board and in some of my preparation, I read your book. And I was so inspired by your book and then I realized that you lived in Charleston.

That is a small world.

Yes. Can you just give us some background on what did you learn from your career? Inventor capitalism that inspired you to see beyond it and find ways to get involved and use that knowledge to make change in the world.

For starters. In venture capital, how one person can make a huge difference, and how broken big bureaucratic organizations can be often are. Really most of our deals were one person starting a company, they'd be taking on some behemoth, they'd be doing something that would be competing against Microsoft or Google or IBM or whatever. And you say, how could one person stand a chance against a great big organization with all those resources and you realize large organizations are change resistant and people who set out to change the world often pull it off. The second thing, it was interesting. If you ask me about my takeaways.

And this goes counter to instinct in some respects, is that you would think that using a baseball metaphor, if you're trying for a safe single, you'd have a high batting average. And if you're trying to hit the ball out of the park, you're, Batting average would be low, but we found the opposite. The bigger, the bolder, the dream, the more likely it is. You could pull things off because people get excited about that. The third thing that led me to take on education is that in venture, I'm side by side with all this technology innovation and as innovation races ahead, it completely changes the skills and mindsets we need. for career and for citizenship. And schools have been woeful in keeping pace. Schools are stuck in time. They basically are preparing kids for 1950, not 2050.

Right.

And I connect to those dots. I'll give myself a little credit, but I started sharing with friends, maybe 15 years ago, that if we don't get school priorities our democracy may not survive, you know, and in 2010, I think we just came out of a Obama McCain election where, honestly, looking back, you'd be thrilled with either. And the idea that democracy might collapse seemed preposterous. And I'm sure my friends were whispering to each other, because I had by that time started phasing out adventure. Like, maybe, Ted's kind of lost it, retirement isn't going well for him.

He's now talking about democracy falling apart, but I think that's true. And just to put a point on it, that sort of gets to, the political situation today. I was just last week in Michigan, addressing 600 superintendents. And you asked the question, how many of you require high school students to be able to fact check as a graduation requirement. Zero. Yeah. We don't teach fact checking. We teach people to read whatever the heck is put in front of them and commit it to short term memory and say it back.

Yeah.

And we do that year in and year out of the school. And surprise of all surprises, people get good at reading things or memorizing whatever's put in front of them and that's their view. And, we talk about critical thinking and fact checking, but it just doesn't happen.

Is there a correlation between what you see as someone who would be a successful business model, that you could correlate to something that we could teach in

Sure. You know, School is almost entirely around. Here's your assignment. Do it. The number of times in school we actually say to kids, what do you want to do? What's something bold and stretching and audacious that would help you make your world better? You would think that would happen a fair amount in school. I personally would like it to happen to all the time in school. It doesn't happen. Our schools are captive to these high stakes tests that are largely fact based and memorization driven.

And so we're not asking students to be creative leaders, we're asking them to be diligent followers. And the issue is, this was in the offing 15 years ago, but it's front and center with AI today. It's not a stretch to say that any assignment from kindergarten through, the end of college is something that chat GPT does quite well or even perfectly.

Yeah.

It's like you're just saying year after year, get good at what chat GPT does. Does anybody need to hire chat GPT when you can use the free version or pay 20 a month and have it do anything you need it to do?

And I think that your mindset goes against what some people have as their platform for what education should be, which is reading, math, science, and just stick to this core curriculum. And it takes away or diminishes, What we need as adults, which is what you're saying with AI, you can now pay a machine to basically do those three things for you. And so kids aren't using their full brain to really expand on what could be versus what is.

It's really, for the most part, math and reading. Those are the scores that get glorified and emphasized and are used for accountability. But the math we teach, and I'm writing a new book about this, is not math adults use. I did this with, the audience in Michigan, I put up this blur of math topics that we cover in high school.

It's a version of where's Waldo you use as an adult. We bury kids arc sequence and factoring polynomials and taking the absolute value of negative 42. And you sit there and look and say, is that anything any adult uses. And you realize it's all there because it's convenient for the test designers, we teach what's easy to test out what's important to learn. And then reading, I actually think this is a longer discussion, but that artificial intelligence has profound ramifications for what it means to be literate. And, my point there, which I make, when I'm trying to advance this case is there really two core reasons you want kids to be able to read well.

Yep.

One is to learn. There are all sorts of ways now the kids are learning. And, it's important it's a means to but it's not an end. And if it's a really complicated document, you can put that into chat GPT and say, explain this to me in terms that a 10 year old would understand. this whole thing of like, if you're not quite a reading grade level, you're in trouble in terms of understanding complex documents.

That's less the case today. But the other thing is in theory, we teach kids to read because we want them to have the joy of learning. And I find this school, and I don't blame teachers for this, I blame the education model. Which is exactly what deserves the blame is that by high school, we crush the joy of reading out of kids. Read this so that you can do well in a multiple choice, test on signs of author bias or something like that. It's really heartbreaking. Science is another one. Like I, I think most people who pursue science careers did it despite high school science, not because

I mean, I think the book that I read that really changed my love of reading was to kill a mockingbird. And I don't think I read that until seventh or eighth grade, but that was a book that really, had such emotion in it.

by the way, one of the 10 most banned books in America,

and you know, I don't know if you know this, but right now Prager University videos have just been, introduced by our state superintendent to be used in the public schools in South Carolina. And there's a lot of. data that they're not historically accurate. There's all kinds of information of why that may not be such a great idea, but. I digress. We can talk all about the state of South Carolina education at another date and that might take us seven hours on the podcast.

You could say South Carolina education is an oxymoron, but anyway.

So the first time we met you and I had lunch and talked about how you were transitioning into politics and what that looked like was there one particular moment that. prompted you to take this turn into the dark and dirty world of politics?

It goes back a long ways with a long interruption. So I worked on Capitol Hill ages ago, dating myself. I was on the Hill from 76 to 78. And I learned a lot and it was a fascinating environment, but I ultimately decided that I felt like there were other things I wanted to do with my life. I was there a couple years after Watergate. . And I think at the time I thought Watergate was a blemish on America's, soul. Now I look back and think that's a highlight, right?

So I did that for a couple years said no I think I've got other things I'd rather do with my life ended up being involved in technology and entrepreneurship and everything else And so I really checked out and I didn't do anything. I mean I voted but I didn't give money I didn't get involved. I didn't do anything and then you know after the year 2000, you realized how much hinged on that election and I actually think George W Bush is a really good person You I have a high opinion of him. I've met him. He's way more articulate than people give him credit for, but you'd have to say that the Iraq invasion. was a colossal mistake. I looked at that and said, could I have changed that election myself? I couldn't have, but it wouldn't have taken that many people bearing down on Florida to have changed that election.

Yeah.

And I felt if the world is going to depend on these elections and if I have the means to sort of make make a difference, maybe I should. And so I got very involved in 2007 and eight, this is a South Carolina story. So, you know, I actually sent Obama a hand delivered letter in late summer, early fall, 2006

as only a venture capitalist

leaders don't pick the time times, pick the leader. This is your time. And if you run, I'll drop everything as well. Many. so when he announced that he was going to run, I scurried up to Chicago on a plane with Penny Pritzker. I met him early and, was part of the very first National Finance Committee. And then did a somewhat well known fundraiser in Charleston at our place. We were living on King street at the time.

That was April of 2007. And at least it made some impression on him because in his grant park acceptance speech, after he won in 2008, he had this line where he said from the snowy fields of Iowa, to the churches in New Hampshire, to the porches of Charleston, and you can go back in the post and courier the day after ran a picture of Barack and Michelle Obama on our porch in Charleston and that was really meaningful, and so since then I've gotten more and more involved. And the stakes have gotten higher and the situations eroded.

So you have been pretty involved with, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, she is a big fan of yours and I think you're a big fan of hers. How did that interaction happen?

The book you mentioned, What School Could Be, was when I went to all 50 states and 200 schools in a school year. I try to pick my spots and try to find places where there's some hope or prospect that the leaders in the state will offer an inspiring view of what we need to be doing in school, which is very lacking in America and honestly completely lacking from the federal government. And it's not a Republican or failure. It's a, both sides failure.

Arnie Duncan, I think was barking up the wrong tree. Betsy DeVos, the wrong tree, Gail Cardona, the wrong tree. They just gulp the test score Kool Aid and never step back and say, if we push kids to do well at exactly what machines do perfectly. and crush out of kids, their curiosity, creativity, audacity, the joy of learning, trampled teachers, no trust, no respect, no latitude to help kids find their lane. This will end quite poorly. So I still hope, Kamala Harris, if she wins, that she'll do something. We already know that Trump will just ignore it. Anyway, it'd be great to get somebody in the White House who says a more sensible version of Barney Duncan's race to the top.

When I heard the term race to the top, I immediately assumed he was going to be encouraging states to come up with creative, future leaning accountability frameworks that would really improve. promote the skills and mindsets kids would need, then you read the fine print, we're going to reward states for going to extraordinary lengths to get test scores up a little bit.

And, the reality is, the federal government and journalists will not show you the chart that we put together, which is for the entirety of No Child Left Behind, there's been no increase in test scores. Flat as a pancake. The reality is you bore kids with drills and worksheets. They don't want to be in school. Doesn't matter what kind of accountability hammer you on them. They don't learn. And somehow we've failed to recognize that.

And in 2012, you were appointed by President Obama to represent the U. S. at the U. N. General Assembly on education and youth entrepreneurship, I guess that ties into exactly what you're talking about right now, which is expanding kids learning capabilities to see beyond the tests that they're taking in school. You and I have talked about why don't we have companies like Boeing and Volvo involved in our schools to create paths and, new ways so that we're both supporting the businesses that are in the state, as well as getting kids inspired while they're in school for what their job will be.

Yeah. No question. I'll look back to 2012 for just a second and then pop forward if you don't mind, it's fascinating for me because I got to meet a lot of the people from different countries and get a much better sense. And you look at a place like Finland, when I relate to people what the average school day is for kids in Finland, and then say, look at how they do on these high stakes PISA exams. People are like shaking their head saying this can't be, but the kids in high school in Finland will spend five or six hours a day total on school, not five or six hours of homework on top of a long school day. Five or six hours total. They still have plenty of time to play and lead normal childhoods, but Finland has no standardized tests.

And you go to classrooms in Finland and they are the most thought provoking places in the world with interesting questions that anyone would be curious about. A good example, we were talking before about math is they'll put some really interesting problem up and say, Come up in the next day or two with as many different ways to go at this as you can, where in the U. S. it's here, we're going to teach you how to factor polynomials with a clear goal, right? We want kids in the U. S. To absorb these low level procedures so deeply ingrained in them that they can do them without thinking when they get to the test. It's not thought provoking, it's drill based.

And so that was fascinating. Got a chance to see different models, and Finland, let's just stick with them. About half the kids go to college. It's not a high stakes stratified process. It's just, do you want to go to college or not? Parents are very relaxed about that. And half go directly into the trades and it doesn't matter, they don't have anywhere near the degree of income difference we have, but, educated parents who have a kid that says, I want to be an electrician.

That's cool. Kid that wants to be, a philosophy professor, that's cool. It's like just a healthy view on all sorts of different ways. You can pursue an interesting career and contribute to your community and support yourself and your family. Thanks. That's not true in the US, and I'm taking this on I've got a new film that will be out in probably toward the end of the first quarter next year we're far into the filming process on a really fascinating district in Virginia, one of the poorest areas of Virginia, where they have a much more I think exciting aspirational role for hands on learning in the school. They call it the innovation center and it's new traditional economy skills. And it's not optional. Every high school kid spends one third of their high school time in the innovation center. And 18, they are learning about all sorts of different careers, doing multiple internships and apprenticeships.

And the ones that want to go directly to career are often running, doing something they know they like, something where they've got a running start with skills, something where immediately out of high school, they're making a really good living. The ones who want to go to college, what's so interesting there is if it were optional. Selective colleges would wail on them. You didn't challenge yourself. You didn't push yourself to do the most academically rigorous courses, which of course is total nonsense.

But nevertheless, that's the way admissions thinks about the world. If it's mandatory. they didn't really have a choice, so we won't penalize them for that. And then these kids write blow you away essays about what they learned in welding class. So the half of the kids that want to go to college are doing as well or better than they would at a normal high school. They're all working together and they're all connected to the real world and they're learning from each other and they're making friends with kids they might not ordinarily interact with. And they're developing appreciation or respect. For how hard it is to be a master carpenter, or how hard it is to do a perfect seam as a welder. And so that I think is really, fascinating in terms of what the potential is.

I think that's a great transition into politics because ideally all of our politicians have that sort of. Extensive background in a wide variety of things to be able to go into the job as a person legislating for a state or the country and have a much wider variety of background information,

yeah, no question. And it's a tidal wave of change, I think It should be topic number one in our discussions about how we preserve and maintain a healthy civil society, because, the two things are one, and we haven't seen the full brunt of it. But with artificial intelligence, we're right on the cusp of being able, anyone could create a really believable video showing anything they want.

Right.

When it comes to undermining election integrity. It's one thing to have somebody running around the country two months before the election saying, if I lose, it's because the election was stolen. I mean, that's That's harmful to civil society. It's another thing when, the day after the election, there's a flurry of video showing, moving van showing up at voting centers, unloading ballots and people laughing about how they're stealing the election. Now, those videos are completely fabricated, but there's no trusted central, figure who can say, no, that was made up.

so for citizenship, AI has enormous ramifications, and for career, And when I say I've warned people, you heard it here, if you haven't heard it already, is that the class of jobs that AI is going to wipe out are the millions of jobs college graduates traditionally have rolled into.

Right.

Because you spent 16 years getting better and better at, here's what I need you to do. And you find in the workplace that a few people who can use AI can do the work of 30 people before. It's not all bad. If we equip kids with AI skills. And mindsets about creating new opportunities, this is all good news. And if you just stick with the same old obsolete education model, you're going to send even more into society, adrift, wondering why it's not working, angry, and, as I said in my book, willing to throw hand grenades into the ballot box or worse. And I think that's what has played out.

The way that I've always equated it is like the introduction of the calculator. It didn't eliminate the need to know math, but it gave you a quicker way to be able to do more complicated problems. And I think if we look at it as if we know how to use the calculator, we will be able to navigate the next steps.

The theme to this book I'm writing, it's the concepts matter enormously and the mechanics don't. And we still dwell in the mechanics and ignore the concepts. And so if the average American can't distinguish between correlation and causation, which very few can, they can't make sense of statistics, which very few can. Like the concepts matter a lot. And my point, going back to what I said before, is the reason we don't teach the concepts is a harder to test.

Mechanics are incredibly easy to test, particularly for these, bell curve standardized tests. You just plop down the right mix and you've got it. So you look at these things and they all come together. These are not like little rounding errors that we've got a speed bump in front of us. And if we just get through November 5th, we're going to be in good shape. I think these are, long term significant drivers that are reshaping the way we engage with each other and the way we approach career and what we need to be responsible citizens. And if we don't get at that with our education resources, we're in deep weeds.

Yeah. And so leading that into your new project, which is called Moneyball Monday, speaking of calculators, this is a quote from the first letter, that you sent out in your sub stack, which I love. You said "recommending high leverage ways Your dollars can protect our democracy. I won't be tactful or polite at this late stage of the election cycle. We need to support high bang for your buck initiatives and avoid dead ends. I've been through many democratic party groundhog days, chase the shiny penny, overfund a few high profile campaigns and complain.

So I'll start with the essence of strategy of what not to do". You have basically four major components, to this democracy protecting impact and you give a score to each, group that you highlight. And so you say inability matters, timing matters, incremental impact matters, and shifts matter. So can you tell us how you came up with those four pieces and what led you to start this in the first place?

I got re energized in politics in 2007, as we were talking about. And back then, The money was much lower. And so a bunch of individuals on the National Finance Committee could raise money for Barack Obama that was quite meaningful. That amount of money in a campaign like We have today is a drop in the bucket. I would fault myself, I think, for not being more alert to the shifts. I was cruising along with a traditional model of fundraising and I'll tell you, my wake up call happened in 2020.

So I worked with a lot of the early Obama, national finance committee members who are all, patriotic and, And capable and doing their best to do good things. And we would work together and did work together. We did nine Senate fundraisers in 2020. And maybe three, one and six lost, okay, record, and we would work really hard and we'd raise them. Let's say 200, 000. That was probably our average per fundraiser. A lot of work, 200, 000. First point that those candidates raised and put out, at least 75 million. So you think about 0. 2 over 75, you don't need a calculator to know that's a tiny fraction.

Yeah.

So that was like, how much difference does it really make? And is that a good use of our time? That was a fair question. But what really stunned me was after that election. And it was a few months later when saw something and it was like, you're kidding. So I've never met her. I did that online, but Sarah Gideon ran in Maine against Susan Collins. We worked like crazy. And we raised, 200 K for Sarah in a campaign where she spent 75 million against Susan Collins, she ended that campaign with 14. 8 million unspent. Never spent almost 15 million.

Wow.

And I just said whoa, I started asking people like, where did we go wrong? What are better priorities? And as I did my research, I found out that, for instance, these state parties are in shambles and grossly underfunded. There are some people, heads of those parties, that are incredibly capable. But for the Democratic Party, 12 of those positions are paid. And we saw in 2020 at the Iowa caucus, it was all done by a volunteer Democratic party. It was so bollocksed up.

And it's a full time job, being the leader of a Democratic state party is is a full time job.

for you and ideally a team of 10 or 15. Then you think, the DNC will do it. But they don't, basically the arm of whoever's running for president,

particularly in red states, they give no money, very little money to red states.

Back to this book about math, which means all these issues are on my mind about where leverage is, Impact divided by money. That simple ratio, things have high impact and which have zero impact and which even arguably have a counterproductive impact because I think in a lot of these places. Like in 2020, we were in Western North Carolina visiting friends that they said if they saw one more political ad, they were going to throw up because they were getting the ads from North Carolina, from South Carolina, like every which way from Sunday and a lot of times, Grace, these state level candidates, because all the state outlets are consumed, they can't buy more time on state TV or radio. And they're swimming in money,

they'll put it on a national ad. In 2022, I'm in Virginia and one of my other early Obama friends is in Chicago. We're both watching the World Series and we trade text with each other and said, did you see what I just saw a national ad encouraging us to vote for John Fetterman in Pennsylvania,

And that's a fundraising like that, right? Is to get national money, but at the same time, what a waste of money.

What a waste of money. and I've got friends that are still doing fundraisers. I don't know who's making the call on this, but my feedback to them when they asked me to do, would you give X dollars, often a very large amount of money for a fundraiser in Georgetown for Kamala Harris? I say, not only will I not give money for that, I wish you wouldn't do it. Every day she's in Georgetown or New York City or San Francisco or Los Angeles is a day she's not in one of the seven states that, like it or not, seven states will make the decision about who our next president is.

Or if somebody says, I just got an email this morning from, would you be willing to talk to John Tester? He'd love you to give him money. I said, no, he should be talking to voters and not me. And I've already done my research and his campaign and a pact supporting him. Already have 60 million bucks of unspent money. Does John tester to win Montana need more money or need more votes?

That's why I think this organization that you started is so impactful because as political consumers, I feel like we often don't ask for a return on investment. We don't put an ROI out on the money that we're giving. We're just. Listening to what various politicians are telling us. And now we're getting emails, text messages from people all across the country, telling us how imperative it is that we send 5 to this candidate because this race is going to make or break the house or the Senate.

And if we don't help them, the democracy is going to fail. I need it today. I need it today. And so I think what your group has done is sifted through, all of that noise and allows people to see in a really easy to read format. These, if you are a Democrat or you believe in Democrats winning in this next election cycle, even if you're not a Democrat, but if you want a place to put your money, these are the places. And every week you highlight and feature a few different organizations or a state party or, a specific candidate. Do you feel like people have responded well to this?

What I'd love to say to you is. It's been unbelievable, right? And I think it's helpful in places. But I think, it's a bit like education. I mean, I often feel like why do I take on these almost overwhelming challenges because there's just so much momentum and it's ingrained and, a friend that I trade notes with regularly, who will send something back saying, thank you so much.

And then, Sends me something about a big initiative that, artists are putting their art up for auction and it's going to run through the middle of October and then the proceeds are going to go to the Kamala Harris Victory Fund in the middle of October. Like she's raising three or 4 million bucks a day and there's another perfect example, right? Already they're running ads nationally. They can't buy more space the seven states that matter. So they're running things nationally.

What that means is. That they're paying a lot of money for ads for you to see in South Carolina today for me to see in Rhode Island today. We hope you win, but these states don't matter. If you're paying for ads where 85 percent of the people who see the ad are in states that aren't going to matter. Even if ads move the needle. People are just, they're so exhausted by these ads. They're always dispiriting. We're basically spending 3 billion this cycle. to make half of America hate the other half and vice versa.

And so let's talk about red states. Cause I feel like this is focused on the presidential election but you also do talk a lot in your weekly newsletter, about some really specific state races as well, one of the things I think that is so frustrating for me in a state like South Carolina, is that the total number of Republican voters and Democrat voters isn't really that far apart, but because we've been gerrymandered down to the, pinpointed house.

We have a much harder time balancing out who's representing us. It's all after Project Red Map in 2010, where Republicans really went hardcore after state legislatures. Is there anything within your future of doing a hyper focus on states like Tennessee, South Carolina, even maybe Florida or Ohio to make their legislatures a little bit more balanced.

So I've gotten to know the lieutenant governor of Michigan, Garland Gilchrist, unbelievably fascinating guy. Just like he blows you away. And he's got an effort where he's supporting state level candidates running for the statehouse, not the U. S. Congress, in really important districts. Somebody running at that level can't afford TV ads, so my worst fear of money being, wasted on TV ads won't happen because they're doing, flyers under doors and people on street corners talking about candidates and stuff like that.

And it helps Michigan, which I think is interesting. It helps them develop a bench. It lifts up important House seats, U. S. House seats. And it helps Kamala Harris running in a state she has to win, with money going to people that will immediately turn it around and translate it into people voting that might not otherwise have voted. Going forward though, this is what I want to turn my attention to is how do you take states like South Carolina, like Tennessee. That's why I admire what you're doing so much is, how can we really focus on helping those states get to a point where it's sensible, I look at what's going on in some of these states and it's just wacky.

And they have been really adept at consolidating their power, and so if your elections are not ranked choice voting, But plurality, winner take all you're going to get extremism. If you only have two parties and the parties are gerrymandered, so the only way you could possibly be voted out of office is if you are not extreme enough so that somebody even more nutcase extreme, and this is true right or left, runs against you in the primary and primaries you, you're going to have a Capitol Hill that looks nothing like it. When I worked on the Hill in the mid 70s, Republicans, Democrats roomed in the same townhouses. They went to dinner together. Like they were close friends . And their disagreements were over policy issues and not

personal,

I think we're close to the point, maybe we'll have reached the point by November 6, where people begin to think that if our ground rules are all bollocksed up. We're not going to be able to achieve what we need to achieve as a state or as a nation. And that we need to do a deep rethink of how we do it. Now, each state's different, they, you can't do state ballot initiatives in South Carolina. So we wouldn't dare want to let the voters tell us how they're going to change things.

But I feel like that's something we need to start getting at because I think it'd be fair to say that the ground rules that decide how we vote for people and who represents us are so deeply broken that we get what we deserve with this. Yeah. And we need to not just get better candidates, but get enough in office who are open to and willing to say, This has got to change,

I talk about this a lot on the podcast, but we don't have a full time legislature here. That limits who can actually be there. A teacher can't take off five months of work and make 10, 000 a year. And that's a really big, part of the foundation of what makes democracy right is that everyone is able to take that job. If that's not, starting from a place that everybody can do it, then you already limit your democracy. I think not having an independent redistricting committee is another huge one.

Or a US Supreme Court that overrules what happened in South Carolina

That brings me to my next question. Leonard Leo has really become what the Republicans warned Democrats about George Soros. Now they have their own George Soros. It's Leonard Leo being involved in just about every aspect of foundational pieces of democracy, particularly the Supreme Court. Where does this end that people like that can dump so much money into our politics and move it in a way that, it doesn't matter who we vote for if we have someone that's able to manipulate our Supreme Court in such a major way.

It's clearly citizen united. I remember being ready to get on an airplane to go to Denver in 2008 for the national convention with Obama. I worked my tail off to support an elect who had a pretty long history of saying he was in favor of public finance and elections. Because it was advantageous, he rejected public financing and went and raised his own money. I felt like, wow, wait, That's a shame, that sort of starts us down this path and then it's just snowballed.

And now it's crazy to think of. We live in a world. Not that I know him well, but I spent some time with Elon Musk, who has clearly progressed from being, a quirky, brilliant entrepreneur to a complete lunatic. And he owns Twitter. He can maneuver that however he wants to advance his interest in a political agenda and donates massive amounts of money to Trump because Trump basically says, I won't regulate you. It's this collusion that's just, completely eroding our ability to hold together civil society .

I'm definitely going to have you back on to discuss, tech and the election I feel like you have some great insight on that. But I want to also just to close us out today. Talk about you open every one of your newsletters, with a quote and, I always love reading the quotes. So I thought it would be apropos to end on one of your quotes. One of them is by Alexander Graham bell of the sun's rays do not burn until brought into a focus.

But my most favorite was this week from Dickie Betts. You're my blue sky. You're my sunny day. I love some almond brothers.

I'm hoping my readers all know who Dickie Betts is. It's an older crowd. So my odds are pretty good