It Wasn't Supposed to Mean Us

David (00:00) Most of us keep a little asterisk attached to our principles. Follow the rules, enforce the policy, make people face the consequences. And then in very small print, obviously use some common sense when you get to me. Sometimes that's hypocrisy. Sometimes it's a reasonable expectation that the institution you've served might give a damn about you. The hard thing is telling those apart when you're the one asking. This week, Robbie and I are looking at what happens when belonging stops feeling like protection. Who gets an exception? Who can take it away? And when a rule hurts somebody we identify with, can we defend a principle that also protects somebody we don't? This is strengthenation. Let's go. David (01:23) Alright, welcome back to Shrink the Nation. I am David. I am a board certified psychiatrist with over twenty years in the military. Tonight I am drinking my go to larceny small batch, a wheated bourbon. Rob (01:36) Yeah. David (01:36) Sweet, delicious. what more can you say? Rob (01:39) Yeah, it's the bourbon equivalent of baby powder. David likes to have his bottom powdered and told that it's different and special. it's Rob. I got three decades military service and damn near three decades of being a psychiatrist, board certified. And this evening I am drinking Knob Creek, but there's a twist. A good friend of mine for my birthday got me a bourbon smoking kit. So I smoked me some bourbon, at least one glass. And I know it. Yeah, no doubt. No doubt. David (02:08) That sounds like a complaint that ER I was smoking bourbon. Rob (02:13) It was smoking bourbon. and used peach wood and it's given it quite a interesting flavor. David (02:20) Is that interesting flavor smoke? Rob (02:23) It is, it is, but I had the option of apple, hickory, oak, peach, some other. Can't recall. what with the peach? Why? I don't know. It was the first one there. Gotta start somewhere, right? David (02:35) I like the careful thought that went into that. Rob (02:37) Yeah, yeah. I was really planning it out. it's got a yeah, it's smoke, but it's got a different kind of quality to it. Anyway, David (02:45) peach? Rob (02:46) it's enjoyable. nice little twist on an otherwise very respectable bourbon, knob creek, very respectable. I like it. although I also have to admit after you pointed out that I don't appreciate anything unless it hurts, after I got over the ego attack and reconciled what that says about me, journaled about it, put it in my dream book, put it under my pillow. I have revisited the weeded bourbons and I have to admit, yeah, they're they're okay. They're all right. David (03:13) Nothing makes them as good as smoking them. Rob (03:15) Smoking the rye's. I'm I'm smoking a rye right now. David (03:18) okay. somebody actually did get me one of those kits once and Maybe used it one time. I've actually forgot about it till you mention it just now, so maybe I'll smoke some bourbon. Rob (03:27) Hm. David (03:28) End up in the ER myself. Rob (03:29) Right. Right. Right. David (03:31) Alright, we are going to be looking at a particular kind of surprise. Not I never heard them say that, but more like I heard them say it, but I didn't think they meant people like me. Sometimes that might be hypocrisy, sometimes it's a sincere belief that you are different. And sometimes you've done something substantial for a group or a country and reasonably expect something in return. Those are all different situations, and that's why we're going to need more than one story to talk about it, Robbie. So last week we asked what happens when people test a boundary. Tonight we're going to be asking who gets to stand on which side of it. We're going to start with a man named Brad, whose principal political contribution is sitting down. Rob (04:13) Yeah. so psychologically, sometimes I belong translates into I belong so the rules don't apply to me in the same way. And then sometimes we're taught otherwise. So yeah, we we've got some interesting things to talk about David (04:30) Yeah, and as a guy who likes to put video games underneath political commentary, I'm gonna Rob (04:36) Yeah. David (04:36) disclose first that this story does t contain allegations against my production model. Rob (04:43) yeah, know, when I saw this commercial I actually thought of you, given your penchant for the Overwatch and for making video games. so it's very possible that Sarah Huckabee Sanders had you specifically in mind when this was put together. David (04:58) It's very possible. You know what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna do something we haven't thus far, but getting deeper into this whole podcast thing. I'm gonna share the audio of this ad, and then we'll talk about it. So I'm cueing it up. let's play this and then we'll go talk about it. So that was Brad. Let me explain Brad before we turn him into the psychological case study that we're going to. So on September 28th, Arkansas Governor Sir Huckabee Sanders, who you heard right there, released a welfare work requirement ad, which describes Brad, a fictional young white man lounging in a beanbag chair, playing video games. Eating chips and cheese balls while avoiding work. Now, the visual joke here is that relaxing has become his occupation. And Sanders contrasts him with the working taxpayer who is supposedly supporting this guy. Now, the policy behind that concerns Medicaid health coverage. So Arkansas is rolling out work and community engagement requirements for certain people in its Our Home program, which it describes July as the soft launch date, and January 2027 is the start of penalties under the new requirements. So this isn't one rule for every program people call welfare. That's point one. Now there's also a lot of objections to this particular advertisement. The Arkansas NAACP. objects to portraying poverty as a choice not to work. Some conservative critics object to making a young white man the symbol of the problem. And those are different criticisms, even when both sides dislike that same commercial. So Robbie, what would actually fix this ad? A more accurate account of poverty? A better argument for the policy as a whole? or simply a different person in the chair? Rob (07:12) so in defense of this commercial, but Brad's a douchebag. No. I don't know Brad. Brad's probably fine. exactly he's not a David (07:19) Brad's not real. by the way, yeah. Rob (07:21) real dude. political ads have a long and illustrious history of caricaturing groups in order to make a statement in the concise amount of time that they have to make a commercial or whatever. in this case I guess where it gets interesting is that historically those caricatures aren't young white men. And here is a young white man, young white gamer man, that they're caricaturing. Now, if you are morally against stereotyping, period, then it really shouldn't matter who's in that seat. it doesn't matter if Brad were black, female, Hispanic, older, whatever, it shouldn't matter. You should be offended that they are stereotyping. the objection is that he's a white dude, that it's unfair to white dudes. not, hey, we're against stereotyping. and it has troubled some folks. Now, interestingly, I am old enough to remember the Reagan days and back in the 80s there was a stereotype very, very similar to this, very similar, basically depicting quote unquote welfare queens, as if there's was a subset of individuals who made a living by having children and collecting welfare. there was a lot of pushback because it was inaccurate. It was a stereotype of African American women and it implied that they were you know living high on the hog, as my granddad would say, based on their ability to have children and then receive additional welfare. you and I, who have worked with disadvantaged populations through much of our career, better than this. you're not getting wealthy. you're not living a great life on government assistance. The other piece of this is that they have taken welfare, and you kind of alluded to this, they've taken welfare. And welfare is really not a thing, or it it's a thing, but it's a thing that encompasses lots of different governmental programs such as Medicaid and SNAP and other benefit programs that are designed to help the least of us, the most vulnerable of us, to prevent our fellow citizens from slipping from poverty into abject poverty in which they can't provide food for themselves or a basic standard of living. so it's been more the response to this that I've found fascinating the NAACP objected to stereotyping, which I think is the intellectually honest approach to this, but most of the pushback I've seen has been purely based on the fact that, hey, you're not allowed to make fun of white dudes. David (10:12) The part that really probably annoyed me the most is that our home and the work requirements apply to Medicaid. Medicaid is health insurance. And so the idea that somebody is living in their basement off of the government based upon their Medicaid Which is not a paid benefit, but something that pays for healthcare, there's a level of audacity to that. it says, I think you're stupid and you don't know the difference between these programs. So I'm going to smash them all together and say this person could possibly live in the basement of their Medicaid benefits. Now, the truth is. Yes, having health care does mean that they don't have to then pay for health care. But having healthcare doesn't buy you chips. Rob (11:01) or VR system. Or a big screen TV or a high end video game system. David (11:05) You no, it pays for the ER visit when you smoke bourbon. that's what it pays for. Rob (11:10) It's later tonight. David (11:11) Yeah. So that that's probably what pissed me off the most was the intentional misleading nature of this policy in general. that's one. Now There were some arguments. Kevin Corinth, who is an economist, argues that the casting is actually plausible the Arkansas Medicaid population, potentially based off of the requirement that they're looking for using a model from 2024 survey data. If you look at all of the programs in totality, it is predominantly white. It's somewhere in that fifty-fifty range on male versus female. and there's a reason for that. Arkansas's population is predominantly white. And so more people who are white are going to be on some kind of governmental assistance. That's just the nature of those programs. In fact, the United States, this is going to shock people, but only like 13% of the population is black. now there is a disproportionate number of people of color. Who are using these programs, which I think says a lot about our society, but it is very plausible that a white male would be utilizing governmental assistance. If you step back and look at the programs that actually pay people money, what's interesting is that there are work requirements to receive a lot of those already. So this is not a new policy. And the amount of money that they get for somebody in Brad's age group, and that 18 to whatever 29 male single, he would be getting about 80 bucks a month, which isn't gonna float a VR headset of PS5 and all the crap that he's playing. So it's a it's fantasy. I think that's what kind of pisses me off. What was interesting, I think the NAACP of Arkansas had said that yes, they objected to the stereotyping of poor people as having this be a choice. Which is what you saw from some of the far right people was that they were upset that it was a white male for a couple of different reasons. Some people felt like it was directly attacking their own party because young white males are a demographic that was helpful for Donald Trump to win the last election. Jack Pesobic was specifically upset that he felt like this was an attack on young white men and that it should be removed and they should apologize. and others felt like they don't want him attacking the base of the party. and then others felt as if it was A cowardly exercise to attack young white men because they were in I will paraphrase they're the only demographic that's safe to attack no matter what, and therefore it's unfair. all different angles, all different interesting things. what I haven't found Rob (13:51) Ooh. David (13:52) is anybody who seems to like this commercial outside of Sarah Huckabee Sanders herself. Rob (13:57) a couple of things psychologically what we're talking about is attribution. So when I struggle personally I will blame my circumstances. I will have a very detailed explanation as to why the circumstances are leading to my struggle. When someone like Brad struggles and I look at him, and the way this commercial was set up, it immediately makes you question his character. When someone who you identify with struggles, then you think complicated socioeconomic reality. if it's a group you don't identify with, your biggest thought there is, hey, have you considered getting your ass off of that beanbag chair and going to work? so it depends on how much we relate to that. So from that standpoint, I do have to wonder that in a state that is predominantly white, how much traction a commercial like this is actually getting? now you've made other fantastic points. before we say that Brad's destroying Western civilization, I think we have to at least establish which welfare program is buying those Doritos But The other piece of this that I couldn't help but think about is this intentional on her part to get national attention? We have learned that any attention is attention. Donald Trump has taught us this, that it doesn't matter if it's necessarily good. You know, I guess it's the old saying that, no press is bad press. I do not want to accuse Sarah Huckabee Sanders of playing four dimensional chess here. I don't know if she is. But it did make me wonder Because everything you said was the cascade of thoughts when I first saw this. one, gee, they've picked a group that nobody's gonna necessarily accuse them of being racist over. you can throw, young white guys in there and then and at least you will not get that accusation. that occurred to me. and then all the things I talked about. And then the last thing occurred to me is She's gonna get a ton of attention nationally for this, and I wonder if she's thinking about making a run for the presidency in this next go round. David (16:09) No, that that's a that's a pretty fair point. I think somebody had asked her about this particular ad and the fact that she's getting attacked from kind of all sides on it. And it seemed like her stance is, well, this is something that the Republicans have been pushing around for a long time and I finally made it happen. the work requirement. and the truth is the work requirement has been put into place in other places and what they find is that it's Rob (16:30) Ohio's had it for years. David (16:31) It's not yeah, it's not particularly useful. the especially when it comes to Medicaid, because the idea that there are young, healthy, able bodied men living in their parents' basements who need Medicaid, would suggest that I mean really where's the savings on that when you kick them off the program? Well the savings comes from the use of Medicaid. So if you're if you kick them off the program, then they can't go to the hospital and they can't get services paid for by Medicaid. The problem with that is that young, able-bodied men who are able to live in their parents' basements are generally healthy enough that they don't need to go to the hospital and get Medicaid covered. Now the part that I'm gonna get fact checked on, and probably somebody who knows a lot more about this stuff than I do. is that if somebody does end up needing emergent services at the hospital and they don't have Medicaid or insurance or something, they will still get life saving treatment. It is a requirement by the Mtella laws, which will ultimately get paid by who? Taxpayers. So yeah, it this really kicking young, healthy, able bodied, single men off of Medicaid doesn't save money. It at best it is probably gonna not cost you any more money and at worst a catastrophic situation. arises from you stepped on a nail but you didn't have health insurance and so you didn't go to the hospital to just get the tetanus shot and it looked at and then you're gonna lose your leg and you go to the hospital and they gotta cut the damn thing off and then it costs a fortune to the taxpayer because you didn't have insurance. and now you're on Medicaid because you can't work 'cause your fucking leg is gone. Rob (18:15) not to negate what you just said, but it in those scenarios it doesn't cost the taxpayer, it costs the little tiny hospitals around the country. they just have to absorb that cost. And in a large inner city hospital, they are better able to absorb it, but I'll tell you the ones that actually are destroyed by this is the country hospitals. the rural hospitals when they have much less ability to absorb that kind of cost because they do have to provide care. They have to provide it ethically. they have to provide it by law. They cannot say, yeah, sorry, you can't pay, you know, that gangrenous foot, man, that sucks. hit the road, Jack. they can't do it. So they're going to provide care, but they're going to do it basically for free. And they're gonna eat the costs. So it does have these downstream consequences. There is benefit to having these folks on Medicare because they're not using it for most purposes. They're young and healthy. I don't know the percentages on this, I really don't. but I know just in my practice throughout my career, in at least in the civilian sector, it's tough. as a young, healthy male to be eligible for this. it's tough. And most of the folks that I have treated have had serious illnesses. and that's what's led them to be eligible for it. And when I say serious illnesses, obviously I'm a psychiatrist, I'm talking serious psychiatric illnesses, schizophrenia. So these work requirements really do not end up translating into somebody who could actually get out there and work. they already have an illness that's limiting them. If they didn't have that illness, they probably would be working anyway. So it's a dishonest commercial to begin with. it's playing on stereotypes. at best it's trying to gin up anger in that population of individuals who are working class who are barely making it by because they're working one or two jobs. And they hear welfare and it just sends them into a fury because they do imagine that there is a group that's sitting in their mom's basement reaping the rewards of their taxes. Even though if we look at, you know, how much taxes they pay, yes, they have withholding taxes, but fundamentally they get virtually all of them back at the end of the year. so it's dishonest and at worst it's pissing off the wrong people or she just wants national attention. David (20:44) Well, it's pissing off the right people, but I think the policy in and of itself, for work requirements, so there is the ability to write off operational losses from a hospital, that is a possibility, and especially if you're a nonprofit. it will come back to the taxpayer. Yeah, Rob (20:57) Yeah, if you're a non profit. Yeah. David (20:59) it will come back to the taxpayer in potentially in some way, or just come back to the taxpayer rising medical cost. So it does come Rob (21:05) Absolutely. And medical costs. David (21:07) yeah. And so it does come back to taxpayer in some way. But you're right, ultimately the hospital eats that. But if we're looking at what's the intent of the policy, you would surmise that Creating work requirements generally creates more documentation and more bureaucratic paperwork that is really difficult to navigate for some people, and so they end up losing their Medicaid that they're eligible for and are entitled to. but they just can't maintain it because they have a difficult time reporting that they're working or being able to get on the computer so It's a policy that doesn't go after the Brad. And I think that's the part that pisses me off is that it's not Yeah. Rob (21:42) Well and here's the other thing. Where are they gonna work? David (21:46) Well yeah, a work requirement for Medicaid is only gonna save you money when you're not paying for health care for people who need it. I mean that's the only way to save money from that angle is by making sure that people who would otherwise be using the Medicaid Aren't able to use it. That's how you save money with Medicaid programs. You kick people off of it who are entitled to it and who would need it. but again, you're really just robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it's just not the way to go ab anyway. let's move on. why not? so Brad is fictional. We get that. He doesn't have to live. Yeah. Rob (22:21) Yeah, Brad Brad's not Brad's not a real dude. Yeah, yeah. David (22:24) he doesn't have to live with the audience's judgment, no matter what. But Amy Dangerfield does. story moves us from protecting a category to asking what an individual actually receives and In exchange for loyalty. So Amy Dangerfield is an online political commentator who supported Nick Fuentes and helped to promote his anti feminist views. So for those of you who don't know, Fuentes is an internet broadcaster who the anti defamation league identifies as anti Semitic. And a white supremacist. His followers are commonly known as Gripers. So Amy Dangerfield was a huge follower of Nick Fluentes, and she was considered a groy bet where she would promote a lot of this misogynistic viewpoint, anti-feminist views. She, in trying to build her own online career, still going along with Nick Fluentes and his movement, decided to help set up an event in May in Columbus, Ohio that was supposed to be like an offline meetup of the people who would otherwise traditionally been meeting online. Well, Nick Fuentes did not like this. He was not a big fan of somebody going outside of his movement and taking some of the light off of him. And so he considered that to be a hostile takeover attempt. What ended up happening was that then started getting attacked online By that movement that she was so supportive of. And so, in spite of the fact that she was very anti-feminist and very pro-misogynist herself, when she stepped outside of the bounds of the group, the group attacked her. what I want to explore is between being welcomed because you affirm a group, and being respected when you act independently. So Robbie. What would tell you that a group values your judgment rather than just your usefulness? Rob (24:16) Well and I think that's actually the primary question is what's the difference? How do you distinguish being valued versus being useful? And you know, the primary way that we could see this is that if you're valued, that means your opinion's respected. that means that if you step outside of the bounds of the group you still belong to the group, you're still part of the group. if you're just useful, then as soon as you step outside of it, you cease being useful and you're discarded. so, it goes from you matter here, you're important to us, to your current function matters here. And when your function ceases, we're done with you. it also says something else, really. And it's about these personalities. these individuals they're influencers. their goal is to gain audience. So she did something and I honestly, I'm not gonna put myself inside of her head and say she believes what she believes. I don't know. she says what she says, but what I can say is that most of these folks are looking for followers, they're looking for clicks, they're looking for market share, it's an attention economy, they want attention. She found an interesting way to get attention, and that's to be a groupette. which is counterintuitive in most ways you'd look at this. However, it got her a following. And then she wants to build her following. So she does what you do. And of course, that's attention that's being pulled away from Nick Fuentes, and now he's taking umbrage to that. which tells me she was useful for a while and then she ceased to be. David (26:00) See, that's what I really wonder, because you read the article that we'll have linked on our website, shrink the nation dot com. When you read the article, it's really coming from her perspective. And from her perspective, she was a woman who was following this anti feminist, misogynistic, anti Woman influencer. she was those principles that think a lot of women probably find pretty distasteful. But because she was espousing them, he was going along with it because she was useful. what I wonder then, though, is did we ever actually have some sort of splitting within his perspective that he ever really did truly respect anything that she said, or did he just find it useful up until it wasn't? And what I mean is, from her perspective, she probably felt like she was gaining acceptance and respect within this community. Which is pretty counter to that community, right? this is a woman who's trying to ingratiate herself with anti feminist misogynists. but if you look at it from his perspective, which is really hard to do, but looking at it from his perspective, maybe he didn't ever respect I mean I guess he didn't, but Rob (27:15) he made it very clear he never respected her. David (27:16) Well, but right. but just because he made it clear he didn't doesn't mean she didn't think he did. And so when she started to try to build her movement even adjacent to his, at some point he does say, Wait a minute, this isn't even on brand for me to let you have any power. his whole thing is women stay home. You are good for one thing and one thing only, and that is Making babies, whether it's for real seas or practice. And for her then to be doing the exact opposite of his messaging, which was building a career out of his message for women not to build a career is shockingly hypocritical. and for him to say, wait a minute, fuck you. I'm not gonna let you jump into this and honestly that's pretty on brand. I'm not saying I like it, but it really shouldn't be surprising. just because she thought she was at a different level doesn't mean that Rob (28:10) Right. Well David (28:12) she ever was. Rob (28:13) Yeah, she thought she was part of the group. and as it turns out, she was just a useful idiot. I don't know her. I can't say. In fact I've never seen anything I've not seen her speak, so I'm I shouldn't David (28:23) She's Australian. she moved to US from Australia so that she could be part of this. Rob (28:28) Wow. so yeah, it is fascinating that the system she defended contained logic that is now being used against her in an entirely consistent way. it's not that they've stepped out of their perspective. it's that she tried to build a career inside of a system that says women can't have a career. David (28:48) Yeah. Rob (28:49) Bless her heart. David (28:50) and she was doing it too. And I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if she had private conversations with him or whatever, but right. So these patterns aren't necessarily confined to internet faction, but this next story has radically different stakes. we're not equating harassment with Nazi persecution. Just throwing that out there. We're examining an older and much more dangerous hope that a hostile authority will recognize the distinction you draw between yourself and And the people it targets. So Rob (29:18) I think the audience should know that I am talking about this under dress. I'm a hostile witness in this conversation at this particular time. David (29:28) Noted. So there was an article in the Atlantic from their October issue that was released online in August about Max Naumann, who is a German Jewish lawyer and a decorated first world war officer. In nineteen twenty-one, well before Hitler took power, he founded the League of Nationalist German Jews. On that. Historian Franz Menges describes an organization of a few thousand members with limited success in attracting the major Jewish organizations. Shockingly, but so it was a fringe position. It was not a representative view among German Jews. But Nauman advocated complete assimilation, and he drew a sharp line between people he regarded as nationally German and Jewish groups that he rejected, especially Zionists and Jews from Eastern Europe. Contemporary reporting records him defending aspects of the new Nazi order while arguing that its hostility was hitting the wrong Jewish people. Now, that distinction was not his to enforce. Nazi racial policy treated ancestry as decisive, regardless of someone's religion, military service, or account of national belonging. In November of nineteen thirty five, his organization was dissolved and Nauman was arrested. and ended up in an internment camp. Robbie, the question isn't whether we can see the disaster with hindsight, it's why someone might believe that the authority targeting a group will honor the exception he draws around himself. Rob (30:55) So again I am a hostile witness here. I cannot come up with a way to talk about this in a way that makes me feel good. I'm gonna put myself in his shoes and I'm gonna imagine what he was experiencing. This was an individual who was a highly decorated World War One veteran. And in his mind, he was German first. it was a loyalty to his country. and he had served his nation and his Jewish heritage was irrelevant to him. so he was a nationalist, and That's what he prioritized, the German nation, the well-being of the state. And in his mind, I think, at least, he thought that stuff counted. and kind of like our previous case, he found out that the internal logic didn't really flow in such a way that actually was gonna end up supporting him. David (31:52) you may have just hit on something that really wasn't considering. But I think what that's smacking at is this idea that He was viewing himself and so was she, right? So is Amy Dangerfield. they're both viewing themselves from this internal perspective that they are human. they view themselves on that personal level because it it's them. It's hey, I'm with you. I'm a groper. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I disagree with your stance. Hey I'm a German. I'm a son of Germany. I'm a nationalist too. I happen to be Jewish and I see where you're upset at those Jews, which is what he said. But look at the person, look at me. And I think what is really interesting about that is that because they see themselves as people. Who are existing within this larger system, they feel like they can be accepted by that system, but they don't control the system. And more importantly, that system doesn't view them as people. And so it's easy for them to take the stance and the viewpoint of the system because they have humanized themselves, but the system is doing all that it can to dehumanize them they don't see it. Rob (33:10) Yeah. Yeah, so he convinced himself that system didn't hate Jews, they hated those kinds of Jews. and if I become sufficiently different, I'm safe. Now what he failed to take into consideration to tragic ends, by the way, is that you can declare yourself an exception. But exceptions are granted by those who own the rules. And he didn't own the rules. So I think it's an incredibly tragic thing because truthfully, as a long term military member, I could see how that experience of serving in a war would facilitate his perspective that I put it on the line. I was out there. I was on the front lines with my people. I love these men to my left and my right. I would die for these people to my left and my right. it does not matter what my heritage is. And having been to war with other men and women, I didn't give a shit. what their religion was or what my religion was or what my political stance was. I would have stepped in front of a bullet for the folks that around me and I knew without a shadow of a doubt they would have stepped in front of a bullet for me. Then you come home and the rules change. It's just different. He held on to that and I can respect that actually. In fact I find it honorable. Dumb, probably. Yes, stupid but honourable. David (34:46) Knowing the end to the story, David (34:48) So despite his support for Hitler, Max Nauman was arrested by the Gestapo in nineteen thirty five and imprisoned in Columbia House concentration camp. Rob (35:03) Fuck, that's awful. I still am under duress here. David (35:06) it is fascinating I think I don't wanna equate getting harassed online by the groipers with a concentration camp, but the psychological processes that somebody would be going through to exist in an environment that is so overtly hostile towards who you are as a person. it's gotta be similar. Rob (35:25) Well, it's similar. Similar psychology does not make these situations morally or historically equivalent to the audience. So yeah. David (35:35) That's fair. All right. So let's leave that history with its differences intact. Our next family is not evidence of support for persecuting movement, and we have no basis to assign their politics. But their case asks a different question. What should a government owe the family of someone serving it? Army Sergeant Haydar Leonel Tercios Juarez's wife, Christy Mayori Villafranco Trejo, was deported to Honduras on August twenty fourth, according to ABC and Reuters. ABC reports that she was detained in July while the family was leaving Walmart with their young daughter present. Her husband said she had supported the household through his nine month deployment, and that he hoped his service would help her immigration process. DHS's position was that she had entered unlawfully and was removed under immigration law. Her husband's position was that they were trying to resolve the case through the government. In an August 26 CNN interview, said this. So Robbie, what's the difference between expecting immunity from a rule and expecting the government to take a real service obligation seriously? Rob (37:59) off, gave the quintessential soldier answer, and I respect. Secondly, again a hostile witness here, because this this makes me angry. One team, one fight, When we bring someone into the United States military, we ask them to sign a check. And the check is not written, but it could include your life. And what we owe them in return is the same level of fidelity. he is in a different group. And some of our tens of listeners may disagree with me and I apologize in advance, I guess, but I also have been there, done that. I know the level of sacrifice that this calling has. being in uniform is not a normal job. it asks of you something that nothing else asks of you. this man and the people he loves should have been protected. They should be protected. This literally makes me angry. this is where the right hand and the left hand's not talking together. If we aren't gonna support him, then don't let him join. But the moment he joined He and his family deserved our protection because she held down the fort while he was gone. She served. that's where I really am drawing the line here is that being in the military is not a solo endeavor. Your family has to live without you. your kids have to learn what it's like. Instead of having a birthday getting a phone call, your wife has to learn what it's like to sleep alone. She's got to learn what it's like to say, I'm sorry, when you're not there for an anniversary. The army enters the family. The needs of the army become part of the family. And actually, the priority in the family and the fact that someone didn't protect this woman is frustrating to me. David (39:56) You answered, I think, two of my questions. Rob (39:58) Okay. David (39:58) Not on purpose, which is great, but Rob (39:59) I tell you what, I'm gonna sit here and calm down. you talk a little bit. David (40:03) No, no, no. Okay. So the sergeant spoke about other families too, Robbie. So are we as the audience making a narrower appeal than he was? How do we build a general principle from a compelling example rather than creating a publicity exception? Rob (40:18) Well, this may be a failing in the army. I mean any system that's as big and hungry as the United States Army is not gonna be perfect. and you know, I can love it like I love an imperfect father. I can see its flaws. I can disagree with it, but then I can still not have any choice but love it. so this is a policy problem. when we bring in a foreign national as far as I'm concerned part of the deal should be we're bringing in you, we're bringing in your direct family, that's be your spouse, your kids, you're all gonna be citizens. Because you paid the price. and that just doesn't exist as it stands. And we still have foreign nationals who will join the army. I've served with many. Their hope is, all of them, their hope is to become citizens. my experience has been is that they love this nation as much or more than those of us who've been lucky enough to be born into it. so it should be policy, but what we are seeing is there's a difference between what the policy is and what the immigration laws are. David (41:24) You weirdly actually made I think my point without meaning to, but I'm gonna expand. So Rob (41:28) It is weird. It's weird. David (41:30) he actu he what he is an American citizen. Life wasn't entered illegally from Honduras decade ago. But Because he's in uniform, that can make that unfamiliar family legible as contributors, right? but the question is if I were to keep the same child, the same separation, the same practical hardship, but I took away his military role, what really changes morally? Rob (41:55) It's the military role. And again, I realize I'm an imperfect witness on this one because I've seen and experienced the sacrifice that's required. so I do think now I'm getting uncomfortable because our tens of listeners might disagree with me. Hey, if you do disagree with me. Send us emails, you know, make comments. I will answer them, I promise. but I do think when you are willing to lay your life down for the country, it puts you in a protected status. David (42:23) Is the only way to do that though through military? Rob (42:26) It's just the most visible and most obvious. this is where life gets complicated and there's maybe other ways that you could serve and whatever. but what I will say is military service is very unique. it does ask way more from you. It tells you where your body will be. and it tells you whether your body is going to be in a place that is potentially lethal. so i there's something unique about military service. and I think it should be treated as unique. but that's also coming from a man that's spent 30 years in it. And I will not bore our audience with the costs to my nervous system and family structure and personal life, but it's there. David (43:09) what if he was a police officer or a fireman or an ambulance driver? would we feel any different about his wife being deported even though she was in the process legally to get her citizenship? Would we feel different? Rob (43:27) gradations, I suppose. those arguments probably could be made for first responders that it does pose some risk to them. I guess I'm hesitant to start generalizing. I can say unequivocally that military service is unique. Is it uniquely unique? I think maybe someone who is not as entrenched in military services as myself should answer that one. and I would likely support it, whatever they come up with. police officers, firefighters, ambulance drivers, which one it gets complicated. I'm hesitant to actually pull in the complexity because I feel so strongly about one thing. and that's maybe intellectually dishonest, but I'm giving away something, one of my weaknesses. military service and what it does is absolutely one of my weaknesses, in which I will likely not be intellectually honest because I'm bringing a history. David (44:22) I like how uncomfortable that made you, actually. Rob (44:24) Uh-huh. David (44:24) like I think there was some of them. Rob (44:27) Fuck you, David. Buck Fuck you, David. You set me up, dude. David (44:29) Well I I think what I think what's you said it though to begin with is that he gave a very soldier answer. He didn't he Rob (44:36) He did. David (44:36) didn't shy away from the job or his love for this country or what it does. Rob (44:39) Nope. I love it. Yep. David (44:41) but he does have concern for people like him, others who might be going through this. So i it reminds me of a few good men. Where they ask whether you fulfilled your duty simply because you followed an order. And that question really goes in in another direction too, because has that institution fulfilled its duty to a service member simply because it can point to a rule? compliance may answer one question while leaving. The obligation completely unanswered. So can loyalty to an institution require challenging how it exercises authority? Rob (45:16) one of my struggles, and this is the job of leadership, is that ultimately the army's a human system. And yeah, human systems end up accruing a bureaucracy. someone has to apply that bureaucracy. So in the bigger sense our judicial system does this, that there's the bureaucracy and then there's justice, and the judicial system is supposed to apply justice. In the army system, commanders are supposed to apply justice. I think part of the problem here is that there was a conflict between the army system in which a commander may have intervened, made a judgment call, sought justice for their soldier. And the federal system, which was applying a rule. And that's probably what offends me the most is that as far as I'm concerned this should have been referred into the army. Hey folks, take care of this shit. And the army should have had the rights to resolve this. we're gonna keep this woman, we're gonna help her work through the system, we're gonna support our soldier, we're gonna take care of him, we're gonna take care of his family. We're gonna take care of his kids because we are gonna also ask him to go do something here some point that we need. but the federal system stepped in and said, Nope, Here's the rule, and we're going to apply it. there's no justice to this. it's application of a rule. And that's where bureaucracies fail. Application of rules, it's hard to argue with, but it's not justice. So I've lost my train of thought because I'm so pissed off I've climbed up on my soapbox multiple times. In fact, I've got multiple soapboxes actually stacked on top of each other and I'm currently standing on top of it spitting angry. so you'd better handle this from here. David (47:02) So you think a thank you for your service sticker isn't a family support policy, is what you're saying? Rob (47:08) God. David (47:08) So we now we have all Rob (47:09) Fuck those guys. David (47:10) right, Robbie, so now we have different kinds of expectations on the table selective protection, conditional acceptance, a rejected historical distinction, and a claim about institutional reciprocity. When an expectation fails, what would actually count as learning from it? Rob (47:27) So in a perfect world, j just what I said is that Bureaucracies accrue rules, and someone has to apply those rules in a just way. And when we fall back to black and white rules without any kind of justice, the bureaucracy is gonna fail. it just is. if we don't support, say, our soldiers, then They're going to become bureaucratic experts as well. And they're going to call out and I've been in these situations, man. These shades of gray where you're asking a soldier to do something, and the only reason that they actually follow through with it is because of their commitment to the mission, their commitment to the people to the left and right, their knowledge that there's someone in front of them and there's someone behind them that's counting on them. And they do it. They just do it. They don't ask questions, they don't fall back to these kind of bureaucratic bullshit, barracks, lawyers, nonsense. And What this is is bureaucratic bullshit, black and white thinking. Here's the rule. We're not gonna apply it. We're not gonna think it through. so if we wanna do this right, there has to be someone who adjudicates it, who has to make sense of it. it's kinda like medical ethics that you can work your way through a medical ethical question and there's you know the criteria that you work through. But the last question is, does this make emotional sense? Does this feel right? And deporting this woman just doesn't feel right. It's just not right. We gotta answer to that. And it requires somebody to answer to that. David (49:06) So let's not end by assuming that a painful experience automatically produces enlightenment. Rob (49:12) Yeah. It doesn't. Sometimes there's no lesson, folks. There's no lesson to be learned. The moral to the story is there is no moral to the story. Sometimes it happens. David (49:22) People can respond in several ways. The rule was wrong, the rule was fine but misapplied, the wrong person was in charge, I should have been exempt, or I need to prove my loyalty harder. All different conclusions. But sometimes correcting a particular decision is the right response. Sometimes replacing one leader leaves the harmful rule intact. And somebody can revise one expectation without abandoning every other belief they hold. The Robbie. What would persuade you that someone had learned a broader principle rather than just developing a more persuasive argument for their own exception? Rob (49:59) Why do you keep giving me hard questions? for the audience, it is twenty three forty-five where I am right now, and I've drank bourbon and David's giving me hard questions. I I guess I'm always uncomfortable when rules are applied in black and white fashion, when there is no adjudication. in this case, again, it just doesn't make emotional sense. And if it doesn't make emotional sense, there's something wrong So where would my comfort level be is that They identified this woman. Fine. The rule has been broken. The black and white has been broken. They identified it and then they referred it back into the military system to make a resolution. Let's fix this. And the fix isn't take a soldier's wife away from him. That's stupid. Let's not take a woman who supported a soldier who through a deployment and send her back wherever That's when it would make sense to me David (50:59) there was a feature in The Guardian in September that presented personal accounts of former MAGA supporters describing the departure from MAGA and its social costs. So If someone says this should never have happened to what follow up tells us whether they think it should happen to anyone else? Rob (51:20) I think it's exactly that. They should say should never happen to anyone. David (51:26) Yes. I love it. why might a person understand the problem before they're ready to leave the group organized around it? What's the cost to change one's mind? Rob (51:35) therein lies the struggle. so the cost to change your mind has to be that you say I was wrong. and that's an ego hit. psychologically that is a tough thing to say. I have invested in this thing, I have believed in this thing. Now I'm on the outside of this thing, this shouldn't happen to me. no. I was wrong. This shouldn't happen to anyone. that would be the right answer, but it's tough. And it's certainly not something we can apply to the population. so you know, and it it's easy for us to sit here and say that there are easy answers and there's simple solutions. I'm not saying that. I know each one of these things are shades of gray, which is why it makes me uncomfortable when we make them black and white. and bureaucracy is the enemy to humanity. And I don't mean that humanity as in all of humankind. our humanness. that bureaucracy is not a human thing. it is a system. and it flies in the face of what it is to be human. David (52:36) What do you think we would need to see before trusting somebody again after they've said they're no longer part of that? what could you offer before that trust is rebuilt? Rob (52:45) What would I need to see? David (52:47) Yeah. Rob (52:47) I would need to see them be more reflective and more empathic and more inclusive in their worldview. it would have to cease to be they are wrong, they need to be deported, they need to be punished, they whatever, into more of a we stance. that's what I would need to see in order to trust. that someone's, come to Jesus moment isn't a legit come to Jesus moment. David (53:13) It kinda reminds me of the end of the Truman show. Where there's this difficult part where it's not just noticing that something's wrong around you, but recognizing that your home, your routines, your relationships, they're built into the thing that you need to question. And that if you walk away, you don't get a replacement world So when we ask someone to leave a worldview, are we asking them to abandon an argument or an entire social environment? Rob (53:49) I think that's the problem is that they are having to abandon an entire social environment. someplace that they felt comfortable, that they felt safe, that made sense to them. And then when something like this happens that doesn't make sense, and we do this. I mean, we do this clinically, we do this as humans. we just put an ad hoc addition to explain it so that we don't have to change our worldview, that we don't have to change our assessment of a patient or our belief of what's going on with a patient. we just like, here's the exception to the rule. And here's another exception to the rule. It's hard. actually I feel empathic for those who are now in a position to have lost are beginning to lose faith or in that place where they have lost faith but they can't give it up in this MAGA movement that it's not working. it's not doing what they thought. It's not translating into what they thought. It's not helping them. the people that were supposed to protect them are actually working against them. Donald Trump has made a billion dollars. or five billion dollars or whatever the hell, however much. he he's not destroying the deep state. He didn't get to the Epstein files. that they're having to give up an entire culture in order to give this up. I think that's psychologically painful. It's difficult. so we have to be patient with these individuals. We have to understand what they're going through. David (55:21) Sudden. Couldn't have said it better. And I definitely wouldn't have. But all right, so these couldn't have. Alright, Rob (55:23) Huh No. You you you could yeah. You got me all fired the fuck up. God damn it, David. David (55:30) so these these stories they just don't have the same stakes and they don't establish the same kind of responsibility. A fictional welfare recipient is not a woman facing harassment. neither of those is equivalent to Nazi persecution. In a military family expecting fair consideration is not endorsing the treatment that it receives. So what we're examining is the relationship between belonging and protection. Who decides that you are one of us? What does that Rob (55:57) Yeah. David (55:57) status actually guarantee? And can the guarantee survive disagreement, inconvenience, or a change in somebody else's priorities? An exception can be humane. It can correct a bad rule, but an exception can also let us preserve a bad rule by making sure it hurts somebody else. The test isn't whether we can explain why we deserve consideration. Most of us can. It's whether that explanation leads to a principle we can defend when it protects someone we don't identify with. Robbie, before I reduce all of this into a video game reference. What's the strongest objection to the argument we've made tonight? Rob (56:38) keep putting me on the fucking spot. Well the strongest objection to the argument we've made tonight, I suppose, is that there has to be rules, and those rules have to be followed. that's the objection that you know anarchy Is shades of gray and law and order is black and white. So what we're asking of this system is delving into in a sense, and that's not comfortable and it becomes really hard and the whole system can get drugged down by looking at every situation under a microscope. that's hard. It may be impossible. What I'm asking of it may be impossible. David (57:26) what would change your mind about it. Rob (57:28) It's a question of scale i is really where I think the problem lies. That there is a scale in which you can adjudicate each and every one of these scenarios in a just way. There is a scale in which adjudicating each and every one of these scenarios becomes impossible. So what would change my mind about whether it's where the justice lies? Probably nothing. There has to be justice. from a practical standpoint, I recognize that once you start to scale up, it becomes much more challenging. Which is why I think the problem is that the decisions are being made On a scale at say the administration, the presidential level, that is unjust. That a lot of these decisions should be being made on a more local level, like transferred back into the military environment. This soldier had a company commander. This soldier had a battalion commander, this soldier had a brigade commander, had a division commander. There were people who could have assisted in adjudicating this in making sure that it was done to standard. but it wasn't because it was kept at the scale of what the administration wanted. David (58:48) I thought you were about to do the most Republican thing I'd ever heard you do and talk about states rights, but you didn't you you swung Rob (58:53) I didn't. David (58:53) straight down to the company level, really. All right. Y Rob (58:56) I went all the way to the company level, yeah. David (58:58) you got any prescriptions, Robbie? Rob (58:59) I do, I do. today I have a simple one. This week I prescribe applying your favorite rule to your least favorite person. Side effects may include principles. David (59:10) people need to stop confusing a guest pass with a deed. And if you're the exception, find out who can revoke it. Rob (59:17) No doubt. David (59:18) Thank you everybody for sticking around. We really appreciate it. if you liked our episode, share it with somebody. if you disagreed, send us an email. Let us know. Hell, write how stupid we are on our YouTube channel. Whatever, we'll accept anything. a big shout out to those of us who do support us, our family, our friends. I'm gonna call out Brendan in Maine who supports us and Amy in Arizona who's also a big supporter. Thank you so much. Rob (59:45) Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Brendan. David (59:47) We really appreciate you guys listening. and that's it. So we'll see everyone next week. I'm gonna cue up this music and we are out.