How to Make Change

Jamelle Bouie is a columnist at the New York Times. The way he argues in public is very different from the way he argues in his private life. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Let's start with a big, abstract question. Where do we argue? I mean, as a public, as a nation, as a people, where do we argue? It's one thing to ask what we argue about.

Michael Lee: Elections, taxes, wars, fracking, pronouns, and more. It's another thing to ask how we argue. Angrily, with lots of name calling. Uncharitably, loudly, not at all, and more. But where do we do this business of arguing? And arguing, to be clear, is the business of democracy. It is the means of democracy. That's vital as well.

Michael Lee: Where we do the business of arguing is vital. This where we argue question concerns what many people call the public sphere. The public sphere is the place or places Where the community debates about its own [00:01:00] interests. Classically, one might think of the Constitutional convention as a vital and original example of the American public sphere, or perhaps even a jury debating about the facts of a, of a case as a smaller example.

Michael Lee: But since we all can't be in Congress or on juries, where else do we argue? One answer is that we argue in lots of places, schools, bars, courthouses, parking lots. And then another answer to this question is that we argue in so many places, and these arguments take place all around us, that public argument is really watered down, fragmented, it's largely unavailable to most of us, and it's accidental.

Michael Lee: And this space, public space for the public to debate about itself, is really important. The public becomes a public through public knowledge, public space to debate, and then actual public arguments between ourselves. In other words, minus these, [00:02:00] a public is really just a bunch of private, separate witnesses to the world unfolding around us.

Michael Lee: I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. Our guest today on When We Disagree is Jamel Bowie. He's a columnist at the New York Times. Jamel. Tell us an argument story. 

Jamelle Bouie: Tell you an argument story. First of all, thank you so much for having me.

Jamelle Bouie: Um, it's funny, in my personal life, I'm very consensus driven. I'm a very big believer in, like, deliberation when it comes to making, say, family decisions, when it comes to doing All that kind of stuff and so I wouldn't say I'm conflict avoidant when it comes to like my personal life But just sort of like I feel it's much more useful to kind of you know We'll discuss and then we'll come to some sort of agreed upon solution in my professional life However, it's all about making arguments.

Jamelle Bouie: Um, my professional life is centered on and around Uh, making arguments, making claims, you know, collecting evidence and doing that sort of thing. And so I'd say [00:03:00] my argument story is kind of, in a lot of ways, a story like my own intellectual development since the last, not the last presidential election, but the one before that, 2016, when I came into that election.

Jamelle Bouie: very much a product of the Obama era, with a set of assumptions about what the American electorate was, about how American politics operated, um, uh, about what wins and what loses and came out of that election with all of those things very clearly being wrong. But the thing is, is that in the moment, I don't think I was willing to admit that they were wrong.

Jamelle Bouie: You, you, you develop your own attachments to the things that you believe, to the conclusions you've come to, and it's a very difficult thing to let go of that. Um, and so I would say that for some time after that election, I was engaged in this, like, [00:04:00] long running and, like, heated argument with people, um, through text, you know, through other medium.

Jamelle Bouie: About what happened in 2016, um, about how, why that election went the way that it did, about what is the, the, the, the proper emphasis going forward for thinking about a certain kind of politics. Um, uh, and I You know, I was very much, for a while, like, very much set in my ways about this, um, and a little intransigent, sort of like, no, this was, you know, very simply, you know, an election about racial prejudice, this was very simply, uh, you know, a backlash to Obama in, like, the crudest possible ways, et cetera, et cetera, and 

it 

Jamelle Bouie: is, 

very 

Jamelle Bouie: Not so much [00:05:00] that I had, that I was like persuaded by my interlocutors, I'll say this.

Jamelle Bouie: Okay. And not so much that I had some great revelation. What happened, how this argument resolved and sort of the synthesis I've come to in the years since is I became, part of it's a little bit of ego, I like being right, um, um, I like being right quite a bit, and as the data and research and study of the 2016 election came through, from political scientists, from demographers, from the people whose job it is really to try to analyze this dispassionately, Um, a few things became clear.

Jamelle Bouie: Some of the claims that the people who disagreed with her wrong, but some of the claims I was making were wrong as well. Um, when it came to, you know, who voted when it came to their motivations for [00:06:00] voting, when it came to lots of things. And so I, you know, because I, I'm someone who has always. I prided myself on taking data seriously and, um, taking empirical work seriously, you know, empirical work that is, um, challenging some of my assumptions.

Jamelle Bouie: It's empirical work that really has to be grappled with, um, along, you know, as that is You know, ongoing, um, um, I am also sort of redirecting my reading, uh, in U. S. history away from sort of like 20th century stuff to more like 19th century, um, uh, history and trying to build out sort of maybe a more broader and, um, in depth understanding of political change.

Jamelle Bouie: In the country and of the kind of forces that might drive political change. 

Michael Lee: Let me jump in and ask you a question about, I actually want to go to the beginning. You made a distinction about how you show up in your personal life [00:07:00] versus how you show up in your professional life. Yeah. You say that you're very consensus driven and pro deliberation in your personal life.

Michael Lee: I'm not hearing much other than a search for greater understanding that really assembles all of the potential competing variables about something complicated, like the 2016 election. So going back to the distinction, I'm not hearing much of a difference there. 

Jamelle Bouie: I think the difference is that I would never say to someone in my personal life, well, I think you're wrong about this and try to, and try to, um, uh, be argumentative.

Jamelle Bouie: With them, you know, try to sort of like, uh, uh, say here, here's X, Y, Z, and like a very logical and ordered way. Why? I think that you're incorrect about this. Like this isn't, that's not a way I would like talk to a person that even if I was wrong, even if you were wrong, right? Like, even if I thought that you were mistaken.

Michael Lee: Like you and I are in a [00:08:00] car, and we're driving somewhere, and I'm insistent on going on this highway, and you know for a fact that that's not the case. 

Jamelle Bouie: Right, right. In that kind of scenario, I might say something like, Well, we'll just keep on going for a little bit, and we'll see if we're on the right path.

Jamelle Bouie: We should be passing this if we're on the right path. And if we aren't, like, we should consider, you know, turning around. So 

Michael Lee: you would, you would make it into kind of an experiment, and then the evidence that the experiment was failing, from my point of view about directions, would become so self evident that I would have to change my mind.

Michael Lee: That would be my hope. And then There's a similar process going on in your writing too, which is there are long term historical forces that help us explain Trump from the 19th century to the present. You're changing your own mind. In other words, you ran an experiment. You were resistant, as we all are, because we're ego invested in our conclusions.

Michael Lee: But you ran an experiment about a limited conclusion you had made about 2016 that you have now revised somewhat. Maybe you weren't persuaded, but you've come to a different synthesis. Right, 

Jamelle Bouie: right. Um, that's, I mean, that, that, I think [00:09:00] that's a good, a good, that's a good, uh, summary. And I would say that the distinction for me in my mind, in my experience is that the professional thing happens through a much more sort of like, it's much more conflict involved.

Jamelle Bouie: The difference 

Michael Lee: is almost rhetorical. Right, right. You would not say, if you and I disagree about, let's say the buildup to the civil war, you would say, no, I think you're wrong. Yes. Period. Yeah. Here's why. Right. If you and I are having directions, or if we are members of a family or something, or disagreeing about what to serve at Thanksgiving, it's a little bit more subtle.

Jamelle Bouie: The extent to which I'm in like a sustained relationship with a person, like if it's, if I'm arguing with someone, like another, another, you know, commentator at a magazine, it's like I, I'm not in a, I'm not going to be mean to someone, that's, that's different, but I'm not like in the kind of real, real relationship.

Jamelle Bouie: Where there's going to be ongoing give and take, where there has to be trust built, where there has to be, um, you know, uh, where we have to see each [00:10:00] other every day, and like, feelings can be hurt, and things can be carried for a long time, and I'm like very sensitive to those sorts of things, um, but if it's, it's sort of like, it's like, it's like playing, it's like playing, um, playing on a, Serious football team or basketball team versus like playing streetball with your friends, right?

Jamelle Bouie: It's like when you're playing streetball with your friends, you're competitive, obviously Yeah, but like there are things you will not do with your friends and you're just like kind of playing around That you might do if you were playing on court or real stakes. 

Michael Lee: What, I'm struck by something that's happening, which is we've had dozens of guests on the show and so I've run across at least two different types.

Michael Lee: One is a person who says exactly what you're saying, which is that my professional life is in some sense devoted to being antagonistic. I make arguments. Maybe they're lawyers, maybe they're professors. Maybe they just are people who like to argue with strangers. [00:11:00] 

Jamelle Bouie: I mean, I'm sure all of that being like, uh, being, liking arguing with strangers is, uh, almost certainly a part of every profession you just mentioned.

Michael Lee: And then second, those same arguing with strangers, people come home and are pretty conciliatory, to put it mildly. Yeah, but then there's others and we get seldom get folks who identify this way, but I've certainly seen it where they're actually deeply conciliatory. To preserve more anonymous, loose tie relationships, but can be incredibly harsh on the people closest to them.

Michael Lee: It sounds like you were opting way more for the former strategy than the latter strategy. 

Jamelle Bouie: Yes, it's not that I, when it comes to personal relationships, I'm conflict avoided necessarily. Sometimes there needs, there has to be conflict, but even that I think has to be structured a certain way, right? Like this is what I say to my kids that even when we're upset with each other or mad with each other.

Jamelle Bouie: There are things that we're not going to do. We're not going to yell at each other. We're not going [00:12:00] to, you know, say mean things. We're going to, if we need to take a break, we'll take a break and gather our thoughts. Um, and it's still important to voice those thoughts with clarity. Um, uh, if, if my wife and I have a disagreement about something, it's important that we say that clearly unambiguously and work through the disagreement, work through the conflict, Yeah.

Jamelle Bouie: But. I would, again, I'm a believer when it comes to that sort of thing, that's the thing in structuring, like the structure in which you approach a conflict matters as much as like the substance of the conflict itself. Well, 

Michael Lee: that's 

Jamelle Bouie: good. Uh, and. I, you know, I've certainly observed people who have like minor conflicts and disagreements in their personal life, but they're struck like they approach them with a lot of high drama and it becomes that more than even the conflict itself becomes the issue.

Jamelle Bouie: Yeah, yeah, the 

Michael Lee: conflict 

Jamelle Bouie: about conflict. 

Michael Lee: Right. Right. But I don't want to get back to [00:13:00] 2016 in just a second, but I'm enjoying this for a moment. We can stay here. Okay, we'll stay here for a moment. But I do, I'm curious to hear about your evolutions, places you thought you were right and wrong. And certainly as it applies to the present, but second, um, it sounds at least like you have an investment in structure as it pertains to, let's say, familial, social, personal.

Michael Lee: Home life settings, but it also sounds like you have kind of a tacit theory of what, of how civility or norms of decorum change depending on the relationship, which is to say that you have one set of, it's not like you're uncivil or mean in your professional life as a writer, columnist, but the things that you would say follow under a very different framework of civility and structure.

Michael Lee: So talk about those two things, right? Right. 

Jamelle Bouie: I think When it comes to the making arguments in the public, I think that what maybe [00:14:00] civility demands of us is honesty, it's truthfulness, it's forthrightness, it's not being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest, but I don't think in that circumstance civility demands a kind of conciliatory gesture, right, because I'm not conciliatory here, like if, especially if it's on something of, of, um, where there are real stakes, Where, um, we're arguing about something, we're discussing something for which, um, the consequences are quite great.

Jamelle Bouie: I don't think there's any particular requirement to say, you know, at the end of the day, Oh, well, we can all be friends. Maybe we can't. Um, and, um, you know, our, our, our strong feelings towards each other are totally legitimate. That does not mean that we, especially like, cut intellectual corners. Um, and to me, like, civility in that context is sort of like, I'm going to show you basically the decency and courtesy.

Jamelle Bouie: To say what I mean, and to say it honestly and truthfully, [00:15:00] Um, uh, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, you know, I'm not gonna try to lie to you or deceive you. That's what I owe you. Uh, um, but I don't necessarily owe the kind of caring consideration I might show to my brother when we are disagreeing about something.

Michael Lee: And there are moments here where I'm reminded of a concept in some of the democracy literature of forbearance, right? Or, or pulling punches as it were. And there's a theorist who wrote a lovely book called Mere Civility, Teresa Bajon, and she talks about civility as Not pulling punches, but not necessarily trying to land all of them at the same time.

Michael Lee: That's right. And that seems to apply in both contexts of your, this kind of like public private split that we're teasing out as the way that you engage in conflict. I am curious though about the idea about stakes. Because in some sense, the stakes of a personal relationship [00:16:00] have a far more immediate and personal and frankly controllable context than does anything you or I ever say about, let's say, the build up to the Civil War.

Jamelle Bouie: Right, right. Um, it's, it's, this might be like my, my understanding of stakes here might be a bit of a function of just like my job here. It's like, you know, I, I work for single largest newspaper in the United States. I have like kind of unlimited space to do whatever I want on maybe the most read opinion page in the United States.

Jamelle Bouie: And so arguments about, you know, public policy arguments about even the, um, the basis for a political movement or not. 

Michael Lee: Mm hmm. 

Jamelle Bouie: Do actually have like Like in influe, influential people will read this stuff and come to their own conclusions, and there's like stakes in trying to like influence it in the way that I'd want to be in.

Jamelle Bouie: I'd want them to be influenced. That's, and so when I think of like the stakes of an argument like that, that to me, [00:17:00] um, uh, is what they are. Like, this is this thing from like, you know, you're on social media and you're arguing with something that's, that's there's, that's pleasure, right? That's there's no, there's no real stakes there.

Jamelle Bouie: Um, there's visibility here. That's the difference. Right? Right. Massive 

Michael Lee: visibility. Um, and the pressure of that visibility. To argue in a particular way to demonstrate norms of decorum norms of argumentative exchange given your visibility as you're very thoughtful about that, and they're fundamentally different from so I guess why, if the goal is to be visible and, of course, influential, right?

Michael Lee: You want people to take your ideas very seriously. What is it about your theory of public persuasion? That indicates to you that a less conciliatory, more didactic, deductive, here is my claim, here is the evidence, therefore you are wrong, approach, is more persuasive than the other one.

I think that [00:18:00] part 

Jamelle Bouie: of it, I'll say, it's just how my, how my brain operates. Like I, in, in terms of um, I almost became a lawyer, right? Sort of like, I I, I almost, I almost, I almost went to law school and became a lawyer. I think it's just sort of like a natural way that like, I think I just construct arguments.

Jamelle Bouie: Same for the record. Um, uh, but I also think this might sound a little counterintuitive, but I think that in the, the world of opinion journalism and opinion argument making, there actually isn't enough forthrightness. There isn't enough people just saying what they mean. There's a lot of trying to subtly influence.

Jamelle Bouie: And I think I, I don't, I think there's more, for me, there might, there's more value in just like saying the thing and not trying to, um, negotiate around it. I'm trying to think, I'm trying to think of an example that isn't too inflammatory, but [00:19:00] one example that, that is maybe a little bit inflammatory is That there was after the 2020 election, a big discussion and sort of like center left, um, centrist democratic spaces, but sort of the way forward, how do you appeal to these voters that you may be losing?

Jamelle Bouie: And one perspective was, Oh, well, Democrats need to moderate on cultural issues. They need to, um, moderate maybe on economic issues, like speak more of a language that appeals to the working class voters that they're losing, stay away from cultural radicalism. And as I followed this, I was like, I don't know what the name of this means.

Jamelle Bouie: Like, what does it mean? What does this mean in practice? Like, who are the specific groups of people that you think should be distanced from? Sure. What are the specific Ideas, figures, politicians that you think need to be set aside. Yeah. I would rather, and when I, when I engaged in this, I didn't have a prescription, but I, I should have said, you know, in 1992 when Bill Clinton was trying to do something [00:20:00] similar, he specifically went after, um, uh, uh, the black left.

Jamelle Bouie: He went after Jesse Jackson. He went after his sister Solji. Yeah. He specifically said, these are the people who are alienating us from the mainstream voters and we're going to condemn them. That's right. Specifically. Specifically. And a lot of people didn't like it, a lot of people loved it, but that's the kind of claim I need you to make, right, like who, you can't just say distance yourself from the cultural left, and which people, and which groups, and like own the fact that you want to make a strategic decision that might leave some people behind because you think there's a greater good in front of you, and Um, I think that's what I mean when I say I prefer, like that's, and I, I, as I think about what I wrote and how I wrote it, it was not, it was, it was in the very, very much in the tone that I'm saying it now, it was not, it was, I used an historical example, I used an example to illustrate exactly what I think, um, [00:21:00] uh, people were talking about, and then I said to them, Be explicit.

Jamelle Bouie: Uh huh. And don't beat around the bush. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. 

Jamelle Bouie: Um, and this, I mean, this gets back, I think actually this gets back to the structure thing, like, Yeah. Like, this is a much more useful structure for discussing these things than vague intonations about, you know. Broad categories that can be defined any way you want them to 

Michael Lee: yeah, this reminds me a bit of Orwell's politics the English language This is just about accountability, right?

Michael Lee: Accountability, I think 

Jamelle Bouie: and I think I think that those are the two things that I care a lot about like clarity and accountability Like we should be accountable for the things that we say Yeah we should write in a way to make it easier to hold us accountable for the things that we say and I'm kind of naturally distrustful of Approaches to argument that try to weasel out of accountability, to try to leave it open so that anyone can believe whatever they want about what you're saying.

Michael Lee: Yeah, what is the argument? What evidence do you have to support [00:22:00] that argument? And then let's, let's test that. Right. Is the, is the claim supported by the evidence? Is there a warrant to connect the evidence to the claim? And so forth. And I prefer that style of argument too, coming from a kind of wannabe legal debate, academic background, etc.

Michael Lee: And I also can recognize that that's a style of argument that I prefer. Yes, but I don't necessarily have any evidence that that is persuasive in the public sphere. And so that's what I was trying to get at as we can have our preferences. But if your goal is influence, is this influential in the way that you think?

Michael Lee: Versus if you were more, if you could engage in more of a kind of subterfuge. illusion elliptical style of argument and it led you to greater policy influence. What would you do? 

Jamelle Bouie: I would find that very off putting, you know, I, I don't know if my preferred approach is the most persuasive. I know that it.

Jamelle Bouie: Works for me. It fits my sensibilities. I think that it can be persuasive for some people. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. 

Jamelle Bouie: Um, uh, [00:23:00] 

Michael Lee: yeah, but well said and to that point to connect back to the kind of original argument story you were telling, you were talking about a time in which you were not necessarily persuaded by specific people with specific arguments, but in this process of give and take over the 2016 election that led to your greater readings on American history, not so nearly focused on the Obama era.

Michael Lee: Yeah. That you were persuaded, and that you did, at least to yourself, if not in public, admit that you were wrong on certain things. Right. What were some of those things, and talk about that process. 

Jamelle Bouie: The, the, I'd say the big thing that I was wrong on, and I haven't, I've not yet written about this most recent election, but you can sort of, you'll very quick, it'll be like a clear difference.

Jamelle Bouie: Sure. And, after 2016, I think I wrote, These people are all racist, and we gotta write them off. That's all, that's all that's going on here. That was the 65 or however many million votes he got. Right, right, that's that. And this time, what I planned to write is to say, a lot of people voted for him for a bunch of different [00:24:00] reasons.

Jamelle Bouie: Some of those reasons, I are probably terrible, but a lot of people voted for him for completely reasonable and rational reasons. And that should structure how, if you were an opponent of Trump, how you should move forward. Um, uh, uh, and we should break down what those reasons are and try to figure out not necessarily if we're going to be able to appeal on the same level, but to sort of think strategically about like what, how one responds to the new administration, given The diversity of reasons for people choosing something like another way to put this is that I've gone from thinking of electorates as being one singular thing and thinking of electorate to being almost sort of like they are highly contingent and amorphous and in some sense, mysterious things that we project meaning on to, um, and that we should be careful about the meanings we project on them because those meetings will structure how we move forward after the fact.

Jamelle Bouie: Um, it sounds 

Michael Lee: a little bit [00:25:00] like. Um, and, and this is a word you use that I found interesting, but talking to Jamel after the 24 election and then hearing you talk about Jamel after the 16 election. After the 16 election, you've got a hammer and you've got a lot of nails in front of you and you're going to hit them.

Jamelle Bouie: Yeah. 

Michael Lee: This time you have a much more careful, um, nuanced conclusion about the multiple contradictory coalitions that comprise a massive electorate. And we need to understand those points of view. Yeah. that are not one point of view, but multiple, which sounds to go back to the earlier split between public and private.

Michael Lee: It 

Jamelle Bouie: sounds much more like how I approach things in private, rather conciliatory. Yeah. Yeah. But I wouldn't say, I don't know. It's funny because am I conciliatory about now I'm just going to get into my own politics. Am I conciliatory about the 71. 6 million Americans who like Decided to put Trump back in the [00:26:00] White House.

Jamelle Bouie: I don't know if I'm conciliatory. I don't like that they did it I think they made a bad choice. I think it's a bad choice that will have a lot of negative repercussions for many Americans But I think maybe the distinction is that after 2016, I was like, these are bad people and now I'm saying they made a bad choice 

Michael Lee: Oh, and that's shame and guilt, right?

Michael Lee: And but also the difference in terms of conciliation We don't need to get super semantic on the word but conciliatory. I was hearing you say I want to understand people for the reasons they said they did a thing as opposed to ascribing a motivation to them that they might not accept. Right, 

Jamelle Bouie: right. 

Michael Lee: And that is a very conciliatory way of viewing the world and relationships that you might sustain relationships with folks you have to see on a day to day basis in your family, but also might sustain relationships with broader citizens with whom you have a fundamental disagreement.

Michael Lee: Right. I think. When I think 

Jamelle Bouie: about my sort of growth and change over eight years, some of [00:27:00] this is, I think, just, I mean, you don't naturally do anything as you get older, but for me, I think part of this is just like getting older and I have kids now and it's like, there's my life is just different in these very fundamental ways.

Jamelle Bouie: It's sort of like require kind of a different way of approaching the world. But part of it is, you know, my actual intellectual development, just sort of like, A real serious engagement and sort of like what is like, what is democracy? What is democratic life? Like, what do these things mean? Like, what are we trying to construct and build here?

Jamelle Bouie: What does it require of us? What does being a citizen require of us? And it's sort of. Taking all of that seriously, I think, has led me to this kind of perspective I have now, which you're describing as a conciliatory perspective about political outcomes, which is, which is a certain amount of humility about what one can actually know.

Jamelle Bouie: What is knowable. Right. And with what certainty. Right. And, um, [00:28:00] uh, a certain amount of curiosity. Yeah. About. What other people are doing and how they understand themselves and understand, understand their world and also a certain, a certain level of, uh, uh, you know, what. I'm not going to be, I, I'm not a political strategist.

Jamelle Bouie: I'm not going to like be governing how, you know, what Democrats do. So it's, it's part of, it's just like, now I'm just thinking about what do, what do I want to know? 

Michael Lee: Right. 

Jamelle Bouie: Separate and apart from whether it's instrumentally useful to anyone. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. Let me close on a, a kind of historical question that bleeds into the future here.

Michael Lee: Could 2016 Jamel see this Jamel coming and then second. What, Jamel, do you see giving a podcast interview like this one after the 2032 election? 

Jamelle Bouie: Could 2016 

Jamel see this, Jamel? I, uh,[00:29:00] 

I don't, I don't, that's a good question. I don't know. I don't know if he could. Um, 

Jamelle Bouie: again, it's like experiences change 

it. I, I, I don't know. Eight years from now, I have a feeling that 

Jamelle Bouie: eight years from now, whatever distinction exists in my like personal private. Approach that the conflict will maybe have disintegrated completely, um, in part because I 

just, I very good friend of mine who is also a writer, um, 

Jamelle Bouie: uh, has long believed in sort of like a stable and fulfilling personal life is sort of integral to.

Jamelle Bouie: Developing [00:30:00] a vibrant professional one that you can't really explore if you are constantly trying to, um, uh, build an actual foundation for like your day to day life. And I think he's right. And I think because I think he's right, I can see that I can see, I can see a future Jamel, um, even more conciliatory and the like, in part because I.

Jamelle Bouie: In that eight years, I hope to continue to focus on, you know, building out a strong and steady foundation, like with my family, with my community, with the people around me, and using the stability of my day to day life as the foundation for maybe thinking more expansively and broadly and creatively.

Jamelle Bouie: About the world around me. Um, yeah. 

Michael Lee: Well said. Jamel [00:31:00] Bowie, thanks so much for being on When We Disagree. 

Jamelle Bouie: Uh, thank you for having me. 

Michael Lee: When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail.

Michael Lee: com