Government

Jermaine Johnson, a South Carolina state representative and former pro basketball player, shares his frustration with the legislative process, revealing how performative politics often masks real, behind-closed-doors power plays. In his push to reform outdated laws, he’s faced fierce resistance rooted not just in political ideology, but in the weight of our shared history. For Johnson, the real battle isn’t left versus right; it’s past versus present. Still, his fight is fueled by hope—for his grandchildren to live in a world that finally catches up to its ideals.

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.

Discussions about democracy often bring up the concept of the public sphere. A space where citizens engage in debate and shape public opinion. For many thinkers, the ideal public sphere is defined by equal access, where every individual has an opportunity to participate free from coercion or unequal power.

I. While this might sound theoretical, the concept has everyday relevance from political discourse to our personal conversations and relationships. Think about a community meeting where residents are discussing a newly proposed park in a true public sphere. I. All these voices in the community would carry kind of equal weight.

Long time homeowners are concerned about property values and renters are advocating for more affordable [00:01:00] houses, and small business owners are hoping for more foot traffic. I. They all have valid interests, but if a development company who wants the land that the park would be on, sponsors the meeting, gives refreshments, controls the agenda, maybe promises people kickbacks for votes, the space loses all neutrality.

I. When financial interests distort participation, the public's fear is compromised. This imbalance also appears in the workplace. Imagine a brainstorming session about workplace productivity, for example. Ideally, everyone from new employees to managers would contribute some insights without fear of retaliation, like they're not gonna lose their job or not get promoted because they said something in the interest of a better meeting.

But if only the highest ranking voices are taken seriously, innovation and idea sharing suffers. Equality of access in professional settings requires fostering an environment where questioning and constructive [00:02:00] criticism are really welcome. After all, democracy doesn't just live in the voting booth or the chambers of government.

It thrives wherever people gather to exchange ideas with mutual respect. Im Michael Lee, professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. Our guest on when we disagree is Jermaine Johnson. Jermaine represents District 52 in the South Carolina House of Representatives originally from Los Angeles.

Jermaine was a star basketball player in college before a multi-year career. In the pros, his life is chronicled. In the documentary, I got myself a yard. Jermaine, tell us an argument story. Oh 

Jermaine Johnson: man. Well, well, first off, thank you for having me here this morning. Um, you know, most people don't realize, or they haven't realized that we are actually in the Bible Belt.

So with us being in the Bible Belt and, you know, uh, down here in South Carolina, uh, a lot of laws, family laws were [00:03:00] created, uh, in the sixties, seventies, eighties, uh, that were specifically geared toward making sure that women have the rights and they can take care of their families. Um, the problem is now we're here in 2024.

And times have changed. Women have, uh, have, have been able to achieve, uh, education and employment opportunities and those types of things. But our laws have not been updated since, you know, they were first established way back in the day. I. So, uh, myself and another representative, uh, we introduced some legislation that would say that if you have a child with a woman mm-hmm.

And it turns out that that woman, uh, actually deceived you and that child is not your child biologically, okay. That you would be able to go to the judge and have your name taken off of the birth certificate. That seems logical when you're saying, well, you know, if I'm the father and I'm really not the father, you know, and I was deceived and I wanna take my name off his birth certificate, it should be done so.

Michael Lee: So the current law [00:04:00] prohibits the current law? 

Jermaine Johnson: Yes. The current law prohibits you from taking your name off the birth certificate. Also in the South Carolina currently, by the way, the law is written. If you are the father of a child, a biological father of a child, but you are unmarried, you have zero rights to that child.

That's the way. So a a, a woman can actually, could take the child, move to Alaska, put you on child support, and you don't have any rights to see that, that child you have to be married. Before the child is born, correct? Can be married after the fact. You have to be married before the child is born. Right? So if the child is born, let's say you, you are married.

Let's say you are married and you have a child, Uhhuh, and, but you find out that your wife cheated on you, okay? By law, you are still the father of that child because you are married. So essentially you could end up paying child support for a child that's not even your kid. Um, and you would be stuck out of that.

Wow. So, okay, so, so I, I said, you know, I think it would be logical that we ch kind of [00:05:00] change some of these laws. We say, Hey, let's kind of, uh, allow a man who, who finds out that he's not the father of this child biologically, because he was lied to. Right. To be able to remove his name from the birth certificate.

Michael Lee: Yeah. 

Jermaine Johnson: Alright. You and I think that's normal, but apparently the people who were against it did not want to see that come to pass. Let's talk about that. Okay. So this is where the disagreement comes in. All right? Yeah. So the disagreement was. They believe that at some point, the child's rights and the child's wellbeing should trump the adult's rights and the adult's wellbeing.

And they call that bastardizing the child, the judge. I've heard the judge say that herself. She says, you know, we don't want to bastardize the child. What does, can we pause on that word for a second? Yes. What does that mean? That's, that's, uh, allowing a child to be growing up without a father. So that, or, or, or, or, you know, a parental, uh, figure 

Michael Lee: the child has through deception.

A legal father. Yes. Uh, who is not the child's biological father, but is le in [00:06:00] the eyes of the law, the father. Correct. And then to remove that father, because the father's actually not the biological father would be in the eyes of law. The bastardization. The bastardization of the child. 

Jermaine Johnson: That's correct. And that is the way that the current law.

Is, is is currently operating now, me and myself, uh, and you know, the people, the supporters of my legislation, um, were going into a, a, a, a back and forth debate with the other individuals who are saying, no, we can't. Like, well, when is, when do we keep the child's, uh, you know, wellbeing at the forefront of everything?

Because everybody wants the child. To be, you know, uh, have a healthy, have a healthy, you know, upbringing in, uh, um mm-hmm. Have a good family environment, you know, when is the child's rights going to trump the adult's rights? Because at some point you could have done something to, yeah. Not put yourself in that situation.

Michael Lee: I guess my, my immediate question, just in terms of the bastardization argument is. Isn't it also in the [00:07:00] child's best interest to A, have their father be their authentic father and not based on a lie or deception or subterfuge. And b or two isn't putting a child in a, in a dece, deceitful family situation, potentially nuclear and also bad for the child's interests.

And 

Jermaine Johnson: that's what some of the argument that I, I stated myself. So what they were saying was that, well, um, we at least have to put some sort of a timeframe in there to say, if a father says. If a father, you know, for the first five, six years doesn't get a birth, A DNA test doesn't get a DNA test or uhhuh, if he finds out and, and says, you know, I'm the, you know, I'll just assume the responsibility.

He just, you know, with knowledge says, you know, I'll go ahead and forget it all. I'll do that. Then we can't do it. So they were trying to say something, but they still killed the entire bill itself. When was this? This was last year. 

Michael Lee: So you introduced with a colleague in the house mm-hmm. This in the South Carolina house.

Mm-hmm. This legislation, you, it sounds like [00:08:00] you consulted with judges too. Mm-hmm. Yep. But also South Carolina house members, and it was killed in a committee. 

Jermaine Johnson: It was killed and it was killed in, it was killed in a subcommittee. Uh, and they, they said, you know, well, we would possibly bring it back or we possibly talk about it.

But of course, you know, when they say that it's not, it's not the truth. It is just, yeah, it's something to, just to say, to make it go away. We are still sitting in the midst of a situation like this. Now, there's a big, um, movement right now to kind of, uh, equalize the rights because, you know, we, we know studies show that fathers, you know, uh, uh, when they're involved in the lives of their children mm-hmm.

That the, the success of a child, you know, is, I mean, the outcomes are just, uh, fantastic. Uh, and even more so, uh, a single father household. Uh, can produce the same, uh, sort of results as a two-parent household. Hmm. So we know that by statistics. Um, but the problem is we're still operating on 19 50, 19 60, 1970s law and we refuse to, to come up to modern times.

Another, uh, another situation that we need to change here. Did you know in the current law they [00:09:00] classify mixed race children as special needs? Current South Carolina and current South Carolina law, if you are of mixed race, you are considered special needs. And I, you know, so I've got legislation that, that, that wants to change that.

But we will not come up to current 2024 standards and I, I'm trying to figure out why we continue to go back and forth. Yeah. With about stuff that you know is just. It's just obvious it needs to change. 

Michael Lee: Uh, uh let's pause on the special, special needs thing 'cause I'm struggling to, to catch up a little bit with that one.

What does that mean, both legally in terms of the child's this mixed race child's classification, and as well as in the child's life? Does that mean that child is put into special schooling? 

Jermaine Johnson: Uh, so so what the, when they first created this law, it was of course, in an antiquated time. Yeah. Way back, you know, in the day.

And they created it because they said kids who were mixed, uh, mixed race were more, uh, hard to, uh, adopt them out to, to find them families. Yeah. Uh, so they, [00:10:00] they classified 'em as, as special needs in order to get them more, uh, governmental funding, more supports, more resources. Okay. And they did it of that.

But we know that in 2024 is special needs is not. Special needs. Right. Maybe special circumstances. Sure. You know, may maybe, you know, uh, uh, hard to adopt out, you know, something like that. Uh, would need to change. But the problem is it's still in the law, especially he's classified with Yeah. You know, uh, differently 

Michael Lee: abled individuals.

And is this a similar situation where you've introduced legislation to try to get rid of this and have it's been killed in a, it has just sat in, sat in the closet somewhere, uh, and has not come up to be changed? What's, what's interesting, two things and let's see if we can talk about both of 'em. One. It sounds like you're having a lot of conflict over antiquated law, but in terms of the back and forth arguments, this bastardization argument aside, there's not a ton of actual debate and disagreement.

There's conflict. Mm-hmm. And this change you're trying to push. Is meeting with resistance, but a lot of that is happening behind closed doors. They're not gonna air their [00:11:00] arguments in favor of special needs designations or in favor of, right. Um, people being lied to about their parentage. Right. And, and put that in open debate.

And so let's, let's talk about that. And the second thing I wanna get to eventually too is it sounds like a lot of the work that you're doing and frustrations you're finding being a South Carolina House representative. It's not just fighting against present political circumstances, polarization, the other party this or that person who's tough to work with, but fighting against history.

Yes. And the force of history on the present. Yeah. So let's talk about that, that first one first, if you don't mind, all this stuff is conflict, but it's happening behind closed doors. How does that Right. That's gotta be really frustrating. Oh, 

Jermaine Johnson: it, it is extremely frustrating because the, the conflict a, a lot of the debate that you all see on tv, 

Michael Lee: yeah.

Jermaine Johnson: This debate has already happened behind closed doors in somebody's office or somebody's. A car on a phone call or something like that. And I discovered that after I had got elected, um, that the decisions have already been made. Um, they've been made behind closed doors. You know, people have already argued and, and negotiated [00:12:00] what they're gonna allow inside of this bill, whatever it is.

So when you see these big, I. Long speeches from the well or you see these big things on tv. Yeah. You see these big arguments, that's for sure. It's all for, that's all theater. It's all, it's all theater. It's all theatrics. They've already agreed to allow you to speak for 15 minutes or 10 minutes, and they've already said, you know what, at, at this many bills that are introduced, we're gonna cut off debate and we're gonna, we're gonna invoke cloture, and then we're gonna do this.

Uhhuh, all this has already been discussed, uhhuh, so when you have the subcommittee meetings and committee meetings, they have already determined. Whether they're gonna pass this out, whether or not, you know, they're gonna change it, whether they're gonna introduce another amendment. Yeah. You know, they all that's already been there.

And these debates that happen behind closed doors, those are the serious ones. So I had, I've had these debates with these people behind closed doors about, you know, different things, uh, including this one, you know, we're talking about the fathers. Mm-hmm. Um, and, and, and, and their rights and everything.

Mm-hmm. So these are some things that we have to change 

Michael Lee: and. Did. Was this something that you, you became aware of once you were elected and you were in the house, that there were these [00:13:00] theatrical speeches that were really just for the cameras and that there were these debates that happened that had basically predetermined what was gonna be allowable as legislation?

Yes. So it has to be this 'cause sort of like Mr. Smith goes to Washington Disillusionment moment where you presume you're getting involved in something where everybody equally cares about the outcomes for their constituencies, for their states, for the country. And then is willing to do the research and political grinding to make sure that the proper legislation gets through.

And part of that is a debating process. Mm-hmm. Where you and I as people who disagree, sit down and hash out, like where we can meet in the middle. Mm-hmm. Or who's really right and who's really wrong, and have that in public and be accountable for our words. But instead it's a closed door. Untransparent.

Yes. Unaccountable kind of a system. What was that like when you made that realization? Oh man, my God. It, 

Jermaine Johnson: it, it's, it's funny because, you know, I, I'm a Democrat, right? So I'm a Democrat in the State House, and I found this out. Uh, when two other Democrats, [00:14:00] I'm not gonna name their names, but when two other Democrats stole a bill from me, so I had introduced the bill, uh, when my freshman, you know, my freshman term of in there, and they went and kind of hijacked the bill because they wanted to credit for this bill that I had to introduce.

And they said, if you don't pass this, we're gonna force you to pass it. And if you ever pass anything else on the house side when it comes to the Senate side. We'll make sure it doesn't pass. Hmm. And these are Democrats that are telling, that are telling me this, and this is how, this is. When I realized that it's, it is not a, it is not a Republicans versus Democrats thing.

It's not a, you know, we're gonna be on, in, in, we're gonna be on TV and argue, argue. This is a long term relationships type thing. Mm-hmm. That we all know what's going on behind closed doors. And you don't know what happens until you're actually out there. Yeah. And you're up there, you know, in the, in the knowhow.

You know, so it's, it creates so much, it creates so much conflict. 

Michael Lee: This there is. The system, it sounds like it works in terms of a lot of relationships. Seniority, [00:15:00] glad handing Yep. Behind closed doors, but there's this theater of openness, right? Is there any advantage to the way that that system works now versus a system that was much more.

Public debate, accountability, um, almost like a jury trial where like I give my case for somebody's guilt or innocence. You give your public case and then there is a set of deliberations via a judge or a jury. 

Jermaine Johnson: Right? And, you know, there, there is some advantage because when you truly get to know somebody, uhhuh, you understand who they are, their character, that type of stuff.

They truly do wanna work with you. Uh, it doesn't matter if it's, you know, republican, democrat, independent, you know, they will find a way to assist you. I've, I've gotten lots of assistance from the Republican party. Uh, to help my constituents and you know, that's stuff that doesn't go in front of a debate, you know?

Yeah. It doesn't happen like that. These are people that are assisting me, but when, when your messaging on the Republican side is so good, or when you're messaging on the democratic side is so good, you can publicly demonize somebody. I. And, and people who are, uh, who are not [00:16:00] involved, they don't see the human side of, uh, Democrats, Republicans or independents.

And, and, and that relationship that we have, all they see is what they see in TV and the media. Right. And they assume that that is Bible, that's the truth. And that's what's actually happening. Yeah. And they don't see us hanging out at each other's houses, you know, having drinks, going to each other's kids, birthday parties, and, you know, that type of stuff.

Yeah. Um, and the messaging is just too darn good at this point to, to where there's a super majority in the house and the senate. But a lot of those guys in the house and the Senate didn't wanna see the Democrat friends lose. Right. You know, so it's like, but they had to appear, but they had to appear 

Michael Lee: like they wanted to see him lose.

Uh, in this circumstance, and this is transitioning into that second question I was talking about, about your war, not against Republicans or other Democrats, but your fight against is against history. What I'm hearing in this case is that you, at least the two bills that you've had conflicts about that you've introduced here on the show.

This argument about deceitful fatherhood and quote unquote bastardization. This issue about the reclassification of mixed [00:17:00] race children not as special needs. Legally speaking to, just to, to say it seemed like no brainer, bipartisan right kinds of issues. It's hard for me to even, I try to put myself in the position of the person you're arguing against on this show and understand the world as they see it.

Sometimes I run up against some difficulty trying to do that. Mm-hmm. And I'm finding myself struggling to be articulate for a different side, so, mm-hmm. Just to say that. And so in this case, it feels like this is such a clear, no-brainer issue, such an obvious bipartisan issue. I. Who on the other side, or even on your own side, could oppose these things, and so this is not really even an argumentative idea.

War like taxes or something like that would be, this is just a war for war's sake, just fighting to fight, it sounds like. Is that correct? But that's how it feels. 

Jermaine Johnson: Yeah. You know, that's how it feels because it is such a no-brainer to me. It's a no-brainer, you know? Yeah. To say, hey. If I've been deceived and case in point.

So I had somebody who came to that committee to testify Uhhuh. Um, and he is a, uh, he was a good friend of mine and, [00:18:00] uh, he was with a woman, uh, and they weren't married. Uh, and she got, she ended up being pregnant. She told him he, uh, that she was pregnant. So he ended up marrying her. He married her because he wanted to do the right thing.

She was pregnant with his child. So, uh, fast forward the, the kids born. They end up breaking up. He ends up taking care of the kid, like he's got the kid with him. He raised the kid for like the first six, seven years of the kid's life. Mm-hmm. Uh, the mom comes back into the child's life. She tries to take the kid from him.

So she ends up, you know, she takes the kid, gets the kid back. So he's getting visitation and he's trying to figure out how to get custody of his kid. So his, his, uh, his current fiance. Uh, was trying to help him with the DNA testing. So just to, so they could establish the paternity so he can get the, the, the trout?

Yeah. So they do a DNA test. Find out the kid's, not his. So he's, he's raising this kid that is, that is not his. He's on child support. He is paying child support for this kid. He's got back pay of child support. So he's going in and out of jail. He's in and out of jail because now he's [00:19:00] refusing to pay child support for a kid that has been proven to not be his.

The judge knows this kid is not his. The mom knows this kid is not his. Everybody knows this kid is not his, but yet he is still being forced to pay child support for a kid who is not his. And he is. He is upset. He is, you know, he is mad about the situation. So he came and testified up to, to talk about this.

So he had to go, I mean he had, it took him about two, two and a half years to have attorneys fighting back and forth to finally get him released from child support. Yeah, I mean, but think about that. He doesn't get any of that money back from the child support. He had to pay. He doesn't get anything back, he doesn't get none of back time.

He doesn't get anything back. And you know, with child support or with child support is set up. You get up to a year for every single case that you have in South Carolina. So if you got, if you have two kids by, you know, two women mm-hmm. You're gonna jail for two years consecutively, you know? Wow. And you come out, they say, don't miss a payment of child support, a payment.

One payment is every two weeks. You miss a payment, you don't find a job. And those couple of weeks, you miss those payment, you're back in jail for another year. Wow. And it's a cycle that you [00:20:00] end up going to, to, to jail for life based on 

Michael Lee: child support. And so in those circumstances to get to the, the conflict in the, in the State House, it seems to me like.

Again, this is such a difficult argument to defend. Mm-hmm. Like, who's gonna stand on the other side and hear that story and say, well, this is, this is what justice looks like. And so then, then the question becomes, what are we fighting about and why are we fighting? Yeah. 

Jermaine Johnson: But that's the, that, because that's the platform of the other side, the Republican party was the, they call themselves like the family of values, right?

I mean, or the, the party values and families and morals and that type of stuff. So when you have that there, they're saying. Well, it doesn't matter about the man. It's all about women and children. It's all about women and children. And this goes back to us being where the Bible belt. Yeah, yeah. It's also 

Michael Lee: hard for me to, it's hard for me to get into the mind of, of this standard family values Republican and say mm-hmm.

That they would, that they would be supportive of lying about parentage. Period. So you would think that [00:21:00] you would think that. And so then this is where it comes to the the final point, and we can close here. We're talking about relationships. We're talking about closed door, quote unquote debates and theatrical speeches that have already been scripted in advance, that are strictly with cameras, the show, the theater of it all.

We're talking about partisan polarities between you as a Democrat, Republicans, and you and other Democrats, frankly. But we're also talking about laws that are on the books that were written in very antiquated times. Mm-hmm. This is two instances in which you find yourself at war with South Carolina's history, the history of the Bible Belt as you put it.

And I imagine a lot of these laws are still on the books and places that are not in the Bible belt too, right? Talk about the force of history. You're fighting this fight against another party, against your own party, but you're also fighting from 50, 60, 70 years ago whenever these laws were put on the books.

Jermaine Johnson: Right? You know, I, I talk about this stuff all the time and I, I tell, uh, my friends and colleagues, I say, how naive are we to believe that? Things should have changed so [00:22:00] drastically right now. Drastically right now. When really these people who created these laws are still in power and still alive. You know, if you want to know, uh, uh, if you wanna know what it was like when, when it was hard for African Americans to vote, you don't have to go into a history book.

I can call my mom right now. Mm-hmm. I, you know, I can call, I can call. You know, my uncle right now, you know, they can tell me what it was like when they really couldn't vote. So, you know, it it, the, the issue that is that we have not come to grips and come to terms with the fact that reality we have not gotten so far away from these historical times.

Mm-hmm. You know, and, and the people who are still in power, they're still referring to people as color. They're still referring to people as this or that or, or whatever. We're still in the same times. So they still have these same beliefs, even though, you know, some of it has changed. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. 

Jermaine Johnson: A lot of people still have the same, these same, they, they still looking at the same.

View with the same, you know, color tint in their eyes. Yeah. You know, and, and we have to realize that, you know, I tell people all the time, I'm not fighting for, for myself, I'm not fighting for my children. I'm fighting for my grandchildren. Mm-hmm. Because I believe one day my grandchildren won't have to see some of this stuff, and we'll be far enough [00:23:00] removed from this, you know, this, this, this crazy time that we're in right now.

That things will actually change and they will be a little bit different. They will be more, uh, acceptable for all people who are out here, uh, in, in the world. So I fight, I'm fighting with the, with the fact that I love history. I, I love, absolutely love the Civil Rights Movement. I absolutely love it. I mean, I live this stuff, you know?

Mm-hmm. Maya Angelou, I've got a one her post tattooed on my arm. You know, so, I mean, I absolutely love this stuff and I think we have to acknowledge. That history literally is still currently the present. 

Michael Lee: Right, right. Yeah. That's the old Faulkner quote. The past is, the past is not dead, it's not even passed.

Yep. Um, and final question, you were talking about history. You were also talking about your hope for the future, but you were also talking about some folks naivete about how far we've really come. Mm-hmm. I'm gonna give you a sentiment that I've heard a lot about over the past eight years or so and just sort of get your reaction to it.

When something that folks consider [00:24:00] to be backwards or monstrous or antiquated happens, and you can just think of whatever you think of, and we can all think of things that have happened where we think the following thought, which is, how can we still be living like this in 2020 or 2022 or now 2024, almost 2025.

What's your sense of that? Is that because we're naive enough and we've convinced ourselves that we've come a lot further than we really have? Is that an honest assessment that the world has really changed and now you and I can sort of be blown away? Mm-hmm. That mixed race children can be legally considered to be special needs because it, how could that just be the case?

And this year in time, what's your sense of the, how could this be happening in 2024? 2025? 

Jermaine Johnson: Well. Listen, I, I completely understand how this could be happening in 2024 or 2025. Yeah. But also, you know, uh, two things can be true. I, I believe we have come a very, very long way. I mean, uh, you know, my, my grandfather who, uh, was the last living Buffalo soldier in America, you know, he, he was, I mean, we, we, we have [00:25:00] history in the family.

So I, he at some point could not even go into a restaurant, you know, and, and, mm-hmm. And sit down and have a meal, you know, after serving this country. Uh, but now we have things like that. We have African Americans leading, you know, leading military bases and things like that. We have them, you know, doing, getting, you know, getting, uh, acknowledgements and rewards and awards and things like that.

So we have come a long way. But when you look at people like President Joe Biden, who is, you know, 80 was 84, 85 years old, somewhere around 82, something like that. 82 years old, you know, he was literally part of that time. Way back in the 1960s, seventies. We have Reverend Al Sharpton, who's still a part, you know, I mean, he was with Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, that, I mean.

These guys, you know, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, even Donald Trump, you know, all these people were, they were still there. Mitch McConnell, these people have been in power forever, you know, forever. They were literally there when the civil rights was going on. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, so with the, with the subject, they have changed from the civil rights up to 2024.

[00:26:00] Yeah. I mean, just imagine the progression that we're gonna make after they're gone. You know, I. When these are the people who were living, literally living through this area. I got into a back and forth with somebody who was in his seventies and I said, man, it's not my generation that created this mess.

It was your generation. He was like, well, it wasn't my generation either. It was, I'm like, it wasn't your generation. You're in his seventies. He was like, but he was saying it was generation before his Right. And it continues to get passed on. Passed on, passed on. Yeah. And I believe that, you know, it'll be the, it'll be the next two or three generations that are, we're really gonna see the most drastic change because we won't be living through the eyes of the people who literally created the mess that we're in.

Jermaine, thank you so 

Michael Lee: much for being on When we disagree. Oh man. Appreciate y'all having me When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse KZ and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We [00:27:00] disagree@gmail.com.