The Division Industrial Complex: Who Profits From Your Anger?

Steven Olikara (founding CEO of Bridge Entertainment Labs, former U.S. Senate candidate in Wisconsin, and one of the stars of the documentary The Reunited States) pulls back the curtain on what he calls the "division industrial complex." This conversation shows how political operatives, traditional media, and social media algorithms purposefully manufacture outrage and blood sport for profit. Olikara shares surprising behind-the-scenes stories of rivals sharing photos of their kids in the "green room" before going on air to perform the very animosity they’re selling to the public. Rather than calling for a boring middle ground, he argues for an elevated WWE style of discourse where we embrace the joy of healthy, fiery debate without dehumanizing those across the aisle. 

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, more options should make us happier. The psychologist, Barry Schwartz discovered the opposite, too many choices can paralyze us. Increased regret and decreased satisfaction.

This paradox of choice explains why people are more stressed in abundance than in scarcity. Sometimes in disagreements, the paradox of choice makes every decision a battlefield with infinite alternatives, making any choice feel potentially wrong or constant. FOMO relationships can suffer from this paradox too.

Dating apps offer endless options, making commitment feel like closing doors rather than opening them. Every relationship conflict can trigger thoughts of what if there's someone who would've been better, easier, more fun, more compatible. This abundance of alternatives or just the perception of the abundance of alternatives makes working [00:01:00] through the problem seem foolish when you can just swipe right on someone new or swipe right on a different conversation.

Even choosing a restaurant becomes fraught when there are hundreds of options in workplace decisions. The paradox of choice can create analysis paralysis. Teams spend months evaluating software options instead of implementing solutions. Committees endlessly debate alternatives without deciding anything, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good and the good becomes the enemy of the done.

More options don't necessarily improve decisions. They can really prevent them. Understanding the paradox of choice offers some relief, sacrificing, choosing something not good enough or just good enough. Often leads to more happiness than maximizing. Setting constraints will only consider three options, can reduce stress and improve outcomes in disagreements about choices.

Recognize that more research won't necessarily always clarify. Sometimes we gotta just choose and commit, and the best choice is often the one [00:02:00] that you stop. Second guessing. 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 Steven Ola Carra.

Steven is a nationally recognized change maker, political commentator, and entrepreneur. He is the founding CEO of Bridge Entertainment Labs, which is dedicated to harnessing storytelling, entertainment media to transform political divisions of the United States is also the founder and former CEO of Future Caucus.

The largest nonprofit organization of young elected leaders in the us Steven's political commentary and analysis have been featured on C-N-N-N-B-C News, Fox News, and a million other outlets. He recently made history as the first South Asian candidate for the US Senate and Wisconsin garnering national attention for his debate performance in his fresh approach.

And Steven's Journey is featured in the documentary film, the Reunited States on Amazon Prime and PBS. Steven, tell us an argument story. [00:03:00] 

Steven Olikara : Michael, thank you for having me. I think what's top of mind for me right now is, the issue of immigration in the story of what's unfolding in Minneapolis right now.

First, I'm a mid-westerner so I grew up in Wisconsin. I always pay extra attention when we have these stories of polarization taking place in the Midwest. And I think the challenge of immigration is a good lens to understand the divisions in our country, the system that profits on people hating each other, what I call the division industrial complex.

Because the issue's not just about some horrible tragedies that have happened. People like Miss Renee Good who was killed by ice. It's also about. The inability for a country to solve the root problems of immigration. It's about how this story gets framed in tribal ways as soon as a tragedy like this happens.

And what we miss through [00:04:00] all of that noise is the fact that, most Americans want to see a legal law enforcement process with immigration. They want to see a border that's secure. They want a humane. Way to address the over 10 million people who are here illegally in our country. And the issue that needs to be talked about more is that immigration as an issue is so profitable for the division industrial complex, which includes the two major political parties.

That it's more profitable to keep the issue on the ballot and on our social media screens than it is to actually resolve it. And that's what I'm fired up about. And want to pull the curtain back on so that we can approach this with real solutions. 

Michael Lee : I'm a Southerner by birth and I live in Charleston, South Carolina, where I have for 17 years.

And I went to school at the University of Georgia in Louisville for some time. Yada. And yet I spent seven years [00:05:00] living in Minneapolis and did graduate work at the University of Minnesota, and there is something just utterly bizarre about seeing how much attention. How much of a flashpoint, a specific area of one mid-sized American city has become over the last six years, ranging from Renee Goode to Alex Prety, to George Floyd, just 20 blocks away from those incidents.

And in the summer we have the shooting at the Church of Annunciation, which is in a very similar adjacent neighborhood to those. In addition to the suburban political assassinations this past summer in 2025, and so this is a lot to put on one nation, but it's certainly a lot to put on one city as well.

What really struck me is your phrase the, and I've never heard this before and I'd love to hear you out on this, the division and industrial complex. Take us through how you conceptualize what that is. 

Steven Olikara : First it's based on firsthand experiences that I've had in politics and media and seeing firsthand how the system works behind the [00:06:00] scenes.

And I think if people could see more of the behind the scenes, their blood pressures would actually it would go up because of their outrage of how the system works. But it would actually, I think, also go down. In their daily lives, their interactions with friends and family members, because they would see a lot of these divisions are manufactured for profit.

They would know that their friend who might be on a different social media algorithm or tuning into different news. You don't have to hate them. They're tuning into something a little bit different than you, especially if you have a deeper foundation of love and trust. So to break it down, there are three main components to the division Industrial complex.

The first is political elites and operatives. The second is. Traditional media. And third is social media algorithms. And just to break those down a little bit further political operatives are well versed in the dark arts of politics and they make a lot of money and gain a [00:07:00] lot of influence by dividing people.

Good example of this. Is the emails and text messages you get from campaigns, I they're framed extremely divisive as us versus them in very kind of existential terms. And people at home should know, a, their goal is to extract dollars from your wallet, but two is half the time, maybe more than half the time, those operatives don't believe the division that they're selling in those messages.

And so that's one piece of it. The second with media, so much of our conversations are framed as us versus them because the traditional model is having a Democratic and Republican strategist teed up against each other. I can speak for his firsthand as an independent political commentator who's done all the cable news stations I've had in my ear before having a producer tell me, please disagree more with the other side.

And they want more [00:08:00] sparks. They want more of the WWE kind of entertainment value. I love entertainment and I spend a decent amount of my career in entertainment right now. The idea that you have to set it up as a zero sum us versus them predictable debates, to me is not compelling entertainment.

What's more compelling is nuanced independent discussions. On what's really going on. Third piece is algorithms, and I think people are familiar with this thanks to the social dilemma documentary. Among their own, as well as their own personal interactions with social media. I think people know that the algorithms are supercharging these divisions.

So you add those things together. Multi-billion dollar industry that turns us against each other. 

Michael Lee : You are the founding CEO of Bridge Entertainment Labs, and lots of media experience. Is there any money in connecting people? We have this division industrial complex, but you seem like you have some stake in the game to figure out whether there's any money in the reverse.[00:09:00] 

Steven Olikara : Yes. I think, first we, there's the news, hard news media side of this conversation, and then there's the storytelling entertainment piece. Lemme start with the entertainment because I just came back from the Sundance Film Festival where I collaborated with and saw firsthand a number of compelling films and stories that are about human connection.

One that premiered was called Union County which is about a story that takes place in Ohio. Has a-list actor named Noah Cent who acts in that film and addresses the substance abuse crisis that happens in many communities across America. That to me was a very humanizing film that goes beyond left and right and goes beyond a lot of our divisions.

You can also look at a more, mainstream TV show like Ted Lasso which is all about connection across the lines of difference. Very successful TV show. There are many films and TV shows out there that I think do a good job of this. I think what [00:10:00] lacks usually is imagination and risk taking.

Ted Lasso, for example was. Not a, there was a reason why I was on Apple Plus because a lot of the other distributors didn't pick it up. Then this show tur helped to elevate Apple Plus into the streamer that it is today. I think Pixar does a lot of great work and, film like inside Out Too isn't inherently political, but it talks about how we address emotions in our daily lives that can help us show up.

In a better way. 

That's on the entertainment side. And I think storytelling does have a unique ability to transport people into a lived experience that's different than their own and empathize with it. There's a lot of social science research behind this called vicarious contact theory.

That shows that a great story that you're really immersed in. You can really connect with a different life experience. Now, hard news side, I'll say you're seeing the destruction of the old model. All the incumbent media platforms are [00:11:00] losing viewerships. CBS news is trying to be something different.

We'll see where that lands, but you have this entirely new independent space that's growing rapidly. And I choose to show up particularly on platforms. That are trying to reinvent the model to be a little bit more nuanced. Platforms like News Nation, which is a cable news outlet. The Hill two-way is a, an exciting new platform that I show up on every week.

There's a show that I've been co-hosting recently called The Group Chat. And so those, if you just look at the trend lines, those are the types of platforms that are growing. The old zero sum model is the plat or the represent the platforms that are losing viewership. And I still think there's space to create something new and different.

And on the hard news side. 

Michael Lee : Some of the social science research that you cite gives me hope. Some of the social science research that you cite specifically about negativity bias can make me feel a little bit cynical and my cynicism shows up in this argument. And I'd love for you to [00:12:00] demystify how you think about this too, because this is where we can lose some sleep, which is that because humans are wired for a negativity bias.

It can make us more inclined to seek out media that activates us in a negative cortisol sense. And so that producer has a good idea about what is going to titillate the audience when he screams in your ear. Please disagree more forcefully with the other side. They're not saying, be nicer to the other side or find some common ground at this moment.

And so my fear is that we can be radicalized at scale via media more quickly than we can deradicalize each other individually through one-to-one human connections. 

Steven Olikara : Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to that. In fact, at the Sundance Festival, one exercise we did with the storytellers there is called turning judgment into curiosity.

And the premise of that is yes our minds are hardwired you call it the negativity bias. We are hardwired in some ways for. Judgment, like [00:13:00] quick judgments. And yet part of the exercise showed that just as you're rushing to judgment, we gave an example of two individuals perspectives on guns that you realize context and nuance can help shift your perspective to more curiosity.

And it's something that takes. Reps, it's like exercising a muscle. There's a reason why the mindfulness and meditation movement has grown so much because we are trying to address some of the more less productive tendencies of the human mind through a kind of stoicism a controlling of some of our rash judgments and emotions that meditation can offer.

So I, I do think there. So how do you scale that up? I think that's why organizations like ours, there's whole hundreds of groups out there. It's, there's a whole movement out there to try and shift that paradigm. One reason why I partner with Arnold Schwartzenegger right now through the Schwartzenegger Institute is because I do think the muscle building [00:14:00] metaphor is really useful for people to know that you have to take reps.

You can't. Run a marathon without any training. And so we want to elevate the conversation but it does take real work. One other additional piece I was briefly mentioned on the me media side is about format. I do think like when we're talking about elevating the conversation and finding more unity in our country, that's not the absence of disagreement, that's the presence of.

Understanding and connection. I think podcasts right now, like this one, provide that kind of space. The once minute soundbite on cable news just as a format doesn't really allow for that. And so I do think you can meet people where they are emotionally. In a enhanced format like the podcast that gets at all the messiness of our disagreements and can also humanize people at the same time.

Michael Lee : I've long done an exercise with students and when I do public events and [00:15:00] talk about on this show. Which is the firing line hypothetical, which was if Netflix got two experts, not famous people, two experts on any given topic, ranging from what is the meaning of life to gun control, to abolishing the national speed limit or whatever the issue is, and they had a sober, caring, interesting, fairly rational, sometimes semi emotional, but not fireworks laden.

Conversation slash debate about that issue. Would you watch that show or do you think that show would get renewed? 

Steven Olikara : I think it's hard to say. I think there's. That would be good with that type of approach. I do wanna say that I I'm okay with some fireworks, i'm okay. Okay. With, I used to speak every year at this conference called Politicon.

It's like the Comic-Con for politics. It's like giant convention, tens of thousands of people. Come out for this. There're [00:16:00] costumes. There's fun. It's high energy. The tagline of that was called Entertain Democracy, and you'd have some of the most diametrically opposed people on stage that would usually throw meat.

In the middle of that, and you'd have Ben Shapiro and Jen Yer, you'd have Sean Hannity and James CarVal. These are, you can look this up on, on YouTube and see how these conversations went. And my approach with facilitating those debates and conversations was to say I need the audience's attention.

I want to make this fun for them. The, these folks are here in a WWE kind of spirit. I still remember being in the green room. With two of these commentators and they're sharing photos of their kids. They're having these amazingly human and beautiful moments in the green room. Meanwhile, you can hear people stomping their feet and it was like, I remember someone said, it's like it's a thunderdome out there and they want some blood, and so I try and.

I try and navigate that where let's make this fun. I [00:17:00] love political debate, presidential debates. I look forward to them. At the same time, you can make it more about the issue and more about the spirit of a debate as opposed to demonizing and dehumanizing entire s swaths of people.

And I think that is a distinction that often gets lost here. Let's have fireworks and let's have real debate, and let's have a good conversation. 

Michael Lee : I was gonna ask you about that. I think I know where you're going with this, but I'm curious about how you draw that line as, as finely as you possibly can, because there are places where that line is not super bright.

So on the one hand you're saying we need to elevate the conversation on the one hand you're saying we need more reps with elevated conversation to get stronger at that, we need to make things less personal, less vitriolic. We need to take out division for division's sake, and all of that sort of you're, you give an example of a producer.

Looking for blood, but then you're also anti anti is the wrong word. Boring. You're anti boring. Yeah. You also want joy [00:18:00] and as I do, yeah. Yes. You also want a fun culture of healthy argument, which I also am living and dying for, but then you are also talking to a crowd that wants some blood sport.

Steven Olikara : Yeah. I Exactly and I embrace the challenge of accomplishing those two things at the same time. 

I think I think. One, we need to this is an art form and so I do think we need to elevate people who can achieve both at the same time and give them national platforms so that the American public can see models of entertaining elevated discourse because that then will ripple out into our culture.

I also think yeah, I just think there's a failure of imagination to be thinking about it in that way. I think really boring conversations aren't gonna attract people and boring it. It means that there's, it's. I think there's [00:19:00] important to think about this circumstantially because, for example, in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination or a major tragedy like we saw in Minneapolis, we need leaders who can truly elevate the conversation.

You don't wanna further inflame that. I would lift up an example like Governor Spencer Cox in Utah, who had put in those bridge building reps and really was able to channel emotion. And elevate the conversation and cut through at the same time. Now, a different circumstance would be like a political debate on immigration that's not after a tragedy.

It's in a context like Politicon or, people are there for the debate. Some people have seen these jubilee debates take place on social media, and I think one of my biggest takeaways for the audience here is. Is to recognize that like not to take, not to lemme put it this way, in these green rooms i'm seeing some of the most exciting political [00:20:00] conversations happen. I want people to see those green rooms. I want people to also know that on screen often it is a bit performative. And also people are looking out for their pocketbooks. They want to get that contract on that campaign or on that media outlet.

So they have to say certain things to get that. And so I want people to take that not only with a grain of salt, but also with the spirit of fun and joy, and just know that they're, people enjoy wwe. Enjoy some of these political debates a bit in a sort of entertainment spirit, not take everything.

Literally, even though these are very serious issues, I think if people understood the green room aspect of it they would be having a little bit more fun with this. 

Michael Lee : In some, there was this stream of pro-democratic discourse that we need to save our democracy. And some of it can sound a little like church.

We need to be good soldiers for that cause and be sober as we approach it in the same sense, dress up and get ready for church on Sunday morning and be a dutiful Christian [00:21:00] soldier. And then the other thing is that it can sound a little like eating three squares a day and making sure you're getting enough roughage in your diet and you're eating your broccoli.

That's alright. It can strip the joy, the fun out of it as we pursue something like a more thoughtful, less distracted, less divisive. Public. In other words, is there a way that is more fun to get there? And what I hear you saying is that some of the gladiatorial provocation, some of the peacocking, some of the end zone celebrations that we associate with WWE football, you name it, are you not entertained?

Culture is also, yeah, possible to square with the idea that people can be getting smarter, a little less distracted, and a little less divisive at the same time. 

Steven Olikara : Exactly. I think that's beautifully put. Are you not entertained? And again, I, and to the point about joy, I would argue that, a lot of the conversations on cable news and network news related to politics, that's [00:22:00] not joyful.

I think people often, I think sports is getting this, if you tune into some of the newer ESPN shows. Like the Pat McAfee show he gets that this should be a celebration. People want to feel not horrible when they consume their content. And so I think people miss that in, in conversations about what's going on in our country and in our world.

So I, I love the, are you not entertained, metaphor here. And I think, for people who don't think that's possible, just literally YouTube search Politicon and some of these debates that, that we hosted there. And also check out the group chat on two way. I want to be very specific here 'cause I don't wanna be speaking theoretically check out the group chat on two-way or any of the two-way programs that I've been a part of.

I think that's modeling this idea. 

Michael Lee : Steven Ola Carra, thanks so much for being on when we Disagree. 

Steven Olikara : Thank you for having me. 

Michael Lee : When We Disagree is recorded at the College of [00:23:00] Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse KZ and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We disagree@gmail.com.