The Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act has supercharged a redistricting frenzy in states across the country. The Times Opinion contributors Robert Siegel and E.J. Dionne and the SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur discuss the ruling’s implications for future elections. Ms. Isgur makes the case that voters are over reality TV politics and warns Democrats against embracing Trump-style candidates.
Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYTimes app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Robert Siegel: Hi. I’m Robert Siegel, in conversation about politics with New York Times Opinion contributor E.J. Dionne.
E.J. Dionne: Great to be with you.
Siegel: And joining us for the first time is Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog and author of “Last Branch Standing.” Welcome.
Sarah Isgur: Thanks for having me.
Siegel: There’s lots on our plate. We seem to have reached an impasse with Iran. We’re still blockading their ports. They’re still controlling the Strait of Hormuz. For us, that’s it from the Middle East this week.
Instead, we’re turning to the midterms. The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision is already changing congressional maps in the South, and we’ll look at how the parties are faring in primaries across the country and in two states that are heating up ahead of November. But despite the difficulties imposed by time zones, we’re going to start by taking note of President Donald Trump’s trip to China.
E.J., what’s different between this China trip of President Trump’s and the one that he made during his first term?
Dionne: Yeah, I think that if you look back to Trump in his first term, you would not have predicted that people fear he might sell out to China, where there is active worry about what he’s going to do. And I think the second thing is a radical shift in China’s perceptions of the United States. Li Yuan of The New York Times had a really powerful piece this week, about how not just nationalist opinion — hard-line opinion in China — but consensual opinion has shifted to the idea that the United States is definitively in decline.
And they’re sort of talking about Trump as having a big role in that. There was a piece by a nationalist think tank, under the headline “Thank Trump,” and they talked about him as an accelerator of American political decay. And when you look at the orchestration at the beginning of the trip, it’s clear that Xi Jinping and the Chinese regime know they have to put on a good show for Trump and make him feel great. But then right out of the box, Xi was also very tough on Taiwan. And so, I think there’s a real feeling that right now, especially with the war in Iran, in the unsettled position that it’s in — the United States is just not in the same position it was in, either in the first Trump term or in the Joe Biden term, where Biden had actually built coalitions in Asia to counteract China.
Siegel: I suppose we should note that the Chinese have a decidedly lower tolerance for disorder and protest than we do.
Isgur: Quite so. I would argue that one of the biggest differences between our relationship with China, from Trump’s first term to now, is almost more domestic. It is Americans’ interest in foreign policy and what’s going on in China — and our own extreme polarization that’s happening here in the country — so that, in the first term, there were real conversations about what would happen if China invaded Taiwan, and what that would look like in America.
You’re not hearing that conversation anymore, because nobody here believes that there would be some sort of bipartisan or unified response. And Trump’s relationship to the world looks so different than it did from his first term. His first term was maybe a one standard deviation away from Republican politics — the previous 40 or 50 years, the Ronald Reagan three-legged stool.
This administration is two, three standard deviations away. It’s very hard to see where the germs of Reagan Republicanism still exist. And it seems that Trump maybe thinks of, or treats, Russia and China as coequals in a way. Like, we’ve divided the world up into three sovereigns — Russia, China, and the United States — and he will treat them as such, which is very different, of course, than a Cold War Republican Party mentality.
Dionne: I think that’s a really good analysis. I like the standard deviations idea. And I think we should say that when Trump came in, his toughness on China actually became something of a bipartisan position — that Joe Biden was tougher on China than his predecessors were before Trump. But I think the problem now is that a lot of the Republicans who, in their heart of hearts, really disagree with this, have been very reluctant to speak up and defend this earlier view.
And I think Trump, just as in Iran — he has allowed Iran to remind the world of what they can do in the Strait of Hormuz. His tariffs against China reminded China of what it could do on rare earths, and he really backed off the tough tariffs on China and actually gave it to our allies. Really, he was much tougher with our allies than with China. And it’s a very bizarre turn that I think does owe to this theory of three hegemons in the world — if I can pick up what is probably Chinese language here.
Isgur: You know, you talk about the lack of Republican response. Some of that is, when you have this political realignment happening so quickly, where the Republican Party of 2026, again, is such a break from the Republican Party of 2012, and Trump still has such a hold on what it means to be a Republican that is divorced from policy, or the political philosophy of conservatism, let’s say. It’s dizzying for a lot of these Republicans. You see this in Indiana, where he can still defeat the Republicans in primaries that don’t go along with what he wants. And so, if you are a Republican senator right now, let’s say, they don’t know what the foreign policy of the Republican Party is, because it has shifted so, so quickly, even from Donald Trump’s election in 2024, and what he was running on as his foreign policy — again, to the extent we think that election was about policy, which I don’t think anyone does. But the vibes-based theory of politics, even then, has some idea of what the foreign policy is. We have moved away from what that was even two years ago.
Siegel: And Trump doesn’t clarify matters by stressing very, very much his personal relationship with Xi, as opposed to our national relationships with China.
Isgur: That appears to be what the foreign policy is for Trump. It’s always about his personal relationships, which is a theory of foreign policy, by the way. It’s just hard for a party to follow that — again, to the extent that we think, frankly, political parties still exist right now as cohesive policy units.
Dionne: And to have an American president, who seems to be so eager to say how friendly he is with Vladimir Putin and Xi, is actually genuinely frightening, at least to me.
Siegel: Yes, because they’re not Canadian.
Dionne: Well said.
Siegel: Let’s turn to Washington, D.C., where the Supreme Court changed everyone’s calculations about the coming House races. It freed states, especially Southern states, from the Voting Rights Act’s requirement to draw congressional districts with maps that include opportunity districts, places where large Black minorities in their states would have a chance to elect Black candidates. The states can now redistrict and draw maps to elect more Republican members. It’s presumed that most of those Republican members would be white. Sarah, I heard a podcast you did, where you discussed this ruling for an hour with David French. There’s obviously lots there. You’re a court watcher. You’re a conservative. Is this a good decision?
Isgur: It depends. It depends whether you’re asking if it is a good decision on the law. Is it a good decision for the effects it will have on our politics for America? I am not going to defend — nor do I think any of the members of the court would defend — the idea that partisan gerrymandering is good for America. What the court has said is that there is nothing in the Constitution for them to anchor themselves to determine what is OK — legal — partisan gerrymandering and what isn’t.
It is up to Congress to determine that. They have chosen not to do so. But the court’s only job is to say who gets to decide, and they’re saying, “We, nine people, do not get to decide about partisan gerrymandering.” So, then, if you follow from there, you have the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and we have held that this prevents racial gerrymandering — using race to put someone in one district or another for the purpose of diluting their vote, for instance. And then Congress did pass the Voting Rights Act, of course. They amended it in 1982. So, to apply to redistricting, we really didn’t do that until the late ’80s, or after the 1990 census. So, racial gerrymandering for good versus for bad is a relatively recent phenomenon. And so, how those two interact is pretty important.
The 14th Amendment says no to racial gerrymandering, but if the racial gerrymandering is to create majority-minority districts, then that’s OK. And it made a hash of the law, because, once again, Louisiana — that brought this case — creates one majority-minority district. They get sued by Black voters, and a court says: “You have violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. You must draw an additional district.” So, Louisiana’s like, “OK,” and so they draw a second majority-minority district. They get sued by white voters who say, “You have racially gerrymandered.” And a court says, “You’re right. That’s not allowed.” And Louisiana’s like, “What?” Either way, we get a court order saying this doesn’t work. And what the Supreme Court has said is, unless there is evidence of a racial gerrymander, using race for the purpose of putting someone in one district or another, we are going to presume that’s a partisan gerrymander.
Siegel: E.J.?
Dionne: I think the reason you’re having some difficulty in being ambivalent about this decision is because it’s a really, really horrible decision that violates some of the very principles that the court claims to be upholding. Congress should decide this question. Well, Congress did decide this question in the Voting Rights Act, when it passed a law.
Racial gerrymandering actually goes back a long way. The reason Congress changed this law is that states, like Mississippi, were drawing districts that very consciously cut up the Black vote so that Black voters could not be close to a dominant, or even near a majority in any of the districts. And Congress said that when you have all-white delegations in states with very, very large minority populations, minorities are not being represented. And the court says, “Oh, well, we’ve gotten past these racial problems.” And in Shelby County v. Holder — the decision where the court began its wrecking job against the Voting Rights Act — Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a great line where she said that it’s “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” We didn’t have discrimination because Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. I really think this is going to go down as a Plessy v. Ferguson decision, the separate but equal decision, because the court is really tying Congress’s hands with this.
It’s saying that it’s OK to discriminate against a Black voter because they’re Democrats. And so, immediately, all these Southern states rushed to get rid of all of these Black majority districts, proving the point of the advocates of the Voting Rights Act.
Siegel: Sarah, I think you’ll have something to say about that.
Isgur: I think what you have said is internally contradictory about this. We have held, for instance, that it’s OK that in New England — which is about 60/40 Democrat/Republican — there are no Republican congressmen. We don’t draw districts for proportional representation based on people’s religion, or based on their party affiliation; and yet, we said that we were going to treat people differently on the basis of race. That, in fact, you would be in one district versus another, because we presume that your race is the most important thing about your voting behavior.
And the court, over 20 years, has been on a project to remove that kind of “beneficial racism” from American law. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote 20 years ago: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” So, this is right in line with the affirmative action decision, understanding that people disagree with that. But it’s this idea that somehow it is OK, as long as you are treating race essentialism, because you think you’re doing something good for the person.
Siegel: There’s something odd about this discussion, which is that we know that in the Southern states at least, Republican and Democrat, are almost a translation of white and Black.
Isgur: Highly correlated.
Siegel: They correlate so much that to say we’re not doing this on the basis of race, we’re doing it on the basis of party, is as if to say, “Well, we’re doing it on the basis of race by another name.”
Isgur: So, Justice Samuel Alito made this point, but I think it’s well taken. Yes, at a general election level, it’s completely — I think it’s a point-nine coefficient — something very, very high for race and party.
But what you would need to show is intraparty racism: That a white Republican would rather vote for a white Democrat than a Black Republican, for instance. Or that a Black Democrat would rather vote for a Black Republican than a white Democrat. And that is evidence that nobody has been able to show.
And, of course, there are these examples — whether it’s Tim Scott in South Carolina, Will Hurd in Texas, or Byron Donalds in Florida — all Black people elected in non-Black-majority districts. And it’s the primary election where you would need to show the race problem, not the general election, because that is inextricably linked with partisanship.
Dionne: Adam Serwer in The Atlantic wrote that if you read this decision, those who are trying to enhance Black representation are seen as racist; those who are trying to reduce Black representation under this court’s ruling are seen as nonracist. That’s kind of absurd, and the reason it’s absurd is that the 14th Amendment was passed, in significant part, to get rid of discrimination against Black people. You cannot get rid of discrimination against Black people if you don’t think about race. The notion that trying to remedy racial inequality without ever thinking about race — that doesn’t work. And that’s why Congress passed the civil rights laws. It’s why Congress passed voting rights laws. And they were supported, at the time, with big bipartisan majorities.
This Supreme Court, I think, shows how extreme it is by throwing out what had been a bipartisan consensus on behalf of voting rights. And I think it’s deeply unfortunate for the country.
Isgur: What’s interesting is, from a partisan perspective, Republicans were the ones who loved these packed districts. Democrats were the ones that were largely against them—
Siegel: Because they removed the most loyal Democratic voters from contested districts.
Isgur: Absolutely. And so, you had Republicans fighting these lawsuits that conservative lawyers were bringing — again, to make that distinction between Republican and conservative.
Democrats didn’t like Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans loved it. But the Black representation in the South — you are exactly right. You know, when I said I was ambivalent about the argument that this might be right under the law but it might be bad for America, especially in the short term, I absolutely think it will lower the number of members of Congress who are Black.
The problem is that it may have benefits, like, for instance, actually allowing Republicans and Democrats to fight over Black voters, instead of packing all the Black voters into districts for the purpose of allowing Democrats to keep the seat easily. This has made the Democratic Party, at least for some, take those voters for granted — stereotype them, caricature them. That won’t happen anymore. And a lot of these Republicans are going to have to actually fight for the Black voters that are in their districts to get their votes.
Dionne: Although, they are drawn in such a way that they can probably win without them. So, I wish — I would like to see that nice world come about, too — that everybody fights for the Black vote, but I don’t think that’ll happen. And even back in the day, when — you’re quite right that Republicans used this section to try to draw some positive districts for them — Democrats couldn’t fight those districts all the way down the line, because they, too, believed in Black representation, and they were the party that was winning the Black vote. So, one is an ambivalent result that led to increased Black representation that both parties could more or less get behind. The court has made it impossible to do that now.
Siegel: Before we leave the subject, let me ask you, Sarah, to speculate. Do you think that the result, or one consequence of this, will be that the explicitly temporary map drawn in California, and the map that Democrats in Virginia voted for — which was the same model, temporary — do you think that those will now become permanent? And that they’ll become a general race to reapportion?
Isgur: So, Texas and California’s maps have both been subject of lawsuits, because they argued that they were racial gerrymanders. Those will now be dead in the water, basically. Of course, Virginia’s map has been struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court.
Siegel: Virginia Supreme Court, yes.
Isgur: They have appealed this to the United States Supreme Court, with pretty near-frivolous arguments. So, I don’t think that the map is going to take effect. But my hope, again, is that actually there will be enough pressure from voters to put an end to the partisan gerrymandering, the extreme silliness that we are seeing where, again, race is only one thing that may define a person’s voting behavior. But we are now making sure that so many millions of Americans across the country are not actually represented, and that we have these gerrymandered districts that prevent competitive general elections. Voters can stop this any time they want.
Dionne: We could go on like this. I just want to make a point that Democrats tried to pass a national ban on partisan gerrymandering in the last Congress. And —
Isgur: They put a poison pill around that. Yes. It was not a clean bill to stop partisan gerrymandering. It had a whole bunch of other Christmas-tree things that liberals wanted. They knew that it wouldn’t pass, and that they would get this talking point. Press-release legislation from Congress, from both sides, has annoyed me for years.
Dionne: I don’t think it was press-release, but go ahead.
Siegel: On to the next subject: The congressional maps will obviously affect the House races in November, but not statewide elections. And I’m interested in two states that used to be swing states and have become increasingly Republican — Iowa and Ohio, both of which have interesting elections for governor and senator this year. And they seem to be actually contested. And it raises a question for me, E.J.: How did these states, which used to be represented by the likes of Tom Harkin and John Culver and Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn — how did they become out of reach for Democrats?
Dionne: Yeah, these states are an important test of a number of things this year. One that we’ll talk about is the rural-urban divide, which has become much, much deeper in our country over the last 15 years since Trump appeared on the scene. The other is that they will show how deep the backlash is against Donald Trump. I am starting to think — and I’m curious what Sarah thinks about this — that we are moving from a deep divide over Donald Trump to a gradual consensus that the country really wants to move past the Trump era.
The line that’s been coming through my head is Fannie Lou Hamer, the old civil rights leader, “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.” And I think a lot of Americans, beyond their partisanship even — especially normie Republicans, who aren’t MAGA — are just tired of this. And so, these states will be a test of that.
In Ohio, you’ve got really fascinating races both for governor and for the Senate, where Democrats have a real shot. Sherrod Brown, who got defeated the last time around, is trying to make a comeback against the incumbent, Jon Husted, the appointed incumbent to replace JD Vance. He’s got a real shot.
And the governor’s race is actually very competitive, too. Amy Acton, who was the Democratic nominee — and very well-respected in the state for her handling of Covid-19 — is running against Vivek Ramaswamy, who became a national figure and then went to Ohio and is trying to break through there. Both have a real shot.
In Iowa, which is a state that has also swung really hard against Democrats, you have a fascinating governor’s race going on, where State Auditor Rob Sand is the only elected Democratic statewide official. And he has a fascinating campaign, where he is, in a lot of ways, a Democrat running as an independent. He’s got these great T-shirts, where the words “bluer” and “redder” are struck out, and underneath are the words “truer” and “better.” And you talk about appealing outside, and as a state auditor, he unearths corruption and waste, so that’s pretty popular among a lot of Republicans.
In the Senate race, you have an open seat. You’ve got a really interesting Democratic primary between Josh Turek, who suffered from spina bifida. He’s gone door to door in a wheelchair, and got elected in a very Republican district. State Senator Zach Wahls is a progressive candidate. Turek was recently endorsed by Pete Buttigieg, Wahls was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren. My hunch is that Turek is the favorite, and he has a real shot at winning that race. Both of those states are competitive this year. If Democrats win one or both, it suggests that maybe this map we have isn’t so permanent after all.
Siegel: What do you think, Sarah?
Isgur: So, a couple interesting points on this: One, to your first point about being sick and tired of Donald Trump, certainly the polling from Trump-supporting Republicans has remained remarkably consistent, that they are still on Trump’s team. But I think you are on to something, but I think it’s different — I don’t think it’s related to Donald Trump exactly. I learned from The New York Times recently that reality TV viewership has dropped off a cliff. Hollywood is no longer producing new reality shows. They’re canceling the ones that are already out there. And so, basically, after a quarter-century of the reality TV experiment, it has — to use the original meaning of it — jumped the shark. How many times do you need to see someone eat a cockroach to be like, “Yep, people eat cockroaches for money, I guess”?
And so, I think as we have been becoming tired of reality television, you will see voters get tired of reality TV politics, because the two are inextricably linked. Reality TV politics grew as reality TV grew, and it will die as reality TV dies. And you’re seeing little examples of this along the way. You have the Democratic primary, for instance, in Texas, between Jasmine Crockett — far more the traditional reality TV candidate, very aggressive, negative online, attention-seeking — versus James Talarico, who ran a very traditional grass-roots model — having an actual ground game, a positive message — whom I’ve referred to as the “Ted Lasso” candidate. And I think you will see more of those candidates break through to your “truer and better” point.
My second observation is back to this idea that we actually don’t have political parties anymore. We still have teams that we call Republican and Democrat, but that’s not what a political party actually was, or used to be, at least. It used to be a cohesive group around some policies and principles that would support candidates that supported those policies or principles, and the party existed separate from its candidates. Because of campaign finance reform and the law that was passed in 2002, we basically ended having separate political parties. And so, instead, again, it’s actually increased partisanship. But it’s vibes-based. It’s this sense that you belong to, like, you know, the Starbucks, Trader Joe’s tote bag, matcha latte group. Or you belong to the pickup truck, “Yellowstone”-watching, Walmart group. And it’s not policy based.
For the first time in American history, we have more people who identify as independent than with either of the two political parties. So, when you talk about candidates trying to distance themselves from their political party, I don’t think it’s being sick of Donald Trump, I think it’s that political parties are meaningless. They are incredibly negative, polarized, right? The negative polarization is:“Don’t vote for me — vote against them. They are a threat to your way of life.” That’s what the two political parties are, and they are entirely based around what candidates they have.
And I will just say, I lament that we are not arguing over policy anymore. I think that’s a healthier version of democracy. Congress was supposed to be the place where you could work as a pluralistic society to negotiate and compromise, and have long-term stable solutions to our problems. We can’t do that in government by executive order. And so there’s a lot of ideas about how to make Congress great again. We should be focused on those and less on red versus blue.
Dionne: Just a couple of things: One, I’m not sure I see Jasmine Crockett quite as a reality TV candidate, but I do think James Talarico may run a clip of you talking about him as the Ted Lasso candidate. That could help him a lot down there. And one little consumer thing where I think some consumer behavior stuff is relevant: Someone had a story recently, that the sales of Trump paraphernalia, that they sell branded, are way down, apparently. And maybe it’s Trump inflation, but I don’t think so. I think that tells us something about what’s going on down there. I do think what’s going on is more political than a pure market or mood analysis suggests, even though I think some of your points make some sense to me.
Our colleague at the Times, Kristen Soltis Anderson, recently wrote about a real difference between MAGA Republicans and what she called “normie” Republicans. And normie Republicans are really disenchanted, to the point where their turnout in this election may be very low — that the MAGA side will turn out, but that those Republicans will not.
And I also think that the specific issues raised by Trump — inflation; his running as a populist but showing ties to the rich and all these rich people he goes to China with; the ballroom as the central idea of his administration, he’s obsessed with it — I think that’s really hurting him in these base areas.
And to go back to where we started. I think that’s why places like Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska, where an independent is running instead of the Democrat — the Democrat who won the primary won it on the explicit promise to drop out so that independent Dan Osborne can face Republican Pete Ricketts. And I think what Trump has shown is that this populism, which he claimed to embrace in various ways, was just phony, and to show what a big hurdle Democrats have to overcome. So, that’s why, if the Democrats manage to win any of these states, it’ll be a big deal.
I looked up some of the voting in Chickasaw County, Iowa, the northeastern part of the state. Barack Obama carried that county by 11 points in 2012. Trump carried it by 37 points. If Democrats, like Sand, can eat away —
Siegel: That’s a pretty big swing.
Dionne: That’s a huge swing. If Democrats can eat away at those margins in those rural counties — not necessarily carry them, but just eat away at those margins — that will reflect a shift in our politics again. I think then we will have real arguments over real issues.
Siegel: Just the last point I want to raise on this, and I’ll address Sarah with it. Does it strike you as odd, given the state of politics as you see it, that there’s such discipline by the parties in the Congress? There are very, very few lone rangers out there — individualists who are going to break with their party. And there’s a degree of party discipline that’s as strong as ever, despite the decline of the party being identified with some things.
Isgur: Right. There’s no carrot and stick coming from the Republican National Convention, or the Democratic National Convention, to fund or not fund. But the party discipline is coming from the fact that they do not fear general elections, they fear primary elections. The Republican Party has all the headwinds that Trump has given them on the economy and the tariffs, and a general malaise sense. But of course, you don’t have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other guy. And the Democratic Party just has this brand baggage that they have been unable to get out from, where they have a very unpopular brand, which is why you see independents in those states — because of the culture war issues.
And so, where you see, in Ohio, a candidate like Sherrod Brown doing quite well is in ditching all of the culture war stuff that weighs down the Democratic Party, in favor of the more Bernie Sanders economic-only discipline. And it’ll be interesting to see if other Democrats follow suit around the country. David French wrote this in The New York Times — I thought the piece was brilliant — that this idea that Democrats are going to get behind Graham Platner, a guy in Maine, who, until quite recently, had a Nazi tattoo — an S.S. tattoo — and has said horrific things about women and sexual assault, because that’s the way that we have to fight Donald Trump. That’s the way we can win, by being more like Donald Trump. It’s just a sad statement, I think, on 2026 midterm politics that, again, I hope the ship is turning, maybe slowly, where the Graham Platners and the Republican equivalents lose.
Dionne: I want to go to your point about the Democratic image. Democrats are getting behind Graham Platner because they see a Democratic majority in the Senate as the only way to check Trump.
Isgur: Right, because it’s about power, not about principle, not about character. Well, it is about principle on some issues. All the things they said — that Republicans shouldn’t support Donald Trump because there were things more important than power — all went out the window the second someone dangled the Senate majority in front of them.
Siegel: You have Platner as a virtual David Duke on the ticket.
Dionne: Yeah. And I don’t think that’s fair to Platner, but I think the Democrats are saying, “This is a crisis election. We need a majority no matter what.”
Isgur: Yes, it’s always a crisis when power is on the line.
Dionne: But let me go to your point about Democratic image. First of all, there’s been a shift in the last year. One of the reasons Democrats had lousy favorable ratings is a lot of Democrats were angry at them. Their favorables were very low among Democrats, because they lost the 2024 election, they let Donald Trump back in power. These numbers have started to change. And it’s true that both parties now have negative images. I think the key number here is that independents who had been more favorable to Republicans immediately after the election have now turned.
I think the other question is turnout. And I think you’d agree that if you look at the polling, it’s absolutely clear that Democrats are far more determined to turn out and far more engaged because they are far more — to go to what we were saying about Platner — persuaded that this is the time to put a check on Trump.
Whereas Republicans, except for the hard-core MAGA base, are really pretty disillusioned, particularly swing voters who didn’t expect what they got on prices, didn’t expect what they got in Iran, and didn’t expect even what he’s done on immigration.
Siegel: OK. We could go on, as someone said earlier. Thank you both very much.
Sarah, we’ve made a practice here of rather than leaving with thoughts of politics — or Nazi tattoos, or the Chinese eating our lunch — to relay some experience of joy that we’ve known in the past couple of weeks. Why don’t you start?
Isgur: So, when Covid-19 hit in March of 2020, I was six-months pregnant with my first child, which was a jarring experience on top of everything else. I didn’t have any maternity clothes. And I was so thankful to have formed a little mom-pod with my fellow pregnant first-timers in the middle of Covid. And despite Covid being long over, once a month we get together — and still just the moms, no kids allowed — and we do mom-pod dinner. And we had our mom-pod dinner this week, and it’s just this thing that brings me so much joy as we watch our kids turn 6 years old this summer; to feel that love and support and camaraderie with a mom-pod. So, little bits of community that we find along the way, even in dark times.
Dionne: Amen. I love that, and I’m glad you got through that really difficult time to be pregnant. I’m so glad that you raised that. I had a wonderful experience for my birthday. My wife Mary got us tickets to see a very interesting show of “A Streetcar Named Desire.”
It turns out that there is an organization called The Streetcar Project, where they’re staging “A Streetcar Named Desire,” a Tennessee Williams play, all over the country with really no props, very little scenery. The idea is that the words of this very powerful play should carry it. It was inspiring. These actors were really amazing and not having, really, almost no props, virtually no scenery, it’s a reminder that you sometimes have to listen to people’s words to fully appreciate what they’re saying.
Siegel: I’m going to be brief. I’m going to describe my experience of joy in four letters: G-O-L-F. Enough said. E.J. Dionne and Sarah Isgur, thank you both very much, and it’s been great having you.
Dionne: Really, really fun to be with you, Sarah.
Isgur: Thank you. Thanks, guys.
Thoughts? Email us at [email protected].
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger with help from Derek Arthur. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Video editing by Arpita Aneja and Kristen Williamson. The postproduction manager is Mike Puretz. Original music by Carole Sabouraud and Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Video is Jonah M. Kessel. The deputy director of Opinion Shows is Alison Bruzek. The director of Opinion Shows is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post The Great Political Realignment of 2026 appeared first on New York Times.
