the Pete Buttigieg guide to talking like a normal person

(for democrats)

I listened to Pete Buttigieg on Andrew Schulz’s “Flagrant” podcast, which I can’t say I knew had a name aside from “Andrew Schulz’s podcast” before this week, and I inhaled these 2.5 hours of verbal artisanship by the former transportation secretary from South Bend.

pete.buttigieg

A post shared by @pete.buttigieg

it’s not news that Pete’s strong suit is a particular strain of deft verbal sparring, never failing to deliver answers that ring of the flawlessly-executed rejoinder you fantasize about giving in the heat of an argument. this is why I find Pete most intriguing to watch in spaces like Fox News. his conversation with Schulz and co traversed a range of subjects, some of which sound almost comically boring when you list them out (the definition of a probationary employee, the 2nd Avenue subway, corporate tax strategies), and yet they lit up some cerebral pleasure centers for me that I thought may be permanently burnt out by the constant barrage of recent asinine developments.

because I’m forever dissecting the comms hits and misses of the democratic party, this episode really laid bare the specific reasons why Pete is a standout communicator. I’ve compiled them into a guide to what he does well and what every elected democrat (or really, anyone in elected office) should be capable of doing in a public appearance. if not, please consider a new career. maybe one of the donors has a board seat open?

• don’t avoid anything: the move that inspired me to codify Pete’s skills into this semi-formal guide was something he did on two occasions: he actively chose to circle back to questions that he didn’t get to answer earlier, even for topics that many politicians would’ve been pleased to skirt once the conversation moved on (e.g., taxing billionaires). he really said ask me anything. based on the 6,000+ comments on the video, Pete has given the impression of a sincere, trustworthy, and competent public official. of course, one has to have confidence in one’s answers and voting record in order to truly feel comfortable broaching any topic, rather than opting for avoidance or a trip to the word salad bar.

• be prepared to explain any issue in plain terms: know everything thoroughly enough to explain why government hasn’t fixed it yet and whose fault that is. it should be a given that any politician can do this, but I consume a lot of news, and I assure you, it is not. if you can’t explain the issues fluently to a 5 year old, you’re not ready to tackle the podcast circuit. maybe practice on the resistance libs or your most chronically online staffer. Pete was able to cut through no fewer than five maddeningly popular/completely bullshit talking points about DOGE, tariff policy, millions of dead people receiving social security, and a claim that Eric Adams had made on a previous episode of the show, that he was prosecuted over airline upgrades. yes, you need a massive amount of facts at your mental disposal, in addition to knowing how to persuasively deploy them to a given audience. coming across as charismatic while doing this is even more challenging, more so for some than others, particularly given the highly evolved gender perspectives of many American voters. see: Elizabeth Warren vs. Pete Buttigieg; Elizabeth Warren vs. Bernie Sanders.

• not every conversation requires a promise: you don't need to commit to policy or even know what policy you’re promising in order to have an effective conversation (see also: Cory Booker’s speech to achieve nothing specific legislatively; Donald Trump’s existence). please spare us the shoe-horned talking points about what you have done or will do. Pete was able to naturally cover a lot of his accomplishments and experience over the course of the very long conversation, but most appearances don’t afford this much time to hit so many of those marks organically. regardless, it’s possible to speak about the results you would like to achieve (equal rights, affordable housing, getting money out of politics) without endorsing a specific policy or getting into the complexities of what the beltway crowd would call a “position.” so what do you talk about if not your empty and/or unachievable promises? values.

• ideals, not ideology: elected office is a service job. it’s very transparent when someone is there for the superior healthcare and stock tips, even to — no, especially to — those whom you’d assume are the least politically savvy. it takes some charisma to get elected (with a few exceptions), and even if it’s a casual chat show appearance, the message you need people to receive is how you will service your constituents. none of that should include the word “democrat” or any focus on party-specific considerations. what do you want to deliver, even if the system won’t allow it? get caught trying very hard.

• most people have a mix of views: these views often contradict each other and/or their own interests. they may not make any sense whatsoever. no need to point this out. making assumptions about, or trying to figure out how people lean politically when deciding which shows or podcasts to appear on is a silly thing to focus on. it actually shouldn’t matter, because you should be able to speak in a way that is authentic (election year or not!) and makes sense to the least news-aware voter. the fact that persuadable voters usually have an eclectic mix of views is an opportunity, because there will likely be a few points of common ground from which to connect. this was a consistent part of the dynamic between Pete and the Flagrant guys, who may be branded as part of the manosphere but, much like Joe Rogan and Theo Von, are not necessarily republican voters or even conservatives/MAGA. nothing is a bigger indictment of democratic party comms than the total failure to even attempt to convince this group to vote against ~everything that is happening right now~ when they were potentially persuadable last summer.

• don’t defend the party: I believe it’s severely under-appreciated how much resentment there is towards the democratic party brand which is really not just about this election, or about Biden. (with some anecdotal evidence, I would argue it traces to Obama’s pro-corporate policies after 2008, which are perceived as a promise broken by the whole party.) democrats are widely viewed as equally (or potentially more) captured by corporate interests as republicans, and that although they may promise “better” things (also up for debate among this cohort), it’s seen as something of a controlled opposition whose true function is to prevent progress. so voters rolled the dice with Trump chaos, for this among other reasons. individual democrats need to consider the ways in which the party is a potential drag on their brand and act accordingly in public.

• people want to commiserate: they spent quite a bit of time on the episode talking about the “finger wagging” vibe of the democratic party. replace that with compassion, rather than defensiveness and well actuallyyyyys. …I don’t think I need to finger-wag more elaborately about the finger-wagging.

• speak like you’re in private: this is really only helpful to those who are not completely full of shit in private too, alas I cannot help thee. speak like the internet will never cancel you. Pete had fun with the hosts and allowed “fuck” and “bullshit” to leave his mouth without a follow-up about how his chief-of-staff is gonna kill him, teehee. don’t be afraid to roast yourself or the party a little. who’s gonna be mad, Chuck Schumer?

• they had fun!!!!!! the conversation was loose. they talked about the White Lotus, the Blue Origin flight, and how popular Grindr is during the RNC. Pete seemed like he would’ve stayed another hour. [ask any journalist how long they got with the principals in the Biden admin.]

Peter, should this missive find its way to you, please consider the following: if any elected democrat (current, former, or disgraced) should have a podcast, you’re our number one boy. perhaps reviving some sort of FDR-style fireside chat where you explain how government actually works. this could be our last chance at reviving civic literacy, Peter. we need it, and it would be a great way to build trust for any future you-know-whats. but you already know that.