michelle goldberg

I’m Michelle Goldberg.

ross douthat

I’m Ross Douthat.

david leonhardt

I’m David Leonheardt. And this is “The Argument.” This week, “woke capitalism.” What is it? And is it a good thing?

ross douthat

You can reliably count on a lot of these companies to explicitly take the liberal side.

david leonhardt

Then, we talk about the tensions between speaker Nancy Pelosi and house progressives.

michelle goldberg

I don’t know what’s going on with Nancy Pelosi. And I find this all sort of mind boggling.

david leonhardt

And finally, a recommendation.

michelle goldberg

It’s a show that channels the deepest anxieties, at least that liberals are feeling, about what life is like right now. [MUSIC PLAYING]

david leonhardt

It’s called “woke capitalism.” Progressives trying to use consumer power to influence politics. The football player Colin Kaepernick has persuaded Nike not to sell a shoe featuring a colonial-era American flag. “Boycott Home Depot” was trending on social media this week because one of its founders is a donor to President Trump. And many large corporations were prominent sponsors of Pride Month this year. All of which has raised some fascinating questions. Is consumer activism an effective strategy for progressives? Or does it somehow play into President Trump’s hands? And has corporate America become a force for social liberalism? Ross, you’re a social conservative. So let me start by asking you, do you feel like corporate America has abandoned you?

ross douthat

Yes. I think it’s a mistake to see corporate America as a force for liberalism writ large. Corporate America has decided two things, really, over the last 10 or 15 years. The first is a sort of straightforward marketing vision. The idea that young people are progressive. Young people are woke. You’re trying to build brand identity and brand loyalty with the coveted 18 to 35-year-old demographic. What better way to do it than to sort of perform weakness in some way. So that’s sort of the simplest explanation. But I think there’s a deeper phenomenon going on here where you’ve had a shift in how corporate power sees the ideal consumer from a paradigm where the ideal consumer was the sort of Eisenhower-era middle-class American family. You’re buying your car. You’re buying your grill. You’re drinking your Budweiser. You’re living in the suburbs. To a vision that sort of leans into a more individualist, post-familial society and basically says, no, the ideal consumer is the stereotypical millennial who has two pets, and no kids, and tons of disposable income.

michelle goldberg

Well, I just need to say, first of all, the stereotypical millennial does not have tons of disposable income. But I do think you’re right that obviously a natural market for any ambitious consumer goods company is going to be the majority of the American people, as opposed to the minority of the American people who control the electoral process, right? So we’re kind of coming up against this fundamental contradiction in our politics, which is that we have minority rule. We have this huge overemphasis on rural white voters from small states.

ross douthat

Older voters.

michelle goldberg

Older voters. They are the ones who get a greater say in who rules us. But these big companies, which obviously don’t have deeply progressive agendas internally, right? Their agenda is mostly to make money and expand their reach. They are not marketing according to an electoral college framework. They’re just going where most of the people are. And I also think that it’s created these somewhat perverse incentives for the progressive movement just out of a sense of desperation or necessity. Often, it is easier to wield consumer power than political power given the huge imbalances that we have of political power. It’s sort of natural that people who wake up every single day and find what’s happening in this country utterly intolerable, at least they can boycott Home Depot.

david leonhardt

First of all, can we just pause for one second for any of our listeners who don’t know. Can we do 10 seconds on the etymology of “woke?”

michelle goldberg

I feel a little bit uncomfortable with us throwing around this word “woke,” which is a black vernacular term for being awakened to the reality of the world, and has then been kind of re-appropriated as a derisive term for millennial social justice concerns.

david leonhardt

So I’m going to try to use it here not derisively. There are some ways in which we talk about woke capitalism maybe going further than I think is strategically wise. But there are other ways in which I think it hasn’t gone far enough. And I think Pride Month and L.G.B.T. issues are a really interesting example of this. So we had in June — Pride Month — all kinds of companies falling all over themselves to declare how much in favor of L.G.B.T. equality they were. And many of these same companies give substantial amounts of money to politicians who very clearly stand against L.G.B.T. equality. This includes FedEx. It includes UBS, the big financial firm. It includes UPS. It includes Comcast. These companies basically are trying to make it look like they’re in favor of L.G.B.T. equality in order to attract L.G.B.T. consumers. But then, they also don’t want to take any political risks and make any hard choices. So they’re also willing to give to politicians who clearly believe L.G.B.T. people are inferior. And so it drives me nuts that they’re basically trying to pretend otherwise in their marketing. And I guess, Ross, what I would ask you about that is, do you see some third way I don’t? To me, they should either stop sponsoring Pride Month or stop pushing anti-L.G.B.T. politicians.

ross douthat

I guess I’ll speak up in defense of the consistency of woke capital in this case. I think that the donations that those companies make to conservative politicians — it’s a very normal thing for corporate America to give to both political parties. And I think when push comes to shove, when a particular issue is on the line, a lot of these corporations threatened to boycott states, and make public statements, and do all kinds of things. So, of course, they could always go further in social liberalism or in wokeness. But I think when there’s a live political controversy, you can reliably count on a lot of these companies to explicitly take the liberal side.

david leonhardt

I guess I don’t think they’re pro-choice because they give to pro-choice members of Congress, or pro-life because they give to pro-life members.

michelle goldberg

No, they’re marketers.

david leonhardt

But I do think if they are going to say that L.G.B.T. equality is a corporate value of theirs, they are being disingenuous when they then give to anti-L.G.B.T. politicians.

michelle goldberg

Right.

david leonhardt

They never say that abortion rights or anti-abortion is a corporate value.

ross douthat

Well, no, but they — wait a minute. But they do, right? So Georgia and Louisiana have passed pro-life, anti-abortion legislation recently. And a number of companies— number of corporate honchos signed this huge, open letter basically saying abortion restrictions are bad for business, right? They do take — I can’t speak to every single company. But a lot of corporate America types have taken explicitly pro-choice, pro-abortion stances. I think from the point of view of corporate America, they would like a Republican Party that’s pro-gay and pro-choice, and so they give some money to Republicans in the hopes of building up the socially liberal faction that does exist within the Republican code.

michelle goldberg

No, they give to Republicans in the hopes of building up the economically libertarian faction, right? I mean, that’s what they care about.

ross douthat

Yes. No, that’s right.

michelle goldberg

They care about low taxes and low regulations. And so I do think that most of this social liberal stuff — some of it I think is great. Nike just put out this little one minute ad in response to the women’s soccer victory in the World Cup that honestly made me sort of tear up, even though I understood I was being manipulated.

ross douthat

Were those the ads that ran right after the win?

michelle goldberg

Yeah.

ross douthat

Yeah. No, no, those were some amazing — those were some amazing ads.

michelle goldberg

Right? But it’s obvious that it is a marketing ploy not tied to any deeper vision of the world. I can look at how it works on me. For a long time I kind of had a basic aversion to Nike because I associated the brand with sweatshops and wore New Balance, and then stopped wearing New Balance because I think the founders said something good about Trump. And then feel good about wearing my Nike’s again because they have an endorsement deal with Colin Kaepernick. It’s not that any of this stuff is things that I have really kind of deep ideological commitments to, but it’s these things that are in the back of your mind about how you feel about these different brands when you’re buying workout shoes.

david leonhardt

So let’s talk about Nike and Colin Kaepernick for a minute. Colin Kaepernick, of course, is the former N.F.L. quarterback who’s essentially been blackballed by the N.F.L. The owners will not hire him. He is the player — one of the players — who refuses to stand for the national anthem. Nike has signed him. And he persuaded Nike to stop selling this sneaker that had a Betsy Ross flag on it — a flag from the early United States. And I don’t know. The Betsy Ross flag is not actually a big symbol of the alt-right. Some alt-right people have used it occasionally. But the real objection seems to be it’s a symbol of the U.S. from an oppressive time.

michelle goldberg

No, that’s not true. This whole— O.K., I agree with you that this thing is infinitely stupid, although perhaps interesting for what it says about our infinitely stupid political culture. There is no question that some alt-right groups and neo-Nazi groups use the Betsy Ross flags. And there is a debate among people who study the right about how pervasive that use is. But there is no doubt that it’s a thing. And I would compare it to the O.K. symbol. So you probably know that white supremacists have adopted the O.K. symbol. And it’s this sort of jokey but not jokey thing that puts you in a difficult position if you’re a critic of it because you look like an idiot if you get really upset and indignant about somebody making the O.K. symbol. But that’s sort of the point. That’s why they do it. If you see someone has an O.K. symbol on their Twitter avatar, you can probably assume that they’re at least alt-right adjacent. And so let’s say Nike had come out with a sneaker within O.K. symbol on it. Not because they’re white supremacists, but for some other reason. Would it be so outrageous for Colin Kaepernick or someone else who works with Nike to say, it’s really not a good idea to do that right now because this symbol has meanings that you’re not taking into account. And do you really want your shoe to be adopted by this entire subculture?

ross douthat

Man, I’m going to go on a real Fox News rant here. The O.K. symbol is not the flag of the bloody United States of America.

michelle goldberg

Well, neither is the Betsy Ross flag.

ross douthat

The Betsy Ross flag is the famous flag of the founding of the United States of America. Independent of whatever Republicans and conservatives are doing, you can’t live in a progressive world where you let white supremacists lay claim to that. It’s the American flag. Just seems to me that there is a big difference between worrying over a symbol that doesn’t have historical and patriotic associations going back to the founding and saying a symbol that does have those associations needs to be jettisoned because some white supremacists want to wave the Betsy Ross flag.

michelle goldberg

But can I just say, I don’t think that anybody is saying that Betsy Ross flag should be canceled. I do — [LAUGHING] I do think that there is an argument that yes, Nike, now might not be the time for this shoe. You can disagree with that. I think you could say, yes, stand up to the alt-right. Don’t let them appropriate the symbolism of the founding of our country. To me, that’s a debatable point. And it’s very different than, “Oh, my god, snowflake libs triggered by the American flag.”

david leonhardt

This is a judgment call. But to me, the Betsy Ross flag is different from the O.K. symbol in two ways. One is the way Ross just covered, which is the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of the United States. And two, lots of people already know that the O.K. symbol is a symbol of the alt-right. Whereas, the Betsy Ross flag I think almost no one knew that before this controversy happened.

michelle goldberg

I’d be surprised if that many people knew about the O.K. symbol either.

david leonhardt

O.K., but virtually no one before this happened knew —

ross douthat

I will say, I know very well the O.K. symbol. And I had no idea about the Betsy Ross flag —

david leonhardt

Likewise.

ross douthat

Until this controversy started.

david leonhardt

Likewise.

ross douthat

I just want to raise something that I think comes up a lot in social and religious conservative’s reactions to some of this stuff, which is that to a lot of people on the right, “woke capital” or whatever we’re calling it isn’t just a reflection of this polarization where suddenly corporate America seems to be taking the other side in the culture war. It instills this kind of feeling that your corporations are post-nationalist, by which I mean —

michelle goldberg

Your corporations are post-nationalist.

ross douthat

Of course. No. No. No, absolutely. But by which I mean that if you are Nike, or Apple, or any of these companies, you have no problem that anyone can see making deals with regimes, and cultures, and countries whose social conservatism and attitude towards homosexuality, and attitude towards women, and attitude in the case of China to basic civil liberties is abhorrent to everyone in the American political spectrum. And then, you choose to sort of go to culture war with the Republican-led government of Georgia or Louisiana. That argument — I’m just curious what you guys think of that point. That it’s like, Tim Cook doesn’t care what the Chinese are doing, but he’s really mad if an Indiana pizza parlor isn’t catering a same sex wedding.

michelle goldberg

Well, again, like I said, I’ve never thought that any of these corporations are taking these positions out of high principle. Although, I do think it’s natural for people that corporations are post-national. But in many cases, the people running them are in the United States. And I think it’s natural for people to take a greater interest in what’s going on in their own countries than what’s going on overseas. But the corporations aren’t going to lead this. The corporations are sort of piggybacking on existing political movements.

david leonhardt

Ross, I guess my response to your question would be: I do think there is this fine line between seeming to reject American values and American symbols and seeming to call the United States to its better angels. And I guess I want to end by praising the Women’s World Cup soccer team, mostly because they were fantastic and have given me and many other people a huge joy over the last few weeks. But I felt like they ended up getting this balance right. So Megan Rapinoe, the star of the team for a while, was one of the people refusing to sing the national anthem, which strikes me as tactically, really, a questionable and probably unwise decision. But by the end of the World Cup, Megan Rapinoe said, hey, look at me. I think I’m pretty American. And she was basically saying, “Look at this image of us as Americans.” A patriotic American that is a totally different image than Donald Trump. And so I came out of that tournament not only so happy that they won from a sports standpoint, but also thinking they had some larger lessons for woke capitalism and for progressivism in general. Now we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. [MUSIC PLAYING] Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in a bit of a tiff with the left. In an interview with our colleague, Maureen Dowd, Pelosi criticized the new young progressives in the House for having a larger following on Twitter than they do in Congress. The young progressives led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez then hit back, saying they were the ones helping to change the country. There have been other tensions between Pelosi and the progressives, too, over the Mueller report, immigration policy, and more. But it’s all been a somewhat strange sight given Pelosi’s historical skill in managing the Democratic caucus and her liberal image. So, Michelle, what’s really going on here?

michelle goldberg

So to be honest, I don’t know what’s going on with Nancy Pelosi. And I find this all sort of mind boggling because she is someone I’ve historically admired. And her handling of the tensions within the Democratic Party strikes me as extremely self-defeating. So there’s been a lot of frustration with Pelosi over her refusal to open an impeachment inquiry. I think there’s a feeling that she’s allowed the investigations into Trump to completely peter out and for him to regain the momentum. So you have that. You have this language that she keeps using of self-impeachment, which nobody seems to understand what that means, but seems like a dodge that says that Congress doesn’t have to do its job with regard to a president who’s committed crimes. Then there was her capitulation on the border funding bill. And there is a lot of frustration, which, you know, why are we giving more money to this rogue agency that is running racist Facebook groups and torturing families and children on the border? And so in that context, what Nancy Pelosi has done by picking a fight with some of these young heroes of the progressive movement in her caucus is really inexplicable to me, and I think to a lot of people. I mean, I can understand her frustration with them. I understand that she has an interest in keeping the caucus together and defending some of her front line members in more purple swing districts. And then, it’s also probably frustrating for her as someone who spent so much of her career being criticized and attacked as being way too far to the left, to now being attacked by these newcomers for being a mainstream sellout. That said, whatever frustration she feels, why she would go out of her way to alienate some of the most charismatic and exciting voices in the party and people who are getting a lot of young people excited about electoral politics is completely baffling to me.

david leonhardt

I agree that it’s baffling that she would criticize her allies. And to me, it was probably just a mistake. If we’re going to take these issues one at a time — I’m a little torn here, but I do see a defense of the way Pelosi has handled the Mueller report. It’s not totally clear to me what Democrats are supposed to do with this. Donald Trump has done lots of terrible things. But I don’t think that holding a bunch of impeachment hearings helps the Democrats defeat him in 2020. And it seems to me that given that Robert Mueller basically kind of threw up his hands in a way that I think was really unfortunate —

michelle goldberg

Well, he didn’t throw up his hands. He basically said that this is for Congress to take care of. And then Congress threw up its hands.

ross douthat

He didn’t make a judgment. He didn’t say it’s for Congress to handle. He said the judgment is for Congress to make effectively.

david leonhardt

And so I guess I understand. If Pelosi is making a judgment here that the Democrats are better off running against Trump as a plutocrat and as an ineffective president instead of just talking about Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, that strikes me as not a crazy judgment for her to make.

michelle goldberg

Right, but I don’t think you need to just talk— I agree that you don’t need to just talk about Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, right? Impeachment hearings should not just be about his relationship with Russia. It should be about the whole spectrum of corruption for which I think most Democrats — including probably Nancy Pelosi — believe that he should be impeached on the merits, even if it’s not feasible to do it politically. And instead, what the House has been doing is passing all of these message bills. And reporting suggests that people in the Democratic Party are only now realizing that nobody is paying attention to this, which is just stupefying. Of course nobody is paying attention to these bills that have no chance of becoming law. And certainly, no more chance of becoming law than Trump has chance of being impeached. Whatever she’s doing, I don’t see how you make an argument it’s working when Trump’s approval rate seems to be ticking upwards and nobody has yet been weaving a grand narrative of his corruption and disloyalty, of which the Russia part is only a part.

david leonhardt

I mean, Ross, if you take out what you want to happen here, and instead just kind of offer some advice to Democrats, do you think Nancy Pelosi has been doing an effective job of speaker of the house since she took over at the start of this year?

ross douthat

I don’t know. I mean, I think that there are real limits on the ability of a figure in her position to affect the shape of public opinion. What you guys are talking about, especially now that the presidential election has come along, I don’t know the answer in terms of what sort of hearings, or bill passage, or what have you would actually help the Democrats visa vis Trump. And I think in a lot of ways, whatever happens on Capitol Hill sort of ends up being a sideshow now that we’re in, which I think — this is how I think Pelosi thinks, right? I think she thinks whatever we do is a sideshow. And the important thing is to sort of keep the party on an even keel. And I think she is sympathetic probably to the slightly Joe Biden-esque view of what the party needs to do to beat Trump, which obviously, not everyone agrees with. I think Pelosi’s being really clumsy in how she’s dealing with A.O.C. At the same time, I think she’s probably has this feeling that either you sort of kind of tell your ideological faction who’s in charge early, or a year and a half from now when you still can’t get anything done, they’re going to start holding you hostage the way the Tea Party did. I imagine that that is looming large in her imagination.

michelle goldberg

Right, but even if that’s true, wouldn’t the right way to do that be to tell them that privately while trying to co-op them publicly?

ross douthat

Yes.

michelle goldberg

Because it’s not just about picking a fight with these four women. It’s making a big chunk of the party — not the part that’s decisive in a lot of these swing districts, but the part that is giving the party a huge infusion of new energy and enthusiasm — You don’t want that part of the party to feel alienated and disappointed with party leadership.

ross douthat

I think an interesting question, though, is what is she hearing from especially newly-elected moderates about Ocasio-Cortez and the others, right? Because it is possible that she has people in her ear every day from within her caucus saying, why are you letting these four women dominate the headlines about what we’re all about? This is going to kill me in 2020 or 2022. She may be getting a instead of the liberal equivalent of Tea Party pressure, a kind of moderate pressure to just say things like that.

michelle goldberg

I think she almost certainly is. And I think there’s probably both pragmatic objections to the profile that these four women have. But her job is to manage that and reconcile that, and not make it a front-page newspaper headline.

david leonhardt

I’ll tell you the thing that worries me most about this. And we’re not there or that close to it. But it is moving in that direction, which is at some point, one hopes, the Democrats will again have the ability to legislate. And the real tensions between the Tea Party and the still very conservative Republicans in charge of the house really affected the Republicans’ ability to legislate in some important ways. I do worry about these sort of fissures opening up between the left and the center. And when the Democrats actually have an opportunity to legislate, this getting into some kind of civil war about single payer health care or other stuff rather than the Democrats being able to be as productive as they were in 2009 and 2010 under Nancy Pelosi, which doesn’t mean she’ll be as effective next time.

michelle goldberg

I would give these women — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. I would give them more credit. And I think that one of the big differences is that Democrats fundamentally believe in legislating in a way that Republicans don’t, right? So very conservative, ideologically motivated Republicans are pretty comfortable with the government not getting very much of anything done. And Democrats aren’t. And so I think that you’re going to see dramatically less obstruction for obstruction’s sake.

ross douthat

I think Michelle is right. Or at least in the short run, if you’ve got full democratic control of government, people would fall in line. There would be a new president who would set the agenda. And at least for the first year to 18 months, there would be, I think, a lot of party unity. I think what probably Pelosi is more worried about is you get Trump re-elected, and you have four years where you must pass bills. You have to negotiate funding every year, every six months. Or Trump doesn’t get re-elected, but the Republicans keep the Senate, and you have the same dynamic. That’s where the Republicans didn’t — they’ve had trouble governing under Trump. But the real problem was they had a caucus that refused to make deals with Obama. And if you have a caucus that seems like it’s refusing to make deals with the other party, that’s when the speaker of the house can essentially lose her power.

david leonhardt

That makes sense to me. And Michelle, just to be clear, I wasn’t blaming A.O.C. and her allies for these tensions unilaterally. I was worried about it from also the kind of establishment not figuring out a way to get along with the left because, as you were saying, given how effective Pelosi has been over her career — I mean I do think she’s the most effective modern speaker of the house we’ve had — I’ve just been a little surprised that she has not seemed more sure footed this year, whether it’s figuring out a way to respond to the Mueller investigation in a way that would be helpful and less confusing to Democrats. And now it seems like needlessly slapping these allies. Although, Ross, I understand what you mean. There is some way in which it could be helpful to the Connor Lambs and the other democratic moderates if there are some headlines saying democratic leaders are somewhat to the right of A.O.C. I get that. But it still doesn’t feel like this is the ideal way for her to do it.

ross douthat

Well, and the A.O.C. style is not exactly bashful. I think one issue here, though, is also age. I think Democrats have this dynamic where you have people who represent the party establishment, whether you want to call it the moderates or not, including Biden in the presidential race and Pelosi, who are much older than typical leaders and who are sort of engaging with a much younger cohort in the party. And I don’t think it’s surprising that that age gap would lead to stumbles of various kinds.

david leonhardt

No, it’s definitely the case in the House and elsewhere Democrats need a new generation of leaders. And A.O.C. is not going to be that leader. She’s not going to be the next speaker. But the fact that there are no evident — I don’t think.

ross douthat

We’ll, just wait until A.O.C. is the moderate, though. That day will come.

david leonhardt

But A.O.C., to me, is a more plausible presidential candidate than she is a speaker of the house. But it’s just not at all clear who the next Democratic speaker is going to be given that Pelosi’s deputies are also in their late 70s or early 80s.

michelle goldberg

So first I would say if there’s any silver lining here, it is that Republicans now get to experience the slow motion horror of Democrats who suddenly said, oh, wait, now George W. Bush is the moderate in the party. So yes, Republicans, welcome to your future and where you get to be nostalgic for Nancy Pelosi. I would also say that in some ways, the Democrats are lucky to have the problem of managing this age gap. The Republicans have less of this problem because their young people are like Charlie Kirk and Candice Owens. And so we’re lucky that there has been this huge infusion of energetic, passionate young people into the party. And whenever that happens, it seems like in any organization you have these struggles between the way things have always been done and the way the new guard thinks that they should be. I just wish that even the people who were frustrated by the brashness of some of these new candidates would appreciate the need to bring them inside, as opposed to trying to marginalize them.

david leonhardt

Yes, I agree with that. O.K., we will leave it there. Now it’s time for our weekly recommendation when we make a suggestion meant to take your mind off of the news of the day. Michelle, this week is your turn. What do you have for us?

michelle goldberg

I am going to recommend the HBO drama “Years And Years.” It’s based in England, so it’s slightly askew to our concerns. But it’s basically about the world five years in the future if current trends continue. The kind of — the apocalypse happens, but life goes on as usual. And things that were once unimaginable become banal. It centers on this British family. But it’s one of these super multicultural TV show families where you have an interracial couple and a gay couple. And the gay couple splits up and one of them falls in love with a refugee. So you have a huge spectrum of different sorts of people who are part of this family. But there’s just little details. Somebody says, “oh, remember when there used to be butterflies” or something. Little things that you can imagine about how our ever worse future is going to unfold. And it just feels so of the moment. It’s a show that channels the kind of deepest anxieties, at least that liberals are feeling about what life is like right now.

david leonhardt

Is there anything escapist about it?

michelle goldberg

I always have found dark shows to be escapist. But no, it’s very anxiety provoking.

ross douthat

So good stuff. Good times.

michelle goldberg

Yeah.

david leonhardt

Yeah. OK, Michelle, what’s the show?

michelle goldberg

The show is “Years And Years” on HBO. [MUSIC PLAYING]

david leonhardt

That’s our show for this week. Thank you so much for listening. If you have questions or ideas for future segments, leave us a voicemail at 347-915-4324. You can also send us an email at argument@nytimes.com. And if you like what you hear please leave us a rating or review in Apple Podcasts. This week’s show is produced by Kristin Schwab for Transmitter Media and edited by Michael Garofalo. Our executive producer is Gretta Cohn. We had help from Tyson Evans, Phoebe Lett, and Ian Prasad Philbrick. Our theme was composed by Allison Leyton-Brown. We will see you back here next week. [MUSIC PLAYING]

michelle goldberg

As you know, I’m not a sports fan. This is the first sports team that I have ever felt remotely invested in.

ross douthat