Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Too Liberal, Too Judgmental, And Too Focused On Cultural Issues; NY Times; Moving To The Political Center Is The Way To Win; Emanuel: Biggest Vote Not Based On Loudest Voices. Lessons We Can Learn About The Worst Market Crash In U.S. History; New Cornell Study: Small Acts Of Purpose Can Boost Happiness. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired October 25, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:23]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Too liberal, too judgmental, too focused on cultural issues, too be credible. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Last week, first son, Eric Trump was my guest, and with him watching on a split screen, I shared advice for his father. Namely, I recommended that the President be the dealmaker at home that he's been abroad. Show us the same tenacity in reopening the government that you used to broker a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Don't be afraid to compromise. Be the dealmaker in chief.

President Trump has yet to heed my advice. Undeterred, today, I turn to the other side of the aisle. Democrats were buoyant this week. After last Saturday, more than 7 million people protested in over 2,700 locations under the No Kings banner. It was reportedly the second largest single-day public demonstration in American history, only behind Earth Day in 1970.

While the attendance was impressive, the effectiveness remains to be seen. Rallies alone don't result in any substantive change. Remember, Kamala Harris had no trouble drawing big crowds last fall, and she just told the BBC she may be running for President again. Colby Hall, the founding editor of Media Hype framed the No Kings rallies this way, saying Saturday saw the latest No Kings protest draw a reported 7 million peaceful demonstrators around the nation. That's very good for organizers as attendance is growing. But this might also be a problem.

Not because the marchers aren't sincere. They are. Not because moral clarity doesn't matter. It does. But because every protest that doesn't lead to organization might be worse than no protest at all. It gives the feeling of agency without the fact of it. It lets us post, share, and check the box marked I did something while the machinery of power keeps humming, unbothered.

This is the trap of protest in the age of the algorithm. It's not that demonstrations aren't performative. All politics involves performance. But the performance has become the point. The march happens, the signs get photographed, the videos go viral, and everyone goes home feeling like they participated in democracy. Meanwhile, nothing changes except your feed, which has already moved on. To which we can also add, America still has a political center and it is the key to winning the next elections.

That's not my quote, but it could be. After all, from me, you hear constant preaching that a plurality of Americans regard themselves as independent rather than Republican or Democrat. 43 percent check the I box compared to, according to Gallup, compared to 28 percent who say D or 28 percent who say are. And from me, you've also heard about the massive hidden tribes data based on a sample of 8,000 respondents, which found that only 14 percent, 14 percent of the country resides on the polar extremes, 86 percent of the rest of us are somewhere in the middle.

And from me, you've heard about research like that from Dr. Morris Fiorina at Stanford. He wrote a book called "Unstable Majorities", arguing that the populace has not significantly shifted its views in the last half century. But the parties have. They've sorted themselves. They've become more extreme.

No, the new articulation that Democrats need to moderate comes from no friend of President Trump. But rather the editorial page of the New York Times. Theirs is a cautionary tale for Democrats from an oracle that sees danger in the current Commander in Chief who it says threatens American democracy. So what did they do?

The Times analyzed every House election last year. They defined the ideology of candidates based on where they got their money. And what did they find? That in election after election, moderates in both parties fared better than candidates further from the center. In most congressional elections, in most congressional elections, the winner comes from the same party that won the district in the presidential election except for 16 candidates. Democrats who won in districts that backed Trump, Republicans who won in districts that backed Harris. And what did all 16 have in common? They're moderates.

In today's political climate where the House majority tends to have paper thin lead, in the last three elections, no party won by a margin of more than nine seats. Even 16 seats out of 435 can make all the difference. But now imagine if Democrats took the data to heart and thought, instead of pushing candidates to the extremes, we had them move toward the center. Because in the age old debate over among politicos over whether it's persuasion or turnout that matters most in elections, the Times has just made a compelling case for persuasion. Why?

[09:05:14]

As I read this think if you check these boxes. America still has a political center, argues the New York Times polls show that most voters prefer capitalism to socialism. Check. Worry that the government is too big. Check. Also think that corporations and the wealthy have too much power. Check. Check.

Most voters oppose both the cruel immigration enforcement of the Trump administration and the lax Biden policies that led to a record immigration surge. Most favor robust policing to combat crime and recoil at police brutality. Most favor widespread abortion access and some restrictions late in pregnancy. Most oppose race-based affirmative action and support class-based affirmative action. Most support job protections for trans people and believe that trans girls should not play girls sports. And finally, most want strong public schools and the flexibility to choose which school their children attend.

I don't know about you. I checked every single one of those boxes. Yet even with President Trump's approval rating underwater, according to Gallup, it's holding steady at about 41 percent. Democrats still can't seem to capitalize on that. This is in part, as the Times argues, that the party lacks credibility. Why? Because Democrats are perceived as being too liberal, too judgmental, and too focused on cultural issues. Again, that's the New York Times saying this.

And no, focusing on economic issues is not a sufficient salve. Democrats cannot point to a single member of Congress or governor from a swing district or swing state who's been able to pursue that strategy and win. Consider that between 2020 and 2024, of the 30 states that track party registration, Democrats lost ground in every single one of them, and often by a lot.

So it's not Bernie or AOC who are the answer. They win on their very blue turf. But there's not a single similar progressive who represents a swing district or a swing state.

If you're looking for a role model, how about this guy, a Democrat turned independent from the Times? "Joe Manchin, the moderate former senator from West Virginia, provides another example. He won a state where other Democrats often lose by 40 percentage points, and then provided crucial votes for major Democratic legislation. And even so, progressive activists spent years treating him as a heretic."

Then there are other Democrats in the Senate, usually from swing states, noted for sometimes crossing the aisle. For example, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and, of course, John Fetterman from Pennsylvania. And yet all of them voted with Joe Biden more than 90 percent of the time. But that hasn't stopped Democrats from trying to oust Fetterman. They're already talking about it.

Perhaps they should remember the words of former Democrat who didn't become a Republican until he was in his 50s. It was Ronald Reagan who said, the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor. Of course, he didn't live in the age of social media and polarization where millions consider it their job to keep everybody else in line.

Meanwhile, Bernie's going to continue to draw big crowds. Zohran Mamdani might be elected mayor of New York City on November 4, and AOC could conceivably win a Democratic primary in New York against Chuck Schumer. But the largely white, progressive, college-educated voters concentrated in their areas are too few nationally to win the Presidency or the Congress. Democratic reliance on highly educated white voters is not a good

long-term plan when 62 percent of the nation lack a conventional four- year degree. If all of this sounds like good news for the GOP, consider the opinion of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. While the New York Times doubts the national electability of a true progressive, the Journal sees a different possible outcome, and they offer this warning for Republicans.

"The biggest risk is a socialist takeover of the Democratic Party because sooner or later the party will retake the White House as inevitably there will be a recession or voters will simply tire of incumbents. Remember how Jonathan Chait and other left-wingers hoped the GOP would nominate Mr. Trump in 2016 because he'd be easy to beat? "The country needs a sane and centrist Democratic Party as an alternative to the GOP in the post-Trump era."

So whether you're reading the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, both papers are preaching the same gospel. Moderation isn't weakness, it's survival. And whichever party finds its way back to the center first will not only win elections, it'll win America's trust. Which brings me today's poll question@smerconish.com.

[09:10:17]

I want to know if you agree with the Times when they say, "If Democrats were willing to be less ideological, they would have the opportunity to build the country's next governing majority." Go vote.

Joining me now to discuss CNN senior political and global affairs commentator Rahm Emanuel. He's the former ambassador to Japan under President Biden, former chief of staff under President Obama.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for being here. The New York Times, they argue Democrats, if you want to win, you got to move to the center. Do you agree?

RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yes, I not only agree, I'm a little laughing inside as well as outside because just the New York Times, it's like a revelation to them. For all of us who've worked in campaigns over the last 30 years, this is not a revelation. If you want to win in swing areas that make up a majority, you have to have candidates to get you in the door, as you're looking at New Jersey and Virginia races. You have moderate candidates that basically get you in the door and get a group of voters that normally shut down, turn the volume off, and put the mute button on when it comes to Democrats. That is a telling sign.

And when you look at national campaigns, whether it's President Clinton or President Obama, and not only when they win the reelection. They had a moderate profile. It doesn't mean it's modulated from tone, but moderate in a way that other voters who traditionally don't vote Democrat, vote Democrat.

SMERCONISH: Would you go so far as to agree that the Democratic Party, this is the Times, they say too liberal, too judgmental, too focused on cultural issues. Is that true? EMANUEL: You've heard me before. I think it was a massive mistake to

bring the cultural wars into our educational system. We were focused on bathroom access rather than classroom excellence. We were focused on one child's pronoun, not on the fact that other kids didn't know what a pronoun is. And we brought ourselves to a cultural cul-de-sac, talking to ourselves. Not talking to other voters who knew that this was wrong.

The second thing is if somebody disagreed with you, I mean, as I always said, the cultural police showed up, but they didn't even read your Miranda rights. You were just shut down. And I think that it's not a coincidence and do this quickly, Presidentially. John Kennedy went to Texas to say that he wouldn't be a Catholic president. But a president who was Catholic. And you talk about Sister Souljah with President Clinton. But the most, the top number one item, he advertised over 40 percent primary general and welfare as we know it.

President Obama both takes on his own pastor, takes on the issue of family and fatherhood, and challenged some orthodoxies of the party. They proved they were a different type of Democrat. Each of them had to do it in a different way. That is also true at the state and local level.

SMERCONISH: So the problem, as I see it, is that in order for the moderate to be in a position to win the general, they've got to survive a primary. Isn't that the fundamental flaw in this? Because as you well know, Mr. Ambassador, the most passionate folks, whether we're talking about conservatives on the right in Republican primaries, progressives on the left in Democratic primaries, they hold the sway in the nomination process. How do you deal with that?

EMANUEL: I don't -- well, let me push back. I don't agree. Yes, there's a lot of sound. There's a lot of fury from the progressive voices legitimate on certain issues. There's a more consensus in the party on the issue of affordability, not a consensus on how do you address it. But I don't believe that the part that the -- the biggest vote in the party is based on the loudest voices, and that's been proven out, especially since 2024.

SMERCONISH: Yes, go ahead.

EMANUEL: Going back to your other question, 2024, the party allowed itself to be framed as culturally, not only distant, but culturally isolated from where the general public is. That's why I think it's essential in 2028 to have somebody that articulates middle-class economics and, on the other side middle class values, and not lose sight of that. And don't tell me you want to meet voters where they are and then basically ignore their own wishes.

SMERCONISH: As you know -- as you know from that Times' analysis, I mean, their take is to say you can't make up for the cultural disconnect by only talking about the economy. Do you buy into that?

EMANUEL: Yes, I mean, I said this jokingly once, and I'll say it again, weren't really good at the kitchen table issues, not really good at the family room. The only room we did well was the bathroom, and it's the smallest room in the house, okay?

So I think it's a -- but look, I mean, all presidentials and even gubernatorials, et cetera, and you look at both Abigail and Mikey but having authored this in 2006, recruiting people out of the National Security. The messenger is the message.

[09:15:15]

They opened up a group of voters that normally, as I say, think of Democrats and go automatic mute. They opened up voters and brought them into voting. And you can -- you -- in a politics like we have in this country or in districts, you have to build a winning coalition, which means it has to be big. It has to be broad, and other voters have to be respected, something elements of our party don't do. They like to lecture people to be exactly like them. And that's just not receptive in a culture where people want to be heard, want to be seen. And there are elements of our party that they talk about inclusivity. But they're pretty exclusive as equality.

SMERCONISH: One last thought. So last weekend and I opened my program by giving unsolicited advice to Republicans. Today, as you know, I'm giving unsolicited advice to Democrats. But the subject that I'm discussing with Ambassador Rahm Emanuel about the need for moderation or to approach the center obviously applies to both parties because the GOP over the last decade has blown tons of races by nominating extremists.

EMANUEL: There's no -- look, they have done that in -- there's known -- a number of races where they have nominated candidates that allow us to project them as out of the mainstream. And they have done that in reverse to us. As somebody who spent a life recruiting candidates as recently as also in this cycle, you want to recruit candidates not to fit Washington's profile but fit the profile of the district. And that's how you win. And it's not a coincidence when you look at, look, this is going to be decided this congressional year and in 2026. And we're going to learn a lot this November 2025.

It's going to be decided in 20 districts. You don't have the margin for being Don Quixote and going to the windmills here. You have to find a candidate that can build a broad coalition and appeal to the broadest group of voters. And it's not just energizing a segment. But it's opening it up to the electorate to Democrats that usually parts of that get shut out. And we should not be in the business of shutting ourselves out because again, take a set of cultural issues. You want to build a culture of acceptance, but not a culture of advocacy. That is what we did. We advocated a position rather than building a cycle of acceptance. And I take this as a core issue having spoken around the country on education.

Two-thirds of our kids are not reading and doing math at grade level. Parents know that. Do they work? Yes. But they're also parents. Name me a parent that doesn't care about their own kids' education, regardless of where they are, whether it's high school years, elementary years. And we don't want -- we want to talk about cultural issues when they're worried about whether the kids can know AI, know how to manipulate, manage that, know how to read, know how to do math, and have the education to succeed in life. That speaks to where parents are, not just where interest groups are in our party.

SMERCONISH: Congressman, mayor, ambassador, I'm probably leaving some things out. Rahm Emanuel, thank you for being here.

EMANUEL: Thanks, Mike.

SMERCONISH: Hit me up on social media. Follow me on X. Follow me on all the usual platforms, including my YouTube channel, and perhaps I'll read your response.

Less AOC ideological or less Fetterman ideological? Big difference. Tigers Fan 63, both of them have personality. I wanted to make another observation to the ambassador that -- that AOC has got a lot of personality and so does Fetterman, distinctively different, but personality. Let me blame the moderate class that have run for office and been unsuccessful. Oftentimes, they're too bland and they've fostered this stereotype that, well, if you're not an ideologue, left or right, then you know you must be boring, which I don't think is the case.

And it's perfectly acceptable. Most of the country falls into that category of being progressive on some things, usually the social issues, and more conservative on others, usually the fiscal issues.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website. It's smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. You heard the whole summary of the New York Times. Do you agree with them?

"If Democrats were willing to be less ideological, they would have the opportunity to build the country's next governing majority." Agree or disagree?

Up ahead, record-breaking stocks are ringing in the weekend amid growing bubbles. History has seen this movie before, say some. It didn't end well. Andrew Ross Sorkin is here. He's got a hot book, 1929, looking forward to that conversation with him.

And don't forget to sign up for my newsletter. It's smerconish.com. You'll get the work of prize winning illustrators like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:24:04]

SMERCONISH: America just crossed a stunning threshold. I'm not talking about yesterday's record high closes in the market, although I will in a moment. I'm talking about the gross federal debt of the United States surpassing $38 trillion this week.

To put it in perspective, that's 111,000 for every American, 287,000 per household, growing by nearly 7 billion a day. It's a number so massive that the folks at the Peterson Foundation say that it's roughly equal to the combined economies of China, Germany, Japan, India, and the U.K. And yet the markets keep soaring. Friday, all three major averages closed at records, with the Dow securing its first close above the 47,000 mark ever. So we're celebrating these record highs. We're also drowning in red

ink. It's a split screen that for some feels hauntingly familiar to the market crash in 1929. My next guest, Andrew Ross Sorkin, has written the definitive account of that moment, 1929. It's a terrific book, inside the greatest crash in Wall Street History and how it shattered a nation. The author Andrew Ross Sorkin joins me now.

[09:25:11]

He's a financial columnist at the New York Times. He's founder and editor at large of Dealbook. He's co-anchor of CNBC's Squawk Box.

Andrew, you think it's going to happen again? You're not sure when it's going to happen again. But I'm wondering if the circumstances are the same because then I've learned from you in this great book. It was greed. It was incompetence. It was corruption. Today it seems like the concerns people have about the market is too much concentration of value in just a handful of stocks.

So is it a real parallel, I guess, is my first question.

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, FINANCIAL COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Look, I think there is a demonstrable parallel with what's happening right now and what was happening in the 1920s. That's not to say that when we do have a crash of some sort that it has to ultimately look like the Great Depression. It could look like what happened in the .com bubble in the late 90s.

But what does make this whole moment more significant is the issue you raised at the top of this segment, the issue of how much debt the country has. So there's two things going on here right now. One is that, you know, there's a remarkable leverage, meaning debt and credit in the corporate space that's fueling so much of the AI bubble, if you will. And there's sort of a split screen in terms of what's going on with the economy unto itself. The AI economy is powering or maybe even papering over a lot of other problems in our regular economy. But then you layer on the debt that the government's taken on and it gets a lot more dangerous.

So at some point, if we do have a crash, the proper answer to a panic is for the Federal Reserve and the government to spend even more money. And the problem is whether bondholders, whether investors in our debt, in America's debt, at some point raise their hand and say, you know what, we don't like this. If we'll lend you more money but we're only going to do it, you're going to pay me a lot more money, meaning a much higher interest rate for that money, in which case things can spiral.

SMERCONISH: Why -- why don't the markets seem to be concerned about $38 trillion of debt?

SORKIN: You know, it's almost an inexplicable question or an inexplicable answer. I've been surprised that bondholders have not been sort of a greater governor over, you know, government spending for a very long time. I think part of it's an issue of relativity. The U.S. Economy, on a relative basis to virtually every other economy in the world, is actually doing quite well. And so people think to themselves, where's the safe -- what's the safer bet? You know, they say we could be the cleanest shirt in a dirty hamper. And so that's, I think, to some degree, how investors are thinking about it.

The other issue is that most investors are professional optimists. And the truth is, being optimistic over the last hundred years has actually proven to be the right call. Meaning I can be here like a Cassandra, and I can be right, but maybe I'll be wrong about the timing. And the truth is that if you held that, if you held your shares over a very long time, you would be more successful, like Warren Buffett, than sitting on your hands with your cash, you know, under your mattress.

SMERCONISH: Has Andrew Ross Sorkin become Lou Manheim? Because all of my knowledge, right, stems from the movie, I hope you get the reference. I think I'm detecting a smile on your face. All of my knowledge of the market comes from the movie, Wall Street. I'm going to run the clip. It's only 20 seconds. Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOU MANNHEIM, FICTIONAL CHARACTER, WALL STREET FILM: Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character, and that is what keeps him out of the abyss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: You're too young to be the old codger who says, hey, there's a problem coming, right?

SORKIN: Look, you know, the point of this book, to be honest with you, when I started writing it, I started writing this nearly a decade ago, was not actually to draw parallels. I didn't. And in the book itself, I actually try to leave it to the reader to see the parallels or not and some people see those parallels, some others don't.

My point is, if you understand what happens in a period of great euphoria with lots of leverage around, with very little transparency, we're in a moment right now where guardrails are coming off. There were virtually no guardrails in 1929 that you might want to say to yourself, you know, we need to be careful. That's the only message I have.

But the truth is, you know, we're human -- humanity. We like more. By the way, you just ran that clip in the movie Wall Street 2, which is not as good a movie. There's a great moment where Shia LaBeouf looks at Josh Brolin and says, what's your number. As in, what's the number that would make you feel financially independent or whole, or what's enough, if you will? And he looks back at him, and he says, more, that's my number. Right, and that sort of a --

[09:30:15]

SMERCONISH: That's something Gecko would have said as well.

SORKIN: For better or worse, we all -- yes. SMERCONISH: Hey, a quick response to this, which is not fair to you, but the book is terrific. I'm a fan of -- of narrative nonfiction of this style, so I love it.

SORKIN: Yes.

SMERCONISH: But you disabused me of the idea -- I always believed -- well, the crash happened because there was this horrible day on a Thursday back in 1929, and it set forth the Depression for the next decade. It was a hell of a lot more complicated than just one day.

SORKIN: 100 percent. And that's one of the reasons I wrote this book. Look, I think I had an impression, like most people, that there was a terrible day, and the Great Depression happened immediately after that. Really, the crash itself was the first domino in a series of dominoes and then a series of terrible policy choices. And you'll see this in the book because you'll be in the room with Hoover in the Whitehouse as this is all taking place.

The crash happens and the crash, by the way, happens over multiple days, in fact. But then it's policy decisions like raising taxes at the worst possible time, implementing the Smoot-Hawley tariffs at a time when the economy was faltering. And, in fact, Hoover did that, in fact, because in 1928, when he was trying to get himself elected, he was promising farmers that he'd put tariffs in place so he could get himself elected. And he felt that he needed to make good on his pledge.

So you can start to see the sort of different issues that came into play at that time.

SMERCONISH: Andrew, the book is tremendous. Thank you so much for coming back to the program. For everybody else on social media --

SORKIN: Thank you. You're tremendous, Michael, and so much, all the things you're doing --

SMERCONISH: You're nice to say that. Geez, we muted him at the wrong time. Go back and roll that tape and cut it. I'm joking. I'm joking.

Follow me on X, YouTube, all the platforms. "The necessary cuts needed to curb the debt will never happen. So I'll just enjoy the gains of the stock market," says Rakesh. Yes, and then we will be saddling our kids. Like I'm of a certain age. It used to be the older folks. I guess I've become one who used to say, we can't do this to our grandkids. Now I'm in that category.

How are we doing this to our grandkids? How? I truly don't get it. I mean, this is why I rely on a book like Andrew's book. How does the Dow Pass 47,000? Somebody please explain this to me the same week that the people at the Peterson Foundation say we're 38 trillion in debt. I don't get it.

I want to remind you. Go to my website@smercondish.com and tell me if you agree with the New York Times. This could have been me but it was them. "If Democrats were willing to be less ideological than they would have the opportunity to build the country's next governing majority." Agree or disagree with that.

Still to come, your social media reaction to today's program plus a six-year Cornell study. This is amazing. Found a surprising shortcut to happiness, one that lifted mood, purpose, and belonging across an entire generation. So why are we now just learning about this? Good thing that we are.

Be sure to sign up for my daily newsletter. Its smerconish.com You'll get the work of illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:37:42]

SMERCONISH: Hey, subscribe to my YouTube channel, follow me on X, then I can read your comment during the program.

Here -- OK, I love this. Here he goes again lecturing the Democrats. Where's the lecture to your former party for going to --

Regina, were you not tuned in last week? Because last week I opened the show with a commentary directed at President Trump, speaking to him about -- well, actually, put the camera on me because I want to say this.

Last Saturday with Eric Trump, first son, Eric Trump, you know, as a guest talking about his number one book in the country, I used my time to try and deliver a commentary to his father, you know, through the first son saying, compromise is not a dirty word. Come back from the Middle East with the same head of steam that put the Israelis and Hamas in the same room and brought about a ceasefire. And let's see some of that here at home.

So, don't -- don't hand me this business of, why don't you offer the same type of prescription to the Republicans? Because I do all the time. More social media. What else do we have?

Absolutely. The DNP has been -- Democratic National Party, I guess -- has been dysfunctional, leaderless, speechless, the old school for years. If they don't change Trump and those in his image will rule for decades to come.

Wayne, what I thought was so significant is how it was "The New York Times" that had this analysis, right? I mean, if it had come from something not so identified as being left of center, I mean, they fall out, say we think we need there to be effective opposition to the commander in chief because he's a danger to democracy.

And the "Times" then says, but this is not getting it done because you're too far to the left, you're too out of touch. More social media. One more. I think I've got time to get it in here.

Not sure the Dems will change? They love to create victims, whether real or imagined. I'll give a thumbs up, but doubt they will compromise. Well, why not the send a message? Why not send the message? If you're -- if you're believing, as I am, that the country would function better with a centrist Republican Party or a centrist Democratic Party, or better yet a third party, then vote on today's poll question in the affirmative. Do you agree?

Put it up on the screen. This is "The Times." If Democrats -- it's a quote, if Democrats were willing to be less ideological, they'd have the opportunity to build the country's next governing majority. Agree or disagree? I agree, and I'd say the same thing about the GOP.

[09:40:02]

Still to come, in a world obsessed with self-care, one psychologist says the real happiness hack isn't looking inward. It's looking outward. We'll reveal that hack, next.

Make sure you're signing up for the newsletter at Smerconish .com while you're voting on the poll question. Oh, come on. This is the one that sums up the week, right? Scott Stantis sketched this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: What if the secret to happiness isn't self-care or meditation, but purpose? New research out of Cornell University suggests that the fastest route to well-being may be as simple as doing something that matters for someone else. Finding that even small acts of contribution can have a big impact on mental health. What led to the conclusion? Researchers at Cornell's Purpose Science and Innovation Exchange gave more than 1,000 students a modest tool, $400.

[09:45:07]

And they could use it in any way that advanced the concept of, quote, "what matters most to them." Many chose to help others, but within weeks they were reporting greater happiness, belonging, and meaning than those who didn't receive funds. The takeaway? It wasn't the money that made them happier, it was the purpose.

Joining me now is the psychologist behind the study, Dr. Anthony Burrow. Dr. Burrow, give me an example of how someone took the $400 and did something with it.

ANTHONY BURROW, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Oh, sure. There's so many different examples across the number of iterations of this project. We all have our favorites. Among them mine is a student, a college student who was sort of lamenting the fact there's too few places to find food on campus.

And so, everybody at the same time tries to stand in line to try to get into the cafeterias and dining halls. And so, they wondered why there wasn't more abundant food options on campus, why we couldn't just plant trees in which were fruit bearing, and people could pick an apple on the way to class.

And so, this ambitious idea, though interesting, what compels me about it was the things the student had to do to actually make the contribution. So, they had to work with horticultural professors and groundskeeping and landscaping crews, staff who a lot of students on campus never interact with.

And so, to really bring this contribution to life, they had to learn more about what was possible and seek permission to even plant trees on campus. And they ended up doing that.

SMERCONISH: And then eight weeks later, those who were giving $400 for something about which they felt a sense of purpose, you checked in on their mental health and they were demonstrably better.

BURROW: Correct. So, this project is interesting. It's still a living, learning context for us to understand -- really to understand what gives rise to a sense of purpose in life. And so, compared to people who apply for this project, we're able to look at those who apply and then also receive funding and see that six to eight weeks later, those individuals who applied and received funding score higher on measures of purpose in life, sense of belonging, and emotional well-being relative to those folks who applied but were not supported with our funding.

SMERCONISH: OK. How do we replicate it without giving people $400 because we can't give everybody $400?

BURROW: This is a fair question. I think one of the insights is that, one, not everybody spends the money, so there's something to be learned about. Just the invitation to imagine what is in your head and heart about a contribution you'd like to make. It may not be the money.

Another path might be to learn more about what young people want to contribute, and think about the resources or scaffolded experiences that we could set up. So, it's not so much the money, it's what they're spending it on. And if we can pay attention to some of those things, we might already have the resources available or the opportunities available, but directing them to where they can find those resources so they can pursue the contributions that they most want to make.

So, it's not always about the money. It's actually sort of an overstated component for a lot of the contributors.

SMERCONISH: It makes intuitive sense to me. I can just say in my own life, if I'm charitable, if I'm engaged in volunteerism, I frankly feel better about myself. You get the final word.

BURROW: Yes. I'll say -- I mean, I want to not lose sight of really the centerpiece of this work. And it's about sense of purpose.

We've known forever that feeling a sense of purpose bodes well. Purpose will -- people live longer. They have better physical and physiological functioning, emotional well-being, social connection. What we lack are opportunities and how we acquire this sense.

And what's interesting here is we didn't ask people, what is your purpose? We asked them, what is the contribution you want to make? And something about that invitation, and then showing up to support them as they made it seems to imbue life with a greater sense of purpose.

So, the insight here is, I think, engaging with people, not with the heavy topic of what is your purpose, but what is something right now that you could do to make a meaningful contribution?

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Dr. Burrow. I've enjoyed reading about your work. By the way, something interesting at "The Washington Post" yesterday, a very busy news day, a report on his work was the number one story. So, people are interested in this, right, amidst a lot of other very heavy news.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Make sure you're casting a ballot. "The New York Times" says, quote, "if Democrats were willing to be less ideological, they'd have the opportunity to build the country's next governing majority." Do you agree with that? I do.

Subscribe to my free worthy daily newsletter. While you're there, you're going to get the exclusive editorial cartoons of individuals like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:07]

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the result so far, 32,340 -- wow. Eighty percent agree. OK. Eighty percent agree with "The Times." Like the clearest path to electoral success, move toward the middle.

Here's some social media reaction to today's program. From the world of X.

Hallelujah, Michael. I'm finally hearing some sanity regarding Democratic strategy.

Wow. How did this get in there?

In politics, it doesn't matter how intellectually brilliant you are if you lose. Shakespeare fully understood the folly of hubris. The Dems need to learn it.

Right. I had a college professor at Lehigh who said to me, political parties exist for one purpose, to win. Dr. Frank Colon said that. I never forgot it.

More social media reaction. What do we have? From the world of X as well.

Michael, I'd love to believe the center still matters for national election purposes.

[09:55:01]

However, we saw an electoral landslide with a candidate who struggles to achieve 40 percent popularity. The center has become a lonely island.

Kevin, there's a complicated answer to your very appropriate response. At the top of the list is the trick of getting to the general election. Because remember "The Times'" data said, here are 16 individuals who were able to win in their district members of Congress, at a time when the top of the ticket, the presidential candidate went the other way.

How did they do it? They were moderates. Aha. They all had to get nominated to be in a position to win in the general election. You know what's coming, right? Yes. My usual preaching about the need to get rid of closed primaries. States like Pennsylvania, states like Florida, states like New York, pure closed primary states because we end up getting a choice in states like that. And there are many more. That's a choice of a lesser of two evils.

Extremists get nominated. And then, you know, we have to pick between them. Whereas if there were open primaries, we'd have an opportunity to nominate more moderate individuals.

Thank you for watching. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)