Hey, I'm Matt Rothschild and welcome to another episode of the Wisconsin Forward Podcast
for the Civic Media Radio Network.
Today I'm thrilled to have, as my guest and old friend, Professor Kathy Kramer.
Kathy is the chair of Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where
she's also a professor of political science, her classic and prophetic book, The Politics
of Resentment, rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker, helped explain
to a lot of people, not only how Walker won here, but how Donald Trump got elected the
first time around, Professor Kathy Kramer, welcome to the Wisconsin Forward Podcast.
Hi, Matt.
Thank you so much for having me on your podcast.
Really appreciate you coming on.
Crazy country right now.
How do you see it?
It's heartbreaking in a lot of ways and, you know, right now I'm feeling especially sore
after the shootings in Minnesota.
Did they surprise you?
Yeah.
I mean, that's kind of my personality where every active hatred, every bout of political
violence is still a surprise to me.
And I hope it remains that way.
Like I don't want to get immune.
I don't want to not feel this stuff.
Yeah, assassination should not be normal in any democracy.
Oh my lord, no.
What does it say to about where we're at, do you think?
Well, I wish I had a great succinct way of putting how I'm understanding things, but
I think what's so hard, I think part of what's so hard about this situation is that there's
so many different things that have led us to this point where people are shooting each
other over political views.
And since I wrote that book, one of the things I've been working on is trying to understand
how did we get to this state of affairs?
Like how did we get to this state of affairs where our country is so divided and people
see people who lean toward the other political party as enemies.
What how did we get here?
What are some of those things you're focusing on?
Well, one of the things I've been doing is working on a book with my friend Larry Bartels,
whose political scientist at Vanderbilt.
And we have made use of this panel data of people who were high school seniors in 1965.
They were a national sample of people and they were sampled from 97 high schools across
the country.
And what we did was just look at how they responded to Vietnam, the civil rights movement,
women's rights, changes in the economy, just how did their political views develop?
So they're just one group of people.
But we basically learned that people who went into their early adulthood with kind of
traditional moral views and were from kind of yet just a more traditional, you know, background
tended to not embrace social change the way people who were from, you know, I guess more
progressive moral views and people who went on to college.
They're we sort of see it's way more complicated than just this picture.
But basically back in 1965, we already see the seeds of the divides that we have right
now.
And one thing I know and you as well as I that there's public sentiment, right?
But then there's what our political leaders do with it.
And so that's part of the story, how people responded to the Vietnam war and such.
But the other part of the story is what our political leaders have done to tap into these
divides and make use of them.
And the, you know, the technology for doing that is just incredible these days, the way
people can be targeted and social media just makes that so much easier.
Lots of things led to this point.
You mentioned political leaders, of course, Donald Trump has been, you know, the biggest
political leader who in my opinion has been fueling this divide and also kind of glorifying
violence in many of his talks.
What role has he played?
Well, a huge role, I mean, the president of the United States of America has enormous
power to draw our attention to things, issues, but also ways of behaving.
I mean, he's an enormous role, role model person in that role is an enormous role model
for the world.
And whether or not he has caused violence, his opportunities to denounce it, they've
been ample.
I mean, January 6 is just a great case in point.
And he's not, he's not doing that.
What do you think the blanket pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists?
What message do that sound?
I think it sent a huge message that you can storm the capital of the United States and
endanger law enforcement officers and people elected like our national legislature.
And there are no consequences.
I think that's a very loud message.
Yes, indeed.
And then you mentioned the, the killings in the Ministry of Assassinations in Minnesota.
I mean, a day or two later, Trump was back blaming radical left Democrats, calling them
sick of mine, saying they hate our country, say they want to destroy our inner cities,
say they're threatening ICE.
This language I would have expected a president, a normal president to try to de-escalate, especially
after such an incident, but it's quite the contrary.
Yeah, I, I will admit, I did not read or hear those messages myself, but I've heard of
them.
And yes, a huge part of me wishes that suddenly Trump would have a change of heart and say
things like, what kind of a world do we want to live in?
You know, is, do we want a world that's driven by hate and greed?
Or do we, do we actually prefer a world that's driven by love and generosity?
I know which one I would choose and I know which one I think most people would choose.
Yeah, but he's not like most people.
He is this kind of pathological narcissist who seems totally lacking in empathy and, and
decency and, you know, basic human feeling toward each other.
And, you know, it's not only all about him in that narcissism way.
He also has these colorations of authoritarians that Ruth Ben Giat from NYU has been writing
about, and of course Timothy Snyder.
And how scared are you of those impulses that he seems to have?
I'm pretty scared.
I mean, my political science friends talk a lot these days about whether we're already
in an authoritarian situation or not.
And you know, there's this term competitive authoritarianism that lots of people talk
about, which is basically, you have the trappings of democracy.
But basically, the way things are functioning is more akin to an authoritarian country.
And it's very scary because the problem with authoritarianism is once you're there, it's
very hard to get back to democracy.
I mean, once someone accumulates power under themselves and flaunts the, you know, just
interrupts the rule of law, takes control of the judiciary, it's tough to actually have
a democracy.
Yeah.
I remember reading the book by the two Harvard professors how democracies die.
And they were saying back in 2016 that Republican leaders had a moral obligation and
historical obligation to denounce Trump and tell people not to vote for Trump.
That didn't happen then.
It happened with a few people, obviously most notably Liz Cheney the last time around,
but it didn't succeed.
And so yeah, they came to power.
And so yeah, how do, I mean, you mentioned how do we get back to democracy within authoritarian
and power?
Do you have clues for an answer to that?
Well, I think one, one thing that would help a lot is if leaders in the Republican party
in particular stood up and said, these are things that we cannot agree with.
We can't, like, stood up to Trump, basically his, when I'm kind of tiptoeing around here.
I think political leaders of all stripes need to do that.
And then of course, there's always a question of, well, that's not been happening.
So what's the role of the ordinary person?
And I think our political leaders, there's an enormous burden on them right now to do
the right thing.
But I also know that just ordinary people treating each other in their daily lives with dignity
and speaking up for the kind of world that they want to live in, that has enormous
root pull effects too.
And you know, everything from like quit driving like a jerk, like quit absorbing the toxicity
of our political environment into the way you're treating other people in your everyday
life, like be the, be the change people, you know, live, live the way you think we ought
to be treating each other.
Yeah.
I think that was a lesson.
Vaclav Havel taught.
And they'll check Slovakia, you know, actors though, you know, we are running and ruling
ourselves and living in a democracy in the society we want to live in even though we
don't have the power right now, which I think is a great message.
I'm also very excited about the level of protests so early on.
I mean, we just are coming off the huge No Kings protests.
And in small towns all across Wisconsin, there were protests.
I went to the one in Stoten.
And the first person I heard talk to a friend was a 90 year old lady who's going to be
you know, one month from being 91, she said, this is the first time I've ever done anything
like this, but I'm just so disgusted.
And those neighbor to neighbor conversations in small towns, whether it's at a protest
like that or whether it's in a coffee house, I think those are really important ways to
do politics and to try to, you know, bring people around a little bit to the danger we're
facing.
You mentioned, you mentioned Republican leaders.
I don't know anyone who's speaking out, except occasionally Senator Murkowski.
You know, she'll, she'll occasionally say this is, first of all, she expressed that
she herself felt in danger or felt scared or felt somehow threatened at a town hall,
which I thought was an alarming and a, you know, a learning kind of moment.
Did you see that?
And what was your reaction to that?
Yeah, I think that's really important to say out loud and it's just alarming and it ought
to be.
We need to notice that, you know, yeah, the shootings in Minnesota are just a huge wake-up
call for, I'm sure there's so many more threats going on that we're even aware of.
And I guess Tammy Baldwin, Mark Poekhan, we're on the list too.
We found out, which is for those of us here in Wisconsin, you know, there are 11 elected
officials, I guess, in Wisconsin, who are on the list, including those two.
So, yeah, the, you know, the thing that is, you know, I've worried for a long time, people
ask me, you know, what to look out for if things start going from bad to worse.
And I would, one of the things I said was, you know, arresting democratic officials, assassinating
democratic leaders, I've been worried for a long time about AOC, for instance, because
she's so outspoken.
And yeah, just the level of rhetoric is just so nasty right now that, yeah, it just takes
you back.
Yeah.
You know, one thing, I just want to note, like, it's that it's, I think it's precisely
this kind of thing that, that level of fear is so dangerous because what it does for a
lot of people, very reasonably so, is make them be silent, right?
Like, what person in the right mind wants to be in the fray right now?
But it's exactly, like, right now is when people need to speak up.
So for example, like Matt, it's, you know, thank you for doing this podcast because that's,
it's an act of courage, and we need it.
And I think there's, there's, I mean, it's something I think about every day.
People need to work, like, band together to give each other courage because lone actors
are, are easy targets and it's, it's really difficult to speak up on your own these
days.
And that's why I think the, the known Kings rallies all across the state and all across
the country, we're giving people courage, we're emboldening people to engage in nonviolent
political action, which is really what we need.
And for those who didn't go, but saw it, it may give them the impulse to go like that
90-year-old woman in Staten got the impulse to go, especially when you see your neighbors
who you know, when you're driving by and then you see them the next day in the coffee
house and say, I saw you were out at that protest, just, I couldn't make it, I felt a little
scared, I've never done protests before, what was the protest like, and then, you know,
that person will be more likely to protest the next time around because we really need
them now.
I mean, it's one of the few checks we have on authoritarianism is the notice to the
authoritarian leader that it's not going to be easy if you want to crush people because
we have millions of people ready to go into the streets.
And that was one of the successes in the resistance in Chile to Pinochet, for instance.
Right.
And the fact that they were so, they were such peaceful protests this past weekend.
Absolutely.
It's really important, too, that like, you know, I saw in, well, here in Madison, law
enforcement was, they weren't, they certainly weren't participating in the protest, but
they were there, like, making sure that people had the right to gather and speak their
minds.
And it was just a great reminder that, yeah, these, these, these first amendment protections
still are in place in, in some, in some instances.
If you're a U.S. citizen anyway, because Trump would grab in non-U.S. citizens and, you
know, throwing him to jails and Louisiana, I mean, if they were protesting Israel's policy
and Gaza, for instance, which that was one of the first signs that were really going
far down the hill.
And then sending that guy to El Salvador and not only bring him back at the last minute,
even though the courts told him to bring him back Garcia, and then the Marines.
Bring the Marines into the streets of Los Angeles is just, I mean, it's insanity.
But I've thought for a long time that he was going to do this and invoke the Insurrection
Act and get tanks in the street.
Of course, we had tanks in the street and DC for his ridiculous military parade.
But, you know, you mentioned how important it was that the protests were peaceful.
And one of the reasons they were important, because I think he was rubbing his hands together
in hopes that they weren't peaceful, so that he could have another pretext.
I mean, the, the burning of those three cars in LA was a pretext.
And yeah, some hoodlooms were throwing rocks at police cars, which is ridiculous and
wrong.
But that's the kind of stuff that Trump loves, because it gives him an excuse.
And so I just want to encourage any listener here, you know, when you're protesting, non-violence
is the moral thing to do, and it's absolutely the practical thing to do, because otherwise
you're just playing right into his hands.
Yeah, do you want to talk about how we talk to people who don't agree with us at this
point?
And because not everybody who doesn't agree with us is flying a Confederate flag or has
a Nazi swastika tattoo on their left bicep, you know, some of them do.
And it might be dangerous to engage with them, but certainly in a state like Wisconsin
or, you know, 50-50 state, this country's 50-50, how important is it to try to persuade
someone who might have voted for Trump, but you know, otherwise, seems to be a decent
person, or do we just write those people off?
Well, I'll do my best, but I think you already mentioned a bunch of important things.
I mean, one, the first step, I think a really important step is to recognize that the image
that you're getting of people on the so-called other side is a caricature and understand
that even if someone voted for Trump or leans toward the Republican Party, they're good
people by and large.
I mean, most people are good.
And to not go, to not allow yourself to be persuaded by the images you're getting in
social media, that what you're getting is like provocation and a lot of extremity.
And most people are somewhere in the middle.
And most people don't think the political system in general is working for them.
And people want a better system.
They want better representation, right?
So if you can start with that understanding as opposed to the people on the other side
are evil, the people on the other side hate me, you're doing yourself a favor.
And then, to just allow yourself to not try to persuade off the bat, I mean, I think
with family members, it's the hardest, right?
If there's political tensions within a family that's always the hardest to have those conversations.
But I think I'll speak to those hardest conversations and just say, allow yourself to not take on
the burden of trying to change somebody's mind.
And instead, like, give yourself the luxury that I've had in my job, which is my job has
been to understand people, right, and try to understand how they're understanding things.
And it makes it in some ways a lot easier, where my questions can be, so tell me a little
bit more about that.
Like, so, okay, so where did you hear that?
Or tell, just help me understand why your thoughts about wanting a more peaceful society
are related to this policy stance or voting for this person.
Just asking, like, actually truly asking people, help me understand your view of the world.
And then, you know, I don't know, a few conversations in, maybe gently saying something
like, that's really interesting how you're seeing things, you know, the way I've been
thinking about it these days is like this.
And don't make persuasion the point of it, make trying to understand and just connecting
with another human being, the part of it, because I think when forces, whether it be
a president or what have you, kind of rip those connections, make us fear one another
and hate one another, then they won.
And so every time you can just make a human connection with someone and show some desire
to understand who they are as a person, you're, that's an act of resistance.
I'm glad you said that because I've had a recent experience, a couple of recent experiments
on Facebook, which may not be the best place, but to do this kind of civic dialogue.
But I had a friend, I have a friend who said, why are you going to these rallies?
It's about immigration and Obama was deporting, you know, a record number of people too.
So this is hypocritical.
And I responded in my polite way, I said, thanks for engaging on this issue.
I hope you and your family are doing well because I know her husband really well and they've
got two daughters who are doing great and I always like her post on Facebook when she's
talking about that.
But then I said, you know, on substance, you know, Obama wasn't bringing the Marines into
the street, Obama wasn't, you know, sending people to prisons when judges said, you can't
do that just along those lines.
And then some of my other friends who share my own political beliefs just, you know, said
nasty things about her on Facebook and it just wasn't a great exchange.
After that, and I didn't follow up except to send her a private message saying, let's
get coffee sometime and talk about it might be a better way to carry on this conversation.
But I've had people who say, you know, one person, why is this person Matt's friend?
And I had another person in a different circumstance when I said one of my friends voted for Trump.
He said, get different, get new friends, get different friends.
And I think that impulse, and maybe it's more common in Madison where you can, you know,
go a couple of weeks without bumping into a Trump supporter if you live in the real
Democratic neighborhoods.
It might be easier in Madison to have that feeling.
I think for people who live in other towns who engage day-to-day with people who voted
for Trump and they know, you know, these aren't the real, you know, proud boy haters.
These are our folks who are members of the community that we enjoy being with most of
the time.
I think that I think folks in those places have a better understanding of what you were
just saying that we are reacting to stereotypes, to caricatures of people on the other side.
And it is important to engage just for decent human interaction with people without, you
know, writing them out of the book of life, which is what, you know, some of the Facebook
folks wanted me to do.
I just wonder what the success rate is on this, though, politically, because, for instance,
I'm thinking back to the election in 2024 and Liz Cheney and trying to bring a lot of,
you know, decent Republicans around and when I was said and done, I don't know how many
of them came around, but not enough, anyway.
So there seems to be a political split, too, from some of my more analytical friends who
say, well, you can talk all day long, Matt, with your friends who voted for Trump, but
it's not going to be doing darn bit of good, won't you focus on getting the base out or
the non-voters out or things like that?
How do you respond to such a critique?
I rely on my deep commitment to the idea that love is better than hate.
And if the strategy is we have to use tactics that draw people's attention to how much
they dislike other groups of people, I mean, what's the point?
Like that's that, you know, I guess I've said this a bunch of times, but that is not the
world I want to live in and I understand that that is politically more effective, absolutely.
That is going to win elections over, let's see the good in each other, probably in this
environment, in this communication environment, the strategy of mobilizing people by reminding
them how much they dislike the other side is effective.
But that doesn't get us to a society in which people are well, are simply like living
lives that have meaning in which they have what they need in order to do simple things
like spend time with their families, have a little bit of leisure time and be healthy.
I don't care what's good political strategy, like what I care is like human beings have
to figure this out, like we have to figure out how to actually live fulfilling lives.
In the so-called good political strategy, short-term may be a bad strategy for civic health
long-term, which is what you're getting at.
Absolutely.
Yes, I deeply believe that, so do we all become extinct in the meantime?
Hope not.
I hope not.
Yes, Premier, you know, your book, Politics for Resentment, talked about the resentment,
especially of white working class folks, white rural folks.
You mentioned, you know, people still feel like the system's not working for them.
Part of the problem in 2024 is that I felt Kamala Harris, and I don't blame Kamala Harris
for anything.
I thought she was given an impossible task, and I liked her energy, her joy, and her class.
But she, in a sense, became the institutional candidate.
And Donald Trump, again, was the candidate from the outside, oddly.
People are sick of politics and politicians as usual, and so becoming the institutional
candidate may not have been the way to go.
You know, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump always talk about the system being rigged, and
I think that's what resonates with people who feel like the system isn't working for them.
And that's why you had that weird overlap of people who went for Bernie and then voted
for Trump.
But the system really isn't working.
I mean, those people are right in some ways that the system isn't working for them,
even though some rural communities, as you point out, are getting more tax benefits than
average people in cities.
But at the gut level, they understand that, you know, their economy has been hollowed
out, and their circumstances and great.
How do we address those resentments that still are there and still are powerful?
Well, I think a huge part of it is economics, right, in the way our economy functions.
And yeah, I just, yes, I agree with everything you've said, and working, white working class
people or people in rural communities in the United States are not the only ones who feel
that the system is rigged and who, in fact, are not being represented by our policymakers.
I mean, time and again, if one of the things that political science does understand these
days is that when policies are made, it's typically that preferences, I mean, time and again,
it's the preferences of people with who are the wealthiest in the country that are represented.
There's a lot of things on which people across the income spectrum agree on, but when we
don't, it's the preferences of the richest people that get put into policy.
And I think that is going to take a lot, and again, is going to take a lot of willpower
of people, in government people in the private sector, just doing things that are, again,
like focused on making this country well, making people well, just giving them the basics,
giving them opportunities to have employment where they feel like the work they're doing
is meaningful, and then they're contributing to something that they believe in.
It's going to take a lot, but one of the other things I've been working on since that
book is running, co-chairing a commission on the economy for the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, and part of what we did, it was this bipartisan commission of leaders across
sectors in the country, and one of the things we did was listen to people across the country,
we held a variety of listening sessions, and people of so many different backgrounds
kind of said this similar tune of, you know, the economy is driven by greed, and it's
tough for me, you know, not just working class people, but people whom we would call middle
class or even upper middle class sometimes, we're feeling like this is a grind, and it's
just sucking the humanity out of me, and that's not sustainable, and that kind of
resentment is so widespread, and it's just fertile ground for someone to come in and say,
you're right to be so pissed off, you know, won't for me and I'll, whatever, drain this
line. Right, I alone could solve your problems. Yeah, I mean, that's why sometimes I say
that capitalism tends to unregulated capitalism tends to devour democracy, because the people
who it creates great disparities in wealth and income, and the super rich can buy their
politicians essentially, and then the politicians pass bills that help to super wealthy, and
everyone else is grinding it out. I mean, there was a study. Here we are. Yeah, there's a study by,
I think a, well, two political scientists, I'm sure you're, you know, their names, I've forgotten
them about what role of majority of people have in decisions that are made, and their conclusion
was the majority doesn't rule almost all the time, that the people at the top are the ones
who have the decisive influence, and if everyone, the only time that people in the majority
get what they want is when the top 1% wants it to, you know, and so for a place that's called a
democracy, that was a bit of a startling conclusion to see. Yeah, that, that was Ben Page and Marty
Gillens, and yeah, that was a super eye opening study. And so, but so then the question is how,
well, how do we fix that? And then what's the answer there? If we only knew, Matt, right? I mean,
I mean, there's some chicken and egg things. I mean, campaign finance reform would be crucial,
but how do we get to campaign finance reform with the US Supreme Court decisions on
corporations or persons and money as speech and citizens united and all that? And so,
you know, those are real problems. Right. I mean, that, exactly, like, as you well know, right? I mean,
fixing it, like, change in legislation would go a long way, but that with citizens united, I mean,
I mean, my hope, you know, my hope is always with, and I used to work for Ralph Nader coming out of
college, and then I'm a, you know, was a student of Howard Zins, not literally, but metaphorically,
and he wrote for me at the progressive. And, you know, Nader's big thing was citizen action as a
counter force. Howard Zins was, you know, protest as a counter force. You know, John Kenneth Galbraith
in the 1950s was talking about unions as a counter force, but they've been decimated,
and Scott Walker led the way on that. And now Trump is, and government regulation has been a
counter force. And now, of course, Republicans have been going after that for a long time,
and Trump is just being the latest on that most aggressive. But when we don't have these
countervailing powers, you know, that's when the folks at the top win, but that's why I think
protest is so important right now. What, what do you think about the efficacy of protest?
Well, I think it's important just even as you said earlier for kind of signaling to other people
in the community that there are, there are other people who are not happy about what's going on
and are willing to speak up and take some time out of their day to show up at, you know,
the middle of town or the state capital or what have you. I also think, I mean, when you were,
ahead of the Wisconsin democracy campaign, the referendum in counties around the state, right?
Like, that is another way of, you know, not binding in Wisconsin, right? But still a really
important signal to lawmakers, but also it's a signal to other people in the public that there's
a lot of discontent here. And these are your neighbors. They're, they're right here. They're
right in your midst. And they're feeling similar that they want, they want a different system.
Right. I mean, this was 57 out of 72 counties in Wisconsin, past referendums or resolutions
at the municipal level saying that their community is against gerrymandering, wants to ban gerrymandering.
And so it was an incredible grassroots effort. Some of it was spontaneous. Some of it was
because of great organizing, but 57 counties, you know, they're not 57 blue counties,
not 47 or 37 blue counties. And also the idea of this is a blue county and this is a red county
is something I recoil against because in every county, there are people of every stripe
and who are doing great work and trying to build a civic culture. I mean, I think of, you know,
the League of Women voters, bless their hearts. You know, they have chapters all over the state
doing great work in a nonpartisan way, but supporting democracy. They're a very pro-democracy
organization. So that's, you know, that's one way to go. And I do think starting locally as you're
suggesting here and trying to, you know, build a movement. Again, there's still a fair maps movement
going on all across the state. There's a movement in Wisconsin to overturn citizens united. There have
been resolutions or referendums passed in something like 170 communities saying, you know, we
don't think there are persons and money is beach and we're sick and tired of having our screens
just splatter with mud all the time by this dirty money and our, and dark money and our politics.
So I do think at the grassroots we're seeing a resistance and we're seeing the resistance to
Trump too after the No Kings protest. And maybe that's what's going to save us in the long term.
Well, definitely is helping. Yeah. I mean, how confident are you that we're going to get through
this period, Kathy Kramer? I'm super confident. I really am. I, for one part, like, there's no other
option right now. Like, if you don't believe we're going to get through this, you're in just a
a, a pretty dire situation mentally, right? But I also do believe we're going to get through this
because they're a friend Tom Moskauer who's just, you may know him, Matt, he is a long-time
community organizer just in a, in someone I really admire. He and Mike Breninger just
published this book called Pulling Together about people working together at the local level
across partisan line. I actually, partisanship is just irrelevant in what they're talking about,
just the ability of people to come together and get things done for their community. He sent me
yesterday a speech from the head of the farmers union from the 1930s. And it could have been written
today, the things that this person was talking about in terms of the economy not working for the
ordinary people and people not being represented. And I know the situation's different now and I think
that the communication environment is just a huge obstacle for people cutting through the
noise and actually connecting with each other in a constructive fashion. But it was a huge
reminder to me that we've been in a really tough spot before in this country. And the work of
ordinary people focusing on talking with each other in small groups has gotten us through a lot.
So once we can get away from the mob, I mean, this person was just emphasizing how important it is
to talk with each other at a level where you're not shouting at one another where
you can actually have a conversation. It matters a lot. It goes a long way. And you know,
it might seem like we're the individual person is powerless, but right? Like how many social movements
in the world have taught us that actually it starts with individual people doing the right thing
and talking in the humanity. Yeah, absolutely. Sorry to interrupt. And talking person to person too.
I mean, not just behind your screen, you know, but actually talking to people at the coffee house or at
a poker game or at the book club or wherever you're at engaging there just in civil conversation.
That and engaging in protest. I think that's what that might save us after all, even though it's
used pretty dire right now as you suggested. Kathy Kramer, thanks so much for being my guest today
on the Wisconsin Ford podcast. Great talking with you. You too, Matt. Thank you so much for the
conversation. I'm Matt Rothschild and thanks for listening to Kathy Kramer on this episode of
the Wisconsin Ford podcast in my next episode. I'll be interviewing Mike McCabe and a few others
as we pursue the conversation on the so-called urban rural divide. You won't want to miss that one.