 Gallup, which has been doing a self-identification of political party for decades, is now showing it's something like the last one was 27% of people say they're Republicans, 27% say they're Democrats, which I think is their historic glow or right near it, and then the rest are independent. You know, a guy out there in the audience, Matt Welch, and I wrote a book called The Declaration of Independence merely a dozen years ago that's still available for purchase and used bookstores and garages everywhere across America. But, I mean, are we finally seeing a kind of breakdown, not of the two-party system, because it's always going to be two parties, but the way that Republicans and Democrats talk about the constellation of issues that define them. Is this the end of the road for that iteration? I mean, I think when the end comes, it will come maybe more quicker than people think. But I wouldn't bet on it happening like the next five or 10 years, right? I mean, in some ways, the parties have become more efficient about building their electoral coalition. It's kind of a remarkable fact that in American politics, each party gets about half the vote. If you get like 48% versus 52%, it's like considered almost a landslide these days. And it's amazing, I mean, according to, and if these analyses are wrong, explain why. But in 2016, it was about 80,000 votes across three states that changed. And it was about 40,000 votes across three states in 2020. In a country with 300 billion, not billion, excuse me, million people, right? It's remarkable that elections are that close, right? Has to do with the efficiency in some ways of the political system. But they do it by enforcing more and more orthodoxy, right? There's no a priori reason why your view on taxation and abortion and Gaza and marijuana legalization and other issues needs to be tied together. But you kind of flatten out this multi-dimensional space into two parties. One difference now versus a couple of decades ago is that the public intellectuals, or maybe it's too generous a term, right? But like the pundits are more partisan than the voters. They're the ones who enforce partisan orthodoxy. And if you're somebody who, look, I'm basically a good center left liberal, right? In most rooms, I feel, in some rooms in New York, I feel like I'm the more conservative person, but in this room probably one of the most woke people. You're practically a stooge of the Soviet Union here. Yeah, exactly. I suspect, yeah. But if you kind of break from orthodoxy, there's a very efficient policing of people who piss inside the tent and dissent from the coalition and have the credibility to say that out loud, right? Because you can influence people if you're willing to speak your mind. I mean, it helps to be established where you're not really afraid of anything. In a way, I mean, if the political parties are becoming more kind of orthodox and kind of enforcing, and they may be losing popular support, but that doesn't really matter in a two-party system because one of them is gonna win. But how does that, you know, if political parties and identities are kind of whimpering to an end, that also seems true of legacy media. By legacy media, I mean, I guess corporate media or like big media from a few years ago, which all of which seems to be kind of fumbling over itself. A couple of weeks ago, we saw an outpouring of anger that Vice Magazine, which up until about two weeks ago had been seen as a charnel house of sexual harassment. Suddenly, when it goes bankrupt, then people are like, I can't believe we lost this, you know, the last outpost of great journalism, right? And other things like that happened, you know, when Sports Illustrated finally went belly up. The LA Times newspaper that literally nobody read, you know, is cutting off, you know, cutting staff. What's going on with the legacy media? And is that in any way tied to what's going on in the political identity space? No, look, in an effort to be kind of nuanced and textured, I think it's 80% secular economic forces where you have this advertising bundle that was very powerful and that like kind of probably, you know, wasn't like a natural occurrence per se. It was like kind of a form of economic rent, more or less, that subsidized the industry. And look, again, my parents are like, they would walk down to the store and buy the New York Times, even growing up in Michigan and things like that. I respect traditional journalism, but like, I think it's most an economic story. It's hard because, you know, I think journalism does create, in theory, social utility. I'm not sure I think that journalism should be funded by governments, although it is in many countries.