‘Drift’: A Conversation with Rachel Maddow

Turning the subject matter of Drift into a laugh-studded discussion is no small task, but Rachel Maddow manages to keep it light yet substantive.

Despite the huge crowd, bright lights, and lavish theater setting, Rachel Maddow’s book tour event, “A Conversation with Rachel Maddow”, mostly feels like a conversation. The Riverside Theater’s stage is set with two cozy armchairs separated by a floor lamp and coffee table, looking more like a college study lounge than a Milwaukee landmark. Guests filter in, listening to the college-friendly music coming from the speakers (Feist, Ben Folds, and Vampire Weekend) while chatting with friends or leafing through Maddow’s new book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, as they find their places among the 2,000 theater seats. The atmosphere is casual but distinctly energized, with a bright, impassioned audience ready to engage.

Before the show, pockets of applause erupt as notable guests arrive, including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett; clearly, the crowd is awake. Still, I wasn’t prepared for the explosive standing ovation Maddow would elicit when she took the stage. Like many, I’m a fan of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show; I respect her intelligence (she’s a Rhodes Scholar), and I’m charmed by her trademark “adorkable” humor. But who knew she was a bona fide superstar? Upon hearing the whoops and hollers, she humbly laughs it all off, implying that this is a conversation, not a rock concert. “Have you guys met each other?” she asks, joking that since she was raised Catholic, she felt we should offer each other the sign of peace, Sunday mass-style.

This is a cute way to start the evening. It sets the tone; after all, “catholic” means “universal”, and the sign of peace invites churchgoers to express their mutual love and respect for each other through contact. Throughout the event, Maddow stresses the importance of intelligent discourse, mutual respect, and human connection to improve America. She says we should use our ideological differences to solve problems, not to victimize one another. America should go to war as a nation (if we go at all), not simply ship troops off and forget about them, letting the decision-making process slip away from us. We should expect more from Congress, ourselves, and each other. We should all be in this together.

Of course, she doesn’t say all that upfront; she just makes a pithy joke about Catholicism and then answers the first, easygoing interview question: “What cocktail goes best with Drift?” Everyone laughed. Maddow – ever the witty mixologist – answers “a French 75”, named after a French artillery piece. She lists the ingredients with the animation of a Food Network star and the intimacy of a charming party host.

Roughly half the discussion is devoted to Drift and the American military, while the rest revolves around Wisconsin politics, her MSNBC show, and her own musings and advice. (The evening’s final question is, how can young people actively create the world they want to live in?) Notably, many of these questions are written by audience members and chosen by the event host, Next Chapter Bookshop owner Lanora Haradon Hurley. Even before the show, we are invited to engage via e-mail.

Turning the subject matter of Drift into a laugh-studded discussion is no small task, but Rachel Maddow manages to keep it light yet substantive. When describing how America began to drift from a nation fully involved during wartime – sending reservists, guardsmen, enlisted soldiers, draftees, and some professional military members overseas when necessary – to a country separated from the process of war, she reflects on President Lyndon Johnson’s choice to increase the Vietnam War draft to purportedly avoid distressing Americans. The audience titters. Imagine, our laughter implies, increasing the draft not to worry anyone.

During the talk, Rachel Maddow takes the funny/ distressing/ interesting tactic elsewhere. She shows particular glee in roasting current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for supporting “the concept of equal pay” for equal work while refusing to say if he actually supports the Fair Pay Act. She drew out the word “concept” excessively – “the caaaahcept of equal pay” – practically choking on it with the delivery of a stand-up comedian or, say, the funniest guest at the party. It’s the kind of condescending humor that irks Republicans and woos Democrats even deeper into love. As a moderate liberal, I chuckle.

On the other hand, Wisconsin politics are not so funny. Deafening boos erupted from the Milwaukee audience when the names Scott Walker and Paul Ryan came up. The State has been in the national spotlight for months with its union-related protests and recall elections. When Maddow asks the crowd if we know why America is so fixed on Wisconsin at this time, one bold audience member shouts, “It’s because of you!” The political commentator balks at that a bit, saying modestly that no, really, she feels like just another American watching Wisconsin’s action because the state reminds Democrats of what they – “the people who have to work for a living” – stand for. But America is really watching Wisconsin because of Maddow’s work and others like her. Still, she’s reluctant to accept credit for bringing this issue to the forefront of current political discourse.

Early in the talk, Maddow muses that when she heard Drift would top The New York Times bestseller list for the third consecutive week, she wanted to ask everyone, “Do you guys know what this thing is about?” But that’s the thing: I’m convinced (especially after this event) that if she’d called it The Rachel Maddow Book and philosophized about broad political topics, not how America goes to war, many people would still read it. Her respected work is always thoroughly researched and coherently presented. From where I stand, she uses her considerable powers – her humor, intellect, and warmth – for good. She’d make an excellent poly-sci/history professor.

Rachel Maddow is a super-achiever (she cited the “competitive spirit” as a vital contribution to broad influence) while also easygoing and relatable. She is, after all, a Rhodes Scholar who worked as a landscaper. She’ll admit what she doesn’t know without mentioning Socrates. She’s the liberal cable news anchor who really does want to hear from her disparagers. She seems open, civil…even nice.

Rachel Maddow tells the audience that she doesn’t mind that people disagree with her – what disturbs her is indifference. Whether you agree with Maddow politically or not, she’s working to change the conversation, making it more engaging, inclusive, and civil in spite of ourselves.

RATING 7 / 10