Redistricting Wars: Is It Wise to Fight Fire with Fire? Lessons from a Heated Dialogue.
Redistricting Wars: Is It Wise to Fight Fire with Fire? Lessons from a Heated Dialogue.  
Podcast: Talkin‘ Politics & Religion Without Killin‘ Each Other
Published On: Mon Aug 11 2025
Description: Principles, Polarization, and the Perils of Partisan Shaming. Let's dive into the heated “Redistricting Wars” in Texas, California, and other states. Using David French’s framework of “Is it legal? Is it ethical? Is it wise?”, Corey examines the legal, moral, and strategic angles of mid-decade redistricting. From explaining the political strategies behind Texas’s proposed map changes to defending California’s independent redistricting commissions, Corey makes the case for more competitive, purple districts. He also shares a candid and sometimes heated social media exchange about whether sticking to democratic principles is the right approach when political opponents “fight dirty.” *CORRECTION: Corey incorrectly referred to a conversation with Dr. Matthew D. Taylor. Corey incorrectly stated his first name as Michael instead of Matthew. What Is Discussed: Why Texas’s mid-decade redistricting is technically legal but ethically questionable How California’s independent commissions foster competitive districts The strategic risks of over-gerrymandering The dangers of toxic partisanship and abandoning core principles Why persuasion works better than shaming in political discourse Episode highlights: [00:02:00] Applying the “legal, ethical, wise” framework to Texas’s actions [00:04:00] Why breaking redistricting norms is dangerous [00:07:00] Why Corey doubts Texas will gain five seats through gerrymandering [00:08:00] California’s purple districts and independent commissions [00:12:00] Polling on overturning California’s commission system [00:14:00] A revealing online exchange about principles vs. partisanship [00:21:00] The problem with labeling all Trump voters as enemies of democracy [00:27:00] Sticking to nonviolent, principled engagement during political urgency [00:33:00] Why respectful persuasion beats moral grandstanding Featured quotes: “Is it legal? Is it ethical? Is it wise? That’s how I’m looking at this whole thing.” “We need more purple districts—places where voters have to talk to each other, not just live in partisan silos.” “We don’t abandon our principles when it’s convenient or when we think it’s urgent.” “If your approach is to shame people into agreeing with you, you’re not persuading anyone—you’re pushing them away.” Resources mentioned: Reuters article on Texas redistricting fight: www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-led-texas-redistricting-gambit-ignites-national-arms-race-control-congress-2025-08-05/ Politicology with Ron Steslow and Mike Madrid: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cartographic-warfare-the-weekly/id1514968525?i=1000721241146 📣 Calls to Action: ✅ TELL A FRIEND ABOUT TP&R!!! Bring more folks into the conversation. ✅ Subscribe to Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other on your favorite podcast platform. ✅ Leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen: ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics ✅ Check out our substack: coreysnathan.substack.com ✅ Watch the full conversation and subscribe on YouTube: youtube.com/@politicsandreligion 🔗 Connect on Social Media: Corey is @coreysnathan on... Bluesky LinkedIn Instagram Threads Facebook Substack TikTok Our Sponsor: Meza Wealth Management: www.mezawealth.com Thanks for tuning in! Now go talk politics and religion—with gentleness and respect. 🎙️✨