MAGA - Trump trumps Harris

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

Suffs!

The new musical has made Tony award-winning history on Broadway.

We demand to be home!

Winner, best score!

We demand to be seen!

Winner, best book!

We demand to be quality!

It's a theatrical masterpiece that's thrilling, inspiring, dazzlingly entertaining, and unquestionably the most emotionally stirring musical this season.

Suffs!

Playing the Orpheum Theater, October 22nd through November 9th.

Tickets at BroadwaySF.com.

BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, Podcasts.

Hello, and welcome to Strong Message here from BBC Radio 4, a journalist and a comedy writer's guide to the use and abuse of political language.

It's Helen Lewis in Washington, D.C., and it's Armadianucci in Abunka in London.

The polls have closed in the US and we have a result.

And Amanda, you had a phrase that you think well sums up really the last decade of politics in America.

Oh, can I voice that on air?

Inevitably, we're going to go this week with the phrase make America great again, or actually MAGA.

And I think there is a distinction between the toes.

So, Helen, tell us a little bit about the provenance of Make America Great Again, which we will be hearing relentlessly, I'm sure, for the next four weeks four months four years so um the republican party was pretty miserable after the second loss to barack obama they thought everything's going against us you know these are two very resounding victories the demographics of america are changing in ways that don't favor us and and one of the things that happened was that donald trump started brainstorming what a kind of great slogan could be and he started off thinking well maybe i'll say make america great but he thought that was too pessimistic and then he ended up borrowing essentially an old ronald reagan slogan ronald's Reagan's version was let's make America great again.

And being a good marketing guy, he just chopped a bit off, slimmed it down, and it became Make America Great Again.

And it has had enormous success.

You know, probably the quintessential symbol of Trump support is the red MAGA hat.

And you will see them all over the place at his rallies.

And there's now, you know,

there's now a kind of franchise operation.

So forgive me for using a very fancy radio 4 word so early in the morning, but in the peroration of his speeches, the bit when he's sort of coming to the end to signal that this is you know that but actually to people that they should start looking for their keys and you know finally they're going to get to go to balloo if the star he's yeah right he says i'm going to make america wealthy again i'm going to make america healthy again you know and there's he can add in adjectives as required and then the last one is and i'm going to make america great again crowds go wild you know car park immediately fills up so he's he's kind of got a sort of extended cinematic universe now of different adjectives that he can slot into it but the formulation is the same.

It's tapping into an idea that things aren't very good now and there's a sort of time in the past where they were better that we should reclaim.

I mean, as we all wake up to the results and pour over what happened, the evidence is that it works, isn't it?

If you just stick to a phrase that people buy into, that people get, and I think that's what happened with Get Brexit done.

They kind of understood what that meant.

They understood the implication behind it.

It felt direct and immediate and it was a good answer to a complicated question.

So it's worked, hasn't it?

Oh, definitely.

And I mean, you know, you can see it on the other side of the aisle, too.

Barack Obama, do you remember the famous Shepherd fairy poster of him that just said hope?

You know, that was much parodied, but I think it's always quite a good sign for a political slogan when it's parodied because it means A, that everybody's heard it and they understand it, and B, that it's got some, you know, there's a solidity there that you can mock.

And against it, against it was turn the page, which was stolen from Kia Starma.

So

look at the source.

I think these phrases work where there's an element of truth behind them.

I don't mean that, you know, Trump had sound policies and Kamala Harris had bad ones, but he was confident that that phrase connected with a lot of people's personal experience.

And maybe turn the page is difficult for a sitting vice president of an administration to say.

I think you've nailed it actually because Harris's other big phrase was, we're not going back.

Yeah.

And I did have to sit through a rally in which she said in her speech, why are we not going back?

Because we're going forward.

Yeah.

Which was not the soaring heights of oratorical brilliance that I was hoping for.

But you're right.

Like it did deeply connect with people who, you know, and I think if you're going to see this election as anything, it is an anti-incumbent election.

You know, the people that I talked to who are voting for Trump were often doing so on economy grounds.

You know, they thought, particularly, inflation had been really bad.

And the second half of that, the important second half of that, is all the lurid stories about things in the media they thought were completely overblown.

So there was two things.

There was, I think I was richer four years ago, and I don't believe you when you tell me that this guy is an authoritarian.

The funny thing is that his approval ratings during his first term were not great, right?

People have...

People did not think he was making America great again at the time, and in fact voted him out of office in 2020.

But hey, Presto, four years later, you can pick up that slogan as once again, a kind of inversion of the Barack Obama change slogan, right?

It's once again, things are wrong and I'm going to fix them.

But what is it saying about us?

And I use us to mean everybody, not just you and me, but that's a separate question.

What does it say about us in the media?

That we completely got this wrong.

I mean, the general coverage of Trump was, isn't he an idiot?

Look at him stumbling there.

Look at him not answering the question.

Look at the people leaving his rallies.

And look at the people around him and the policies they really want to enact.

Now, that doesn't seem to be what people are looking for.

They're they're looking for a

kind of appetizing, simple message.

And the prize goes to whoever seems to be able to deliver it convincingly enough, irrespective of what their policies and their ground plan and their get out the vote scheme is.

Yeah, I mean, a get out the vote scheme is very interesting because Trump really did not have a very impressive ground game in terms of canvassing and door knocking.

He relied very much on the rallies to do the work for him.

Uh and he relied on being outrageous at the rallies in order to earn him, you know, free free media appearances.

But it's interesting there.

You use the phrase the media.

I've been thinking about this a lot in the last couple of days.

And there has been a lot of soul-searching about what the media did wrong.

And I think we need to be really careful about that because there are in America two completely different medias that do not meet in the middle at all now.

You know, there's the one we traditionally think of, which is the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, even Fox to some extent.

And then there is an entirely different sealed ecosystem that you just only hear the pro-Trump stuff from and I'm talking about things like you know whether it might be the Daily Wire or newsletters on the sub stack or in online influencers.

But I'd also say that you can dive into a swimming pool full of just pro-liberal pro-Harris coverage and think, oh, this is this, I agree with all this, this chimes with what I'm thinking, this is going to be all right.

I'm watching the coverage on X, as I now will call it, and it was a combination of people saying, don't believe what you're seeing on the streets.

We know the Latino vote is high.

We're going to do this from the Democrats and Muskelites saying, she's cooked.

You can just tell.

But what there wasn't were facts.

It's all opinion competing to get to become the loudest.

And that seems to be, there is, I think there are two medias, but there's one type of media that we watch, and it's disparagingly called the mainstream media or the legacy media.

It's just media.

And there's the other, which is the social media.

And I think we have a tendency in the legacy media to disparage it and to think that that's not quite right.

It's not quite accurate.

You know, I love making jokes about Musk and his control over X and his foisting of opinions on us when he claims to make it equitable and fair and balanced.

You know, I enjoy making the jokes, but actually, that is how a lot of people interpret the world.

That is where they get their facts from.

And are we,

you know, speaking as someone who is, you know, pensionable adjacent, are we actually making a huge mistake just telling ourselves that, you know, as long as we, you know, reaffirm the ability and the connection that we can, the coverage that the BBC does, the newspapers have journalists, they look at the facts and so on.

That's fine, but that's not actually what people are doing in the way they pick up the news.

I think the bit that the legacy media, which I think is a better phrase for it, because actually that's, it's as if some sort of terrible event happened in 2010.

And then there were two kind of, there's like a Cretaceous era and, you know, a new one, maybe the asteroid hit.

Yeah, sort of compacted piles of the observer and the Sunday Telegraph.

Compressed to diamond hard thickness

of the Earth.

No, but you're right.

What the new media has done a lot better.

And I think some of it's social, but I think it's also now institutional too.

There are big journalistic institutions that are, you know, very pro-Trump, very online.

They've harnessed the power of personality and they've made news into a form of entertainment much more successfully successfully than old-fashioned text-based writers have done.

That's the other shift that has been missed.

For people like us who love language, there is something slightly sad about the fact that newspaper readership is declining, magazine readership is declining, television viewership even to some extent is declining.

People are consuming their media in sort of 30-second gobbits or three and a half hour long podcasts.

What that really privileges is entertainers.

And Trump's use of language is always entertaining.

It's unexpected and surreal surreal and often offensive in a way that therefore forces people to pay attention to it.

Yeah, I mean, he always has been the showman.

He's a salesman.

That's what he does.

He sells himself.

He sells his ego.

He sells his thoughts.

Like you said, he's kind of focus grouped a phrase before deciding to go with the one that he then instinctively thought would work best, which is, you know, make America great again.

But this morning, Musk trumped, You Are the Media Now,

which is his declaration actually that the media is no longer experts or specialists in their field or journalists who

take up a professional career reporting the facts or analyzing them, but it is a kind of, it's an aggregate of what everyone is expressing, as if somehow that aggregate will be the perfect distillation of world opinion.

And he calls X the world in a town square.

But if you imagine the noise putting the whole world in a town square would make, surely it needs one or two people to say, the gentleman over there, the lady there, what do you have to say?

Rather than just listening to this wall of noise, it implies actually that there is no median in between.

There is no filter via someone who at least can help you find the bit of information you're looking for or the facts that you want to examine.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's slightly different, which is I think it's now that you just pick a person and you listen to them.

Yeah.

We don't have the, you know, you just go, Elon Musk seems, you know, he does rocket ships.

He must be a smart guy.

I'm just going to kind of listen to everything that he says.

Yeah.

But, you know, I'm sure that happened, that happens on the, you know, on the other side of the aisle, too.

There are just these big personalities.

Talk, talk, talk.

You know, both the candidates swerved traditional media interviews and went on these sort of podcast circuits as well.

And it's, you know, you would have said 10 years ago that Trump went on the Joe Rogan podcast, the most popular podcast in the world.

And he said the phrase, I want to be a whale psychiatrist.

And you would have said 10 years ago, if the candidate was rambling about his beliefs about the mental problems of whales a week out from the vote, well, that's not someone who's going to win.

But we are now in this era of talk.

We're actually just constantly, Steve Bannon, his former strategist, call it...

slightly redacted version, I'm going to say, flooding the zone.

You know, what happens now?

The most successful politicians, they don't worry about gaffes.

You do a gaffe today, just talk more tomorrow.

Say something different tomorrow.

Change the subject.

Keep going out.

Flood the zone.

I'm going to use the word garbage then for that because that's precisely what happened.

So we had the Trump rally in Madison Square Garden.

People again, Twitter, ex, social media lighting up saying it's over for Trump.

He's gone too far.

This is his Sheffield moment, which is an obscure reference, but the older listeners among us will get that.

And all centering on that joke that a comedian made about Puerto Rico and garbage.

That's it, it's over.

Next day, along comes Biden, remember him,

who does that old political trick of

use a key word that's in the news and then fling it back.

So him saying, you know, I'll tell you who's garbage, supporters are garbage.

He claims it was supporter apostrophe S, as in that comedian is garbage.

But that's a kind of old analogue political rebuttal, which is take something, you know, you criticise me.

Go on, criticize me, say something, say something.

Am I simply too good at podcasting?

I'll tell you who's good.

I'll tell you who's good.

But over good is you.

You're just over good.

There's too much good.

You know, it's just take the word and fling it back, and everyone cheers.

But that's old school.

What Trump then did the next day was the new school, which is take the word.

Everyone's talking about it.

It's not going to go away.

How can I own it?

So he turns up in a garbage truck.

In high-viz.

In high-vis.

He had difficulty getting in.

So all the comedians said, isn't it funny?

He can't get in.

But people remember, there's a garbage truck now that's going around.

And so somehow, you know, politics has been reduced to who owns the word garbage in the final week of a US presidential election.

I thought that was an interesting example because the other thing that has happened in language terms this election is just an embrace of everything you throw at me, I'm going to sort of absorb, and then, like a kind of superhero, just then use it to sort of blast out radiation back again.

And that was a very good example of that.

I think you're right.

The left got very excited that, well, Puerto Ricans, you know, can't vote if they live in Puerto Rico, but those of them who live on the mainland US can.

And, you know, you've offended a sort of vital voting block.

And actually, that just really did not come through at all in the votes, as far as we can see.

And I wonder what that, or the other thing that did it precisely that, the fling it back at them, is footage of Trump saying, nobody leaves my rallies as the camera panned around and showed empty seats.

And if you think, well, if you've reached that point where you can say something that clearly isn't actually true and can be factually proven not to be true, and still that chimes, it's saying something I think about how we now view politics, language and reality in that it's now about well whatever appeals really at this stage we're so tired and stressed I'll just take anything that just ticks the boxes

I was going to make the point when you talked about the Puerto Rican community.

As I was listening to the results coming coming in, the analysts were saying, well, the numbers, the Latinos didn't come out in the way that the Harris campaign wanted them to.

The black vote was down for...

Are we now actually reaching that point where we're fed up with labels?

You know, if I, you know, watching the UK election and heard, you know, well, the Scottish-Italian vote isn't firm enough for, you know, Starmer or Davy or whoever,

I'd think, what's the Scottish-Italian vote?

What's, you know, I'm a person, you know, I'll make my own decision.

And I wonder whether there is either a naivety in the way political operations work and in the way political coverage works.

We're still trying to package people in groups and think that certain groups with certain labels all move and think the same way.

I think that's right.

I mean, you can draw broad demographic trends in America, particularly because of the salience of race here, but it is overblown.

And there is a word that pollsters have started to use in the last couple of weeks, which is race debt.

So if if you're reading nerdy polling forums, which I will be,

you're about to hear that.

But that means racial depolarization.

And that reflects the idea that actually lots of particularly young minority men appear to, from the exit polls, appear to have moved towards Trump.

So, you have this paradox where you have a candidate who is regularly attacked for being racist, and minorities say, well, it doesn't seem very racist to me, or, or like, it's all just, oh, well, it's just words, isn't it?

He's not really going to back it up with anything.

And then, on the other side of the aisle, you mentioned the word Latinum.

That's really interesting.

I lived through the time in the first Trump presidency when progressives were trying to replace that word because it's gendered, right?

Latino and Latino.

Oh, yes.

And they said, well, let's have this new word, Latinx.

Latinx.

So the word Latinx.

Latinx day.

I never understood it.

Right.

No one did.

Absolutely.

No one did.

And actually, almost everybody in the US who would have fallen under that label rejected it.

They didn't see it as describing themselves.

They saw themselves as Hispanic or they saw themselves as Cuban or whatever a particular whatever their surname was.

Right, or just exactly, just as Juan or whatever it was, like I'm just me.

Politicians will start calling them voltoids

in the next election.

We're not getting the voltoids that we were looking for.

And I just think that, you know, it's a really interesting example of something that you can't do with language, which is you cannot...

you know, we always sort of talk a bit as if the media or politicians can kind of influence people.

And influence is exactly it.

They cannot dictate.

And if people don't recognise something, then actually attempts to change language can then often backfire because people feel that they're being spoken down to or nannied or patronized or ordered to do something.

And they just reject it automatically.

There was this attempt to launch a new word when Harris became the nominee, which was joy.

And it sort of spluttered because I don't think people felt joy.

I think if you were a Democrat or you were a Biden supporter and Harris, you would have felt, oh, a there's a younger candidate there's a fresh face there's a you know this is shaking the race up but that attempt to try and almost like resuscitate the the tiredness in America by just saying joy it's always struck me as as as slightly odd I know they use the word weird about Trump and and the Republicans but it did seem odd to jump around saying joy when you know people were hurting yes I think that's that was that did risk coming across as tone deaf if you think that people's anxieties about the economy and immigration were real and very salient to them than just saying everyone's happy it's amazing unfortunately I think it was an attempt to try and recapture the feeling that the Democrats had when Obama had a you know really

sizable victory in 2008 and delivered the country its first black president.

And I think there's a whole generation of people for whom that was such a wonderful moment in their lives where they suddenly felt so good about everything that they wanted to recapture it.

But the obverse of that is that, you know, lots of people, Barack Obama's term was the worst thing that ever happened to them.

They hated him.

They hated it.

They hated the Democrats.

And now you have this fascinating finding where, you know, lots of the time when people were asked, you know, do you think this is going to be our kind of last election?

Is democracy on the ballot?

That was a Democrat argument.

Yes.

And now in the last week, Elon Musk, who I'm afraid we will keep talking about over the next couple of years because he's simply unavoidable.

Yeah, until he gets off the planet.

But I think that's going to take some time.

Exactly.

Into the vacuum of space.

But, you know, he was saying that unless Trump wins, this is going to be the last election that we'll ever have.

Yes, both sides were accusing each other of being dictatorial and democracy crushers, really.

I also want to look at

the fact that in amongst all this, you know, the concentrating on words, on keywords, and just hammering them again and again.

Of course, what gets lost is detail,

you know, policy announcements, detail.

I mean, Harris would argue that she did make those, but she clearly had a problem.

Well, no, she didn't, though.

There's at least 12 12 quite serious issues on which she just no commented and

would not answer about.

So you're right again this is very much a vibes-based election.

That's right and I think it kind of crystallizes a pattern I've seen you know the last five or ten years in elections which is politicians using the media in such a way that they veer towards the safer questioning and maybe even a form of interview over which they have more control and away from the arbitrary, I don't know what I'm going to get asked now here.

And I've seen it more and more when politicians are put on the spot with a difficult question.

Either they have a go at the reporter, I mean, Trump was asked about violence on the eve of the election when he said, you know, when he was asked,

will you tell your supporters not to be violent?

He went, no, my supporters aren't violent.

My supporters aren't.

He could have left it there.

My supporters aren't violent.

But he went then, but you're the violent one.

You asked me the question about violence.

You're the one who believes in violence.

It's that throwing it back at, you know, that's a reporter.

The reporter's job is to ask that sort of question.

But are we kind of losing that sense of

the job reporters do and see it more as, no, what you do is you get your people to ask the question so that our candidate can then have a better way of explaining what it is they believe.

You know, it's a much more comfortable environment, it's a safer space for them in which they can get their message out much more clearly.

And that's used by both sides, used both sides here, and it's very much used both sides in America, hence the three-hour Joe Rorgan podcasts.

Yeah, I'm afraid

you don't get me onto this subject unless you want to just hear wall-to-wall misery.

Because, you know, there's been a lot of people will, I think, post-this election will complain about the media and why didn't the media do X and why didn't the media do Y.

And the fact is that the media just does not have the power that it once did.

You know, there was a very nice guy at one of the round tables who stood up and asked Donald Trump a question about January 6th, about the insurrection and the violence at the Capitol in DC.

And people were like, credit to this guy for asking something that no reporter has managed.

and you will you know I'm obviously very defensive about my profession but it was like when when was when were we supposed to do this you know he doesn't do press conferences he doesn't take questions at rallies he hasn't sat down for an adversarial interview with the TV network there's no you know you can shout it at his departing back all you want but he's under no obligation to answer and his victory has now taught him that that was entirely correct strategy to pursue you know yeah and therefore that will compound it and and you know all sides will pick up on that and and go well that's clearly what we have to do next time um before we go i'm going to have to ask you about how you personally lost Wisconsin for Kamala Harris.

So this is what I was saying about media,

because this is actually,

I think we all have to ask ourselves, you know, how at fault are we for not covering this in an objective way?

I was asked about two months ago to do a help in a fundraiser for the Democrats in Wisconsin.

They were going to do a table read with the cast of Veep of the episode in which Selena finds out that she's she's become the president.

And I thought that'd be fun, that'd be good, that'd be interesting, interested in politics, be interested to see what's going on.

But also I want to just nail this thing.

There'd been press coverage of the similarity between, you know, the fictional character played by Julia Louis Dreyfus and Kamala Harris.

I wanted to do something that said Kamala Harris is not Selena Meyer.

In the end, I was right in that Selena Meyer became president.

You know, so that was my motivation.

And it was very jolly.

And we raised money for the Wisconsin Democrats.

As on my way here to do this recording, I hear that Trump finally became officially the president because he won Wisconsin from the Democrats.

Now, I'm not taking the blame for Donald Trump winning the election.

If blame is a thing you want to apportion, you might want to say

we can celebrate you.

Yes, thank you for delivering this.

You know, because, you know, we look at all sides.

But it does make me ask myself, what were we doing?

You know, how does that look?

How does it look?

It happens a lot in America where people who are on your television every night, chat show hosts, musicians, endorse candidates.

What does that say to half the people watching who disagree?

It's telling them that even your media is not yours.

It belongs to another set of beliefs or a set of principles or whatever.

I think it reaffirms that disconnect between

what the official media or the high-profile media are saying and actually what people are thinking.

How are you going to win people over if that's your starting point?

Yeah, I mean, I had some really interesting interactions with Trump voters during my reporting in Pennsylvania, many of whom were completely delightful.

And I think that they do feel that they are badly caricatured by people who they then see as being extremely snooty, you know, and they and they think that they often feel there's a kind of class dimension to it, that people who know the right fork to use think that they're, you know, yokels and dumbasses.

And it is a very powerful motivating force to then go, well, you know sod you then i'm i'm going to vote for the candidate that you hate you know see how you like it now who's in charge now you know and i think there's a there's a kind of form of rebellion to it but yeah yeah i mean your instinct is if somebody calls you hey you're a fascist you're not going to go oh hang on oh maybe i you know you're going to go what

what yeah but the thing that's interesting about the way that fascist was used is that there was obviously it's a very loaded word and the democrats tiptoed around it for a long time meanwhile there was a joke that was rejected from madison square garden Imagine how bad that joke has to be, about whether or not, you know, Camelaris is a C-word, and by that I mean, of course, communist.

We also have to get out this idea that the kind of insults and the snobbishness only goes one way.

Absolutely.

You could put together any speech of Trump would say America's carnage, chaos, people are savages, you know, she's a nut job.

She, you know, insults abound, but people have come to accept that as part of the music of his persona.

There's a whole other podcast to do about the one-sidedness in that certain politicians are expected to follow the rules of discourse while others are allowed to subvert them.

It all comes down to wrestling.

I think it all comes down.

So wrestling has this very useful idea of the face, you know, the hero and then the heel.

I suppose the closest we ever got in Britain was when, do you remember Wolf from Gladiators, the original series of Gladiators?

And he walked on and he had the mullet and like, you know, everyone booed, but you enjoyed that he was the kind of comic book villain of it.

And I think certain politicians have managed, through language, to embrace that as their persona.

And then you're right, the face has to play by the rules and listen to the referee, but the heel's job is to come on and be and just smash through that.

And I think that certain politicians have found that a really useful persona for them.

And of course, Trump was the only sport he did when he was at college was wrestling.

And he was long associated with a,

I forget now what the acronyms are for the Wrestling Federations of America.

They keep changing, but he's long been associated with that.

And I think you're right.

I think it's just grab the other person by whatever is available as hard as possible and throw them.

And, you know, going back to the language thing, I think it's now whoever is the loudest is the one who's hurt rather than whoever is the most well-thought through or the most articulate.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's true.

I'm going to ask if you have any other word that you would like to bring to the table this morning.

I've used up all my words.

The one I would like to bring to you is:

do you remember the resistance?

Oh, yes.

Was that the first Trump?

Yes.

Yeah.

After the first Trump win in 2016, you know, anguished liberals branded themselves as the resistance.

And maybe the highest profile, you know, sort of outpouring of this was the so-called pussy hat march, the march on Washington by women with those pink hats.

But it mutated into something that I think was slightly unhelpful, which was this slightly grandiose belief that they were like the sort of maquis during the Second World War, whereas actually what most people were doing was living otherwise quite normal lives, but maybe giving, you know, $10 to a non-profit occasionally.

That's right.

And in the end, you know, what kind of hat you wear and how many of you turn out,

it allows you, I think, to, you know, declare yourself and so on.

But in the end, it doesn't change the discourse.

It doesn't change the vote.

It

doesn't affect the policies.

Oh, there is one phrase I want to bring.

It's dark MAGA, which Elon Musk has been using.

What does that mean, dark?

I mean, that sounds, I mean, he already is, you know, a prototype, the typical kind of bond villain.

You know, I've got rockets.

I'm the richest man in the world and I've got rockets.

And I'm now, you know, a good friend of the next president of the United States.

So dark MAGA just sounds like he's almost been willfully scary.

I think that really is a brand new thing, which is basically he managed to get a black MAGA hat rather than a red MAGA hat.

And then it flows from that.

And then he got one with a slightly different font.

And then that was dark Gothic MAGA.

Right.

So this is what I mean about the kind of franchise one.

Yeah, because all done to merch, basically.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

At some point, we'll have the Comic Sans MAGA.

We'll have the, you know, Helvetica MAGA.

These are all flavours of MAGA that are available.

The only news that is available will be stuff written on MAGA hats, and that's it.

That's it.

That's how I get all my news these days.

Yep.

Okay, thanks very much for listening to Strong Message here.

I will be back next week.

That's all for now.

All our episodes are available in our feed, so make sure you subscribe on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts.

Goodbye.

Goodbye.

Hello, I'm India Raxon, and I just want to quickly talk to you about witches.

In this series from BBC Radio 4, simply titled Witch, I'm going to explore the meaning of the word today.

It is a twisting, turning rabbit warren of a world, full of forgotten connections to land and to power, lost graves, stolen words, and indelible marks on the world.

Because the story of the witch is actually the story of us all.

Come and find out why.

On Witch with me in Dirakerson.

Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Want to stop engine problems before they start?

Pick up a can of C-Foam Motor Treatment.

C-Foam helps engines start easier, run smoother, and last longer.

Trusted by millions every day, C-Foam is safe and easy to use in any engine.

Just pour it in your fuel tank.

Make the proven choice with C-Foam.

Available everywhere, automotive products are sold.

Seafoam!

Sucks!

The new musical has made Tony award-winning history on Broadway.

We demand to be home!

Winner, best store.

We the man to be seen.

Winner, best book.

We the man to be quality!

It's a theatrical masterpiece that's thrilling, inspiring, dazzlingly entertaining, and unquestionably the most emotionally stirring musical this season.

Suffs!

Playing the Orpheum Theater October 22nd through November 9th.

Tickets at BroadwaysF.com