Sep 17, 2026 · 1h 22m
Tarlov makes the case for disagreement without alienation
Trump LOSES IT Over Canada’s New European Alliance (Live from New York)
The conversation connects democratic conflict abroad and political polarization at home to a practical question: how can people argue honestly without destroying relationships?
- 1AI regulation and the U.S.-Canada trade conflict expose competing visions of democratic cooperation.
- 2Jessica Tarlov argues that evidence, composure, vulnerability, and empathy make persuasion more effective than outrage.
- 3The episode treats personal loss and family relationships as essential context for navigating political disagreement.
Don't miss
Jessica Tarlov explains how her father’s illness and death reshaped her understanding of vulnerability, grief, and connection in public arguments.
The brief
Recorded live in New York, Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov move from AI anxiety and political outrage to the worsening U.S.-Canada relationship and the future of democratic alliances.
The political argument widens into a midterm forecast, with the hosts discussing difficult House and Senate contests while weighing how technology, trade, and outrage may shape voters.
Tarlov’s book, I Disagree, supplies the episode’s central framework: change minds rather than convert opponents, use evidence over vibes, and stay composed when disagreement turns personal.
The most revealing turn comes when Tarlov connects her father’s illness and death to the value of vulnerability, showing how personal stories can create solidarity in public conflict.
From television panels to marriage, parenting, grief, and political responsibility, the discussion argues that conviction becomes more persuasive when it leaves room for humanity.
Featuring
Jessica Tarlov
Scott GallowayMentioned
I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends
United States
Fox CorporationBooks & mentions
Listen to the full episode and explore every guest, topic, and moment on PodLume.