Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Debate Over Role Of Smartphones In Teen Mental Illness; California Law Would Protect Workers From After-Hours Demands; Parties Capitalizing On Issues Of Border And Abortion. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired April 06, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much for joining me today. I will see you back here next Saturday at 08:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:29]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: It's time to mingle. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

I want to recommend a new book currently the number one "New York Times" bestseller "The Anxious Generation" written by Jonathan Haidt, who will be here in just a moment. He joins a long list of radio and T.V. guests of mine who've written books that read individually are interesting. But collectively, they fit together like pieces of a puzzle, and they project an alarming finished picture. We're replacing real life human encounters that produce meaningful relationships with inch deep online connections. It's poisoning our politics and harming our kids.

Robert Putnam saw it coming in 2000 when he published "Bowling Alone." Putnam said that a community's level of social capital is determined by relationships forged when we join clubs associated with our neighbors, read local newspapers and yes join a bowling league. He offered suggestions on reconnecting with family and friends and neighbors.

Five years later, and still two years before the release of the iPhone, Richard Louv published "Last Child in the Woods. Louv's focus was on child rearing and encouraged unstructured play. He said it was unhealthy to raise children disconnected from the natural outdoor world. Three years later, it was Bill Bishop's turn with the "Big Sort." Bishop said that we disengaged as a society after Vietnam.

And that when we reengaged in the Internet era, it was along far more narrow lines of interest, making it easier to associate with the likeminded including on matters of politics. Lenore Skenazy published "Free-Range Kids" one year later. You might remember when she made headlines after allowing her nine-year-old to ride the New York City subway alone. She has since championed the Let Grow Movement. She had many of the same themes as Richard Louv.

Enter Charles Murray, who published "Coming Apart" in 2012, wherein he focused on the result of a growing divide between the upper and working class. Murray advanced themes similar to Robert Putnam. He said that when the better off live in secluded gated communities like say Belmont, Massachusetts, they're removed from the poor of Kensington in Philadelphia, and the less fortunate suffer opportunity loss.

Five years later, it was Jean Twenge's turn with "iGen." Twenge's studies generational divide. She observed that 2012 marked the year when more than half of America had cell phones, and noted that it was also the year that Facebook acquired Instagram, the beginning of the selfie era. Twenge said that when adolescents' social lives moved online on the smartphones, mental health plummeted. And affirming Twenge's mental health observations last year, the CDC released an alarming report based on a survey of 17,000 American high school students.

I interviewed Kathleen Ethier, the CDC study director, she told me that in 30 years of collecting similar data, they've never seen anything like it. Fourty-two percent of American high school students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. Two-four percent of American high school girls have actually made a suicide plan.

A prescription for what ails us came last year in the form of yet another book, "The Good Life" by Harvard psychiatrist Robert Waldinger and psychologist Mark Schulz. They describe the longest scientific study of happiness ever conducted. The conclusion? Good relationships keep us happier, healthier and help us live longer.

People satisfied in relationships at age 50 were the healthiest mentally and physically at age 80. Only as a society we're going in the opposite direction. I've interviewed all of these authors and more. You can find every one of the interviews on my website posted under the mingle project. Click on the book jacket, listen to the interview.

There's a consistency to the work, a common thread to all of these findings. We're having too many specialized interactions, usually online, and too few in person common experiences. Internet fueled self-sorting is hardening class division. It's reducing social mobility. It's falsely turning too many of us into political enemies.

I see it as the most important issue of our time. We'll never solve anything consequential if we continue to fray as a society, which brings me to Jonathan Haidt. The social psychologist from NYU is the author of the new book called "The Anxious Generation."

[09:05:07]

Haidt builds on all of the work that I've referenced. He says, we've taught our kids that the real world is a dangerous place, and we become over protected. But we haven't extended those lessons to the virtual world. What's needed? Less supervision in the real world, and more in the virtual world.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website this hour and answer today's poll question at smerconish.com. Agree or disagree, social media use does not just correlate with mental illness, it causes it.

Jonathan Haidt joins me now. His previous books include "The Coddling of the American Mind" and "The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."

Jonathan, so great to have you. Congrats on the success of the book. Why are you so sure as to the cause of adolescent angst where others point to climate change, or political chaos or the economy or war?

JOONATHAN HAIDT, AUTHOR, "THE ANXIOUS GENERATIONS": Well, thanks so much for having me back on, Michael. It's always a pleasure to talk with you. And boy, am I honored to be in that list. I love all those books that you mentioned.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

HAIDT: One, there are so many -- there's so many things lining up to give us increasing confidence that social media, and it's more the phone based childhood in general, is a cause not just a correlate. The simplest reason is that adolescent mental health fell off a cliff in 2012 or 2013, there wasn't much sign of it in 2010, and it was really bad by 2015. And everyone has their theory as to why this might have happened in the United States. But why did the exact same thing happened in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, to some extent in Scandinavia? So all these theories about you know, it was school shootings, or it was something about American politics, they don't make any sense.

Also, climate change wasn't really -- you know, when Greta Thunberg comes out in 2017 and 2018, if everything happened, then then I'd say, OK, you know, climate change that could be a cause for global alarm. But this all happens around 2013. And it's driven especially by preteen girls. I don't think that preteen girls were the main group that was going to be influenced by climate change. So, there is no other alternative theory. There is no theory that the skeptics have proposed that fits international data.

That's the first thing.

SMERCONISH: I want you to respond to the criticism, the critique that was offered in nature this week, I'll put it up on the screen, and I'll read it aloud. This comes from Candace Odgers, who's a psychologist at UC Irvine, she says, "Two things need to be said after reading "The Anxious Generation." First, this book is going to sell a lot of copies because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children's development that many parents are primed to believe."

And this is the part I want you to respond to. "Second, the books repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children's brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science. Worse, the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental health crisis." And by the way, in her piece, she points to the 2008 financial meltdown. What's your response?

HAIDT: Yes. So, once again, the financial meltdown makes no sense, that was 2008. Teen mental health was fine until 2012. And then it's girls, young girls who get depressed so suddenly. So that to me makes no sense.

That's her argument. Her main argument in the essay is that I have mistaken correlation for causation. I'm a social scientist, I know that correlation doesn't imply correlation -- I mean, correlation does not imply causation. I've been in this debate since 2019. In 2019, there was a lot of correlational evidence showing that girls who spent a lot of time on social media are more mentally ill, that doesn't prove causation.

At the time, there weren't a lot of experiments. Now there are. There are -- I've collected 25 experiments, 17 of which show a significant effect. Once we have experimental evidence, and longitudinal studies, and quasi experiments, where you look at what happens to a whole region when the internet comes in, high speed internet comes in at different phases, the evidence keeps lining up and piling up.

So for Odgers to say that there is no -- she says there is no evidence. That's just wrong. I hope that listeners will go to my sub stack after babble.com. I have post after post where Zach Rausch and I, we lay out the international mental health data, we lay out the experimental data. It's not just correlational.

There's now experimental evidence. There's evidence of many kinds.

Oh, and I witness testimony. You ask the kids themselves, what did they think it is? They say it's social media. Meta did a study and they found this out that the kids say Instagram is the worst. So to say that there's no evidence, that I have no evidence just correlational studies, it's just not true.

SMERCONISH: Here's the tightest encapsulation I think from "The Anxious Generation." I'm put this on the screen and read aloud this these are your words, "Gen Z is the first generation to have gone through puberty has hunched over smartphones and tablets, having fewer face to face conversations and shoulder to shoulder adventures with their friends as childhood was rewired, especially between 2010 and 2015, adolescents became more anxious, depressed and fragile. In this new phone based childhood free play attunement and local models for social learning are replaced by screen time, asynchronous interaction and influencers chosen by algorithms. Children are, in a sense, deprived of childhood."

[09:10:30]

That's it in a nutshell, right, Jonathan? What else would you say?

HAIDT: No. Well, that's basically the story. I mean, basically, human beings had a play based childhood from time immemorial. That's what all mammals do, we played a wire up our brains. And then between 2010 and 2015, phones and screens come sweeping in.

Of course, they had, you know, they had computers and T.V. before then. But the smartphone allows them to have it with them all the time, the internet is with you all the time, and you can be online every moment or at least every hour. So things really change.

I'd like listeners to imagine, I mean, here's the -- you know, Odgers thinks that I'm making a very, very strong claim that needs very, very strong evidence. But imagine this claim, suppose we invented a toy, let's call it the Furby (ph) or whatever, one of those things in the 80s. Suppose you learned that this Furby is going to take up about nine hours a day of your child's time, they don't -- they won't go outside much, they won't get as much sleep, they won't spend much time with friends, they won't play, they won't have hobbies, they won't read books, and then you -- somebody proposed, maybe the Furbies will be bad for kids. Are you going to say what a fantastical claim? Oh, my God, how could that be?

So, you know, when you look at the massive rewiring of childhood into activities that are not particularly healthy, I mean, of course it has an effect. And my book shows is that there's all kinds of evidence supporting that claim.

SMERCONISH: Jonathan, tell me one thing parents can do.

HAIDT: The most important thing that parents can do is delay the age at which their child gets immersed in internet culture. We have to protect early puberty especially that's Middle School, ages 10 to 14. And that meant we must protect kids brains in that age. That's when the maximum damage is done, especially for girls. So the most important thing you can do is delay the age at which you give your child a smartphone until high school and delay social media until 16.

And while these sound hard, if you're listening at home, this sound hard to do because your child's going to say, but then I'm the only one. Well, team up with others.

SMERCONISH: Right.

HAIDT: Talk to the parents of your kid's friends, talk to the school. If you do it together, you can break out of these traps.

SMERCONISH: Here's your social media reaction to our conversation and your book, put it on the screen and keep Jonathan here so he can respond as well. There are a lot of factors says Maureen that contribute to mental health issues in children. Blaming social media for everything from climate change to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby only obscures solutions. Quick response from you, Jonathan Haidt.

HAIDT: Oh, sure, of course, there's lots of causes. But when you get a global synchronized change around 2013, there's only -- there's only one theory on the table, and that is the technological change, nothing else fits. I'm not saying it's all that, I'm just saying this is the only thing that can exchange -- that can explain the very rapid change in multiple countries.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Jonathan.

HAIDT: OK.

SMERCONISH: Remember, I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com Answer today's poll question. Agree or disagree, social media use does not just correlate with mental illness, it causes it.

Still to come, so we've been talking about kids being over connected, what about America's workforce being too connected to the office? Workers are getting calls, e-mails and texts 24/7 instead of just during business hours. And several countries have put laws in place to protect them. Now a California assemblyman wants to do the same.

Plus, are Americans nostalgic for the Trump presidency? You wouldn't expect that to be the case given some of the chaos that took place. So why are polls showing Biden's time in office to be seen as so much worse than his predecessor?

Remember, vote on the poll question? Subscribe to the daily newsletter at smerconish.com. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends. Rob Rogers drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:48]

SMERCONISH: Lady Gaga, The Rock, Beyonce, a COVID Vax, Black Panther, SpaceX, good memories from 2017 through 2021. But is America also feeling the nostalgic for Donald Trump? A poll released this week from the Wall Street Journal shows that President Joe Biden is trailing former President Donald Trump in six of the seven battleground states. Trump lost the presidency in 2020 when the election became a referendum on him. Might Biden be suffering the same fate?

Trump's lead is between two and eight percentage points in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina. He maintains that lead even when third party candidates are thrown into the mix. Biden and Trump are tied in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is the outlier and Biden leads by three points if it's a multi candidate ballot in that state.

I read the poll, and I noted two curiosities both in the realm of perception versus reality. First, swing state voters are focused on the economy more so than voters nationwide. Thirty-five percent said the economy and inflation are the most important to their vote. Only 19 percent said that in a journal national survey in February. Further, their perception is that they in their home states are doing better than the nation at large.

[09:20:11]

For example, look at North Carolina, 66 percent said the U.S. economy is not so good or poor, compared to only 33 percent, who said likewise about their own state. Same in Wisconsin where 57 percent see the national picture poorly compared to 49 percent, who feel that way about their own state. And you see the same pattern when you ask people about their own finances versus those of the nation. In other words, people say they're basically doing OK, and their communities are doing OK, but the perception of the national picture is much more dire, which is possible, maybe they live in an area that's doing better than average. But it's less likely if everybody is saying that from Georgia all the way to Arizona.

Perhaps their real life experience doesn't match what they're seeing in the media. And secondly, there was this finding, in every state in the survey, negative views of the President's job performance outweigh positive views by 16 percentage points or more with the gap topping 20 points in four states. By contrast, Trump earns an unfavorable job review for his time in the White House in only a single state. Arizona where negative marks outweigh positive ones by one percentage point.

Here's what the poll actually looks like on this issue. On average, 60 percent disapprove of the job that Joe Biden is doing, 38 percent approve, that's a net of minus 22. Do you see it in the red circle? And on average, 51 percent approve of the job Donald Trump did do, 47 percent disapprove, he's got a net of plus four. That's a huge disparity.

And rather remarkable given that, as I said, 2020 was largely a referendum on Donald Trump and his record and Trump lost that referendum. According to Gallup, Trump's disapproval rating at the time of the 2020 election was 55 percent. So, what explains the change in perception between then and now? Maybe it's in the comparison. Look at Biden's strong disapproval numbers in the Journal poll, strong disapproval, 47 percent, Arizona 45 percent. Michigan, 46 part in Georgia, 46 in Michigan, 48 North Carolina, 47 in Nevada, 48 in Pennsylvania, 47 percent strongly disapprove in Wisconsin, those are terrible numbers for an incumbent.

And while neither of these candidates is anything approaching popular with the electorate at large, Trump's strong disapproval number better than Biden's, 39 in Arizona, 35 in Georgia, 41 in Michigan. Look at the comparison, and so on and so forth, 41 percent in Wisconsin. Again, nothing to brag about, but you'd rather have Trump's job performance numbers than Biden's, which is fascinating to me. I expect Biden's approval to be underwater, you know, with the border, the perception of the economy, the situation in Israel, but I didn't expect him to be perceived as so much worse than Trump's time in office. We have no frame of reference here to know if this is normal, because presidents don't normally serve, lose, and then come back.

Maybe nostalgia is natural. Perhaps if Papa Bush after being defeated by Bill Clinton had come back and run again, we'd have seen the same thing. Or maybe it's the comparison of people's memory of Trump's governance to their perception of Biden in real time, that is now improving Trump's standing.

So often our campaigns are about visions of the future. This time it might be won or lost on recollection of the past. The only thing certain is that the Biden campaign is about to spend a lot of time and a lot of money trying to convince voters that their memories are faulty.

Let's see what you're saying on social media from the world of YouTube. It's not the job he did that's the problem it's the person that's the problem. It's not the job he did, that's the problem. John Burke essentially saying, well, yes, you're asking me about Trump's governance record, but you're not asking me about him personally. That was the referendum issue in 2020, wasn't it?

Up ahead, do your bosses expect you to be reachable 24/7 for calls and e-mails and texts? Has it gotten worse since the uptick in remote work has blurred the lines between office hours and off hours? You're about to meet the California State legislator who's proposing a bill to outlaw such contact. And could the 2024 election all come down to the border versus abortion? These two overriding issues are shaping up to have as much impact as the candidates themselves, I'm going to drill down on both.

Just a reminder go to my website at smerconish.com vote on today's poll question. Agree or disagree, social media use does not just correlate with mental illness, it causes?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:29:41]

SMERCONISH: Does your boss call, e-mail, text when you're not supposed to be on the clock? I'm guilty of that. I once had a radio producer offended that I contacted him on a Sunday night to book a Monday morning guest. He did not last.

Should there be a law against this sort of contact? My next guest thinks so. In the post pandemic world where remote work has become accepted, the lines between work hours and off hours have gotten decidedly blurrier. Some other countries have been enacting measures to protect workers from being on call 24/7. According to "The New York Times," the idea originated in France and has spread in various forms to countries including Canada, Italy, Belgium, the Philippines.

[09:30:23]

Later this year, Australia will implement a new right to disconnect law, allowing workers to reject unreasonable professional communication outside of their regular workday. And now in California, state assemblyman Matt Haney of San Francisco has proposed a bill that would make his state the first in the country to give employees the legal right to ignore non-emergency work communications and demands that fall outside of business hours.

Matt Haney joins me now. He represents California's 17th district. Assemblyman, why can't the market sort this out? The boss who doesn't respect boundaries. He's not going to be able to keep good people. He'll learn his lesson without the intervention of government.

MATT HANEY (D), CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY/PROPOSED BILL PROTECTING WORKERS: It's great to be with you, Michael. As you said, this is something that's been happening in over a dozen countries and is working well. The reason that market can't sort it out is because the technology is always with us. If there's a villain in the story, it's not the bad boss, it's the 24/7 technology and the accessibility that comes with it.

So, if we don't at least have the clarity between the employee and employer about when they're on and when they're off and just require that they have that transparency in conversation, what often ends up happening for folks is they're just always on. The gray area, the lack of clarity means that they don't even have time to put the phone away when they're with their kids at the dinner table.

So, this is just really the consequence of a technology that has left us 24/7 available but shouldn't leave us 24/7 working. And what we're just asking is for policies at these companies, at these employers that work for them, that are flexible, but that are clear.

SMERCONISH: Isn't it at odds with entrepreneurship? I mean, a stone's throw from you. I'm thinking of Steve Jobs and Wozniak in Job's parents' garage, you know, working whatever hours it takes to launch what would become Apple. I mean, can entrepreneurship coincide with what you envision?

HANEY: Well, I think it's an American value to work hard, entrepreneurship. But it's also an American value to have some time with your kids, some time to rest. You know, it used to be that you clocked in. You knew you're working and you clocked out and you had some time with family. That's still very important for people.

People can still work hard. You can still have start-ups. You can still have long hours. But even in those environments, it's important that we are clear with each other about what time we have to ourselves and our families.

This won't conflict with that at all. A lot of the countries that already have this in Europe are thriving including with start-ups and entrepreneurship. And also, I think if we want to compete for these high-skilled workers, they're going to have a choice. They're going to want to go to companies where there is that clarity where they do know they have some time for their kids.

And if we -- if we work people to the bone and give them no time these -- the entrepreneurial companies are going to have a hard time to compete for workers and they're going to have a hard time to make sure that they're competitive with the rest of the world.

SMERCONISH: What about government service? I mean, look at you, and I applaud you, you're up real early on a Saturday morning in San Francisco. You've got one of the jobs where people expect you to constantly be on the clock. So, how would government service be impacted by what you envision?

HANEY: Government service like media I know has long hours and irregular hours but sometimes it's important that we're -- we're clear with our employees and with each other about when they're on and when they're off.

With my employees we've set policies where after work generally they're not contacted. If it's an emergency or scheduling or certain things I need them for that still can happen. So, there's enough flexibility. This is really about clarity and making sure that people don't just find themselves 24/7 always available, never able to put their phone down. I think if we do that, we're going to have a hard time finding workers in government, technology or anywhere else. So, this is just really the consequence of this technology and updating our laws to make sure we have that level of clarity with our employees.

I don't see any problem in implementing this in government. In fact, we're already doing it. So, it definitely can work.

If we don't do it, the lack of clarity, the gray area, even for government, people shouldn't be working 24/7. That should be clear when they're on and when they're off.

SMERCONISH: Let's respond to this social media comment together. I don't see them in advance. From the world of X. Let's see what this person said.

You sent me work emails last night and I'm literally running a marathon -- so this is Amelia who is -- who is running a marathon in Chicago right now, who is calling me out.

And it's true for having sent her a Friday night, you know, email probably wanting to have some graphic developed for -- look, I told -- Matt, I told you up front, I'm guilty as charged.

[09:35:07]

I find it very hard to rein it in. But I'm respectful of what you're saying, that there's got to be time for oneself. Twenty seconds, you get the final word.

HANEY: Well, I hope -- I wish her the best of luck with that marathon. We can make this work. You know, this is -- our current reality of always having our phones, always being available with employers and employees.

Let's at least have a conversation. Let's set the policy that's flexible enough. Let's let people have at least a little time with their kids, with their family where they could put their phone away and be to themselves and get a little rest. It's good for everyone. It's good for our economy.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Matt Haney. Appreciate you being here.

HANEY: Thank you. Thank you. Michael.

SMERCONISH: Amelia, she better -- she better win. She better win after embarrassing me like that. Do you win a marathon? Is there one? I'm a dope. Like is there one?

Yes, I know. I see the -- I see the bumper stickers. Like, what is it 26.2 or some such thing? I'm not a runner. What can I tell you? Do well today, though.

Still to come, Trump and the RNC have turned his remark about auto imports and combating a bloodbath into a rallying cry about the border. Meanwhile, Democrats are thinking they might have a chance to win Florida because abortion is going to be on the ballot. How these two issues are shaping up the 2024 narrative.

And don't forget, vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Sign up for the newsletter when you're there. Agree or disagree? Social media use does not just correlate with mental illness, it causes it.

You're also going to find in my newsletter exclusive content from political cartoonists who are just tremendous like Steve Breen. He drew that for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:09]

SMERCONISH: As the campaign season hit stride each side has a strong get-out-the-vote issue, the border and abortion. First on the border. Donald Trump has turned his offhand bloodbath remark into a campaign slogan. You'll recall Trump caused conniptions back on March 16 when he used the word bloodbath at a rally near Dayton, Ohio.

I said at the time, the context mattered. He used the word after a rant about trade, the Chinese, and the auto industry, and said that there would be a bloodbath if he were not elected.

Now, given the events of January 16, many ignored the context and they feared that it was yet another call for civil unrest. When he first said bloodbath in Ohio, it seemed unscripted. It seemed extemporaneous. But now he's owning it and in a different scenario.

Trump was in the battleground state of Michigan this week appearing at an event in Grand Rapids that was called Stop Biden's Border Bloodbath. And the RNC launched a new Web site called Bidenbloodbath.com.

Go to that site. You're going to read a diatribe against President Biden claiming the -- quote -- "Lives of everyday Americans have been shattered as a direct result of Biden's open border policies."

And then there are tabs for 13 states which seek to track crimes committed by migrants. This despite the fact that researchers at Stanford found that migrants coming into the United States are actually 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated when compared to White American citizens.

The study debunks any claims that immigration leads to more crime and concludes that -- quote -- "Recent waves of immigrants are more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health, far from the rapists and drug dealers that anti-immigrant politicians claim them to be, immigrants today are doing relatively well and have largely been shielded from the social and economic forces that have negatively affected low-educated U.S. born men."

But politically speaking volume is on Trump's side. Think about it. The U.S. border patrol had nearly 250,000 encounters with migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico in December of 2023. That's according to government statistics. Encounters means both apprehensions and expulsions. And for comparison, the population of Cincinnati is 300,000 people. It was the highest monthly total on record, easily eclipsing the previous peak of about 224,000 encounters in May of 2022.

I think the vast majority of migrants coming to the United States are hard-working people seeking a better life for themselves and their families, and/or asylum. I don't think that Mexico is sending us their rapists. Obviously, I need to underscore this, we need to tighten our border. It's porous. But the sheer volume of people coming into the United States almost guarantees that that bloodbath Web site, that the RNC has assembled, it's going to continue to have content. And some of those encounters are going to be high profile.

I hope that I'm wrong. But human factors say otherwise. For example, 25-year-old Ruby Garcia, killed by an undocumented immigrant she was romantically involved with. Garcia's body found on the side of a highway in Grand Rapids, Michigan, last month. Twenty-five-year-old suspect later arrested, charged with murder.

Or the case of Laken Riley, the 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was killed on a college campus by someone who entered the country illegally. The suspect had been arrested back in 2022, but later released according to ICE.

And in Maryland, a toddler killed during a shootout between two groups over a drug dispute. One of the suspects charged in connection to the boy's killing was also here illegally and arrested last year for theft charges.

Finally, an undocumented migrant acquitted, you'll remember this case for the 2015 death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, will be deported to Mexico again.

[09:45:06]

The high-profile case drew national attention after the public learn the suspect had been deported back to Mexico five times in the past. Yes. Because of the sheer volume of those crossing the border, such examples will inevitably keep cropping up and they'll be weaponized to however unfairly demonized all migrants because politically it is very potent.

Now as to abortion, ever since the June 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe and gave the states the right to decide, Democrats have made reproductive rights a core issue. And so far, every time abortion rights have one.

This week came news that the issue will be on the ballot in Florida, which could have big impact on the fall vote. Also, it already has forced Trump to announce that this week he's going to state an official position on the issue, something that he's been avoiding up until now.

The first sign of its power, it was in Kansas less than six week - after Dobbs was over -- had overturned Roe. Remember, Trump had won the state in 2022 56-42. But voters rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed lawmakers to ban abortion by an even wider margin, 59-41. Then came the 2022 midterm in all five states that had abortion-related amendments voters affirmed abortion rights.

In blue states, California and Vermont but also Michigan, voters voted in favor of measures to protect abortion rights. And in red states, Kentucky and Montana, voters rejected amendments that would have further restricted abortion rights.

Then in the election of November 2023, three more Democratic victories in Ohio, which Trump won in 2020 by a 53-45 margin. They resoundingly voted in favor of a constitutional right to abortion, 57 percent to 43 percent.

There were two other state elections that although they did not have abortion measures on the ballot per say, both resulted in affirming reproductive rights. In Virginia where Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin was saying that he was looking to institute a 15-week abortion ban the GOP lost both Houses of the legislature derailing his plan.

And in Kentucky, a state that Trump carried by 26 points with abortion a flashpoint issue, Democratic Governor Andy Beshear defeated his Trump endorsed to Republican challenger by five points. And then just two weeks ago, a local election in Alabama where an abortion ban went into effect after Dobbs also showed the lasting power of the issue.

You'll recall that earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children which imperil the process of IVF over issues of liability. Then came this special state House election in a moderately red district Democrat Marilyn Lands, who lost by seven points in 2022, made reproductive rights a central part of her campaign and this time won 62-37. That's by 25 points.

Now, thanks to two decisions this week by the Florida Supreme Court, the issue could impact how that state will vote in November. On one hand, the court paved the way for the six-week abortion ban signed by Governor Ron DeSantis to take effect making it one of the most restrictive states in the nation.

But the court also approved the wording of a proposed state constitutional amendment for this fall's ballot that would protect the right to an abortion in Florida. It would need -- supportive at least 60 percent of voters to be approved.

As to which issue will prove more determinative this fall? The news always seems to deliver a flashpoint case that nobody can foresee. Like the 10-year-old in Ohio, impregnated by an undocumented migrant, who then had to cross state lines for an abortion. Or a case like the one just this week in Butler County, Ohio, in which an undocumented immigrant was charged in the murder of a man. The suspect is a gang member who is reportedly been deported at least eight times.

That could end up being the thing that shapes the country's passions right when they're voting. And those are the narratives that no campaign can plan for. Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. And don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Agree or disagree? Social media use does not just correlate with mental illness, it causes it.

Please sign up for my free daily newsletter at Smerconish.com. Jack Ohman, the Pulitzer Prize winner sketched this cartoon for us just this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:28]

SMERCONISH: So, there's the result so far. We'll leave the poll question -- oh, wow, 28,000 and change, 72 percent agreeing with author Jonathan Haidt and yours truly. Agree or disagree? Social media use does not just correlate with mental illness, it causes it.

Pretty decisive. Keep voting if you haven't already. We'll leave it up. Social media reaction, Catherine. What do we have that has come in during the course of the program?

Stop it, Michael. Trying to hype up Trump's campaign is not appropriate.

Oh, Lois Lane -- I love that name by the way. I'm trying to hype his campaign because I'm -- I'm struck with the "Wall Street Journal" poll that shows people have a higher opinion as they reflect on his record in office than Biden's.

[09:55:09]

And I'm supposed to, what, stick my head in the sand? No, I would rather discuss that. Thank you very much. Time for one more. Can I plug something? There it is.

You seem to forget that little Middle East thing. I think Biden is on a real -- is in a real pickle there.

Pat Flemming, that could be. I mean, I did make reference to that and I made reference to the perception of the economy as well and, of course, the border. No, those are all very much in the mix.

Hey, I so appreciated the privilege of having this platform at the outset of the program today to talk about an issue that I think is the issue of our time, which is our societal disconnect. Please go to my Web site. Can we put that on the screen one more time?

All the authors that I've interviewed whose work I've cited is posted on my Web site under the Mingle Project. You click on the book jacket. You can listen to the interview.

Thank you. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)