July 4th Special: Why Heather Cox Richardson Still Has Hope for American Democracy

When you're running a small business, sometimes there are no words. But if you're looking to protect your small business, then there are definitely words that can help. And just like that, a state-form agent can be there to help you choose the coverage that fits your needs. Whether your small business is growing or brand new, your state-form agent is there to help. On the phone, or in person, like a good neighbor, state-form is there.

Let's be honest here, 2024 has been a great year for music, where in the middle of Big Brought Summer, a bunch of a listers have topped charts, and new artists to watch keep cropping up across the board. I'm Rihanna Cruz, producer of Switched On Pop, and over at our show, we're currently looking at two of the most interesting records this year. Camila

Cabello's CXOXO, and Empress of's for your consideration. Both by Latin artists, these pop records get a little weird with it when it comes to the sounds we know as Latin pop. Tune in to Switched On Pop to see what we mean. Present it by Prime Day. Hi everyone, from New York Magazine in the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Cara Swisher, and I'm Cara Swisher. We've been talking a lot about democracy on this

show this year, and it's the 4th of July. So we decided to switch things up, and we have Heather Cox Richardson with us today for the holiday. Hi Heather, thanks for joining us. Always a pleasure. So you're a professor of history at Boston College, or you're probably best known for your substack, letters from an American. Now we spoke in January after

your last book came out, Democracy Awakening, notes on the state of America. We're going to play that conversation in just a bit, but so much has happened in the meantime, and we wanted to get your short reassessment about a bunch of things. First, Donald Trump is now a convicted felon. The Supreme Court has ruled that Trump has at least some level of immunity from prosecution for official conduct, which could delay the trial against

him for the January 6 riot. There have been several other scotist decisions that seem to point away from democracy. And of course, Trump and Biden just had their first debate last week, and things happened. Anything else I'm forgetting? You know, I'm sitting here trying to remember six months ago, so I would say there's probably a lot here forgetting. That's okay. So the plan is we're going to relisten this episode together and then chat at the end about your thoughts with change

because of everything that's happened. All right, let's go. This episode first aired on January 22, 2024. See you back at the end. Professor Richardson, it's nice to be talking to another professor who is not scot gal away. So thank you for joining us. And I hope you'll be 100% less dirty. Okay, but you can if you need to be. I'm used to it from professors. Hey, well, I will do my best, but thank you so much for having me. It's a real pleasure to be here. No problem. So I'm going to

go all across the map here. And when we're taking the day, we're taping this as the Iowa caucuses for the Republicans, and we'll get to that. But I want to start in your book that came out last fall, this past fall, you wrote, democracy's die more often through the ballot box than a gunpoint. Let's start with that big idea since that is exactly where we are. Well, many fear and feel the potential for political violence, nascent fascism, and

perhaps more dramatically the end of democracy. It looks like Donald Trump is doing rather well with voters, including the college educated he was supposed to have repelled. I'd love to eat your thoughts on why that is and that idea of more democracies die through the

ballot box than a gunpoint. Okay, but those are almost different questions because the idea of democracy dying at the ballot box rather than at gunpoint, I think is an important one for Americans now because we tend to think about the idea of dictatorships coming in tanks for example, or with with people go stepping. And the reality is in this moment that more often people vote down a democracy, that is they vote into power people who are pushing

toward authoritarianism. And a great example of that of course is Hungary under Viktor Orban and his destruction of democracy there in replacement with an authoritarian movement. People voted him in. And so the idea that people can be manipulated to vote against the continuation of a democracy, I think is a really important one in this moment and we can unpack that. But Trump is a really different situation in a sense here in 2024. And that

is that he remains popular with his base. And yet if you think about the way he is approaching the election of 2024, one of the things that fascinates me is he is not trying to appeal to undecided voters. He's really not trying to expand that base at all. In fact, he's doubling down on the extremism that attracts that very small group of people who are who are fervently loyal to him. He is admitting he wants to be a dictator. He is saying that

he will be a dictator from day one. He is talking about rounding up, putting in camps and deporting 10 million people who are here in the United States, including citizens. Citizens under birthright citizenship, which he says he's going to get rid of. He is openly talking about staying in power longer than one more term. I mean, he's, there's all the, you know, he's talked about weaponizing the Department of Justice. He's talking about weaponizing the

military. He's saying all of these things. So signaling it. Signaling it. He's signaling it. And that is not what one does to appeal to the suburban moms, which are sort of that vague group that you need to have behind you to win an election in this era. So my interest right now in him is what, what is he doing? Like he is signaling that he has no intention of increasing his share of the vote. He is perfectly happy to stay with his base, which

is not a majority on on which he has repeatedly lost elections. It's not small. And will it work? Well, but so what's interesting to me about that is the base, the, the fervent right wing base is between 25 and 33%. But you can't win elections on those people. That's not enough people. So how do you get enough people behind you to win an election? Well, you either intimidate others into not showing up, which is what happens in reconstruction

in the American South, or you, you manipulate the system. And I think we're seeing both of that happen and going into 2024. And in either case, that can make a minority become the acting majority tyranny of the minority. In other words, right? So speaking of dramatic, while the Washington Post uses the phrase democracy dies in darkness, it really doesn't in American history. It's more like full glare. It feels like the sale in which trials very showy,

the whiskey rebellion, which everyone forgets, but me McCarthy and the red scare. None of it was hidden really. Talk a little bit about this darker and very bright DNA of the US. And in lockstep is this ability to forget and move on. Our country does that a lot. Forgets what happened, including the insurrection of January 6th. This is sometimes an asset and sometimes not. Talk about these, these, these moments where we seem incredibly on the

edge of something. Well, one of the things that Americans respond to our stories. I mean, what all people do, but the American story, I think, is particularly malleable for dictators or for those who wish this country ill to use to get into power. And you can see that. I mean, you mentioned a number of things. And the whiskey rebellion is cool, but it's a little bit different because of the difference in the transmission of information that early

in our history. But think of somebody like Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin who manages, you know, that when he stands up and says to a group of women voters that he has a list of card carrying members of the Communist Party who are working in the State Department, he's making that up. You know, that absolutely doesn't exist. And he recognizes, you know, at first it's just sort of shock value. He's giving it in wheeling West Virginia.

I don't think he really expects the rubber to hit the road the way it does when he says that. And of course, he's running for re-election and he's done nothing to distinguish himself. But he recognizes that this is a story, the idea that America is being undermined from with in by the same forces that have recently taken over China at that point, for example, or the rise of the USSR. Although it's China really that people are looking at when he

makes that speech. He manages to tap into the idea that we need to protect this country and we need to protect this country from those others. And one of the things that I think is interesting about the way we shape American stories, especially American political stories,

is who we make those others that are dangerous. So really dramatically in 1936, when he's running for re-election and it looks a little iffy, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt begins to say, hey, you know, the things that we're finding against here are not necessarily poverty the way I talked about it in 1932. The real enemies here are the rich people who are making sure that people like you and me don't get not him in that case, but the workers who

are paying right. And that, you know, one of the things that I watch for is who we characterize as our enemies. So right now, of course, Trump and the Republican Party are insisting that it's immigrants who are the enemies, which is really China still. And China still. But that's a little fuzzy because within days of the time you and I are talking, Trump came out and said, well, of course, I took eight million dollars from

China. I did stuff for them. And it's like, now hang on a minute here. You're playing it both ways. But who are the people that you put in that position of being the ones who are destroying American society? So you talked about that. What is happening now actually begins in the 1930s after FDR's New Deal. Explain that. Isn't that a cool story? So the reason I started the book in 1937 is that people want to meet or write a book explaining the questions that people ask me every day. You know, how

do the parties switch sides? What is a Southern strategy? But I realized that the question people ask me most often is how did we get here? What on earth is going on? And how do we get out of it? And Trump is both a continuation and something new. And we could talk about that. But the reason I started where I did in 1937 is because many people thought that when FDR was elected in 1932, he was a flesh in the pan. And he was, you know, he's the American

people were going to repudiate him in 1936. And everything was going to go back to the way it was in the 1920s when business people ran the country. And okay, yeah, they drove us into the ditch with the Great Depression. But, you know, oopsie poopsie. They won't do that again, right? Is so is he poopsy a historical term? It is absolutely what everybody said in there. I'm making that a duckie is just duckie is the one that they used at the

time. But anyways, so so when he has reelected in 1937, there's two groups of people who really, really, really hate the new deal. And the new deal is the new form of government that uses the power of the federal government to regulate business and to borrow out of basic social safety net and to promote infrastructure and to protect civil rights. Although it's not really doing much of that in 36, it's doing enough of it that it infuriates

white Southern Democrats who are adamant that they want to keep segregation. So they're mad about the new deal. And the the Republican pro business wing, especially in the the north, but also largely in the west, recognize that they can make common cause against the new deal. And so in 1937, these two groups of people, lawmakers, get together and they write what they call the conservative manifesto. And the conservative manifesto repudiates

all those pieces of the new deal. It says the government should not regulate business, because that means that a business man can't run his business the way he wants to, can't accumulate wealth. And this is antithetical. They think to the the meaning of America, as it was embraced at least in the 1920s. It the government should not provide a basic social safety net because that's up to the churches. The government should not promote

infrastructure because that too should be private. And it sure a shoot and should not have anything to do with civil rights. Well, if you think about that, they put this in a manifesto. It gets leaked to the press and that sort of kills it really quickly because the Democrats don't want to be criticizing their own president and the Republicans recognize

that they can criticize it more effectively from outside rather than from inside. But the conservative manifesto spreads across the country through chambers of commerce, through pro business organizations. And if you think about what's in that manifesto, isn't that exactly what the Republicans are at? That's correct. Yeah, embraced until 2015.

It wasn't effective. You call the liberal consensus that those Republicans opposed. And it remained popular voters for decades so much so that in 1960 political scientists Philip Converse advised canna's to run on the promises of government spending that governments here to help you. But then you argue the federal government's support of civil

rights did change things. That was the too far, the moment too far, correct? That they people like this idea of big government and spending and the government in charge, which

FTR obviously pushed. Well, and they still do. The breaking point for Americans, for white Americans was brown versus port of education in May of 1954 when that big federal government was being used to protect civil rights in the states, saying you cannot, as a state, discriminate against anybody, any American citizen within your borders because the 14th Amendment makes it clear that you cannot do that. And from 54, and actually it was

used before that, but 54 is what we really point to. From 54 into the 1970s, the 14th Amendment is what expanded civil rights, not only for black Americans, but also for brown Americans and for women. And once you could argue that a big federal government was forcing your traditional society to change, that's when you, the people who oppose the liberal consensus could get enough power together to begin to challenge it. That was the hook

that they had. They tried for different hooks, right? Race was first. And then, and then the women's movement, the second women's movement in the 1960s and the 1970s really engaged the, what were known as the traditionalists, those Christians who become evangelical Christians

who really object to the idea of women having equal rights in American society. And that misogyny, I think, is really important to remember as part of this, not only race, but also gender because if you're looking around America right now, you see it playing out in so many ways, but the idea that women should not have access to abortion, which is 1970s.

So abortion and trans issues, trans and gay and those. Well, yes. And then, and then now it is taking shape in these extraordinary attacks on LGBTQ plus people, which is another manifestation of this. And, you know, that's the piece that has enabled those who really initially were interested in simply getting rid of business regulation to break that liberal consensus that called for. So, in a lot of ways, or experience the same political conflict

that's played out again and again in American history. But let's talk about what's new to this moment. And I, what I do now every week is I get an expert to call in and put a question and this week it's Adam Kinsinger. I've asked him for something to play for you. This is what he sent me. We know that every generation faces their own version of an aspiring authoritarian who prays on the fears and insecurities of people they use in their rise to power. 1930s

Germany had Hitler in 1920s, Italy had Mussolini. And in 2016, America had Donald Trump. We know that history typically doesn't repeat exactly, but it does rhyme. Human behavior remains consistent. And if we want indicators for how the future will be for any civilization, we just have to study the past. So, my question is why Trump and why now? More specifically, why was America more vulnerable to the rise of Trump in 2016 than after a national crisis

like September 11th? When considering the historical context, it would seem Americans would be more vulnerable to an authoritarian movement in the wake of a collective trauma, like the one we endured on that day and in the immediate years following. Do you have any particular instances like these that may come to mind when a relatively affluent and stable country made a sudden turn towards authoritarianism? Is this something we've seen before did

America make its own history? We hear the usual comments about economic anxiety contributing to his rise, but it's hard to compare the conditions of 2016, the other moments in history when the stakes have certainly been much higher for all demographics in America. Oh, wow. He should run for Congress. I was going to say, I hope that wasn't off the

top of his head because man, he's really good. He speaks in full paragraphs. If this has been brewing since the 1930s or even the Civil War, why 2016 answer his questions? Any one of them he want to answer? I'll answer at least a couple of them. He's identified something that's really important. In 1951, a longshoreman in San Francisco named Eric Hoffer contemplated this very question. He said something that was deeply revelatory

to me and I think it became a really profound base for a lot of what I do. Everybody is running around after World War II going, how do we get a hitler? How do we get a Mussolini? And what Hoffer said is he said, it doesn't matter. Stop worrying about Hitler and Mussolini because every generation has Hitler's and Mussolinis and they don't go anywhere. The people to study are the ones who followed him. Why do you get a population and how do you get

a population that is willing to follow a strong man? Which flips the script, if you will. And what he said, I think, and this is not, I'm not, I'm, you know, I have built on him with people like Hannah Arant and some of my own ideas about earlier American history. So I'm not, I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but I think he's a very important place to start. What he said is that the way you get the rise of an authoritarian is

you take a population that feels disaffected. It feels disaffected either politically or socially or religiously and it feels that it has lost ground in society. And after that has been accomplished, then you get the rise of somebody who says, you know, I know you feel like things are really bad. And the reason that you feel like things are really

bad are not anything to do with what's actually happening around you. The reason you feel like things are bad is because of those people again, those people and who those people

are doesn't matter. But once you have convinced them that the enemy is the one that is keeping them from having being relevant in, in today's society, you start to treat that group badly, either legally at first and then you look the other way when there's violence against them and then you start to pass laws against them, that discriminate against them and then

eventually it goes to a very dark place. And the more Hauffer said that you are that somebody has bought into that sort of behavior, the more psychologically committed they are to maintaining their relationship with that authority figure because if they don't, they have to admit that that person was wrong and that they are the ones who've been complicit rather than the other way around. So, so what does that mean for the present? How did

we get here? If you think about the legislation that the Republican Party began to push in the 1980s, it created an economically dislocated population. It simply did. We know there's not a statistic in the world that doesn't say that wealth moved dramatically upward after 1981 when Ronald Reagan takes office. And there's a lot of people who were in the American middle class, especially white Americans, but not exclusively white Americans, who recognize

that economically they have fallen dramatically behind in their lifetimes. So, the hollowing out of the middle class. And what happened in that period, and we could talk more about this, but what happened in that period is in order to continue to get elected, Republican officials, Republican lawmakers, Republican politicians, increase their rhetoric against

that other. And that other, as we talked about before, are were those people that they insisted were taking advantage of the federal government to get benefits that they had not earned. They were Reagan's welfare queen, for example. They were, you know, by the time you get to Mitt Romney's campaign, they were the takers rather than the makers. Remember

the makers versus the takers. But, you know, that idea, and you see it amplified in talk radio after 1987, you see it amplified on things like the right wing Fox News channel. The idea that they're these good Americans who work hard and don't want anything from the government, which is ridiculous, by the way. And all their money is being taken away. They are being, you know, they are being scrunched by the government in favor of undeserving

black, you know, or women, grabbers who are taking stuff from the government. So, what happens with that, I think, is when you get Donald Trump rising in 2015, 2016, people forget that while Trump really doubled down on the racism and the sexism and all that horrible side of what he was offering people in 2016, he was also the most economically moderate of any Republican on that state. He called for better and cheaper healthcare.

He called for closing tax loopholes. He called for bringing back manufacturing. And he called for infrastructure. I mean, the reason infrastructure week became such a joke is that's one of the things that he said he would fix. So, I think what happened in why we are where we are in the United States today is that Trump actually sort of held up a mirror to the people who had been created by the Republican Party and gave them what they thought they

wanted in that period. Now, what's important though to recognize is that the Trump that we had in 2016, as a candidate, was not the Trump that ended up in office, who gives us the travel ban within weeks of taking office, which is obviously an explicit attempt to say, there's the enemy, you know, we're going to go after them. The wing of the Republican Party that wants to get rid of business regulation are happy as little clamps at high tide until

2017 when they get that dramatic tax cut for corporations and for the very wealthy. But after the United right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, Trump begins to turn those people who were rhetorically behind him into a movement. That's new in American society. Okay, so let's talk about it because one of the things that's being used is the Hitler comparison, which has been used a lot with him. And that was, of course, torches, the whole

thing, the Jews will not replace us, etc. Has that Nazi metaphor been overused? And then it fails to shock. And why is it appropriate here? As you said, he started out more moderate, but then he used these tools of engagement to create enragement and fear to pain himself, the savior, and to stoke this discontent. Is this an apt comparison? Now because people do overuse it for, oh, you don't act like a Nazi. You know, people throw it around a

lot on Twitter everywhere else and it loses its power. Yeah, I suppose so. I mean, you absolutely can make those comparisons now. He is very deliberately using Nazi imagery. And by the way, he was doing the same thing in 2020. I mean, there was one period when Melania Trump very deliberately showed up at the Republican National Convention. And by the way, that was itself a travesty because of the way that was handled. And she is wearing

a dress that is evocative of SS troops. And he quite deliberately was a provocative dress. And she knows what she's doing. I mean, she, this is her living is understanding clothing and poses and all that. So he'd been doing that before. But I think for me, anyway, one of the things that's very important to remember is, you know, the Nazis don't come from nowhere.

And when I look at the way societies work, to me, it's very simple. There's some people who think that some people are better than others and have the right and maybe the duty to rule over the rest of us because we are not competent to control our own lives. And then there are people who believe that no, in fact, that the way societies should work is we should all have an equal right to have a say in the government under which we live.

If you think about the rise of the Nazis, when Hitler's people try and write laws to figure out how to discriminate against different groups in their, in their society, there's a lot of discussion about how you write these laws. And where do they look? They look to the United States, to the Jim Crow laws and the one Crow laws and the indigenous reservations. And so, you know, and if you think about the Jim Crow laws and the one Crow laws, where

do they come from? They come from, from the black codes and the black codes come from the pre civil war laws and the pre civil, you know, you can go back and you can recognize that the Americans don't have to look to the Nazis to find the roots of this kind of behavior because we can take it all the way back to the first anchor dropped off the coast of North America by a European. So we don't need to borrow from the Nazis since we gave them the material.

I mean, they perfected a lot of stuff for sure, but if you sort of think, well, this is just about the 1920s and the 1930s, I think it's a much harder fit with the United States than it is to say, for example, this looks like the 1850s, different language, but the same meaning behind that language. Or this looks like, you know, and you can take it all the way back.

Sure. And in those cases, whether it was the end of the civil war, whether it was the Red Scare or different periods where sort of fascists tried to take control, they were always been unsuccessful, you know, they get close, but not really that close. And they

always end up sort of eating themselves. Why does that happen here? Because there's dozens of examples of these groups, whether it's Charles Limberg or those groups that were in the Midwest for a while, they tend to burn out in this country until Trump. Well, I think there's a lot of factors that make the present different. One, we have social media, which spreads not only alternative voices, but also amplifies those voices. And we

have this very large population that is economically disaffected. And they are a specific population coming out of World War II and the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s. So I think those two things are there. But I also think that one of the things that I work with, remember I'm an idealist. So I believe that ideas change society is that in all the periods that you're talking about, there was a fervent defense of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, not only

among people who were in office. Often they were not defending those principles, but among marginalized Americans who stood on those principles with the argument that if we're really going to be this country by God, we ought to act like we're part of this country. But the fact that we have not been articulating what democracy means because we assumed it was a given, I think it's been a real problem for us. And now you're seeing people begin to pick that up.

Yeah. Let's talk about the future of the Republican Party. To return to your theme in the book, you write about how our major political parties have changed over long history. People again, forget about that. And everyone knows that Lincoln was a Republican. Is signish thickened party change happening? And related, I've interviewed Kinzinger and Les and recently Liz Cheney for both it was political suicide to go against Trump. Can there be significant

party change happening right now? And then how do you deal with figures like Cheney or Kinzinger and their fate? Well, I would like to clarify first of all that I don't think it's been political suicide for either one of those two. I think that that jury is still

out because what we are seeing right now and I find it fascinating. As an American citizen, I find it terrifying, but as a historian, especially historian of the Republican Party, I find this moment incredibly fascinating because what's happened really since 2021 in

the Republican Party is it has quite deliberately switched from being that, which was underweight during the Trump administration, switched from being that party that I originally described, the party of a number of elite leaders who are interested in getting rid of business regulation and taxes and who are using the votes of that underclass, if you will, of those racist sexists, you know, people who want to control society again, using those

votes with the idea that they would never actually give them any power. And one of the things Trump does, especially after the United the right rally, is he starts to rely on those people for different reasons and eventually he gives them what they want, which is for example, three Supreme Court justices who do go ahead and overturn Roe versus Wade, which is enormously unpopular around the country. And certainly the elite people going into

2016 recognized that it would be incredibly unpopular. That is not news to anybody who actually looks at the numbers that was never a surprise, but that's not what the base wanted. So what you've seen really since 2021 is an extraordinary change in the Republican Party. So while in 2015, 2016, as Trump is rising, they're really emphasizing the idea of lower

taxes and getting rid of regulation, which is still there. But now they have switched from the idea of a small government that doesn't regulate taxes, doesn't protect civil rights, doesn't do all of these things. Do the idea of a very strong government that in

fact imposes Christian nationalism on a country that doesn't want it? And so one of the people to watch, I think, is Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has very deliberately embraced some of the exact same laws that were pioneered in Hungary under Viktor Orban, which are using a very strong government to say, for example, to a business like Disney or to the cruise ships, for example, I don't care what the markets want. I no longer care about a market economy,

which is exactly what the Republicans had stood for between 1980 and 2016. I care about you enforcing my moral strictures on the people who come to Disney. That is antithetical to anything the Republicans have ever stood for, really in their history. And it goes from being a small government pro-business to being a big government pro-religion. And that's

an entirely new moment in American history. We've never had that before. And watching the Republican Party do that and knowing that that is extraordinarily unpopular around the country, I said after Nikki Haley refused the other day to talk about slavery in the coming of the Civil War, that the party was dead. And people have said to me, for years, the party's dying, the party's dying, the party's dying. And I kept saying, no, it's

not. The party always rebuilds itself because the ideology behind the Republican Party is essential to our DNA as the democratic ideology. And those two things dance together, they rise, they fall. But essentially, we will always have that ideology. And I maintain that. We will always have the ideology at the true heart of the Republican Party that gave us Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower and all those moments. But the modern day Republican

Party has driven itself off a cliff. They have gone into authoritarianism, Christianity, white nationalism. And that will die. There's going to be a new party, as I said. I don't know if it's going to be called Republican or whatever, but it's going to embrace those older values. And those older values may very well have a place in them for the Kinsinger and Cheney's. I think they're called new labels. I think they're called no labels. They're

trying at least there's versions of it. That's that group. So one of the people, you just mentioned, President Biden has been trying to use this as, it's obviously in a speech as he made and we'll get into that. You would call him in a recent interview transformative. And at first, you were not a supporter in 2020, I think, correct? That's correct. Why and what changed from your perspective? Why do you call him a transitor? There's a lot

of people think he's a caregiver, a gatekeeper, you know what I mean? A transitional figure rather than transformative. Well, that's why I didn't like him. I shouldn't say didn't like him. That's why I was not a big supporter is I thought he was going to be a babysitter. And I was like, we do not need a babysitter in this moment. And I got to say, I was wrong,

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are watching that administration as closely as I am, which of course I am on a really tight basis every single day, what you see is the utter rejection of the supply side economics or trickle down economics that Reagan and succeeding presidents have put into place. He has really dramatically changed the way that the federal government interacts with the economy, taking us back to essentially the

kind of a modified Keynesian economics that we had before Ronald Reagan. And it's interesting because when he kept saying, this is going to work, this is going to work, this is going to work. And I kept looking at the numbers and writing every night, this is going to work, this is going to work. I kept thinking, what if I'm wrong? Because everybody else was writing, this is all going to hell in a hand basket. And I thought, what am I saying? Of course,

it's going to work. We know it works because it worked from 1933 to 1981. So, you know, he's not inventing this. So the economy has changed dramatically. The inclusion of previously marginalized populations in the United States into our government is transformational, both obviously in his White House, but also in the many things he's done with the judiciary, with the way he has remade, for example, the Democratic nominating process has changed. I mean, we could go on in that.

But also in foreign affairs, what this country has done in foreign affairs under Biden, I will confess, I said, you know, who cares that he knows a lot about foreign affairs? Because in this moment, we need domestic attention. And I could not have been more wrong. And I always say to people, one of the things that literally keeps me up at night is imagining what would have happened if Putin had invaded Ukraine for the second time in February 2022, if Donald Trump were in power.

They would own Ukraine. They would own Ukraine. But they would also be, think how weak Europe would be. NATO would have dissolved. Europe would be on the ropes. And I think the world would be an extraordinarily different place right now. Interesting. We'll be back in a minute. This is the moment. The Vatulorette is back. And the power. I'm gonna fall in love. He's in Jen's hands. And we're gonna do my way.

ABC Monday. Everything about her is great. I feel so special. Jen's looking like a popcorn. My men are very, very hot. Someone call 911. You are looking so far. This is the beginning of a new era. The Vatulorette season premiere Monday 8 7 central on ABC and stream on Hulu. So you recently interviewed President Biden for the second time. You also did so in 2022. Explain how you approach these interviews because as you know in your newsletter, you're not a journalist

covering a politician. You're a historian. How do you approach that differently when you're asking it? Because he likes sort of has that a voncular thing going on. What you're talking about is a very muscular chief executive. So it's interesting. And I actually quite like interviewing people like him because I am not looking for a scoop. It doesn't seem to me to be any good to sit there and go, well, tell me about, you know, why you're doing acts. It's either out there or he's not gonna tell me.

But what as a historian, I want to know is what does it mean to him? Like how is he thinking about things? Because that we have no way to get that otherwise. So to be able to be one of the things that is always frustrated me in this in this latest interview I got to ask him. He always says, I have more faith in Americans than I ever have. And I'm like, what does that mean? And I fully expected him to echo what I kind of set up. We're in a community. We all have each other out. You know, I fully

expected that. And I threw that out and he goes, nah, Americans don't want to be told what they can't do. And I was like, where did that come from? And it kind of makes me have to rethink the way that I think about him. Because what I'm really trying to do when I write every night is, you know, explain things to people for sure. But what I'm really trying to do is write the history of this moment for somebody in 150 years. And that means that that that honestly that really kind of

shook up the way I think about that. That was the answer that surprised you. Yes. Oh, totally. And I think that that honestly you could sit there and say, well, who cares? It doesn't matter with this policies toward the, you know, the border. But to me, it really matters if you think about the way that he is approaching issues of rights. On as to God, I thought he was doing it because it felt

like we should all be part of the same community. And it really sounded when he gave that answer like he's like, no, that interferes with an individual's ability to do what they can accomplish. And of course, that makes total sense when you think about it because he had to overcome the issue of his stuttering, which certainly in my era usually was interpreted as your stupid. And I just, you know, to me, I'm going to have to rethink the way that I have approached him.

All right. You also had lunch. You and other historians had lunch with the president early January. Just days where he was heading off to Valley Forge to kick off this year's campaigning with a strong message about the danger of Trump and the danger of democracy. Talk about that meeting and what you all imparted to the president or what questions he had for you. Well, the meeting was off the record, of course. And I have to say, I don't care, but go ahead.

I think what, well, you'll know why I say that. I think that it is significant that when you get a bunch of academics together, the word, the plural word for a bunch of academics in the same room is argument. And I think that that, you know, I think what was most impressive about that was his very clear interest in understanding what we all thought about this moment in the United States and what that meant. And that's what you argued about. Yes. Well, actually, to be honest,

academics will argue about absolutely everything. And we do. And we did because that's what we do. And that's fun for us. That's not because we hate each other. But yeah, it was really, you know, I think we're all kind of wondering where we are in this country right now. And it's, you know, to have that set of brains in one room. And with very, very different perspectives, very different political leanings, I think that showed a lot of intellectual curiosity.

Let's, after that lunch, Biden went on to a historic site, Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, where George Washington camped with his troops during the Revolutionary War, very critical time. Let's hear a clip of this speech there just weeks ago. In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the continent of larmy,

marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks, the fight in win-and-win war against the most powerful empire existed in the world of the time. His mission was clear, liberty, not conquest, freedom, not domination, national independence, not individual glory. America made a vow. Never again would we bow down to a king. Now, why do you think he chose this place to reference start of his campaign?

Is it an apt one from a historic or would you pick a different moment in history? I actually loved that he chose Valley Forge, and that's one of the things I asked him because it was a surprise. Presidents generally have their list of things they invoke, and Valley Forge is not one of them. And one of the things that fascinates me is, I was curious, I mean, what's the most popular? Where do they tend to go? I don't know what the most popular one is. I tend to think of

the Lincoln Memorial. People always hit Washington. They always hit Lincoln, but Lincoln especially. But I was interested in that because, of course, while lawmakers don't usually invoke

Valley Forge, popular culture does. So I thought that was really interesting that they had picked Valley Forge to go to because in our memories of Valley Forge, which are not actually indicative of what actually happened at Valley Forge, but in our memories of Valley Forge, it's a small group of embattled people who are generally being neglected because the Congress isn't coming up with enough money to deal with the war at that point. And it's not the same

Congress we have now, of course, just for your listeners. It's under an earlier governmental system. We remember it as this period of a small group of people overcoming a great obstacle, and that great obstacle enables them to establish the United States of America. And that's, you know, there's a lot compressed into that. But it's popular enough that one of the points I made in a later letter is that Valley Forge shows up repeatedly in our popular culture,

including in Star Trek. I mean, Star Trek uses Valley Forge not infrequently as a symbol of a little group of people who managed to change history. And so I thought it was interesting that he chose that in this moment. And I think it was an attempt to hearten people who are terrified about where we are feeling like we can't take this country back and to say, yeah, we actually can. They've done it before at Valley Forge. Although, of course, that's not actually what really

happened at Valley Forge. But I thought that was interesting that he chose that. Right. By contrast, Donald Trump hosted his first campaign rally in March 2023 in Waco, Texas on a date that fell within the 30th anniversary of the violent standoff between the branch Davidians, a religious call in the federal government there in Waco. Let's hear a clip from that. We've been the ones in this fight standing up to the globalists and standing up to the Marxists and communists. That's what

they are. We don't even talk about the socialists anymore that train left that station a long time ago. The Trump campaign denied their making connection. Talk about the, oh, contrasting symbols. I'm just telling you, I'm just telling you, I have to say it. I'm sorry, but like, yeah, no, nothing to see here. No dead bodies anywhere. Talk about the contrasting symbolism of those two places because Waco does have much more of a resonance in some places, you know, than

others. We've forgotten about it most of us, but many have not. Well, let's not forget that it's Waco that gives Alex Jones his start and talk radio. That's Waco. Let's talk about that in just a second, but I would like to point out that if you wrote a movie lining up this moment and in American history, honest to God, nobody would buy it because it's too obvious. You know, there's absolutely no subtlety any longer at all. Certainly on the on Trump side, but I would also argue

on Biden's side now. He is finally not finally because the administration has been talking about democracy all along. It's not been covered, but they've been talking about it all along. But, you know, he's finally really embracing it and going folks. Now's our moment, which is precisely what

FDR did in his two first elections as well. And certainly what Abraham Lincoln did in the election of 1860, but Trump is very deliberately doubling down on those militia gangs that form in the United States after Waco and in the 1990s and forward that manifested the ideology of the Republican Party as it was being rhetorically delivered by lawmakers, especially lawmakers back in Washington, saying this big government is threatening your liberty. It's making women equal. It's making black

people equal. It's taking your hard-earned tax dollars, which by the way, you can't have your guns. You can't have your guns. Yes, which by the way is a bit of a misnomer for the people who are involved

in those militias. They don't have a lot of money. And you need to fight back against it. And one of the things that I think is interesting and crucial in this moment is if you think, and let's hop back here to the revolution for a minute, what's the difference between the guys who threw the T into the harbor in 1773 and Lauren Bober standing in front of the Congress talking about 1776, because remember the people who attacked the Capitol in January of 2021 insisted that they were

1776. They are the T party, so to speak. They are the people who are reestablishing what they consider to be true American values. And this is a real question because they're bad gangs who run around during the revolution as well. People we don't even remember necessarily because of the damage that they did. So is there a difference? Is it just a question of who's telling the story?

And I have come to believe that there is a huge difference. That is, it is possible to have mobs, if you will, like the people who attack the T on those ships, who attack nothing else, by the way. One guy starts to put some T into his pockets and they drive him off the ship because he's stealing. He's not destroying it. And they deliberately protected everything else that was being carried on those ships. They are making a political statement, but they are also standing

up for the expansion of liberal democracy, not the contraction of it. And I think that's a really important distinction when we think about whether or not people who are saying, hey, I'm the one protecting America. Well, are you protecting the idea of democracy and its inclusion of more and more people? Or is your America the one that has been embraced, for example, by Donald Trump? Or by Joe McCarthy when he's trying to exclude people from our society or like the elite in

slavers who said, yeah, we're protecting what America is really about. Oh, and by the way, that means we get to enslave anybody whose color is different than ours. That I think is a really important distinction to have in this moment. They definitely try to make the comparisons. There's just something Trump is doing right now and has been doing for years. And you brought up people to

Capitol. Another thing new at this moment though is Trump's legal background. There's a lot of conversation happening right around the 14th Amendment and the term insurrection or rebellion. Now, you're not a lawyer, but can you care to weigh in whether January 6 was in terms of an attempted insurrection? And what are the implications for Trump of all these legal proceedings? Okay. A difference here. First of all, the implications for the legal proceedings are extreme.

And that's something that I think we need to focus in whenever he gets in legal trouble. He does take a hit in his in his in his polls. And we've got a lot that's going to happen between them. He also goes up with certain people. But as I say, you don't win an election based on a smaller loyal base. You win elections based on including more people. Unless your goal is simply to create enough fear and violence that people don't show up in the polls. I mean, that's that's just the way

it is. That's just the way the equation works. And that has me is one of the other things that has me up at night. But historically, this was an insurrection end of discussion. This was an insurrection. It was an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power and to overthrow the will of the vote. So historically, who historically you would compare it to what? Is there anything like that? No, Cara, there never has been. And I say that as I do because to me, it was one of the

most profoundly heartbreaking things I have ever lived through. And I'm a 61 year old woman. Because as I've said elsewhere, you know, the Civil War is sort of viscerally real to me because of what I study and how deeply immersed I've been in it. And during the Civil War, there were troops of soldiers in rings around the Capitol protecting it. And that's where we get the battle him of the Republic, you know, I have seen him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps.

They have built it him an alter in the evening, do's and damps. And by God for four years, in a war that had casualties of 600,000 people cost six billion dollars, that Confederate battle flag never flew in the United States Capitol. And those people brought it in. And that symbolism itself, to me, is an utter condemnation of what they did. But it also proves what you just asked, was it an insurrection? Absolutely. That was an attempt to destroy the United States government.

And it came bloody close to succeeding. So do you, when you think about where we are now, most people think it's going to be Trump versus Biden. Historically, have we seen something like this, where you, they, it round two, essentially, Rocky two, I guess. What are the assets and deficits for each of those candidates from your perspective? Let's start with Trump. Because one of the deficits, I see in him that I don't think people are paying enough attention to, but I am because I watch him a

lot. I don't think he looks good. I don't think he looks good before the cameras. He wanders. He's very hard to follow. And he is all about grievance. And as I say, that's not picking up more votes. I, I really have come to believe that he is intending either to steal the election or to create enough violence that people are afraid to shop and vote. And there are many ways in which he could steal the election, not least the 12th Amendment, which has me much more upset than anybody else seems

to be. And that is if there's enough conf, if there's enough confusion about what happened. And this was actually outlined in the 2020 memo by Eastman. This is Johnny Eastman. Johnny Eastman, yes, the lawyer who comes up with the idea of the alternative electors and all that. If you can

create enough confusion, mind you, this is not legal. But if you can create enough confusion that you can have the Congress say that they do not know what the outcome of the election was with certain states electoral votes, then the election goes into the House of Representatives by the 12th Amendment. This is under the 12th Amendment. And in the House of Representatives,

each state gets a single vote. If there are more Republican states and Democratic states, they can put Donald Trump in office, even if he gets just a very small percentage of the vote, which is one of the reasons I've been watching really closely the way that states and state Republican parties, which were really packed by Trump while he was in office and Trump's people packed them while they were in office, have been really making sure that the Republicans are

going to control those states. And I am very concerned that nobody is really looking at that. Anyway, he is also, as I say, the, I think the legal cases are going to hurt quite badly. And you can see his attempt to push them all off, I think, as a concern that once people see things like tapes or hear things like tapes of January 6th, they're going to react the way they did when we had the hearings in Congress that his support for him is going to drop profoundly. Okay, asset, assets for

Trump, he's got that base that's not going anywhere. And crucially, he's sewn up the, what I call the pinpoints or the pressure points of the American democracy. He's sewn up state Republican parties. He has sewn up the Supreme Court. He has sewn up the leadership of the House of Representatives, which is no small thing to have Mike Johnson in there. And the Senate appears to

have rolled over and played dead, at least the Republicans in the Senate. So I'm very concerned that he's trying to manipulate the electoral college in order to put himself in office even though he loses the popular vote. And then of course, he does have his legions of people in social media and the bots in social media, which are pushing his candidacy. So Biden's assets and deficits, Biden's assets are going to be, I'm going to say something different than I think people

expect here. One of them, first of all, is that this has been an extraordinarily successful presidency. The fact that this economy is the strongest in the world right now is nothing short of a miracle. And I think really is one of the reasons you're seeing such extraordinary or hostility from the Republicans, because he has proven that this system works. The system that they tried to destroy in 1980. And really, basically, as you say, Holland at the middle class,

the system works. It's actually put a lot of money in people's pockets. Wages have risen dramatically more quickly than inflation has. Inflation has now come down. Foreign affairs have also worked quite well as well, which that's sort of a longer discussion. But I think it's been extraordinarily successful presidency. But I actually think that Biden's strength is not the

hat, believe it or not. But is the fact that I see what we saw in the 1850s. And that is that once Americans woke up to recognize that there was a significant attempt to try and destroy American democracy. They made alliances across parties. They made alliances over distance over any number of differences. And they came together at that period as the Republican party to try and restore American

democracy. And that's what I see right now. And one of the the touch points of that, I think, has been a dobs for the Jackson Women's Health in June of 2022, which is the moment in which Americans recognized that for all the years in which people have said they're not coming for Social Security. They're not coming for Medicare. You know, they're not coming for

Roe versus Wade. They recognize that, oh, yes, they are. And I think the fact that Democrats have overperformed by eight points in every special election in that has been held regarding abortion since then says that there's a real trend going here. And when you see states where the voters have tried to protect abortion access Republicans in those state legislatures saying, we don't care what you think we're going to do it our way. I think that that I honestly think there's sort of

quiet movement going on. And they deficit very quickly. The deficit, I think, is simply that his message is not getting out because he's not getting covered in those major publications. And there is absolutely an attempt to use social media and to use the media to tear apart his presidency. And that is going to be a really hard thing to overcome because I think it's not illegitimate to argue that we are in a war for control of the United States, but it's being fought primarily

through psychology. And I think people aren't aware of that. Well, speaking that, I'm going to finish up talking about your business. You're just sub-stack. As you said, reporters over 1 million subscribers. The press Gazette estimated the newsletter makes at least $5 million a year. Is that correct? You're making money with history? Well, I'm sitting here listening to that last number and thinking, really, I didn't know that. I suppose you could say that, yes. I would also

push back though and say that I have never been in this for the money. I'm adamant about that. I don't have never advertised. I've never required subscriptions or anything else because I'm trying to get American history out there. I would say that what I have identified, not deliberately, I never intended to go into this at all. I was simply answering questions on my Facebook page. I think what we're identifying is an extraordinary hunger among the American people, not only to understand their

history, although that's there too, but also to feel like they have a part in this society. And what I am doing is offering a story, if you will, the story of America in which we have all participated and people are really eager to be part of that. So speaking about you discussing the different platform, you started on Facebook and are still there. But now the sub-stack controversy, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask about it. The company has come at her fire for tolerating Nazis and

white supremacists. Tech reporter Casey Newton, who's a very close friend of mine, recently announced he was taking, and we talked about this a lot in the last couple of weeks, his popular newsletter platform were to ghost as a result. What do you think of the current controversy? Because there's been several at sub-stack, as you know, and have you had conversations with them about the issue? So I always like to emphasize that for me, sub-stack was always a technology platform.

You know, it was never, I was never part of the cultural movement that they were trying to create around there. And the fact that it is a cultural, they're attempting to create a certain kind of, they're doing editorial, no matter how they slice it. They're doing it. Yeah. And that I think has always been a problem. I don't think it's a new problem. Now the problem that I have is whether or not there is another platform that can handle the volume that I do. And the reason that that

matters is because we've got this big election coming up. And I've watched what happened to Twitter. Once Twitter got taken over by the Nazis, Twitter was an extra, I'm sorry, maybe they're not just not, you know what I'm talking about. Yeah, I know you. Twitter was a side of resistance. And it is no longer. And there are the other platforms that I'm on a lot of other platforms are good for different

reasons, but they are not what Twitter was before Musk took it over. And so one of the things that I am grappling with is that if I move elsewhere, if I am able to move elsewhere with the volume I'm doing, am I am I destroying sub stack as the center of resistance it is because it's not just me, there's Joyce White Vance, there's, I mean, like, there's chemicals. You are the main. I'm the big dog in the fight for sure. The Taylor Swift of substands. So I think if you can read between

the lines, you will be able to hear whether or not I'm exploring other options. Have I put pressure on the sub stack behind the scenes? Yes. And what is the reaction? You can see how well it worked. Yeah, yeah, it didn't. It worked. And we're talking to five Nazis. We're going to kick off five Nazis. That was helpful. But it is. I mean, there, there argument is that this is about free speech and there are many ways in which that's problematic. They're not a governmental structure at

all. They don't have to worry about the issue of free speech. But, but I think that's really fast aisle because it's not just this particular issue of these six people. There are issues about public discourse and that that they were violating their own principles. But also in what way do you get to shape that cultural discourse? And I, I want a tech platform. I don't want to be part of somebody else's experiment. But they're not doing that. They're doing that.

They're doing, they're doing moderation in some fashion and editorial with their social network. What do you think? Do you think I should stay or go? I think you should leave. Go. You think I should leave? Yes. I think it would send a big signal. Well, yeah, I do. Well, but, but just to play the sad part to do to make changes. Yes, but again, you know, I do my research. But it is going to be imperative that somebody else can pick up the other voices that I would like

to preserve. So if I leave, subtext got itself a major problem. I would guess I'm not part privy to their numbers, but I think they've got a major problem. But if that takes down the site, what happens to Joyce White fans? You bring her with you. If somebody, you have a big bowed head. If somebody else can handle that volume. Right. See what I'm saying? Yeah. So that's, so we're in the midst of this, as you can see. I don't know if it's going to bring down the site necessarily,

but that's the way things work. People walk with their feet. You know, I've done it many times. Last question I'm going to end on a high note. There's a scene that comes up again and again in the book, Lincoln's Gutty-Sburg Address, which happens to be one of my favorite pieces of writing. 272 words. And the piece yourself was not that well received at the time, yet it remains. I think one of the most enduring speeches in American history. Everyone knows the famous line,

four scores and seven years ago, which refers to the decoration of independence. But it's final line. The kicker is profound. That we, that I'm only reading the back part of it, that we hear highly resolve these debts. You'll not have died in vain. That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and the government of the people by the people for the people shall not perish from the earth. So what's your best historical guess of how we can have that new birth of

freedom? Great question, because one of the points that I made in democracy awakening was that we have expanded American liberal democracy since the beginning. And one of the things that it feels to me that we are in right now is the birth process of expanding that liberal democracy yet again. And the way we get that new birth of freedom and what that looks like is for me, anyway, taking the ideas of the new deal that expanded liberal democracy so dramatically

when it was enacted. And de-centering what was then at the center of that new deal, which was heteronormative white men, essentially. The new deal was designed the same way that that FDRs remaking of American government was designed in the same way that Lincoln's remaking of America was designed to enable men to be able to support a nuclear family or to be able to support their

families. And it seems to me that de-centering white heteronormative men from the center of American society and putting in place children, which is ultimately the end goal of societies anyways to protect their children creates the opportunity for there to be both economic, social, cultural patterns that really do enable us to re-invision what it means to live in a liberal democracy. And I see what is happening around us. And I see the sorts of things that, for example,

vice-president Kamala Harris and president Joe Biden are trying to put in place. And it looks to me like a real move in our society away from, you know, centering heteronormative white men, which I, you know, think is the next step of where a liberal democracy on this continent goes. And chances? Where are you putting chances? So I am putting the chances of restoring American democracy with heteronormative white men at the center of it. Excellent. Although I do worry that

Trump has sun up the nodes of American democracy. I am putting the chances of what I just suggested as being very good in the next generation. I think it's going to be a harder sell for people who are, let's say, over 40. But, you know, one of the things that Tom Nichols of the Atlantic always points out is that by 2028, the American demographic that votes is going to be extraordinarily different. The baby bloopers are going to be moved off stage. And the younger

generations are going to be the primary voters in the United States. And I think that they're going to to have a very different view of liberal democracy than people like you and me do. I would agree. I would agree. Presser, this has been fantastic. And not one terrible joke. I'm so happy. The top oopsie doopsie, which, you know, but I'll accept it. I'll accept it. This has been wonderful. I am a believer that the world spins forward like Tony Kushner wrote. So we'll just have to see.

But I agree with you about young people for sure. Well, here's to it. We'll be back in a minute. Okay, Heather, we just heard you were very bullish on Biden's presidency and his chances if he got his message out back in January. On the other hand, you said you thought that Trump's legal battles would hurt him. Trump is now convicted felon, as I said. And he's fundraising more than ever. Last week, we had a first president of the Bay of 2024 campaign. Talk about your thoughts now on

Biden and Trump, given what you had said previously. Well, it's important to remember that I am not living in the moment. I'm trying to look at how this presidency and this moment looks in the larger sweep of American history. And I still maintain still is probably the wrong word. There's just no doubting that the Biden Harris presidency, the administration, has been the most consequential

in terms of domestic legislation and foreign policy since at least LBJ and possibly FDR. What he has done and what they have done is to reorder the way the government interacts with ordinary Americans. As in since 1980, the emphasis has been on supply side economics on the idea of letting the markets run everything. He has simply said, no, that doesn't work because what that ended up

doing was it enabled a group of authoritarians to rise around the world. So in exchange for that, he and vice president Kamala Harris have put in place a government that instead is very careful about foreign policy, but does things like bringing supply chains home and manufacturing home as national security issues as well as good domestic policy. And you know, we've gotten the American Rescue Plan and the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Emplation Reduction Act and the

Ships and Science Act. I mean, we could go through the whole list. But Trump has never been stronger in the polls. Why do you think his legal woes and his continued, you know, focus on the past, which he'd like to return to is working? So I'm going to take, I'm going to disagree with that and say something else that I think you will like. And that is that I don't think it's wrong if you again look at the polls, but I don't think it's wrong that his convictions have hurt him

and they have hurt him with the crucial demographic in this 2024 presidential election. And that's swing voters because Trump's adherence, we know in any reactionary movement, you're going to get a maximum of between about 27 to 28% and 32 to 33%. He's gone, those people, he's not going to lose them. The Democrats have a similarly strong base, but there's a lot of people in the middle. And again, we know that those people are not necessarily for Trump or for Biden. What they are overwhelmingly

is uninformed. They're not paying attention to politics. And that's not really that unusual. Most people don't do that until about October. So the thing that has changed for me in the period you're talking about is not any of those larger patterns. What has changed for me is that I have been concerned now for decades about the degree to which what I call the time movement conservatives, that's how they start. But I think now you have to put them in the category of Christian

nationalists have taken over crucial nodes of American democracy. And the one to look at first and foremost is the Supreme Court. And while the Supreme Court has been pushing a pro-business, pro-Christian nationalist agenda for a long time now, I think we can see really recently with the overturning the Chevron decision, for example, that they are real and the delay, by the way, of Trump's the decision about Trump's immunity, which has essentially given him what he wanted

to do. They have pushed that trial, that extraordinary trial, off until after the election. So I think we're seeing the Supreme Court really putting its finger on the scale for the radical right. But the thing that really has jumped out to me since the, I'm not going to call it a debate, because there was something else that happened on that stage, is the degree to which the American media is failing us. I've always been a huge proponent of the media. I have defended them because

I know it's a very hard job. But if you looked at what happened on that stage, this is the debate last week. Yes. Well, it wasn't a debate, though, it was the thing. What was interesting about that stage was that there's certainly plenty to criticize Biden about. But Trump, who lied, who didn't answer a question, who did not say he would honor the outcome of the 2024 election, who insulted, I mean, it was just, it was a dumpster fire. And the media instead of laying those

things out said, oh my God, we got to look at Biden's age. And again, we know how, we know his age, Trump is three years younger. We know that Biden has been extraordinarily effective as a president. And for me to see the media reacting that way was a huge light bulb moment. What could they have done differently? Because in a lot of ways, it was hard to look away from, right? And also,

from a personal point of view, a lot of people know an elderly person, right? And they have had, there's an emotional quality to it that takes sucks the oxygen away from Trump. Oh, I totally disagree with that. I'll tell you what I think happened. I think it's fine to say, Biden at a really bad night. Although if you read the transcripts, I think people reacted in a different way than maybe it was happening. But if that's fine to say, but you had to call out what

Trump was doing in that moment. And I'm not even necessarily talking about fact checking. I'm talking about the immediate reactions were, oh my God, Biden needs to step down. And I'm looking at it. My head's exploding going seriously. You have this guy over there that is essentially taking a flame thrower to our country and not calling it out, giving him a pass. You called it a gish gallop in your, in your newsletter, use a rhetorical technique. Can you explain what that is and what

Americans need to know when people are using this technique? Yeah. Okay. So that's one, this is a form of gaslighting. I did not come up with that term. That was a scientist who came up with that. It's just throwing so much shit. I'm sorry. Am I allowed to say that? No, you're allowed to say, fuck it. But go ahead. Throwing so much shit at somebody in a conversation that you don't know how to respond. That is you needed to pick up this. You need to pick up the, and you end up sort of

sitting there. Your mouth, the gate going, I'm overwhelmed. I don't know where to start. And it is a known rhetorical technique. And it's exactly what he did in 2020 when he had COVID and tried to dominate that debate. And in that case, so he just never stopped. So people were sympathetic to Biden. In this case, he would stop. And Biden would look like a deer in the headlights. How do you respond to somebody saying that he's the one who lowered the price of insulin?

That Biden got nothing done. That immigrants are pouring over the border at a far higher rate than they are actually coming over. I mean, it was just a fire hose of disinformation. And there are ways to handle that. And Biden should have been prepared to handle that. But that's a very different thing. So whether it was a rhetorical player or not, they're immediately calls for Biden to step down as you know from the campaign. And they have not

let up. They're even increasing, I would say. What does history tell us about the likelihood for another Democrat to step in and defeat Trump at this point, a contested convention? And is there a reason not to do that now for though it's who's asking you that question? Yes, just to be clear, the campaign is not calling for Biden to step down. Pundits, especially white male pundits are calling for Biden to step down. And that's an important distinction. So people like me are

looking at this. And again, who runs for the Democrats doesn't really matter to me. I am interested in the long term survival of American democracy. And what we know is that when you have an incumbent who is challenged from within the incumbent loses and you can look at Jimmy Carter in 80, you can look at Gerald Ford in 76, you can look at Hubert Humphrey in 68 is a great example because that's a case where in fact the front runner LBJ dropped out and left his vice president who by the way

people had not voted for. This is the other piece, the idea that the voters who voted for Biden are going to say, oh yeah, fine, replace him. So there's that issue that it doesn't work, but the other one is that the reason that Biden and Harris are at the top of that ticket are because they are the people who can nail together the incredibly complicated coalition that the Democrats must have to win this election. And if you start to mess with that, there is not another combination

that can hold that. Similarly, if you look at the extraordinary ground game that the Biden Harris campaign has put out there, what are you going to do? Throw that up in the air and say, oh, never mind that we have raised money for Biden and Harris. We've got you out there, knocking on doors for Biden and Harris. Okay, now switch to our generic candidate. The other piece to it is that everybody has this fantasy that whoever would replace Biden at

the top of the ticket would be perfect. And the bottom line is that every politician, every human being has reams of baggage. And they've gone through Biden's so that at this point they're trying desperately to invent something. Anybody else they put up there is going to be a sitting duck. And this, you know, the armchair quarterbacking is kind of making my head explode.

So what is Biden do to show that he's not possibly too old? I think that's really. It does stick to him harder than it sticks to Trump, whether you like it or not, it just simply does. What advice would you give to Biden in that regard? Well, I think he's doing it. I mean, people say he ought to get out with the people. It's like, have you been looking at his schedule? You know, he's doing the rallies, he's being out there and so on. But I would say again,

something different. You know, one, I was going to tell you what my reaction, my larger picture reaction to that debate was. And that is that I wonder, and I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying I wonder if the reason people lost it over that debate was because people like me had been saying for a long time now that people have forgotten how bad Trump is. That he's been kept very tightly under wraps when he has done rallies. They're the faithful when he puts any information

out. It's been a video that's been heavily edited. And I wonder if what people were reacting to was, oh my God, this really could be the next president. And they remembered all the extraordinary anxiety they had in 2016 when he won and the years after that. So I think that's a different look than people have had, but I think that's consistent with the fact because they saw him again. And those of us who've been in this game really seriously all along were like, we get this.

You know, why have you not had your hair on fire? Right. So there's that. What can Biden do? You know, one of the things that I think is important in this election is people keep asking what Biden can do. And the whole point of the 2024 election is it's about democracy. And Biden and Harris cannot do any more than they are already doing. They do after all of a country to run. And they are not getting decent coverage by the media. And by decent, I don't mean favorable. I mean fair.

And one of the things that I think going forward we're going to have to do for the next five months is people like you and me and and you know, the lady down the street have got to push back on the narratives that the media is constructing. Constructing. So media interesting. I thought she'd like that. Yeah, I thought that. It's fine. You can learn the media. It's fine. But my last question is in January, you said you were worried that Trump has sewn up the nodes

of democracy. You also said, quote, I'm putting the chances of restoring American democracy with heteronormative white men at the center as excellent not to end on a downer. But do you still see democracy awakening or are we in danger of it dying at the ballot box? Spend out two possible scenarios that you can see based on history. You know, it's interesting that you put it that way because many people think I am a polyanna and that I don't think democracy is in danger.

My answer to that is, do you think I stay up until four o'clock in the morning, almost every day of the week and have done so for almost five years because I think we're playing? You know, this is the most crucial moment for American democracy in our history. It is a very, it's going to be a very close thing. We need all hands on deck. And do I think we're going to win? I am very concerned about the reactions to what happened on that stage at the CNN,

you know, in air quotes debate because that is the, here we go. Let me step back. I believe that ideas change society. I'm a historian who is an idealist. That is, I think if you want to change society, you change ideas. And the way you change ideas is you change the public conversation.

And that, of course, is what I've been trying to do now for almost five years. And before that, in a lot of ways as well, when I saw the most powerful voices for shaping the debate in America, come out after what happened on CNN and jump not on the person who is destroying democracy, not on the person who was all over the map, couldn't answer a question, just kept throwing out lies. And instead, jump on the guy who is three years older, but who has had an extraordinarily successful

president, that's the first time I have really been scared. And am I scared now? Absolutely. I mean, it was always going to be a close thing. But, but, but the, here's, here is my hope that I am not the only one that took one look at that and thought, man, I knew we were working against the courts and I knew we were working against, you know, the right wing media and I knew we were working against Jerry Mandering and I knew we were working against voter suppression.

But by God, I believe in the American people. When I saw that, I thought, you know, we can fight foreign propaganda and we can fight all those other things. But if our media is going to treat this like a clickbait race, we sure as hell better get out there and counter it to the best of our ability because I promise you, Americans do not understand how bad it will be if Trump and his

people take over our American system. And if they wonder about it, they should just look to what's happening in Russia, especially on the front lines, Hungary or any authoritarian country where, you know, you might think it'll be just fine. We'll put a straw man in there and he'll do what I want. That's not how it works. You lose democracy. Everybody suffers. And by suffering, I don't mean you pay slightly higher gas taxes. We are looking at in two years what should be the 250th anniversary

of American democracy. And I hope to hell we get there. I think we're going to end on that note. Heather, thank you so much. Thanks for having me. This episode of On with Cara Swisher was produced by name Arasa Christian Casua Ricell, Katari Yokem, Julie Myers, Megan Cunane and Megan Bernie. Special thanks to Mary Mathis, Kate Gallagher and Andrea Lopez Cruzado. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Juan

and our theme music is by Tracademics. If you're already following the show, enjoy the fireworks in the name of democracy. If not, register to vote and go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Cara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Cara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back on Monday with more and have a happy 4th of July.

If you've been enjoying this podcast, here's a look into what else is happening at New York Magazine. I'm Corey Seeker and I'm here with Reeves Wideman who has written about the American obsession with NDAs. Where did they come from? Why are they everywhere? And are they good for anything besides covering up for abusers? After you've poked around at NDAs for a while, do you see NDAs used mostly as tools of abuse and coercion? You see positive results like where did you land on

NDAs? I think in most situations, it is used as a way to sort of claim power, but not even necessarily to like to do a bad thing. It's just kind of it is this now this sort of boring standard tool in the toolbox of corporations or powerful people. But now it's being used on the people at the bottom. It's the warehouse workers at Amazon being made to sign them or like I was just trawling job listings while doing this story and there were NDAs for forklift drivers and like people working

in butcher shops. And I think on the one hand, it's just kind of like well, I might as well. There's no downside for me to do this, but it is also just another way that you sort of keep your employees or people you get into a relationship with that you sort of keep your thumb on them. So I do think it is at the end of the day that people who are giving them out by and large are trying to control someone. Do you think that they're going to become standard for like literally every interaction

in job interview and possibly relationship as well? Or do you think they're just finally going to die or become outlawed? Like where do we go from here? You know, it was corporations first, then it was celebrities, then it was just rich people who aren't famous, but they also want to protect their privacy. The next frontier is people like you and me and and are we going to start giving them to their partners? You know, I think some people are going to start start experimenting

with it. It doesn't take much to go online, download a free NDA and without even consulting a lawyer and hand it over to someone. I did as a joke, send one to my girlfriend. She hasn't signed it yet, but I at least sent it. So that's Reeves Widermint, who may or may not be single soon. You can read his work on NDAs in our beautiful print magazine in your own home or on nymag.com slash line up.