What Does it Mean to Be an American?

Pods of America is brought to you by SimplySafe. There's a line between home security and turning your neighborhood into a surveillance state. I want to know who's at my door, not track every passerby walking their dog on the sidewalk, SimplySafe respects that balance. It's why I trust them with my home. John love it, Setup is SimplySafe, all by himself, as you all know by now. And it was very easy, you can use it from his phone, and is really happy with the whole system. With SimplySafe, you can customize your system to fit your needs. Then ships fast directly to your door. The app-guided setup is simple, and there's no drilling required, so you can install and arm your system in under an hour. SimplySafe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras, and 24/7 professional monitoring. In the event of an emergency, SimplySafe's 24/7 professional monitoring agents will dispatch help when you need it. Over 5 million people value and trust SimplySafe with their home security every day. Right now our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for a professional monitoring and your first month is free. Just visit SimplySafe.com/Cricket. That's half off at SimplySafe.com/Cricket. There's no safe, like SimplySafe. Welcome to PlotSafe America. I'm John Favreau. On today's show, my good friend and fellow speechwriter Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes. America's 250th birthday has been on my mind a lot lately, especially since Donald Trump seems intent on making the country's semi-quincentennial all about himself, his parties, his name on everything, his guests, and his version of the American story. But of course, there's another version of our story that resonates with at least half of us, likely more, that the very least Americans have been engaged in an argument about what this country is and who belongs since we declared independence two and a half centuries ago. Ben has written an incredible timely book about that argument. Truly, it's fantastic. I read the whole thing in about a day. You all know what a big reader I am these days. So that's saying something. The book is called All We Say, A History of the United States in 15 speeches. In it, Ben traces the history of America through some of the nation's most consequential speeches from a long forgotten speech from a Native American chief and Lincoln's second inaugural to "I Have a Dream" and speeches from Barack Obama and even Donald Trump. It's a beautiful book about the ways in which, in the words of our old boss, this union may never be perfect, but generation after generation shows it can always be perfected. Ben and I were psyched to have this conversation, both because we get to nerd out as former speech writers and dig into what the two of us talk about when we're not in front of a mic, how those of us who don't love being governed by Donald Trump can win the argument about what this country is and where it needs to go, about how we close the gap between America's best ideals and our current, fairly bleak reality. It was a great conversation and we'll get to it in a minute, but before we do, please consider becoming a crooked media subscriber, if you haven't already, so that you don't miss out on any of the great content we're putting out for our friends at the pod. Subscribers get ad-free episodes of all your favorite podcasts, including this one. You also get our extra new episode of Pots of America called Pots of America Only Friends. Other subscriber only shows like Polar Cruster with Dan Pfeiffer, access to all of our excellent sub-stack newsletters like Pots of America Open Tabs, and you get to feel good about supporting one of the few independent, proudly pro-democracy media outlets left in Trump's America. So head to Krika.com/Friends and please subscribe. Let's get to it. Here's Ben Rhodes. (upbeat music) What's up, Ben? - John, this is the interview I was looking forward to since I finished my book. I have to tell you honestly. - I was gonna say, I love when we have an excuse to pod together, especially this time, because you wrote a book about speeches, which is perfect for the two of us, for people who don't know, I know a lot of you probably do, but Ben and I wrote speeches for six years together, sometimes quite literally together, like side by side, with our laptops open till 3 a.m. But this is also a book about American identity and an argument over the American story that's been raging for 250 years, which has also become an obsession of mine as of late. But I wanna start with something you wrote about the book and you wrote that it's the third in a trilogy that started with your memoir, then your book about authoritarianism and now this, and that finishing this one means you're ready to let go of your past identities as a White House staffer, foreign policy advisor, and speech writer. Say more about that while you're letting go. - I actually really thought about this, John, because I wrote my memoir, which was a very kind of raw experience, right? It was like, I didn't digest it at all. I wrote that in a year that came in 2018. Then I very much for my last book was in my kind of foreign policy, global politics, pod save the world, if you will, self, in terms of traveling around and understanding what had happened in Russia and China and hungry under Victor Orban, and I was literally using the experiences, contacts, networks I had from being in that world. And then this one is entirely, I wanted to go back into history because I had a sense that I could find a lot there that you could understand this argument that you were having now by tracing it back from the beginning. And frankly, my original conceit was, Obama and Trump kind of encapsulate represent two different opposing stories that we've had throughout our history and competition with each other. And I'm not an historian. And so the vehicle I knew that I would choose is speeches, and I found myself kind of returning to that core identity that guy who showed up in the Obama campaign office when you were the G-speed trader, you were my boss. I remember walking in from my think 10 culture in DC and wow, my boss is wearing a t-shirt. Like this is a different vibe, you know? He's wearing a t-shirt and he doesn't know shit about foreign policy. Good thing I'm here. But I see this actually seriously to you because you've been through this. You kind of don't want to go through life as like John Favreau or Ben Rhodes, comma, former Obama ex, you know? And I kind of feel like I've mined it now. Like I've done, this is not a memoir at all, but like it drew deeply on all the things we did in speech writing. And so I felt like, but I kind of more fundamentally and existential to, I think I finally came to terms with how it all ended, you know? In the sense that Trump was this kind of rebuke of the inevitability of progress, right? Of the arc of the more universe spending towards justice kind of on its own, if you will. And I think reliving all of American history kind of allowed me to situate our experience in a continuum where it's actually not that unusual that this happened, you know? Reconstruction was followed by segregation, you know? Civil rights movement was followed by backlash. So for all those reasons, I really did internally. Like you have to trick your, you know, as a writer and you are a writer, you know, you have to kind of tell yourself a story. And my story was, this is the third in a trilogy. It kind of completes both my various Obama identities and kind of, you know, is me coming to terms with how our chapter ended. And yeah, now I can move on. We'll see what happens next. So I read the book, I started at Sunday night and we got back from love, it's wedding. And then I read most of it yesterday and last night, we're recording this on Tuesday. You're listening to it probably on Sunday. First of all, I absolutely fucking loved the book. It is incredible, everyone should read it. I also, it did give me this sense of hope and also peace, like you say you came to terms with it. Sort of peace about like the last 10 years and where it fits. - Yes. - Because you read, when you, the speeches you selected were specifically selected because they each tell a story about American identity and this argument over what America is that we've been having since the founding. And when you lay it all out like that, along with the different characters, you really do get this sense that we have been here before and people in these moments have been able to, you know, speak and march and fight their way out of these moments. And I don't think it's not polyanishad at all, but it's sort of like a hard earned hope that you get from reading it, but I thought it's outstanding. You open the book with of all people, JD Vance, and his speech last summer at Claremont about American identity, which listeners to this show and especially offline know that I can't stop talking Austin is nodding his head very knowingly right now I think you and I had a few conversations about this about the JD Vance speech when you were thinking about opening the book with it. What made you finally decide that Vance's speech was the way into a book about 250 years of American identity? So a prologue for a book is a fascinating thing because you kind of have to telegraph your argument. You know the book starts in real-time with Benjamin Franklin which we can get to but I don't want to drop people in there. You know I wanted to give people a sense of kind of what the argument of the book is and I always had in mind when I was literally selecting these speeches which was an interesting process and as I was writing chapter after chapter that if you really distill it down there are two stories of what American identity is. You know with obviously their permutations and all exactly the same but I think you can simplify and say there is one story that is a nationality of inheritance that you know you can call it originalism you can call it blood and soil nationalism but essentially this was a white Christian nation founded by a particular set of people with a particular set of beliefs and now I'm you know literally quoting JD Vance and it's the inheritor of kind of Western civilization sometimes that's Western supremacy and sure other people live here of different races and ethnicities but they kind of have to subordinate themselves to this original identity. An American exceptionalism is just a given like we are exceptional because we're American we are the city on a hill we're in some ways God's chosen people we can do whatever we want to the people in this country whether they're Native Americans or Black people or immigrants and we can do whatever we want to other countries right and again I'm casting it negatively but I frankly think that that a core that that is a strain that runs through American history and then the opposing story is one of progressive nationalism that we've never lived up to the creed in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and that American history is a story of people trying to change the country for the better trying to make a more perfect union to use a phrase and that's how you get the abolitionist movement and the suffrage movement and the civil rights movement and labor rights movement all these things. JD Vance comes along and decides to tell the first version of the story for me because that that speech is literally yeah I mean when I knew I was going to use it as when he said we are not a nation founded on a creed and he name checks the Declaration of Independence and the idea that all men are created equal he says no that is not American identity we are a particular people from a particular place with a particular way of life and he said the quiet part out loud now he didn't say white but you know what particular people you know do we think he's talking about and and he has this kind of logic way where well who could argue with us being a particular place in a particular people actually I can argue with it because we were 13 states at the beginning on the northeast coast we weren't our geographies wildly different today the people in this country today don't look at anything like the people in those 13 states and the way of life I mean walk down the street my neighbor in Venice like there's a ton of ways of life there right and and so I actually think that JD did the service of framing the other story for me and and so I literally open with it you mentioned that and then other people have to be subordinate to sort of this this white Christian identity and I've heard people say and I've talked to people about this that JD Vance when he spouts this like anti-immigrant xenophobic rhetoric is full of shit and doesn't really believe it and couldn't really believe it because his in-laws are immigrants from India his wife is a first-generation American but there is another possible explanation here that you touch on which is this obsession Vance has and he does it in the speech and we've heard him do it and he's like mocked for it and other times and other places with the need for everyone to show gratitude particularly foreign born American citizens immigrants that if you're here and we let you come here then you need to show gratitude to the people who've been here the longest or to the or to our ancestors or to like this this way of life and this culture and I do think that's how you reconcile like because if you ask JD Vance he would say well I'm for immigration I'm for you know like a diverse country that's fine but his problem is that if you haven't if you don't have seven generations of ancestors buried in Kentucky which he said at the at the Republican National Convention then you don't get to complain about this country I mean he is he basically he said that about Mamdani too. Mamdani had some like fourth of July message where he was like you know and then we got to continue to improve this nation and something very mild about it perfecting or improving the nation and JD Vance was like how could he do that we let him in here and blah blah it's like really fucking crazy. Yeah if you believe that because he said that you have to show gratitude in that speech and I pose the question the pearl our gratitude to whom. Who are we for what? Who are they? Who are these people? Yeah because actually immigration was a much bigger theme than I actually expected it would be in this book because you keep bumping into that and you know Benjamin Franklin his father was an immigrant you know he left religious persecution behind as well as seeking economic economic opportunity and then you run through the other people in this book you know Louis Brandeis was a Jewish immigrant who left anti-semitism behind in Europe Mary Lisa populist was a poor came from a poor Irish family that fled you know the repression of the British you know obviously you get up to the 20th century interestingly Dolores Huerta comes from a family and this is something people don't think about enough John a part of her family weren't immigrants that border just got redrawn yeah and brought them into the United States right there are a lot of brown people in this country that were here before a lot of white people and we just you know expanded and read through the border around places like you know New Mexico for instance and and and fundamentally comes down to the question of do you believe that someone Zora Mamdani for example is as American as someone whose family has been here for seven generations right I genuinely do yeah and I'm that that's not a virtue signal that's just a how can citizenship not be equal like how can some people be more American than other people like we are supposed to be a nation anchored in laws the constitution and a creed the Declaration of Independence which suggests not that we should have open borders which is how JD Vance kind of shorthand said he says well if everybody who believes in the Declaration of Independence is America and then we have billions don't we have to admit them all no we don't that's not what he says that's not what I say we can have a border we can seal that border at times for you know I mean I don't necessarily agree with that but we can by matter of policy but the people who are American are American and they're equally American and and frankly the thing we should be grateful for is that we're a nation that is able to have all these different people come here and enrich this country I mean how boring would this country be it was just comprised of people like JD Vance you know like I I just I think fundamentally I felt myself because you kept encountering you know people didn't like the Irish when they came here people didn't like Chinese people and they came here like people some people have never like black people being here even though they're brought here mostly against their will like the people didn't like Jewish people when they came here like and guess what you've rolled the tape forward does anybody think that this nation is not better for having Chinese Americans and Jewish Americans and Irish Americans no I don't think even JD Vance would would make that argument so what are we really talking about here and it's been said many times by many people but that is what that the core of American exceptionalism is all about which is we can't we can go live in Germany and live in Japan we can't become German or become Japanese but anyone can come to America and become American and like that that is a very that is a unique exceptional quality of America and that is the experiment I think we're also different because we were founded by people who immigrated here like we were founded not by the indigenous people here and I think that that does kind of create an an additional legitimacy for the idea that if this is not a nation of indigenous Americans then it is by definition a nation of people who have chosen an identity and set up a government that could be you know flexible enough to absorb different people you know a lot of the speeches that spoke about the virtue of immigration Frederick Douglass Lewis Brandeis they talked about the the fact that the decision to come to America is like the first step in becoming American. Like that's a stri- and again, there's an inherent striving in that. I want a better life. I want to be a part of something different. I want to be a part of this project. I want to sign up for this creed. And yeah, you have to go through the process again, not the JD Vancing with let everybody in. But that idea of striving self-improvement type people is kind of is ingrained in American identity and is something to defend at a time when with ice, we're seeking to kind of push that out. (upbeat music) Pod Save America is brought to you by Bombas. Spring is here, the weather is warming, the days are longer, we're saying yes to more plans and finally getting outside, running, hiking, just moving again. It's the perfect time to upgrade your everyday go-to footwear with Bombas. Bombas sports socks are super comfortable and designed with sport-specific tech for running, cycling, yoga, hiking, you name it. Love Bombas socks, have Bombas socks at home. So does Emily, so do the kids. The whole family has Bombas socks, they're super comfy. They look cool, you can get them as designed as you want or you can get them plain. And we love 'em, we have forever. Bombas are cushioned where you need it, sweat-wicking and they don't slide around so you're not constantly adjusting your socks. And with the weather warming up, it's time to add Bombas sandals into your footwear rotation. I could really use some sandals. Their Friday slides are made with the super lightweight and waterproof EVA that's soft but still supportive. They're super comfortable and perfect to just slip on and go whether you're running errands, lounging outdoors or just want something comfy and casual to wear. I am going online to Bombas to buy some of these sandals today. And for every item you purchase, an essential clothing item is donated to someone facing housing insecurity. One purchased, one donated with over 150 million donations and counting. Head over to Bombas.com/Cricket and use code Cricket for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-O-M-B-A-S.com/Cricket Code Cricket at checkout. Pots of America is brought to you by Smalls. Smalls makes fresh human-grade food for cats. It's made from the same stuff you or I would eat but formulated specifically to help cats thrive. Cats are obligate carnivores who need lots of real meat to stay healthy. But most cat foods out there use meat by products and cut their food with cheap grains, fillers and artificial ingredients. Basically it's full of stuff that isn't great for your cat just so the big pet food companies can save a couple dollars. Smalls is different. Their fresh recipes are over 80% animal protein and they never use fillers or artificial ingredients. Their food is so healthy that 88% of cat parents say that after feeding Smalls, they notice that their cat has better digestion, is softer and shinier and has more energy to play because it's actually good for cats. If you want to invest in your cat's health, Smalls is giving you 60% off your cat's first order plus free shipping and free treats for life. When you go to Smalls.com/cricket, that's 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life. When you hit the Smalls.com/cricket. (upbeat music) - You mentioned Benjamin Franklin, the first speech you opened the book with of all the founders, you pick Franklin and the speeches, his closing argument for the Constitution. And then you bookend at the end of the book, Trump's second inaugural with Franklin's warning about despotism, what made Franklin sort of unlock the book for you and why him among the founders? - Yeah, so Franklin and Unlock is exactly the right word because I went through a really interesting process where I must have read, I don't know, a couple hundred speeches and how do you tell the story? And as you know, as a speech writer, if you know the beginning of the story and have some idea at the end of the story, it's gonna make a lot easier to fit the pieces in. And I came across this Franklin speech that I had not really read before. It's a closing argument at the Constitutional Convention. Franklin has chosen because he's the old wise man. He's also the most famous American in the world. And he's kind of the de facto host of the convention in Philadelphia. And he gives a speech that does not say a word about the Constitution itself. It's pretty remarkable. Like he doesn't talk about anything in it. The entire speech is about the virtue of compromise itself. And he essentially says, when you get a bunch of people together to benefit from all of their wisdom, you're also assembling all of their different interests, all of their selfish interests, all their prejudices. You're getting the good and bad. And out of that kind of assembly, you can't have some kind of perfect agreement. We have to compromise if we want a union. And to me, and he does his rhetorical tricks, John, that are really interesting because he basically takes on infallibility and dogma, or the kind of antagonist in the speech. And he says, you know, and this is actually why we're not found out in religion. And you know, each religion thinks it's got the answers. And if we have that same mindset, then this place will never be a home for people that might not agree with exactly that version of things. And so inherent in the constitution is compromise and imperfection. Now that compromise allowed the union to be made, but it also set in motion all of the conflict and competition that followed, because we compromise about really big things. We essentially compromise about identity. There was still slavery. There were uncertain questions about immigration. Different states had different immigration policies. Obviously, women did not have rights of citizenship at that time. And so we kind of pushed those issues out. Franklin, very interestingly, the last public act he did, which is one of the first things he did after the constitution because he didn't live very long, was petition Congress through abolish slavery. So he was living his own theory of the case, which is compromise, set up the union, and then work within the system to change it. Now, he also had this warning that I found very chilling, which is he said this new government can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government being incapable of any other. And that landed like a two by four today. And I filed that away and I said, I think I might end the book with that line. And I do. And now it helped the Trump got elected. That kind of, and that doesn't mean I think that that's happened fully. It's a more warning that if we don't arrest this direction, that's where we can end up. Yeah, I mean, that Franklin speech basically shows that the conflict and the argument that we've been having for the last two and 50 years was like a function of the design of the government. Like it was preordained because of course, if you're going to have a country where people of such different backgrounds come from different places to try to make a home and wanna live in freedom from what they escaped from in Europe, then you're gonna have the only government that's gonna make that work is one where different people have a voice, different people with different opinions who are going to be at war with each other or at least not, or be in argument with each other, right? Fight with each other. And it can't be any different than that, right? And so then you look through the whole 250 years, you're like, well, yeah, slavery, the Civil War, everything, of course, we were gonna have these arguments because that was sort of the idea behind the government that they created. It was, and so the pieces fit in just to take the first, I broke the book into thirds, each has five speeches for a certain period of American history. And so the first five are, okay, we set up this constitution. Then I have Red Jacket saying, wait a second, we're not in your constitution, leave us alone. Then I have a woman named Maria Stewart, who's an abolitionist, a remarkable kind of penniless woman who came out of nowhere and became a superstar speaker on the circuit in Boston, who says, wait a second, like black people deserve equal rights. She's an abolitionist and a feminist. A woman need to be empowered. We need to be teaching black people and women the same way we teach white people and we need to claim our rights. Then I have Alexander Stevens, vice president of Confederacy saying, wait a second, no, no, it's a quality thing. We don't believe in that. White supremacy is the cornerstone of the Confederacy. He said that, I'm not projecting leftism on to him. That's what he said. And then Lincoln resolves it all in the second inaugural and says, no, we are an abolitionist nation. Like we fought this war to write the wrong in our constitution. And in the most radical sense ever spoken by an American president says essentially, if every drop of blood drawn by the lash must be paid for by a drop of blood drawn by the sword, essentially so let it be done. A president said saying, if we all have to die to a tone for slavery, that'd be okay. I mean, imagine saying that today. So that's just in those five speeches, you see the tug of war and then Lincoln tries to resolve it. And then it starts all over again, and we've gone through the cycle of reconstruction, to segregation, to FDR, starts all over again, civil rights movement, to backlash, civil rights movement, to Obama, to Trump. And so we're just living different versions of the same argument. And I would argue in this book, speeches are actually the place where we have most prominently done that, you know, standing up in front of somebody as an activist or a politician and making your argument is different than writing a book or an op-ed or something, because that's inherent in persuading people about who we are. I want to sort of dive into some of that that you just mentioned, Alexander Stevens, right? So he's this, who I hadn't heard of, by the way, before this book, Vice President of the Confederacy, fascinating character. He's a really interesting character. Georgia politician who goes from wanting to avoid secession to then standing up in Savannah, Georgia in 1861 and delivering this speech, which, like you said, is just literally a case for white supremacy, that the superiority of whites over blacks is a, he says physical, philosophical, and moral truth. What I found fascinating about that is, this is in 1861, even at the time, slavery defenders were already learning to publicly talk in code states rights, economic way of life, Northern aggression. He just says the quiet part out loud. What did you make of that as a rhetorical and political strategy in the context of that time? So I found the speech and I was like, I got to do this, because he says the quiet part out loud. And I think those are the best speeches, so the most interesting ones. And for each chapter, and I think you'll appreciate this as speech writer, I kept in mind, what makes a speech unique and consequential? One, we have to understand the person who gave it. What is their whole life story that allowed them to give the speech? And then what is the cause or movement that they're speaking to? Now, Alexander Stevens was against the session precisely because he believed, rightly, that slavery was going to be more easy to protect inside the union than outside of it. So it wasn't a virtuous anti-sessionism. But after Georgia, his home states the seeds, he just signs up. He says, okay, I'm going along with this. And he becomes a co-author of the Confederate Constitution, which is kind of a cut and paste of the American one, except it makes very clear that despite all the talk about states' rights, no state shall abolish slavery. So so much for states' rights. And what's so interesting about that speech is, you know, he gave the kind of normal stuff about we're going to get rid of these tariffs and these things we don't like that the North imposes on us. But then he gets to slavery and white supremacy. And he doesn't defend it as a necessary evil. He doesn't say, well, we have to have this for our economy to work or, you know, we're going to have, we'll keep this for a period of time. He turns white supremacy into like a progressive enlightenment discovery, philosophical moral truth, as you quoted. He compares the discovery of the supremacy of the white race. He literally compares that to enlightenment discoveries of, you know, free markets and, you know, the way that the astronomy works, you know. And it seems bizarre to read now. But you see he's trying to tell people you're actually ennobled by believing that you're superior to black people. He's speaking to an audience that includes a lot of poor white people who don't own slaves who are probably going to have to go fight for slave power. And he has to give them something to fight for. And so what he's giving them is not just that they can feel better than somebody else. That's a huge thing he's giving them. But also that they're good. They're doing what's right. And he actually framed, this is good for black people too. Like they need to learn from us, you know. And I found it so interesting because we progressives sometimes can forget that what can appear to be the most reactionary ugly ideas. Those people actually think that they're in their own way quote-unquote progressive ideas and not in the terms of left, but in terms of like this is evolution in a positive sense. He even says in that speech that this discovery will spread around the world that other countries are going to come to see the necessity of white supremacy. And I found that so interesting because the same technique that I admire in like FDR pivoting to four freedoms to give the nation a bigger, bigger purpose. Alexander Stevens could do this for white supremacy. Now, of course, after they got their ass kicked in the war, he repackaged it as states rights and lost cause and all the rest of it and was rehabilitated and reelected to Congress. And it worked, you know. So yeah. I know that was the other thing I thought about from that speech is and reading you close the book with Trump's second inaugural. And I've forgotten he did this probably because I was like half blacked out when Trump was giving it. Because I can't believe we were going through it again. But Trump was like, and today's Martin Luther King Day and and I have a dream too. And like this ability, uh, and tendency for reactionary politicians and reactionary forces to use rhetoric to repackage really unpleasant, unpopular ideas into ideas that are more broadly popular and acceptable to the rest of the country. And they sort of use American symbolism and American culture and and and the founding and the founding documents and principles to kind of repackage and hide their really odious ideas. And that has been, uh, you know, that you can draw a through line right from Alexander Stevens right through to Donald Trump and somehow that works. Yeah. It was interesting that Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King are both in this book. And both of them have been completely kind of appropriated by conservatives in this country. Frederick Douglass did talk a lot, uh, in language that we might end by the way Barack Obama did too. Yeah. Frederick Douglass did talk a lot about taking responsibility and the need for black people to kind of self empower. Now, he also talked a lot about the need to have a government that allows them to do that, that they cannot do that if they are kept down systems of segregation or systems where they can't own property or they can't get an education. That part is left out. You know, uh, King did talk about the fact that we want to live in a nation. We are not judged by the color of skin by the content of your character. But in order to get to that kind of nation, you need a government that keeps its promissory note, as he said in the I have a dream speech, that we're going to treat black people equally. We're going to allow them to be in a nation where they're judged by the content of their character. Obama got criticized sometimes for practicing quote unquote responsibility politics too when he talked about, you know, the need for the black community to value education, but it was always coupled with having a government that provided opportunity equally to people. And so it shows you how the two stories that talk about our competition, they draw from each other. So the more reactionary story needs to take the heroes of the progressive story and kind of pull them into their narrative. You know, Reagan loved to cite King and, you know, the content of your character, not the color of your skin while leaving out those parts. And I think that that you have to keep an eye on that because if you go back and actually experience these people in their times, they were radicals. Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King were absolutely radical figures, like fringe figures at times, who have now been kind of repackaged as people that were like welcomed at the time. And that was not the case. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Life is a lot sometimes. Regardless of what's keeping you up at night or leaving you overwhelmed, it's easy to feel like you have to figure it out on your own. But you don't have to face these challenges alone, having someone to listen to understand and to support you can make all the difference. And that's where BetterHelp comes in. BetterHelp Therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US. BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and they're 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate. Means they typically get it right the first time. And if you aren't happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored wrecks with over 30,000 therapists. BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Everyone needs therapy. Even if you don't think you need it, that's probably especially when you need it. It just helps to talk to someone. I do it all the time and I always feel better. And you know, if you're nervous about therapy and nervous by giving it a try, you want to like go to a therapist office. BetterHelp is the perfect way to start therapy because you can do it online. They have so many therapists to choose from and it's really helpful. So you don't have to traverse life's challenges alone. Find the personal support you're looking for in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com/PSA. U.S. Voters abroad. Have you got your ballot yet? All states are now sending ballots to overseas voters. So if you want to vote this year, you should To quest your ballot right away, go to votefromrabraud.org and click "Request My Ballot" as to receive it by email. Questions? Ask our support team directly. Don't miss this chance to shape the future. Don't delay. Votefromrabraud.org. Longplay, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South is back. Newsflash, the South is the new political epicenter of the country. Democrats are way on their heels in this region, but Republicans are going through their own reckoning in the South too. We're in the final stretch of the midterms, and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential flips. So we thought it was time to get back out on the road and take a closer look at what's actually happening on the ground. I'm Erin Haynes, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics. And I'm Jennifer Palmerry, former White House communications director. Tune in on Mondays to Longplay Series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. But also, the flip side of what Stevens did, the activists do in a way as well. And that like one theme that comes through in the rhetoric from all the activists in the book is, and you know, and you write that Frederick Douglass instead of rejecting American rhetoric claimed it as his own. So they don't reject the language and symbolism of the dominant culture that's oppressing them. They embrace it as a way to highlight the gap between ideals and reality. And you know, this is different from what you hear from some activists today about America being inherently racist or imperialist. And I think we both experienced this with Obama did that all the time, but it was happening with Frederick Douglass. And King, what the promissary note, right, is that I came here to cash because this is what the American Declaration says and we need to live up to that. And I worship the American Declaration and Frederick Douglass was like that too. And so they are sort of radical figures in their beliefs, but their rhetoric is very much targeted to a much broader population than just activists. That's right. We progress as do the same thing that I just said the reactionaries do. We claim the parts of the other story as well. Douglass had a big falling out with William Lloyd Garrison, the famous abolitionist who helped propel Douglass's career because Garrison rejected the Constitution because he said that was written by a bunch of slave owners. He was kind of a post 2020 look like let's just tear the whole thing down. And Douglass said no, no, no, when I look at the Constitution, I see a document that rejects slavery. That's the part of the Constitution I'm looking at. And I can make that work for me. I want to stay inside of this system and I want to make the Constitution my own. King, the promissary note was on the Declaration of Independence. You said all men are created equal and you've never lived up to that. And actually, frankly, almost every activist in this book, in fact, everyone uses the Declaration of Independence to make their case that they want to close the gap between the reality and that document. Which, by the way, is why it has fallen out of favor with JD Vance and some of the national conservatives today because the Declaration is a fucking problem for them. It's a big problem. And now, what if those activists said that document was written by a white slave owner? So, like, I can't use that rhetoric, you know. And I think there's a lesson in that for today, you know, which is if you want to persuade people and if you want to advance rights in this country, you actually have to embrace the whole story. Like, even the parts we don't like, maybe I'm not saying you embrace Alexander Stevens's worldview, but you're embracing the fact that this country was founded by flawed people that did in some cases terrible things, certainly to black people into Native Americans. But they left enough of a foundation that we can work with, you know, like, and I mean, the title of book is taken from Martin Luther King's speech the night before he died. All we say to America is be true to what you said on paper. Like, that's like almost his last words, you know, yeah. And I think that's, that's important. Obama would always do that too. And we should talk about the race speech, but it's about just like individual people contain complexity. So does America. Nobody's perfect. How do you draw out the better and build a message in a story and a speech from that? Lincoln has the line that you quote in that chapter on the second inaugural. And the line is, if we were situated as they are, we should act and feel as they do. And if they were situated as we are, they should act and feel as we do. And we never ought to lose sight of this fact. And Obama does something similar in the race speech clearly calls out structural systemic racism, but then shows an understanding of an even an empathy towards the white resentment and backlash. And there is this pattern of the speakers you chose in the book, both activists and politicians, probably especially the politicians of working especially hard to show that they understand and maybe empathize with their opponents because their larger project is to preserve this union in this country, which is much harder. It's much harder work than just being able to, you know, either secede from the country or, or, you know, try to, you know, subjugate some other group, like trying to keep everyone together, even when the people that you're trying to win support from don't believe you should have the rights that you have. That's fucking hard. I was stunned to find myself coming away from this admiring link and even more. Yeah, me too. But because he goes through this torturous process, trying to figure out the meaning of it all. And he goes through torturous process was slavery, you know, first, you know, he wants to restrict it spread, then he wants to preserve the union without messing with it. Then he kind of out of wartime necessity turns to abolition and it's only later in the war that he kind of fully embraces abolition as the calls of the war, not just the preservation of union. He's moving in the direction of Douglas, the activist and abolitionist. Douglas was becoming more pragmatic though. He was saying he used to castigate Lincoln, then he was like, wait a second, I think Lincoln's moving in the right direction. I'm going to kind of meet in there. And so he starts talk to Lincoln. He starts to work with Lincoln. He gets up and Lincoln gives that second inaugural address. He's about to win the war. He does not talk about that. He doesn't say like we won these great battlefield victories. He does not talk down the south. But he does give an absolutely unapologetic and almost religious case for abolition as the second founding of the United States. But the way he's saying it, the way he frames it is that is going to be good for the south and the north. This is redemption that we're finding. We have this opportunity to start over having cleansed ourselves of this sin. And it blames the north as well as the south. A real like we were, I know that we're fighting you right now and you're going to lose didn't say it, but we are all complicit in what has happened over the last however many years. He calls it repeatedly Americans' slavery, right, not southern slavery because it's the north profited off of it too, you know. And there's this great scene where that night he's at the White House and he's greeting a receiving line and Douglas tries to get the receiving line to see him and gets booted out and someone tells Lincoln Lincoln says, well, let Douglas and Douglas comes in. He stands in the line and he reaches the front and he shakes Abraham Lincoln's hand and Lincoln says, what did you think of the speech? And Douglas says, I'll read you a letter is like a thousand people here and he said, no, no, no, no. I am more interested in what you think of the speech than anybody else. And Douglas just looks at him and says, it was a sacred effort. And I read that and I was like, all right, whatever you think about this country that that happened a former slave, a former slave meets with the president in the White House meets with Abraham Lincoln and has that conversation because they both evolved. They both changed, you know, Douglas became more pragmatic Lincoln became more radical and Lincoln could only do that because he was able to inhabit. He could look at the world through Douglas's eyes and through a southern eyes and that that was Obama. I mean, we should talk about the race speech. I'll to set it. I'll tell you I originally ended the book with the Selma speech. Yeah, yeah, I want to get into that, which is good triumphalist, you know, purification. And after Trump is elected, you know, me and my editor were talking, we're like, well, that's probably not the right note to end on. And and so I just like, I got to end with Trump. And actually, I went back to read the race speech again and it was more relevant today than it was even as an eight when he gave it. Yeah, because he is able to he he's saying, well, you know, he's doing what you're talking about, which is inhabiting through his grandmother and Reverend right and through the diagnoses of the world. white working class and the black working class, he's saying we all encompass these complexities. And until we can look at the world through each other's eyes, we're never gonna move forward. And that's the same thing Lincoln was saying. - Yep, it's funny because I was reading that chapter and just reading the whole book, sort of having flashbacks to the night when I first talked to Obama about the race beach and what he wanted to say in that. And he laid out a lot of the thesis of your book, which is that these competing arguments that we've been having in this country since the founding and at the very beginning was slavery and race that we've been having to grapple with. And you write in the book how I ended up doing a draft and have the beginning and the end. And then Obama basically just does track changes and writes like an entire speech in the middle of the speech and sends it back. Because I think he had had that in his mind for a very long time. Like he was able to analyze and talk about the Reverend Wright controversy, but if you had lifted the Reverend Wright controversy out, all of the other themes and things that he says in that speech were definitely running through his mind for a very long time because they were themes throughout history. That's exactly right. As you know, you were the speech writer on it. And by the way, I don't short-trip that beginning and then got him to that middle. Sometimes that's the speech writer's job to get the principal to where he can have that outpouring of track changes. But I think what I understood better today, both because of what's happened and from running the book, is, first of all, Reverend Wright was a more ancient character to me today. In 2008, he was like a pain in the ass. Like, why is this guy saying this crazy shit that's gonna mess up our campaign? But actually, having written this book and then having lived the post-Obama experience, Reverend Wright emerges out of the black church tradition of the Jeremiah, which is a speech that is intended to call out a nation's sins. So what he was doing is the same thing that Frederick Douglass and Maria Stewart and all the people in that tradition did in this book, King did it often too. And by the way, some more Reverend Wright said, age is pretty well, even like some of the things Trump's done. Now that said, Obama fused the activist and politician in himself and then when I look at the two key parts of that speech that he wrote in the middle, one is the famous part where he's like, I can no more to sound Reverend Wright than I can to sound my white grandmother, a woman who raised me, who'd do anything for me, but I heard her say horrible things. I'm not saying it as elegantly. He said, what he's saying there on an individual level is, hey, we all, everybody in our families is like this. Like, you can love somebody and think they're good person and not cancel them because they said something you disagree with, whether it's Reverend Wright or your grandmother, who's white. And then he goes into the racial stalemate as he calls it and he describes black, structural inequality. In ways, I don't think I'd ever heard. I mean, unfairly, unfairly, you know, redlining, education gap, income gap. But then he talks like about the white working class more effectively than JD Vance or Donald Trump. The line where he says, they don't feel particularly privileged by their race is an incredibly powerful line. That these are people whose jobs have been shipped overseas. These are people who had to bust their kids, which is a hassle across town because of some civil rights requirement, which again, I think is worth doing, but it's their obligation. These are people who are told that they're worried about crime, their racist, you know. These are his white grandmother, you know. And that ability to say like, none of this is going to work. American identity, American politics, unless we can have that ability to look at the world through each other's eyes. I mean, that to me was the magic of that, the alchemy of that speech. (upbeat music) - Pots of America is brought to you by Chime. Chime is changing the way people bank. They offer high-rewarding fee-free banking built for you. They're not like traditional old banks that charge you overdraft and monthly fees. They have thousands of fee-free ATMs because why would you pay to get your own money? You wouldn't because you're not crazy. Chime members can benefit from up to $1,150 and annual rewards all with no fees ever. Chime is rated five stars by USA Today for Customer Service, which means real humans answering whatever questions you have 24/7. With a Chime Savings account, your money grows faster with a 3.75% APY rate. That's nine times higher than the national average. Get 5% cash back on Chime card and category of choice like gas or groceries. Plus, you get premium travel perks like airport lounge access and 24/7 travel concierge included with your Chime card. Chime is not just smarter banking, it's the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee-free today head to chime.com/cricket. That's chime.com/cricket. It only takes a few minutes to sign up. - Chime is a fintech, not a bank banking services for my pay and Chime card provided by Chimes bank partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges, stated annual percentage yield and cash back for Chime Prime. Only no minimum balance required. For more information on APY rates, my pay, spot me in travel perks, go to chime.com/disclosures. US voters abroad, have you got your ballot yet? So if you want to vote this year, you should request your ballot right away. Go to votefromabroad.org and click "Request My Ballot" as to receive it by email. Questions? Don't delay. Votefromabroad.org. - Longplay, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South is back. We're in the final stretch of the midterms and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential flips. I'm Aaron Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics. And I'm Jennifer Paul Mary, former White House communications director. - People look back now and whenever Obama comes up in the discourse and they're like, well, he's, you know, he was progressive on, you know, the left liked him because he was opposed to the war in Iraq, but he was much more moderate on other policies. But the race speech to me shows the core of what he was always about and it is the thread that runs through a lot of these politicians and activists in your book, which is like he was very, he was more radical in his diagnosis of the problem, right? In saying, in talking about structural inequality and racism and history, how history has led us here and the fact that, I mean, he does a speech about his pastor that said controversial things and he opens it by talking about slavery and the constitution, right? Like, yeah, it goes pretty deep. But the, to the extent that he's perceived as moderate, it's exactly what he did about white resentment, which is like, yeah, there's structural racism and inequality where black people in this country have been subjugated since it's founding. And yet, that doesn't mean that resentment that white people have is unfounded, wrong, bad, evil. I still want to correct the structural inequality and correct the racism, but also if I want to actually fix that, I have to earn the support of the people who have that resentment as opposed to just telling them they are bad. - Yeah, 'cause you don't want to become a mirror image of JD Vance, right? Like, we don't like it when JD Vance shows up and says, you can't have your way of life. You have to live the way I say. Showing up and telling someone, you're identity's bad, because you come from this heritage or because sometimes you might have had certain thoughts, you know? Like, you have to bring those people along. I mean, you not talked about this a lot of the years. What Obama would say to people isn't come out with your hands up and acknowledge your racism. He would say, this country is so great that we've been able to change over time and we've been able to write wrongs and extend rights in advance opportunities. And actually, the thing that's holding us back now is the way in which powerful forces, and here's where he's like Trump, there are these elites that divide us against each other. They don't want, you know, working class solidarity among black and white people because then we might actually fix the economy and have universal healthcare and things that actually make people's lives better. They're the ones, you know, kind of creating these divisions. But, you know, he tried to channel that towards progress. It was inherently incremental. You know, there's no, there's no one you can waive that can redress every inequality. You have to tackle it problem by problem. But if you're changing, and this is why I think speeches are relevant and matter and need to kind of come back, if you are telling that story and building that coalition and kind of speaking it into action, That's. how you keep moving in the right direction. And we kind of get derailed when we lose, I mean, I'm using the story of metaphor later, when we kind of lose the plot, you know, and our politics on the left or center left becomes about either how bad they are, or it becomes kind of small ball like, well, we need these ACA subsidies, or we need more affordable housing, important things that I agree with. But what's the story? Like what is it, what do we, who are we? You know, what is it American, and how can we build a big enough coalition that we can overcome these things that are in our way? - And by the way, when he condemns Reverend Wright in that speech, he doesn't condemn the anger that right expresses over what he and other black Americans have been through. What he condemns is Wright's inability to see that we have the possibility to change. And like that's actually what bothers him most about what Reverend Wright said, not the actual analysis of the situation or the incendiary language or any of that. It's just the fundamental belief that, or what he expressed was that somehow America can't change. And I think that is notable. It also made me think as you were just talking that I always get annoyed with the, like these days, it's like very easy for democratic politicians to pick on the Michelle Obama when they go low. We go high line because they think it's Michelle Obama saying, Republicans can kick the shit out of us and we have to just be nice. And that's not what it meant. And what it meant is what you were just saying about like, we can't, we can't be like JD Vance and Alexander Stevens and these reactionaries who say that one group is better than the other group, one group is good, one group is bad, it's a contest between good and evil because that's not the vision of America that the founders had in mind. And it's a harder, this work is harder, right? To like take a country of 330 million people of like all different backgrounds and all different biases and warring factions all through the years and say, all right, let's somehow like hold it all together because that's the whole, like that is a tougher project than the other project which is to just tear it down and try to subjugate people. - Yeah, I mean, if you're a reactionary rooted in grievance in nostalgia, you're inherently going to win the go-low fight, right? Because what we're trying to do is play for something bigger. Douglas and King, the Douglas speech, I love this speech, he gave it during reconstruction and it's a speech that's really about multi-racial democracy but it's a speech in defense of Chinese immigrants. Like probably the probably pulled, you know, if we had a polar coaster episode in 1867, the advice would be like, please do not go there. It was wildly impopular, but essentially these Chinese immigrants were being incredibly mistreated. They were kind of the new slaves, you know, even though they weren't total servitude. And Douglas is saying, if I believe in multi-racial democracy, I have to stand up for the rights of these people too. And he gives a beautiful, going high speech about that. Now, you could say, well, Douglas failed. There's a Chinese exclusion after it was passed, shortly after banning Chinese people from coming in this country for decades. Did he fail? Because look around California today, how many Chinese Americans and Asian Americans do you see? Maybe because he went high and he went big, maybe he won in the end, you know? King's same thing, like King gives a speech and was interesting reliving the story of that speech. He, it's pretty good speech. The promissory note, he's got a lot of good rhetoric. He did not have the dream in there. He ad-libbed the whole dream sequence. - Oh, well, this was just like a speech writer nerding out thing, but I had never heard that King staff, someone on his staff who was helping with the speech was like, don't say, don't talk about your dream, whatever you do because it's too cliche. And then King just gives the speech and does it? - So first of all, I'm so glad we're talking about this 'cause it was such a speech writer thing. They had not really worked on the speech as much as they should have 'cause they were super busy. Everybody thinks, you know, if you have big speech, you work on it forever. They were huddled in the Willard hotel, like the night before the march, and they're literally writing the speech. And this guy's like, whatever you do, Martin, like just don't tell him about that dream, it's cliche, you know? So they leave it out, he stays up, they finish the draft of the speech, it's done. They distribute it to the press and everything. And King's sitting there on the dais. And he's, and you can kind of see him in the footage. He's kind of still fiddling with his speech. And then he gets up there and he gives the speech and it's good. And he gets this moment and he kind of stops, kind of like Obama did before he sang Amazing Grace. He kind of stops and pauses. And if I had to guess, he's sitting there thinking, I'm never gonna speak to a crowd this big again. The whole country's watching on TV. Most white people have never seen a black person deliver a whole speech before. These people watching, some of them are gonna go back to the South and get their ass beaten. I need to give them something more. I need to give them something else. Now, the dream sequence he'd used before, by the way, was not nearly as good. It was okay, it was good, but it was not the evocative language that he ended up using. And he goes so high, right? Like every image that he uses is black and white coming together, black children and white children and a nation or your judge, not by the color of skin, the content of your character. He's giving the nation a sense of purpose, right? And he's doing that because he's trying to affect John F. Kennedy to have a more ambitious civil rights bill, but also intangibly in the same way that maybe Douglas changed America over time. It's kind of hard to argue with King's dream. He went so big that even today Donald Trump has to be like, yeah, I have a dream too, and I think let's not lose that. It's not about just going high, it's not about going big, like a big vision for this country. Well, I was thinking about that. And one thing that connects all these speeches that go big or high or whatever you want to say is this deeply moral language that I, as I was reading the book, realized like, fuck, we don't have that anymore. Like we don't hear that anymore, right? It's not like they are trying to win arguments through logic and reason alone. That a lot of these speakers from King to Douglas, to Delora Swerta, to everyone you have in the book that is not a reactionary. And actually, the lot of the reactionaries too, they use a moral language that is both, it's embedded in the founding documents, but even deeper than that, there's a lot of religious language and religion in a way that I hadn't expected, not in the way that the Christian right uses religion today because a lot of the people who on the progressive side who use this religious language aren't even religious themselves. You mentioned that Abraham Lincoln wasn't a big fan of organized religion, but again, Frederick Douglass calls his second inaugural sacred and he reaches for this sort of religious imagery and it happens all the way through King and all the way through all of these figures in the book. And I wonder what you thought about that. I know you're not like a deeply religious person, I'm not a deeply organized religious person, but it was hard to not notice that each of these speeches, especially from a left that has become fairly secular, even some of the most radical activists, and abolitionists and progressive presidents throughout history have sort of like tried to ground their argument in something in this higher power. Yeah, I mean, and there's like, look, there's some interesting particularities like churches and faiths were often party to movements, right? Right, right. But also the language is religious, but it's also just moral. Dolores were to, her speech, she marches from Delano, California all the way to Sacramento with the farm workers in Cesar Chavez, who is obviously problematic figure. Good thing you went with Dolores, where to? I went with Dolores, yeah. You didn't know at the time, but that was a. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All sensibly, she's there to advocate for farm worker union rights. You know, like we want to have the right to collect a bargaining and we want longer breaks and we want healthcare and all these things. But the speech is like, we are here, we embody our needs for you, you know? Like it's a very visceral activist language that felt very contemporary. It was basically all lives matter, kind of language. Like our lives matter. Like we are here, you have to see us, you know? And I think that some of it is yes, religion is kind of in some ways the simplest way. And I heard, you know, Reverend Warnock on recently and he talks a bit about this. Like religion is obviously, and James Talleriko is doing this now, religion is a quick way into morality. But I also think there are things you can draw from religious traditions. Like Obama would always say, you know, a corphe's message at the beginning was, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper." That's a religious idea, but it's also a secular idea, right? - Well, that's what's most interesting is the religious language that a lot of these speakers use has, it could be very secular. Like you don't need to believe in any specific faith to-- - Absolutely, has secular meaning. And I think that's the language you used to have this joke, you know, I think I can tell it. about kind of democratic consultant speech, you know, we wanted to put the middle class at the middle of our priorities. And the horrifying thing about living the last decade is actually that we want to build an economy from the bottom up in the middle out, you know, there's no morality in that. There's no purpose in that. There's no sense that I want to care for my neighbor or that I have a stake in this country and its success or that I want my life to have a meaning bigger than even what I do every day. I belong to a whole that matters, you know, the Kennedy language about ripples of hope, right? Or I'm not free unless everybody's, you know, like I think that what's been missing in democratic politics since Obama and this isn't just like lacking for Obama, it's I think is, you know, we haven't had necessarily great speakers or we've gotten consultant speak or frankly social media is kind of disincentivized this kind of speaking. But I think people are ready for it now. I think like life is pretty fucked in this country right now, like rampant inequality, wars, AIs coming for jobs like your kids are on screens and friends with chatbots or something. Like they want someone to come along and say there's something bigger that we need to be about, that we need to care for our neighbor, things concepts of fairness and dignity, you know, that are, dignity is a very religious concept, that there's value in human life, which is why what AIS is doing is wrong, you know. I think that kind of language whoever can harness that and capture that, I think that would be very useful in a 2028 presidential candidacy. And I'm not saying that's like ideology is an important here and policy is an important, but like it is when you say, even when you say Medicare for all or abolish ICE, even if you believe those things, talking about them in that way is not the most powerful way to talk about them. Like slogans about slogans to signal that you exist on a certain area of the political spectrum is fine for, you know, signaling to certain in groups and other people paying close attention to politics, that that's where you are fine. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying it is not sufficient anymore. And it is evidence that we are missing that bigger moral story about who we are and where we need to go that you see throughout American history that you've chronicled in this book. And I just don't, I have not heard anyone tell that story or even attempt to, which is why I'm still like, there was an interesting moment. Do you remember Bernie in, I think, his last campaign, he used to do this thing at RAL as he started to do, we'd say, I want you to look at the person next to you. Yes. And what this campaign is about is I want you to care about that person as much as you care about yourself. And Medicare for all flows from that. Yeah, absolutely. So what a good politician does is absolutely the policy in ideology matters. So this is not just about giving area fairy speeches, but if you, you ground it in something, you anchor it in a kind of moral language and a story about America and what American identity means, it should follow naturally. Well, if you care about the person next to you as much as you care about yourself, you want them to have health care too, you know. And that's, that's I think the piece that's, that's been missing to some extent. So you end the book with Trump's second inaugural. And so I think, I think you said originally, it was probably going to be what Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech. And then Obama, Selma speech. And then instead, you did Obama race and then and with Trump's second inaugural. And you know, we've talked about how in the sweep of history, you start realizing that made the transition from Obama to Trump is more natural than it may have seemed at the time because we've always had these backlashes. And that is true. I will say after reading your whole book and then getting to Trump, his second inaugural and his presidency feel like even more of a departure, even more un-American, than even Stevens white supremacy speech or you have Mary Lisa's sort of xenophobic populism or even Pat Buchanan who you talk about like. And I think it's the, because it's not just the xenophobia, it's not just like the, the issues of race that we're dealing with that Trump again. It is the, the dictatorial quality of Trump's rhetoric and the actions really stand out even from all the other reactionaries in the book. And I don't know if that struck you too, but I was like, I read it and I was like, oh, we are fucked. That is absolutely 100% on point in what I would say because, look, there's some things that make a lot of sense, if you look at history, the kind of populous grievance of the white working class kind of paranoid American first isolationism, periodic spasms of xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. There's a lot of currents of running to Trump. Where he is a departure, Alexander Stevens. That was a speech, they had just had a process. Now obviously Lincoln thought it was illegal, but they voted to secede, they wrote a constitution, and he's giving a speech defending the legal framework for what they did. So weirdly, the Confederacy tried to have a veneer of process. Trump in that speech says, I think the most chilling line is, I was saved by God to make America great again. And everything is I. Everything is like Reagan would never have said that. And I think the extremity, the departure and the leader in American history has said that, not even the George Wallace's, not none of them. Nope. And he basically says, your job is done, you voted for me, stories over. I won. And I'm taken custody of this country-ended story. And you write, the extremity is not just the, it's not the racism in the xenophobia and the, you know, unleashed capital is all these things. It's the dictatorial, it's the idea that I'm not playing by Franklin's rulebook. You know, I don't need to follow the law. I can do whatever I want. That's the departure. And that is a departure. Like that's the radicalism of Trump is not in the underlying xenophobia or populism. It's in the putting that in service of someone who believes not in the constitutional framework within which we have this competition of stories. Like I welcome a world of future in which JD Vance plays by the rules and gives versions of his clear amount of speeches and we debate him. Like that's healthy, that's good. Like, and I welcome other people disagreeing with me and agreeing with JD Vance. I don't have all the answers, shit. And then I'm close. What I do insist on is that we're still dealing within the compromise that Franklin and his buddies outlined. And that in his rhetoric and in his actions, Trump has departed from that. And I think that's why this is, is an actual emergency. Yes, it's a backlash. Just like there was a backlash to reconstruction, just like there's a backlash to the right movement. But this is someone saying, like even the segregationists, you know, we're processed people, you know, states rights and these laws and we'll, you know, we're going to try to get people on the Supreme Court and do this. Like Trump is just saying, none of this applies to me. And that's the message in his rhetoric. Yeah. And we can leave it here. Maybe you can react to this. And then I don't bring it up because I actually do think they were fucked. But I think that if we are trying to tell a story about where we go from here and continue having this argument in a way where we actually win the argument, like that's what we have, we have to figure out that what Trump represents, and what he's telling people. And I don't say that to be like to re-fight the 2024 battle about like, oh, Kamala should call him a fascist. And we should talk more about democracy. And because obviously, like the words have all been wrong, not just from Kamala, but from everyone. Like we have not been, like just saying that Trump is a dangerous fascist clearly has not worked. But what is it about him? And what he's doing and this departure from the rest of American history that is still that is still appealing to a big part of the country. And what is the argument to that part of the country to say that like this is like Lincoln did for to the south. Like this is bad for all of us. It's bad for you. It's bad for us. It's bad for the whole project. And we have to find a way out of this together. I think you see all soft doing this a bit in the sense where it's not just by corruption. What he's saying is if someone like Trump and his cronies, and actually I start the section on, the speech on Trump, with the tabloid, all those oligarchs at stage for reason, if there are a small number of people that are just exempted entirely from the rules, you're going to get screwed. Like not only is that fundamentally wrong and un-American. It also leads to outcomes where you're fucked because they're not going to look at, they're going to loot this country. They're not going to do anything for the common good. They're not going to do anything to care for the neighbor. They're not going to care about the person next to them. And so I think that we have to not have the separation of the democracy message and the kind of economic message because they're connected. Because if some guy says I was saved by God to save this country and the laws didn't apply to me, well, he's probably going to build a ballroom and steal a bunch of money and set up a slosh fund. for his friends and leverage American foreign policy to make billions in crypto and launch crazy wars and people are making money off of insider trading. While you pay higher guesses prices. So I think the people that can tell a story that draws those connections between the radicalism of Trump and the outcomes and people's lives, I think that's probably, you know, I don't claim to have the exact formulation, but that's the space. And you see all soft circling it, you see Warnock circling it, Chris Murphy circling it, AOCs definitely circling it. I think the notably younger Democrats, by the way, are figuring this out. Ben, I could talk to you for another couple hours about all this, but I have all these other questions. We don't have to make it a big exchange. Just curious, like, you read them. What was your favorite speech? Oh, wow. I mean, it sounds, it's like an answer that so many people have given in the past, but I think like you, I came to appreciate Lincoln's second and augural. Totally agree. In like a way that I just said never, like I remember when people said that, I would always be like, yeah, it's a pretty good speech, but I didn't really get why everyone loved it so much. And your your chapter on it and the story behind it has, has, has brought me around to how both radical and hopeful and with so much humility, he delivers that speech at that time. So, yeah. Yeah, totally agree. And pretty crazy, right? That the most radical speech ever was in 1865. It just goes to show, you know. History moves in different directions. Sure does. Everyone go by the book seriously. I know I know we say this, we have people on my books and Ben's a crooked co-host, but it is, this book will stay with me for a long time, and I will go back to it many times. And it was like such a bomb from reading the news. Yeah, it really, it's just a real, like, if you care about the country and you care about politics and you're paying attention to politics, but you want to feel something deeper and more hopeful than you see every day, go read, always say, it's a fantastic book. Thanks, John. All right, take care, buddy. Positive America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari, with Reed Charlene, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Heffkoat, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Pelevi, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is probably unionized with the writer's Guild of America East. News flash, the South is the new political epicenter of the country. We're in the final stretch of the midterms, and the political map has only got more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential flips. I'm Aaron Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics, and I'm Jennifer Paul Mary, former White House communications director. Tune in on Mondays to Longplay series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.