Loading summary
Transcript114 lines
- [00:04]
Bob Crawford
You've reached American History Hotline. You ask the questions, we get the answers. Leave a message. Hey there, American history hotliners. Happy President's Day. In honor of these presidential birthdays, I wanted to share a couple conversations we've had on this show about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The first is a conversation I had with Alexis Koh about George Washington myths. Like, did he cut down the cherry tree and were his teeth made of wood? After the break, I'll talk with Julian Zelizer about Abraham Lincoln and whether or not he'd be a Republican today. To start, here's my conversation with Alexis Koh. I began by asking her if it's true that George Washington cut down a cherry tree and lied about it.
- [00:52]
Alexis Koh
I love this story and I love this question. It is by far the greatest fan fiction ever invented. Because it was a lie. And I'm sorry to tell you, so were the wooden teeth. But as an aside, the best thing that a reader has ever given me, because readers often, they send things. They. They show up to readings or events with presents, which is great. The best thing I've ever received was in a reader gave me a printout of a Venn diagram with Sir Mixalot and George Washington and the Venn diagram of he could never tell a lie, and I like big butts. It was so good. So here's the thing. He could very much tell a lie, and we know this without even fact checking the story. First of all, if you've ever spoken to a child, the concept of truth is very loose because their concept of the world is very loose and what's possible. So it's surely possible that he lied. But George Washington, to say that he could never tell a lie is denying him one of the great passions of his life, which was spying. He was a spymaster during the war, and he loved it. I mean, he very, you know, he doesn't come alive. A woman from the Massachusetts Historical Society once said to me, I don't know how you can spend so much time with him. He's so vanilla. But he loved spying. And so I really think that we have to do him the honor of letting him have that. The reason this story exists.
- [02:40]
Bob Crawford
Yes.
- [02:40]
Alexis Koh
Is because of a man with a great name, Parson Weems.
- [02:44]
Bob Crawford
I was going to ask you about Parson Weems, like, tell us about this man. And because this isn't the only story about George Washington that became legend. That is maybe not true. From this man that came from Parson we. Because I was watching the inauguration of the current president And Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who I have great respect for as a man of God. He had a speech and he talked about George Washington at Valley Forge in the snow. We've all seen the painting praying to God. And isn't that also a Parson Weems invention?
- [03:26]
Alexis Koh
No. Well, okay, here's the thing. We can blame Parson Weems for so many things, and I want to talk about how these lies happen, because it was sort of like a rollout, it happened over time. My first job out of grad school was being as a research curator at the New York Public Library in Bryant park, which people might remember from Ghostbusters. It has the. The two lions in the front, and we have every volume of Parson Weems in there, and it's like watching Pinocchio's nose grow. It's fantastic. As far as the art of biography, Parson Weems, amazing name. Right? And I just want to point out, I also, I wrote something about, I think, for msnbc. Now, I can't even recall. It's been a whirlwind of a few months. But we know that Washington didn't kneel to pray at Valley Forge the way we know that he told a lie, because one, that painting we've all seen, it was painted decades after Washington died. And I have to tell you, there were no Polaroids at the time, so we don't have any photographs. We also know that Washington was a deist, and deists do not believe it's a set it and forget it kind of narrative here as far as the philosophy. So Washington did not believe that there was any God to speak to. He certainly wasn't going to kneel in the cold snow. He was. He. It's an impossibility. And that's a projection of what the man who spoke at Trump's inauguration wants the country to believe about its. Itself, that. That this is a. That we are a Christian nation. And of course, you can be a Christian and you can be a patriot and not believe that we're a Christian nation. Because the first treaty that America ever made under John Adams, the first line of it is, we are not a Christian nation. So it's pretty convincing to me. But this story is the same in this way. So Parson Williams, an itinerant minister, a bookseller, are kind of like rogue fabulous, who's going around the country trying to make a Washington he.
- [05:41]
Bob Crawford
So what year is this?
- [05:43]
Alexis Koh
So Parson Weems arrives on the scene a year before Washington dies and Washington has left office. And he does so with the explicit Intent of writing a book about Washington. He doesn't have any connection to Washington. He doesn't have access to his papers, which Washington is busy editing. And. And when I say editing, I mean getting rid of stuff. But of course, he has no idea what we will like and dislike. So he gets sort of probably the wrong things and definitely keeps the wrong things. And Parson Williams is there. He's already started. And then Washington dies. And he's like, fantastic. Because the nation doesn't know what to do without Washington. He is the great unifier. They didn't know who. The reason the presidency and the powers of the presidency are so vague is because they assumed Washington would be the president and he had given up power when. Which was considered, you know, sort of unfathomable. It had happened, of course, but it was really easy to understand and conceive of that it would not happen. And so it was this great thing. So. So Parson Weems is, like, fantastic. He writes to his publisher and he says, this book. This book is gonna sell like flax seeds, because flaxseeds are. I know. I use it all the time. It doesn't really hit, but I love it. And once in a while, you have a reaction like you just had. So, you know, you. You. The people who get it, they'll love you for it.
- [07:01]
Bob Crawford
Right? Right.
- [07:02]
Alexis Koh
So Parson Weems first on the scene. And I don't know if history is written by the victors. I'm not sure I believe that. But I do believe it is written by the first responders. And Parson Weems realizes, okay, this country is desperate to know who they are. Now, in his defense, there's no. There's no study of history that's formalized in this way. There are historians, There are people who write history, and, of course, but there's sort of standard. There are no conferences everyone goes to. It is like the. The wild west of. Of scholarship and the study of history, even biography, that is, like, relatively recent. And so he is going to do whatever he wants here. And, boy, does he. The. The cherry tree story is not in the first volume. There are lots of good stories, but the thing is the. The stories that were talked about because not everyone is literate. You also have to remember, so these stories, these books are being read in pubs the same way all the partisan newspapers are. And the stories that everyone keeps repeating are the great myth stories. Because any way that you can paint it that Washington was born pure, the same way the valid forge story tells us that he was a Christian who believed that he could pray to God. Well, that means that we're all good. That means we're all Christian. That means we can all have this relationship that, that a lot of people increasingly want. Right. And, and it's funny because at the time there were not as many churches as you would assume. There had been a great drop after the British left. So we're not necessarily. We just do not know who we are. And so why not have this founding father who is superhuman in every single way, including his goodness.
- [08:55]
Bob Crawford
We are in between the great awakenings.
- [08:57]
Alexis Koh
Yes. Right.
- [08:58]
Bob Crawford
We're in between the great awakenings. All right. Today my guest is Alexis Koh, a New York Times bestselling presidential historian and author of the book you Never Forget yout A Biography of George Washington. You are taught in the book. I think early in the book you're talking about the. What we would. The, the, the historiography of Washington.
- [09:21]
Julian Zelizer
Right.
- [09:22]
Bob Crawford
And how all these men have written, written about Washington. And they all, all these men seem to be. And I think this fits in with the myth. Conversation with the size of his thighs. All the men who've written about his, about Washington were fascinated and couldn't get over the size of Washington's thighs. Can you just talk about that before we get on the teeth?
- [09:45]
Alexis Koh
Yes. Here's the thing. I understand it. I have told you before that I have a pretty serious crush on John Andre. It's the most traitorous thing about me. He was the man who recruited Benedict Arnold and he was executed for that sin by Washington. Everyone is begging him not to because John Andre, John Andre could really. He had appeal even in his own days. Hamilton was just quick crushed by this. But, but Washington.
- [10:16]
Julian Zelizer
Was.
- [10:16]
Alexis Koh
His times were nice. I'm not saying they weren't nice. I've looked at them all now to compare. But the thing is that I noticed when I read these biographies is that they all start out the same way. As if like everyone took an oath that we're going to proceed in the same manner and they say, okay, we're going to say he's too marble to be real. He's in danger of just becoming a sort of nothing burger of a found because, and this is true, Jefferson has those beautiful words, Lincoln as well. Everyone seems to have something to ground them except for Washington. You know, you don't really get a sense of his personality except that he might have been so perfect and maybe too perfect to be that interesting. But they, but then they all talk about. They don't really get us any closer to him. And in part because they spend a lot of time telling us how like, manly he was. And what is so perplexing to me is I can't point you toward a single thing I've ever read that suggests he's not manly. So when someone goes really far to say something, you wonder, okay, what are they covering up here? Not only do they talk about how he's manly, but they, they talk about how he's virile. And there's no evidence for that except that he wanted. When he was about 18 or 19, he basically wrote to the father of every rich 14, 15, 16 year old girl in any colony, but particularly Virginia, and claimed to be in love because he wanted to move up in the world. He, when he was about 19, probably became sterile from a trip abroad. He got sick. He often got sick. So he probably couldn't have children.
- [12:03]
Bob Crawford
What is that like the rumor? One of the rumors is that he became infertile after contracting smallpox as a teenager.
- [12:12]
Alexis Koh
Yes, this is. He definitely got smallpox during his only trip abroad with his half brother.
- [12:18]
Bob Crawford
Where did he go on that trip?
- [12:20]
Alexis Koh
He went to Barbados and he, to, you know, to. And he was quite taken with it. Um, but he got sick. He often got sick. Carbuncle, he was bled a ton. You name it, he got sick. And there are no legitimate heirs that we have ever encountered. Of course people make claims once in a while, but usually those claims do add up to something or they don't. And these have never added up to anything. Martha had children when they met. Two young children, a 2 year old and a 4 year old from her previous husband. And what was interesting to me is that they would talk about how, well, she probably couldn't have any more because, you know, if you have, if you have a hard childbirth, you can't have more children. That is true, but there is nothing to suggest she had a difficult childbirth. If anything, it seemed like they were quite easy and she recovered quickly and she could have more. And in early America they were not as obsessed with these biological connections and so it was just not a big deal. But so they go out of their way to kind of blame her. And then they talk about his body in a way that just made me uncomfortable, like, am I reading him a romance novel? I get it. He's mainly. I'm not arguing with this, it's fine. I don't care if he could have kids or not. He seemed like he was a busy, he was like a helicopter parent. So I never question his feelings of paternity towards these children. And not just these children, but all the other children he raised.
- [13:47]
Bob Crawford
So let's move from the thighs up to the mouth.
- [13:51]
Alexis Koh
Keep your eyes where it matters. Oh, but they talk about his rippling jaw, too. So. Okay, but we'll keep it. We'll keep it professional.
- [13:57]
Bob Crawford
Let's go teeth. And then we can talk. Jaw. Jawline, if we. If we. If we need to.
- [14:01]
Alexis Koh
Yes. So the teeth. This is interesting because when I first encountered this, now I live in the Hudson Valley, but this was pre pandemic, before I owned two saws. And I thought, okay, I don't know a lot about wood, but I do know you're not supposed to get it wet, right? Because if you get it wet, it expands. Eventually it will start to deteriorate. You know, if you've ever been to anyone's house and put a glass down on. Yeah, but also, those founding fathers were gossipy af. And so they would have talked about it, and they love to cut each other down and not lie about it, but sometimes they did, and they would have talked about this. We would have known. And also, it just is not so. It's not a suitable material for dentures. In Washington, there's no evidence to suggest he was some sort of, like, innovator in early dentistry. But this is a story, again, that we tell ourselves because we don't want to know the real story. So just like we know that Washington could tell a lie, just like we know that Washington was a deist, so he didn't pray at Valley Forge, we also know that Washington's teeth were not made of wood. And that's the real story here and the story that people still don't want to tell. So St. Francis Tavern in New York in lower Manhattan, where Washington had his final meal after leaving New York after the war, they still have a. They have one of his sets of dentures, and in the id, they say it was made out of ivory. True. Hippopotamus. True. His teeth, maybe, obviously, they were taken out for, you know, they fell out for a reason. By the time he was inaugurated, he had, like, one left. But there's the other thing that was in it. And that is what we don't want to talk about, because it is not the story we want to tell ourselves.
- [15:56]
Bob Crawford
What was it?
- [15:57]
Alexis Koh
The teeth of enslaved people. And this was not a practice he invented. But what was interesting is Washington was very cheap. He was land rich, cash poor at first. He went to a dentist to buy teeth because that's what rich people did. And they put them in these, like, Very terrible early contraptions they called dentures, but, you know, were just awful. And you can see that in Washington's portrait. He looks pained. His smile changes in each one. That's because he was really uncomfortable. And they changed the entire structure of his jaw. The teeth at first he purchased, and there are ads that this various dentist would put in the paper. And then Washington realized who was selling their teeth, who sells things like teeth and organs and people who are desperate or exploited. And Washington enslaved hundreds of people. And so why pay top dollar? Why pay retail when you can go wholesale? And so we know from his ledgers and from his diaries that he paid people who he enslaved for their teeth, and he paid them under market value. We don't know how those teeth came out of the mouth. We don't know if it was by choice. We don't know if they fell out. We don't know if these people who were often described by visitors to Mount Ver as being in, you know, torn clothing and in. In bad shape. And we know that they were very hungry. We don't. We don't know. But we do know that they ended up in Washington's ledger. He paid some money for them, and then they went into his dentures. And that is a story that there is still obviously a lot of resistance.
- [17:45]
Mandy B
To telling over the last couple years. Didn't we learn that the folding chair was invented by black people because of what happened in Alabama? This Black History Month, the podcast Selective Ignorance with Mandy B. Unpacks black history and culture with comedy, clarity, and conversations that shake the status quo. The Crown act in New York was signed in July of 2019, and that is a bill that was passed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race. To hear this and more, listen to Selective Ignorance with Mandy B. From the Black Effect podcast network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [18:20]
Hans Charles
1969. Malcolm and Martin are gone. America is in crisis. And at Morehouse College, the students make their move.
- [18:27]
Menelik Lumumba
These students, including a young Samuel L. Jackson, locked up. The members of the board of trustees, including Martin Luther King Sr. It's the true story of protest and rebellion in black American history that you'll never forget. I'm Hans Charles, our menelik Lumumba. Listen to the A Building on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [18:50]
Ben Higgins
You can scroll the headlines all day and still feel empty. I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me is where culture meets the soul. Honest conversations about identity, loss, purpose, peace, faith, and everything in between. Celebrities, thinkers, everyday people. Some have answers. Most are still figuring it out. And if you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. Listen to if you you can hear me on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [19:20]
Ryder Strong
This is Ryder Strong, and I have a new podcast called the red weather. In 1995, my neighbor Anna Trainor disappeared from a commune. It was nature and trees and praying and drugs.
- [19:31]
Julian Zelizer
So, no, I am not your guru.
- [19:35]
Ryder Strong
And back then, I lied to everybody.
- [19:37]
Julian Zelizer
They have had this case for 30 years.
- [19:40]
Ryder Strong
I'm going back to my hometown to uncover the truth. Listen to the Red Weather on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [19:53]
Bob Crawford
This is American History Hotline. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Today we're having a little President's Day special. We just talked about George Washington. Now let's turn to Abe Lincoln. A listener asked us if Lincoln would be a Republican today. So we reached out to Julian Zelizer to help us answer this question. I started that conversation by asking him to explain the difference between the two major American parties.
- [20:20]
Julian Zelizer
I think the Republican Party in our era is a party that's anti government. It's a party that has become quite resistant to many social justice initiatives. And it's a party that increasingly is skeptical of international alliances and commitments. Whereas Democrats remain a party of government. They believe government is fundamental to solving many problems. The Democratic Party still is more committed to traditional post war two international alliances. And finally, the Democratic Party, for all the divisions and hesitations, is still on board with the social revolution of the 1960s, the civil rights revolution, the feminist revolution, the immigration revolution, and even again with some more skepticism that has emerged, represents those values in party politics.
- [21:18]
Bob Crawford
When I first saw this question, the first thing that popped into my head was not Abraham Lincoln, it was Richard Nixon. And I'm thinking, okay, when did the parties kind of change clothes, if you want to put it that way, in our recent era. And that was Nixon's Southern Strategy. From what you just said to me, they've changed clothes again in some ways. So first explain what that was and why that's important to this conversation today. And then talk about the new wardrobe that today's Republican Party, which you just outlined in some ways has put on.
- [22:00]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah, I mean, I think the big change does come in the late 60s and early 70s. The Southern Strategy was basically the idea that more Republicans and Conservatives start having. It starts actually in the early 50s. But the idea is that Republicans can form an alliance with Southern Democrats who are conservative, particularly on race relations. Also on unions. They opposed unions. And Republicans started to see that that was a fruitful alliance, either a bipartisan alliance or ultimately a way to take over the electorate of the south by winning over Southern Democrats who no longer like their party. So this is the Southern Strategy. As Democrats become more favorable to civil rights, as Democrats become more aligned with unions, the Southern Republicans would emerge and become something which they had never been a serious force in Southern politics. And Richard Nixon, more than any other president and candidate in 1968, sees the potential of this because he is running and then governing after the Civil Rights act of 64, the Voting Rights act of 65, had caused many Southern Democrats to be quite upset with the direction of their party. So he makes a play for the South. He talks about issues like states rights, he talks about the limits of government. He doesn't talk explicitly about race, but that is underlying some of the appeal. And that's when the Southern Strategy really accelerates in a way that we hadn't seen in presidential politics. The last thing I'd say is in Congress, this Southern Strategy had been around really since the late 30s, when there was a coalition of Southern Democratic committee chairs and Republicans who had worked through the committee system since 1938 to block liberalism at every turn. But the Southern Strategy really refers to this presidential campaign idea. And ultimately the goal is for Republicans to make the South a red area, in our modern parlance of color schemes.
- [24:11]
Bob Crawford
So that is social policy, cultural policy. But when I think of the Republican Party today, I think of. Of America first. I think of a foreign policy that is looking inward. Right. And also Nixon, wasn't he a New Deal? Maybe. Some say he's the last New Deal president. Right. Osha, epa, all these bureaucratic institutions. You know, he supported those and he instituted many of those. So how does the party get from even Nixon? So that's a whole nother shift, right?
- [24:53]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah. I mean, there's two issues. On the latter point, he was conservative, and you have to remember he had a Democratic Congress, a strong Democratic Congress. That's all Congress had been since the 50s. And so he doesn't have a lot of leeway. A lot of these ideas like the EPA are really coming from Democrats on the Hill and liberal Republicans, who are still a thing at the time. And he often doesn't have a choice. So he was conservative, but it's all relative conservative for mainstream Republicans. In the late 60s and early 70s meant still accepting that government was going to have a big role in American life and working with Democrats to often start and implement new programs. And that's much different than where we are today. So I think part of it isn't that he wasn't a conservative, but the conservatism domestically becomes much more radical, much more rightward over the next few decades. On foreign policy, that's a huge shift. That's more recent. In the 1970s, when you talked about the new conservative movement, people like Ronald Reagan who were coming onto the scene as national figures, one of their central arguments was we had to be very muscular overseas, that the United States had to work with allies and on its own to assert itself against the Soviet Union and China. And their idea of withdrawing was what they criticized Democrats for doing after Vietnam. That was the argument. Reagan was even critical of Nixon and Gerald Ford because they practiced something called the policy of detente, which was easing relations with the Soviets through negotiations over arms agreement. And Reagan even thought that was bad. So the America first wing was always in the Republican coalition, but it's really only in the last, you know, since 9, 11, since the war in Iraq, where it's become the dominant mode of Republican thinking.
- [26:54]
Bob Crawford
All right, as promised, let's get to Abraham Lincoln and his Republican party. What were the major ideological stances and where were most of the Republican voters in 1856, 1860?
- [27:08]
Julian Zelizer
I mean, it's complicated in that we don't want to say Abraham Lincoln was perfect. He was hesitant and too slow. Many argue on the issue of slavery. He gets there, but it takes a little while. But clearly what he represented by the end of his presidency, by his death and in that era was a party A, committed to union, B, ultimately committed to the abolition of slavery, and C, and this is post Lincoln, but it's still the party of Lincoln committed to Reconstruction at some level, meaning a new union that not only did not have slavery, but had some kind of policies to help the freed black population and to create a more just society. That was the party of Lincoln. That's why many black Americans for decades would remain loyal to the GOP and never consider voting for Democrats who represented the party of the South. And that's the final part. The party of Lincoln was a northern party. It represented the non south because of how it was formed and because of its role in the Civil War, the 1856 election.
- [28:22]
Bob Crawford
A lot of people were afraid to vote for the Republican party because upending the status quo by having a sectional party. It just seemed like Civil war would have come sooner. Many thought, what about the Democratic Party? You mentioned the Democratic Party of Lincoln's time. Talk about them and the complexities of that Democratic Party.
- [28:46]
Julian Zelizer
It was parties back then had many different coalitions, so it wasn't one thing. And you had Northern Democrats who really, ultimately, really later in the 19th century would appeal to immigrants. And in a city like New York, Democrat didn't mean Dixiecrat. Democrat meant machine Democrat. And focusing on these new arrivals and power within the cities. But for, I think, a lot of the country, what Democrats meant in the wake of the Civil War was a party that was not committed to union, a party that was tied to the slave economy, and ultimately a party that would help pick apart Reconstruction after Lincoln's death and pressure Republicans in a number of instances, culminating in 1877 with dismantling this vast program meant to not only compensate but reconstruct American society after slavery in the Civil War. So Democrats were very much, for a while, a Southern party again. That would evolve and it would change by the 1930s. But that reputation was strong and with good reason.
- [30:00]
Menelik Lumumba
Welcome to the A Building. I'm Hans Charles Armenalek Lumumba.
- [30:04]
Hans Charles
It's 1969. Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. Had both been assassinated, and black America was at a breaking point. Rioting and protest broke out on an.
- [30:13]
Menelik Lumumba
Unprecedented scale in Atlanta, Georgia. At Martin's alma mater, Morehouse College, the students had their own protest. It featured two prominent figures in black history, Martin Luther King Sr. And a young student, Samuel L. Jackson.
- [30:30]
Hans Charles
To be in what we really thought was a revolution. I mean, people were dying.
- [30:34]
Julian Zelizer
1968, the murder of Dr. King, which traumatized everyone.
- [30:39]
Bob Crawford
The FBI had a role in the murder of a Black Panther leader in Chicago.
- [30:45]
Hans Charles
This story is about protest. It echoes in today's world far more than it should, and it will blow your mind.
- [30:53]
Menelik Lumumba
Listen to the A building on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [31:03]
Ben Higgins
What do you do when the headlines don't explain what's happening inside of you? I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me is where culture meets the soul. A place for real conversation. Each episode, I sit down with people from all walks of life, celebrities, thinkers and everyday folks. And we go deeper than the polished story. We talk about what drives us, what shapes us us and what gives us hope. We get honest about the big stuff. Identity when you don't recognize yourself anymore. Loss that changes you purpose. When success isn't enough. Peace when your mind Won't slow down faith when it's complicated. Some guests have answers. Most are still figuring it out. If you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. Listen to if you can hear me on the I Heart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [32:00]
Hans Charles
Segregation in the day, integration at night.
- [32:05]
Charlie Fitzgerald
When segregation was the law, one mysterious black club owner had his own rules.
- [32:10]
Alexis Koh
We didn't worry about what was going on outside. It was like stepping in another world.
- [32:16]
Charlie Fitzgerald
Inside Charlie's Place, black owned and white people danced together. But not everyone was happy about it.
- [32:23]
Julian Zelizer
You saw the kkk. Yeah, they was dressed up in their uniform.
- [32:28]
Bob Crawford
The KKK set out to raid Charlie.
- [32:31]
Julian Zelizer
Take him away from here. Charlie was an example of power. They had to crush him.
- [32:41]
Charlie Fitzgerald
From Atlas Obscura, Rococo Punch and visit Myrtle beach comes Charlie's Place, a story that was nearly lost to time until now. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
- [32:59]
Ryder Strong
This is Ryder Strong and I have a new podcast called the Red Weather.
- [33:04]
Alexis Koh
It was many and many a year ago in a kingdom by the sea.
- [33:09]
Ryder Strong
In 1995, my neighbor and a trainer disappeared from a commune. It was hard to wrap your head around. It was nature and trees and praying and drugs.
- [33:17]
Julian Zelizer
So, no, I am not your guru.
- [33:21]
Ryder Strong
And back then, I lied to my parents, I lied to police, I lied to everybody.
- [33:26]
Alexis Koh
There were years, Ryder, where I could.
- [33:28]
Charlie Fitzgerald
Not say your name.
- [33:29]
Ryder Strong
I've decided to go back to my hometown in Northern California, interview my friends, family, talk to police, journalists, whomever I can to try to find out what actually happened.
- [33:38]
Bob Crawford
Isn't it a little bit weird that they obsess over hippies in the woods and not the obvious boyfriend?
- [33:43]
Julian Zelizer
They have had this case for 30 years. I'll teach you sons of Come around here in my white Boom, boom.
- [33:50]
Ryder Strong
This is the red weather. Listen to the red Weather on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [34:01]
Bob Crawford
This is American History Hotline. I. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Today my guest is Julian Zelizer. He's a New York Times bestselling author. His newest book is In Defense of Partisanship. We're talking about the Democratic and Republican party realignment of the mid 20th century. What you just said, parties evolve and change. So it's not like. Well, I mean. Well, it's kind of. It seems abrupt. I think of tariffs, I think of Trump and tariffs. And that seems like an abrupt switch for a major political party to make. I mean, like a light switch. Switch.
- [34:42]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah. I mean, I think that's a good point. And there's different kinds of changes. I mean, I've been working on. I'm working on a substack I have now called the Longview. And it's constantly wrestling with that duality. Meaning there are certain things that happen in American politics which rightly are seen as dramatic and quick. And an issue like the tariff, where the Republicans have moved from staunchly being a free trade party, really, through certainly George W. Bush, where it was very marginal. Anyone who would think not of one tariff, but of an entire tariff regime to where we are today, and part of that is Trump. This is someone who has been obsessed with this and now has the power after decades to put it into place. But other parts, I think, have been kind of a slow burn, and they've been taking place slowly. So you can also look at Trump's departure from these international alliances like NATO, and that's been building up over the decades. I mean, even in the Reagan era, you see more skepticism toward members of NATO complaints. They don't pay enough. George W. Bush, who's the president during 9 11, is willing to go his own way, even though he does still want support from his allies. And you have more voices within the GOP organizations and conservative groups who are more critical of that. And so that's more. It's finally finding the president who will represent how the party had been changing, rather than being nostalgic and trying to do something. But with the tariffs, I think it's rightfully a pretty big shift, and it's not surprising. That's one area you've seen more Republican private grumbling, but even some public grumbling. Not only the economic effects, but this is not what a lot of the party stands for.
- [36:36]
Bob Crawford
Well, I mean, many of these congressmen in the numbering in the hundreds, ran ads, free trade ads, you know, within the past several cycles. And now they have to go back to their constituents and say, everything I believed pre2024 has now changed.
- [36:55]
Julian Zelizer
And it's like NAFTA when that passed, which has been the heart of the complaint for many people who are supportive of the tariffs. That happens first under George H.W. bush, a Republican. He gets it underway and gets the agreement in place. Then President Clinton is the president when that gets ratified. But he works with Republicans in Congress. Democrats are against it, but people like Newt Gingrich, who at the time, they are the radicals in the group, they are the ones who work with him, to the consternation of many Democrats, to get this agreement through because they believe that free trade is a good thing without many restrictions. So it is unbelievable to see the party and watch the party as they wrestle with really a contradiction of their own history.
- [37:44]
Bob Crawford
So what I'm getting from everything that you've said is parties wrestle with these two forces. You have tradition and then you have the changing times. Right. The moments, I just, I think of this country since 9, 11, or really since the 2000 election and how dramatically this first 25 years of this century have been. So talk about that. Talk about the tradition of parties, because your book In Defense of Partisanship, you really. That is a. For anybody who's listening today who wants to learn more about the evolution and change of parties in Congress, that is a roadmap for everything we're talking about.
- [38:31]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah, thanks. I try to do that. And look, we are in an age where people think what a party is today is always what it's been. But these are institutions, organizations. They have a history of their own. And while people love to talk about third parties all the time, will there be a new third party? I'm asked that constantly. What's, I think more interesting and more realistic is how do parties change internally? And they can change in terms of the coalition. So Democrats until the 1970s and 80s were really a party where the weight of the leadership was in the South. And even as northern liberals became more influential, it was the Southern Democrat who was the face of the party. Fast forward to today. It's hard to find many Southern Democrats. And when Democrats win in a state like Georgia, it's a surprise as opposed to a predicted outcome. Their ideologies change over time. I think that's what we're talking about. Republicans, certainly since Reagan, were really a free trade party. They were for open commerce. They weren't for government interfering in business. And that has changed over time in terms of a policy position to where we are today, where it's not only tariffs, a heavy hand of government making decisions about what will or will not happen with the economy. And then finally, it's just broader coalitions change. You know, labor was a huge part of the Democratic coalition from the 30s to the 70s. It no longer is. That coalition now rests on groups and organizations that represent suburban voters and coastal issues, including the environment. It's not a coastal issue, but that's where support is. So on all fronts, parties constantly evolve. They. They will. Again, these are not static creatures. And I think that's where the fights really take place. It again, there's lots of third party conversation, but the real interesting issue is what's going on within the parties and where is there space for big changes? I'll conclude there by saying, you know, you're seeing the Republicans since the 70s, since Nixon talked about a silent majority have been trying to win over more and more disaffected Democratic voters. For Nixon and Reagan, it was white ethnic voters in cities who were still pretty liberal on social issues, on economic issues, often union members, but didn't like the civil rights revolution. They were uncomfortable with feminism and environmentalism for different reasons. And now I think Trump has really finished that shift and brought many white working class voters, particularly rural male voters, into the coalition. So that's a long term change that he has perfected and finished. And I think those are the questions we really need to look at in party politics. Politics.
- [41:32]
Bob Crawford
Who's driving that change? Right. Trump is a, I mean, a once in a lifetime charismatic figure. Right. Love him or hate him, he is consequential. So is party change typically driven by the voters or by the elected officials? Both.
- [41:50]
Julian Zelizer
I mean, it's a historian's answer, but it's both. I don't think it's one individual, though. I never think that's the answer. But if you think of the Republican Party and how they moved in that direction, you could think first of just an electoral response to civil rights since the 60s, which over time did erode some support from white voters whose economic interests were still with the Democrats. But that issue really was important. And added to that were other social issues right through this day with the trans ad in 2024. And so that isn't an individual, it's an electorate. Gradually parts of an electorate responding to changes in public policy, to changes in national politics. But then there are leaders. Presidents are the most well known, but legislators are important who capitalize on this and figure out, how do you get that vote. Reagan was very good at it, partly through his charisma and his vision, partly through his appeal to these issues much more subtly than President Trump talking about welfare queens as a way to kind of tap into some of that anger, opposition, to busing, all of that. And that has been a series of leaders. The Tea Party in Congress you could think of has been very effective at continuing to work that room, so to speak, in politics and culminating with Trump. You know, you can't have it from one direction only. I think that's when the big changes happen. The leaders match up and sync up with changing electoral preferences. And sometimes stimulate and energize those elements. But they're not just making it out of fresh air usually.
- [43:38]
Bob Crawford
It's just hard to believe, Julian, that. That welfare queens is now considered subtle.
- [43:43]
Julian Zelizer
Yes. I mean, we've seen a radicalization in Republican politics. The things that are said today certainly by President Trump would have not been either acceptable in 1980s Republicans politics, or at a minimum, politically tolerable. There's a famous interview with Lee Atwater, who is a big political operative who ran parts of Reagan's campaign, ran famously George H.W. bush's 1988 campaign. He does a very candid interview at one point where he becomes more apologetic by the end of his life, where he talks really explicitly how Republicans figured out ways to talk about race in code words. States rights, he says, was a way to talk about it without talking about it. And so it wasn't not deliberative in how they did this and thought about it. But what we've seen is some of those guardrails, whether they're moral, ethical, or whether just political, have fallen away. And I don't think Republicans in 2025 feel the need to be very subtle about some of these issues. On immigration, even the rhetoric that President Trump uses, let alone the policies, are so extreme that it's hard to fathom that Ronald Reagan, who passes with Democrats a bill, who supports a bill that comes out in 86 that provides amnesty to, I think over a million persons who are living here, that he would ever talk that way. And I think that change has been really, really significant. And it's very defining right now. And I don't think Republicans can escape it anymore. They are. This is the party, Julian, We've talked.
- [45:25]
Bob Crawford
A lot about the Republican Party of today. What about the Democratic Party of today?
- [45:31]
Julian Zelizer
The Democrats have changed too. I mean, I think in terms of the electorate, it's not untrue that over the last few decades, the suburban, college educated voter has become much more important in terms of dictating the party's preferences. And coastal Democrats have become more important than they had been back even in the 1950s and 60s. If you hear Lyndon Johnson in the 60s, he's really thinking of union voters in a state like Michigan or Wisconsin and really focused on them. In addition to Southern Democrats who, despite civil rights, he still thought on government issues outside of that were still supportive. Whereas today that red blue map and those blue areas that are concentrated on the coast really are important parts of the electorate. I think a second area, Democrats, on economic issues, it's a fair argument that the leadership has moved to the center since Bill Clinton, I think, really, really. Jimmy Carter, I should say, since they started to push away from some of the philosophy of the New Deal and embraced some of Reaganism. Some people call it neoliberalism as a kind of not quite right wing conservative, but an acceptance that markets are quite important in public policy and on international policy. It's been messy. It's not that different where the party was. I actually think they're more internationalist Democrats today than they were in the 70s after Vietnam. They've been recommitted to these institutions and to the idea that the US should have a presence overseas. But at the most basic level, I think Democrats still just remain the party of FDR in that it's still a commitment to federal government intervention, both on economic issues, on social issues, and at some level overseas. And that's the constant part of where the party is. And it really, I think, shapes a lot of the party's character because ultimately they are committed to the ability to govern and they can't get away from that. And that leads them to compromise more, to be a little more pragmatic and not so extreme in their politics. That's how the party's both changed. In a core area, they've remained the same.
- [47:54]
Bob Crawford
Do they need to change? It seems like since the election, 2024, since election night, the media landscape seems to be putting a lot of blame on the Democratic Party or putting a lot of weight on the. The party's failure to connect with voters recently. Is that overblown?
- [48:16]
Julian Zelizer
I tend to think so. I mean, look after an election where the loss is this serious and it is a serious loss, even though it's not a landslide, any party would be foolhardy not to think of how they can improve and do better and not to look at the mistakes they made. Otherwise, they can easily recreate the same loss in four years. But that's different than saying it's a crisis. You have to overhaul everything. This is a party that still has a pretty big electoral reach. It's a party that won in 2020. In 2024, they lost, but they were not decimated. It was still the same map where you don't have a landslide. For President Trump in the Electoral College, he had a plurality, not a majority, in the vote. And so. And on top of it, we had this. If you read all these new books that are coming out about the election, you remember the situation was truly unusual. The candidate withdrew after essentially collapsing on a televised debate, and the next candidate was not only as vice president, which is very difficult to run in the best of conditions, but she had weeks to get this thing undergoing. And it's a she and her social identity makes it hard in this country. So in some ways she did pretty well and the Democrats didn't do so poorly. So I don't know. I think thinking of an overhaul at this point point misses some of the underlying strength. Look, if they can appeal more to working American white voters who again, still should be sympathetic to Democratic economic policies, they should think of how to do that. They should think of how to become more appealing to young voters who still are pretty sympathetic to, I think, most of what the Democratic Party is about. And you're seeing it in the first wave of Trump polls were indicating a lot of the support from these groups is already weakening after his first hundred days. And so there might be room for Democrats to do that. And obviously finding candidates who don't necessarily represent a totally new vision for the party, but are exciting, energetic, appealing, I think that's what they should be focused on as opposed to re envisioning everything. That's my take on the election. It just comes back to the fact this was still a post 1984, meaning post the final landslide election that we've had kind of election. It's one on the margins. That doesn't mean a party has imploded. It means a party can do better.
- [50:53]
Bob Crawford
So let's go back about 230 years. George Washington, I'm thinking of his farewell address. What did he tell the American people? Warn the American people of when it comes to political parties? Because, Julian, political parties, they're the centerpiece of American government.
- [51:12]
Julian Zelizer
Right?
- [51:13]
Bob Crawford
And what did the man above all party say about parties?
- [51:18]
Julian Zelizer
Look, the founders of the country, most of them, and Washington as the first president, were fearful of parties. And he warns against what these kinds of divisions will do to the country. And there was a fear of what they called faction and how we had to essentially remain focused on being a nation, a republic, as opposed to a divided party. The problem was it didn't really work out that way. We had parties from day one. We have divisions in this country, and parties have represented them. And I think there's a very good argument, and obviously I've helped make this too, that parties have served a function. They have represented those differences, and when they work well, they're a healthy institution, and that's why they've been here forever. And they're the best thing we have at this point in dealing with these divisions. But the warning still matters. I mean, I think, look, it's aspirational, and that's still relevant. And you want presidents who push against the divisions, even if those divisions will exist. I think that's a good thing. And that's part of the function of the president is even as we're tearing ourselves apart and we are on many issues where we don't agree. Reproductive rights is an example. Taxes, war. It's good to have leaders who say, all right, everyone come back into the room now, and let's just take a deep breath before we go out for round two. But that was part of the warning. It was a warning against faction. But Washington also makes another warning, which today I think deserves more attention. And simply by stepping down, he was warning against the potential for centralized, unchecked power in our system. That concerned him very much. He did not want a monarch in this country that was important to the founders. That was important in Washington's addresses, and it was important in what he did by giving up power. He gave up power at the very start, when he was a very popular, beloved figure in American politics. And that's the warning for me. More than the party division, which I think, again, was just aspirational, it's very real and touched on something that we have seen and we're seeing is very dangerous when we centralize too much power and put it in the hands of a person, in this case, who won't give it up or won't give it up easily.
- [53:39]
Bob Crawford
Real quick, what is the likelihood that. That President Trump could mount a third. A campaign for a third term?
- [53:48]
Julian Zelizer
My rule of thumb is, if he says he's going to do something, I believe he's going to do it, and maybe he won't. But it's a very serious possibility. It totally contradicts the intention of the 22nd Amendment. I think there's very good clarity. Maybe he's going to wordsmith how he does it or do one of these, you know, I'll run for vice president, that personal step down, and there I am again. But I think it should be taken seriously. I mean, we see at the start of Trump 2.0, very dramatic and bold actions that threaten and challenge the legitimacy of the court and the Constitution, frankly. I mean, he jettisoned due process right off the bat with his deportations and doesn't seem to really care. So why wouldn't he? If he wants, and he might not want to in a few years, we'll see how this all goes. But I think we should expect it could be a reality And I think politicians have a constitutional argument against it, so they should be working or thinking about what to do in the meantime to prepare for that. But it's a very real possibility.
- [54:56]
Bob Crawford
Well, from one ridiculous question to a final ridiculous question, forgive my premise, but just a button, button this up. Yeah, we're going to rerun the 1860 election in today, and Abraham Lincoln is going to run. Does he run as a Republican or does he run as a Democrat?
- [55:17]
Julian Zelizer
I mean, if he was, it's always hard to imagine what he would even be thinking. But there's so many changes in American society since, and even the size of the government he didn't imagine, couldn't have imagined. But I would say if he was running today in these political parties, he would fit much more comfortably in where the Democratic Party is than the Republican Party and certainly the Republican Party of Trump. The party of Trump is what it is right now. It's hard to envision, given what he did and given the battle he fought for the union and ultimately to end this terrible institution, that he would, you know, feel like the GOP is his party anymore. That's obviously speculation, counterfactual history. But that is how I would react and I think many other people would react to that question.
- [56:09]
Bob Crawford
I have been talking to Julian Zelizer. He's a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He's also a New York Times bestselling author of many, many books. His latest is titled In Defense of Partisanship and his substack is the Longview. Please check it out. Julian, thanks for joining us today on American History Hotline.
- [56:31]
Julian Zelizer
Thanks for having me. It's been great.
- [56:37]
Bob Crawford
You've been listening to American History Hotline, a production of Iheart podcasts and Scratch Track Productions. The show's executive producer is James Morrison. Our executive producer producers from Iheart are Jordan Runtal and Jason English. Original music composed by me, Bob Crawford. Please keep in touch. Our email is americanhistoryhotlinemail.com if you like the show, please tell your friends and leave us a review in Apple Podcasts. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Feel free to hit me up on social media to add ask a history question or to let me know what you think of the show. You can find me at bobcrawford Base. Thanks so much for listening. See you next week.
- [57:31]
Mandy B
Over the last couple years, didn't we learn that the folding chair was invented by black people because of what happened.
- [57:37]
Julian Zelizer
In Alabama Montgomery Brawl?
- [57:39]
Mandy B
This Black History Month, the piece podcast Selective Ignorance with Mandy B Unpacks Black History and culture with comedy, clarity and conversations that shake the status quo. The Crown act in New York was signed in July of 2019, and that is a bill that was passed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race. To hear this and more, listen to Selective Ignorance with Mandy B. From the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast.
- [58:05]
Hans Charles
1969 Malcolm and Martin are gone, America is in crisis, and at Morehouse College, the students make their move.
- [58:12]
Menelik Lumumba
These students, including a young Samuel L. Jackson, locked up the members of the Board of trustees, including Martin Luther King Sr. It's the true story of protest and rebellion in black American history that you'll never forget. I'm Hans Charles.
- [58:27]
Hans Charles
I'm Menelik Lumumba.
- [58:28]
Menelik Lumumba
Listen to the A Building on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [58:34]
Ben Higgins
You can scroll the headlines all day and still feel empty. I'm Ben Higgins and if you can hear me is where culture meets the soul. Honest conversations about identity, loss, purpose, peace, faith and everything in between. Celebrities, thinkers, everyday people. Some have answers. Most are still figuring it out. And if you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. You listen to if you can hear me on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [59:05]
Charlie Fitzgerald
When segregation was a law, one mysterious black club owner, Charlie Fitzgerald, had his own rules.
- [59:11]
Hans Charles
Segregation in the day, integration at night.
- [59:14]
Alexis Koh
It was like stepping on another world.
- [59:17]
Charlie Fitzgerald
Was he a businessman, a criminal? A hero?
- [59:21]
Julian Zelizer
Charlie was an example, a power. They had to crush him.
- [59:25]
Charlie Fitzgerald
Charlie's Place from Atlas Obscura and visit Myrtle Beach. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.