What America 250 is Really All About

Summary

Podcast Summary: Next Up with Mark Halperin

"What America 250 is Really All About"

Date: July 2, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin (A)
Guests: Victor Davis Hanson (B), Aaron Tang (C)

---

Overview

Mark Halperin’s July 4th edition of "Next Up" takes a reflective and forward-thinking look at the meaning of America’s 250th birthday. With guests historian Victor Davis Hanson and legal scholar Aaron Tang, the episode explores America’s foundational principles, its evolution over 250 years, its uniqueness among nations, and what challenges and hopes define the future of the republic.
Halperin’s reported monologue and the two wide-ranging interviews discuss the spirit of openness, civic integration, America’s strengths and weaknesses, and the enduring importance of dialogue across differences.

---

Mark Halperin’s Monologue: The Meaning of America at 250

[03:45–18:11]

Key Themes

• Openness as America’s Defining Trait:
  Halperin emphasizes “openness” — to people, ideas, and possibility — as the singular American quality that underpins both economic dynamism and social cohesion.

  “To me, the greatness of America in so many ways can be defined by that one word: we are an open country. Open to economic possibility, open to others.” — Mark Halperin [08:51]

• Diversity and Opportunity:
  He reflects on immigrant stories from every state, noting people often arrived in the U.S. to give their family a better life, even when it meant starting over.

  “Almost invariably there’s a chapter in the origin story, one generation back, two generations back, where somebody took a risk, somebody said, I’m going to be part of the American experience. And they came here.” [13:41]

• America’s Persistent Challenges:
  Halperin doesn’t shy away from polarization, inequality, and flaws in the system, but echoes Bill Clinton’s optimism:

  “There’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be solved by what’s right in America.” [07:11]

• Comparative Perspective:
  Having reported in all 50 states, Halperin argues America’s openness to ideas and people is unmatched worldwide, visible in everything from tech innovation to everyday interpersonal kindness.

• Pluralism and Civil Discourse:
  He laments the amplification of divisive voices by media and algorithms, but maintains that at the ground level, Americans’ willingness to help and debate respectfully is still alive.

Memorable Quotes

• “No one has been more open to possibility, to ideas, to others in the history of the world.” [17:38]
• “The crowding out of openness to new ideas ... comes from algorithms and media and political forums whose profit model is based on not being open.” [10:30]

---

Victor Davis Hanson Interview: American Strengths, Divisions & Resilience

[18:11–38:24]

The State of the American Experiment

• American Resilience & Power:
  Hanson argues the U.S. is thriving by global metrics—constitutional stability, industrial might, food production, military, and STEM education:

  “We have the longest constitutional stability... largest producer in history of gas and oil... largest food producer. Our fertility's anemic but robust compared to the West.” [18:20]

• Assimilation & Civic Education in Crisis:
  America’s openness to immigrants can be a great asset if accompanied by assimilation and civic education, but he warns of increasing balkanization:

  “We’ve kind of dropped civic education and any type of unifying experience... We’re kind of tribalizing and balkanizing and we talk about various communities as if they're separate entities. That’s not going to work in the long term.” [20:56]

Comparing U.S. and Europe’s Trajectories

• Class, Mobility, and Innovation:
  U.S. dynamism contrasts with Europe’s class structure and risk aversion:

  “We don’t have a class structured system like the Europeans... Americans are sort of, each generation, it’s up to them to be successful. That’s a dynamic, fluid society.” [22:01]

  “The U.S. admires success and asks how; in Europe, the tendency is to kick it... Class envy retards social mobility and innovation.” [22:35]

  “In America, Americans are perfectly happy with people who have more than they do, as long as everybody is better off. Europeans...would rather be worse off but equal.” [25:40]

Federalism, Regional Division, and Risk of Fragmentation

• America’s Unique Federal System:
  The Founders designed federalism as a “safety valve” to allow for regional differences. Hanson notes current polarization has a worrying geographic component, echoing dangers last seen before the Civil War:

  “What’s worrisome is when there’s a geographical component to ideological differences...The ideologically left is blue and red and maybe 20 years ago they were purple everywhere. Now they’re starting to separate.” [28:52]

• Are We Headed Toward Civil War?
  Hanson doesn’t see imminent civil war, but acknowledges the “scary” intensity of current political division—especially the way anger is more often stoked from the left, and a culture of “owning” or destroying opponents:

  “The left is more intense ... They keep trying to push agendas... That’s the type of public discourse that brings out Ruth or some of these other people. It’s scary.” [34:14]

America’s All-Star Civilian Team

• Hanson’s Five Greatest Non-Governmental Americans:
  — Elon Musk (innovation/tech)
  — William Knudsen or Henry Kaiser (industrial might, WWII)
  — Martin Luther King Jr. (civil rights and moral vision)
  — Mark Twain (literature, American character)
  — Notes importance of cultural figures and writers in unifying the nation

  “Mark Twain was the most American and summed up the American experience in a way that people from all different classes...It was unifying.” [37:29]

---

Aaron Tang Interview: Deliberation, the Supreme Court, and Civic Hope

[40:22–60:41]

The Spirit and Practice of Public Dialogue

• On “Breaking the Deadlock”:
  Tang’s PBS show seeks to model the type of respectful, nuanced deliberation the Founders hoped for:

  “I think what [the Founders] hoped was that men and women of good intention could sit down and listen to each other...rather than trying to destroy each other.” [41:27]

  “A good episode is when you have ‘agonizing moments’—acknowledging choices are hard, and getting leading Americans to really wrestle with them in an honest way.” [42:22]

The Supreme Court: Past, Present, and Reform

• Judicial Power, Then and Now:
  Tang argues the Founders didn’t expect “neutral” justices, but could not have imagined the modern Court’s vast reach:

  “The idea of neutral, dispassionate judges—I don’t think that was ever the reality. What’s different is the amount of power this Court exercises.” [44:46]

  “I think the framers would have thought most of these questions would have been left to the people acting through their elected lawmakers. A Congress that actually did work.” [45:27]

• The “Shadow Docket” & Speed of Decisions:
  Tang and Halperin discuss the Court’s tendency to both decide cases too quickly (through the shadow docket, less transparency) and too slowly (in resolving major, time-sensitive cases).

  “Nowadays, the Supreme Court will...issue a ruling without briefing, without oral argument...making these huge decisions without the benefit of full reasoned consideration.” [48:21]
  “These hundred-page opinions—nobody's reading them.” [53:46]

What’s Changed — and What to Hope For

• A Lost Civic Culture?
  Tang recalls a time when debates were about weighing two good choices, not existential warfare:

  “I have a distinct memory, when I was four years old, of my parents watching the Bush–Dukakis debate and saying they liked both candidates. I would love a time when Americans can watch a debate and not see it as blood sport.” [54:28]

• Dialogue Across Divides Matters:
  He notes that building shows in which harsh partisans can find common cause helps audiences see the possibility of productive civic engagement:

  “We always have stridently conservative, stridently liberal folks being able to talk to each other...to model what it would look like to have a conversation with a neighbor or somebody you go to church with, who you know voted for the other guy...” [42:56]

Notable Moments

• On Hamilton (the Musical):
  Tang discusses how the popularity of "Hamilton" deepens his kids’ understanding of American history and is hopeful for more ways to inspire the next generation:

  “I overall like this idea of people that we celebrate as heroes being flawed...it makes us history, the founding, the revolution, cool again.” [57:05–58:55]

• Hopes for America at 250+:

  “I’m hoping we’re around in 250, Mark...If the next generation can figure out how to talk to each other...we don’t have to give in to the glitz and glamour of politicians who make it look like life or death. It’s up to us as the people.” [59:08–60:15]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Description | Timestamp | | ------- | ----------- | --------- | | Monologue | Halperin on “Openness” | 03:45–18:11 | | Interview | Victor Davis Hanson: State of the American Experiment | 18:11–38:24 | | Interview | Aaron Tang: Deliberation & the Supreme Court | 40:22–60:41 |

---

Notable Quotes

• “There’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be solved by what’s right in America.” — Bill Clinton, quoted by Halperin [07:11]
• “Our universities are in crisis. But in terms of STEM...they rank about 45 universities in the top 50.” — Hanson [20:17]
• “Each generation, it’s up to them to be successful...We have a lot of economic fluidity.” — Hanson [22:01]
• “You want the good life for your kids, for our families, for this country. We don’t have to give in to the glitz and glamour of politicians who make it look like life or death.” — Tang [59:22]

---

Tone & Language

The tone throughout remains celebratory yet frank, with a patriotic admiration for America’s achievements but clear-eyed acknowledgment of its faults. The language is thoughtful, occasionally professorial (especially Hanson), but grounded in real-world examples and accessible metaphors. Both guests and the host reinforce the need for optimism, civil engagement, and hope for a more unified American future—even as they diagnose the causes and effects of today’s polarization.

---

In Summary:
The episode stands as a thoughtful, frank reflection on what has made America unique through 250 years, where it currently excels and struggles, and what must be done—through openness, pluralism, and robust civic dialogue—to make the next 250 years even more successful.

Transcript

[A]

Everybody. Welcome in. This is NextUp. I'm Mark Halpern. This is our July 4th edition. Fireworks free, but very festive nonetheless. I'm the editor in chief of two Way and your host. Here to everything. Next up, grateful to all of you for tuning in around the holiday season, starting off things a little bit early. Congratulations, you've built. You beat the Fourth of July rush. And we have a great show for you today. Some guests to talk about America and where we are on this very special July 4th America 250. Victor Davis Hansen, the great Victor Davis Hansen will be here, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, host of his own program. Like many guests on our show, Victor Davis Hansen in his own words. And then another guy with his own show, Aaron Tang will be here. You may not know Aaron, but he is just an incredibly engaging and smart guy. A law professor, UC Davis and and a moderator of PBS's Breaking the Deadlock. Aaron will be here to talk about his vision for America. And on this holiday themed episode, I'm very excited to talk to them about the founding principles of our country, the symbolism of America's 250th birthday and what they think the next 250 years are going to look like here. But before they join us, I'm going to talk to you about my view of America at 250. A youngster in terms of compared to other countries, but pretty, pretty impressive. 250 years of achievement. I've covered politics all around the country in 49 of the 50 states. I've been to all 50 states and traveled extensively and talked to people from every state and covered things from every conceivable angle. My reported monologue Today I'm going to want to tell you about what I've learned in my decades long career of reporting. So stay tuned. My reported monologue on America 250 is next up. Everybody, if you're 64 years of age or older, here's something worth knowing. Medicare has thousands of plans. Thousands. But most people, they pick just one without ever seeing the full picture. Plenty of people will call telling you they've got something better. The question is whether you can trust them. That's why I tell my audience about chapter they're the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. Their advisors aren't paid to push one plan over another. They look at your doctors, your prescriptions, your priorities, and they show you what plan actually fits for you. There's no cost, no obligation. Chapter Review your options in under 20 minutes. And if you're already on the right plan. They'll tell you that. But if not, they'll help you make the switch. Chapter has already saved members of my audience thousands of dollars by helping them find the right new plans. Call Chapter. That's the advice that I give to my friends. Talk with the Chapter Advisor. They call them at 262-454-0503. Again, call Chapter Advisor today at 262-454-0503. All right, everybody, next up, my reported monologue. Not intense reporting this week per se, but over the course of my career reporting on this great country of the United States of America. I always say, people say, what do you do for a living? Are you, I hear you're a political reporter. I'm not. I'm a reporter who covers America through the prism of our campaigns, our elections, our politics and our government and our leaders. And on this special episode, on this special year, I'm so taken by something that's happened around the World cup that many others have commented on, which is how the people from all over the world who've come to the United States, how happy they've been, how impressed they've been by the United States, how different the United States seems to them. And, you know, my career started in the Bush years of Bush 41 and then the Clinton years. And America has become divided in Washington around then. One of the great insights Bill Clinton had early on as he was grappling as president with the divisions in the country, he'd say two things. One that I have found to be true as I've Traveled around all 50 states, one is that Washington's more divided than the country. Our politics is more divided. The loudest and angriest voices on the national town square are not representative of most Americans. They just are the loudest and angriest. And the other thing Bill Clinton says, and sometimes when he would say this, it sound a little hokey to my ears. But as I've gotten older and as I've thought more about it, I think it's really true. He says, there's nothing wrong with America that can't be solved by what's right. There's nothing wrong with America that can't be solved by what's right in America. And I think that's absolutely true. And you see in, in all these people coming from all over the world for the World cup, you see, they, they have a great intuitive feel. They're like a thousand Tocquevilles coming from outside, maybe seeing the United States more clearly then we can see it now. A lot of things that are great about America that these tourists like are. They're material things. They like our rest stops. I get it. I like our rest stops too. And in, in technology, in culture, music, tv, movies, no country in the history of the world really has been our equal in how much people like our stuff. But there's obviously more to America than that. And the founders put in place not just a system of government, that separation of powers, co equal branches, the relationship between the states and the federal national government. All that was genius. And all that was meant to put in a governmental structure that would accommodate to the realities of human nature and that would stand the test of time. And for 250 years it has. All that stuff's great. But what they also saw was, was the importance of openness, of freedom. And that's where my travels around America and my travels to other countries, that's where I think we are greatest. And of course, openness has some negative sides. Openness can lead to crime. It can lead to an open border. Openness can lead to people being hurt by other people. But to me, the greatness of America in so many ways can be defined by that one word. We are an open country. Open to economic possibility, open to others. Open to others. Now, sometimes it's a language issue, but I know it's more than that because I go to countries where I can speak other languages or I'm with people who can speak other languages in New York City where I live, or in Wyoming, where I've been, or in Hawaii or Alaska or South Dakota or South Alabama. You go up to somebody on the street and say, you've got a problem, you need some help. More consistently than unlike any place I think in the world, people will help you. Now, that's not to say that people aren't nice and friendly other places, but there's an openness in America. If I go on two way or if I came on here and I said, here's a story about someone who needs some help, someone down on their luck. You know, a kid who needs an operation or a guy who's trying to start a farm to help his community, I could raise a lot of money in a hurry just by saying, please help this person. There's an openness. There's a. There's an openness to help. There's an openness of possibility. And that part of why our economy is so vibrant, but also why our society is so vibrant, it helps to be born rich and to be well connected to have access to capital. But the openness of our country is such that you see all sorts of businesses being started, particularly now in tech, that other places just harder to do. And it's not because other places have more regulation, although a lot of places do. It's not because there aren't, there aren't other, other kind of more concrete factors. There's just an attitude in this country of open to possibility, open to say, I'm gonna, I got a great idea. I'm gonna start a business and I'm gonna do X. And it might be I'm gonna start a dry cleaner. Not a new business, but it might be I'm gonna start a business to use AI to revolutionize the dry cleaning business. I find everywhere I go in the United States that openness, openness to strangers, openness. And yes, even in this age of extraordinary polarization, extraordinary political polarization, openness to ideas. Part of why I love doing what I do is whether it's in person or on two way or here on NextUp, I can talk to people and they'll be open to ideas. They'll be open to ideas they don't agree with. And again, that's because the crowding out of openness to new ideas, ideas you don't agree with, that comes from the algorithms and that comes from media and political forums whose profit model, whose economic model is based on not being open of saying, we're going to make fun of people who disagree with us. We're going to shut out people who disagree with us. But the founders saw that there was going to be competing ideas in America and they like the notion of may the best ideas win. If you go back and read the stuff that they wrote. Federalist Papers is the most common thing people talk about. But just go read their letters. Somebody shared with me the other day a letter George Washington wrote to a Rhode island synagogue. Beautiful, beautiful writing, but again, an understanding that. Make your argument, state your point of view, but be open to the fact that other people might disagree. And, and don't let that make you angry, don't let that consume you with negativity, but love the plural, the pluralistic nature of it. We are, we are so diverse. We are so pluralistic. There's so much diversity in America. People's stories, I ask, I've done this my whole career. I ask people, what generation American are you Tell me the story of how your family came to be here in America. And, and some people know their stories quite well, some people less so. But almost invariably in the stories of Americans who are alive now, who I talk to, almost invariably there's a chapter in the origin story, one generation back, two generations back, maybe just in the current generation, where somebody took a risk, somebody said, I'm going to be part of the American experience. And they came here. And rarely is it they came here and they were, you know, they were just as well off as. As when they came. In fact, I hear, I hear often my dad or my grandfather was a surgeon or a CEO or owned real, you know, owned a lot of real estate. And he came to America and for the first X number of years, they drove a cab. For the first X number of years, they worked in a dry cleaner and then they bought the dry cleaner. They came here knowing that they would be starting slightly back or way back from where they were. And, and, and they came with the confidence that this would be the best place for their kids, their grandkids, their best place for them to have fulfilling lives. Now, look, there's. There's a lot of things I could spend the same amount of time we've talked talking about the things that are wrong with America. But as Bill Clinton said, there's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed but by what's right with America. It'd be great to have less polarization. It'd be great to have less income inequality. It'd be great to have better educated schools, better educated kids and better schools. We should aspire to all that. But even during this period of polarization at 250, I've seen it in every state in the union. I see it every day on two way. I see it every time I'm interacting with nexters. This country's openness to others, this country's openness to greatness has never been matched. And that doesn't mean we should look down on other countries, of course, or say we're greater than everything ever in every respect. But I feel confident saying on this 250th anniversary of the United States of America, no one has been more open to possibility, to ideas, to others in the history of the world. No one has been more open than the United States of America. And you can see it manifested around the World Cup. We'll see it around the Olympics. We see it even in the most negative politics moments we have in our politics. Things that happen in the United States in the political realm, which are offensive to some and bothersome to some in most cases, would not happen in other countries, would not be tolerated, would not be accepted in other countries. I love Silicon Valley. I love Hollywood, I love Broadway. I love all, all of our sports leagues. We do things bigger here. We do things here with the openness to new ideas and dreaming that is the envy of the whole world. The envy of the whole world. And I look at some of these other countries who have thriving middle class, upper class economic success and they can't match us for ingenuity. Look at all of these tech companies that have been some of the biggest ones. Obviously everybody knows, but below Meta and Google and all that Alphabet, we've got all of these tech companies in the United States that are just brilliant. It's brilliant. And they're the product of fundraising and hiring and all the things you do to start a business. But most of all, they are a product of the openness of the American mind to dream big. I'm so, so grateful that in my career I've had the opportunity to travel as I have to talk to people around the country as I have. And whenever people say, oh, you're a political reporter, you must be so cynical, I always politely tell them, no, I'm not a political reporter. I cover the United States of America and the American people. And I'm not the least bit cynical. And I've grown even less cynical, more hopeful as I've become a dad, but also as I've learned over time, just how extraordinary the dreams and openness the American people are happy and proud to be hosting this show and to have you as nexters and to have you as part as we go forward into the next 250 years as a country together. There you have it. My thoughts on America 250. Grateful to you. Want to know what you think about this holiday and this special celebration going on throughout the country. Send me an email nextupilmaycaremedia.com that's nextupilmare devilmaycare media.com Let me know what you're thinking about. About what makes America great on this extraordinary year for this country. Also, make sure you subscribe to Next up on our YouTube channel. You can catch every episode there and exclusive bonus content we drop there on occasion. And then make sure you subscribe on the YouTube channel, YouTube.com NextUp Halperin YouTube.com NextUp Halpern and if you watched on YouTube and you've never subscribed, please take the time this holiday episode to do that. And if you listen to the program as a podcast, same idea. Be part of the community, make sure you don't miss a thing and get all our content right away. By turning on your downloads on Apple or Spotify. Wherever you listen to the program that way again, you'll be sure to get everything as soon as it goes live. All of the next up content. All right, quick break, then we come back and a special treat for me and for you. The great Victor Davis Hansen is next up. You know, in today's world, finding solutions to deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem rare. Sewer Sentry is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies help communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs and prevent costly sewer system failures before they occur. The result? Improved performance, reduced operating expenses and long term savings for taxpayers. Environmental advocates value cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, stronger protection of natural resources and technologies that can reduce vibrio contamination in waterways. Fiscal conservatives value cost control, efficiency and a solid return on investment. Sewer Sentry delivers on all of those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment on the one hand and protecting budgets on the other. It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both with systems that are faster to install, cheaper to operate and better for overall infrastructure performance. Sewer Sentry helps communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money, conserves energy, safeguards waterways, reduces contamination and protects public health, everyone benefits. Sewer Sentry faster, cheaper, better. For more information about all this, go to www.sewer sentry.com again www.sewer sentry.Com next up. And joining me now to continue to talk about America's Birthday, special birthday is a guest who combines a lot of attributes, smart, interesting, interested, great communicator, principled, and never before been on the program, which I'm happy to say we solved today in honor of America's 250, Victor Davis Hansen, Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution and a host of his program, Victor Davis Hansen in his own Words. New episodes run so often, I'm not sure how he's found time to join us Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Victor Davis Hansen, welcome to Next Up.

[B]

Thank you for having me, Mark.

[A]

Very grateful to you for making time we often call America's great experiment. How's the experiment going?

[B]

I think it's going pretty well. If you look at the criteria of what makes a society viable, it's the basics. We have the longest constitutional stability of any consensual government in the world. We're the largest producer in history of gas and oil. Fuel is always important for civilizations. We're the largest food producer. We have pretty much the most robust. It's anemic, but it's robust compared to the rest of The Western world in terms of fertility, 1.7. So we're not shrinking and aging to the degree that our competitors like China or allies like Europe is. China was supposed to at this point surpassed our gdp, but that didn't happen. In terms of, you know, per capita GDP, four Chinese create 60% of the GDP per capita that one American does. So it takes four of their workers to do 60% of what we do. They may have about a 20 trillion dollar GDP. We have 60, excuse me, 30 despite they have a 1.4 billion people. And you know, militarily, I think we've recaptured the initiative in space, satellites, robotics, AI is going well. We've done carrier groups for 100 years. We have 11 of them, they have three. I know they're rapidly trying to increase their nuclear fleet, but basically we have 10 times away the number of nuclear weapons. Our universities are in crisis. But in this terms of STEM graduate programs, they still in the top of the top 50 university. They rank about 45 universities in the top 50. So that's going good. I think the biggest challenge we're having, big, large dynamic democracies don't do well when they don't integrate, assimilate, acculturate different peoples if they're not uniracial or uni ethnic like China or Japan, but they're more like Brazil or India and these are quasi democratic societies and they don't acculturate, integrate, assimilate, they don't do well. We're at an all time high with 53 million people that were not born in the United States, some 16% that can be a great asset. But we've kind of dropped civic education and any type of unifying experience, whether it's in the schools or the popular culture. So we're kind of tribalizing and balkanizing and we talk about various communities as if they're separate entities. That's doesn't, that's not going to work in the long term I think. So that's my biggest worry right there.

[A]

Yeah, you're as always a pretty much of a half glass, more than half full kind of guy. But you did highlight at least one problem. I'm so struck as we think about our relationship with Europe in comparison to Europe, how different we are. And both the Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio have given extraordinary speeches, really I think amongst the best speeches I've heard given by American leaders over the course of my career, warning the Europeans that it's not just about NATO, although NATO is a big issue. It's about Their economics, their culture, how they deal with young people, how they deal with immigrants. What has allowed the United States to. For all the problems we have to not succumb to, what Europe has succumbed to, all these problems that the Vice President and the Secretary of State have highlighted that really put them in crisis and they don't seem to be waking from their slumber.

[B]

Yeah, I think part of it is our class. We don't have a class structured system like the Europeans. We don't really care what your parents did or how much land you own or how many generations you've been. I mean, those are nice things, but Americans are sort of. Each generation, it's up to them to, to be successful. We go, we have a lot of economic fluidity. You can be very wealthy and your kids can't be. Or your kids can be. Go and exceed their parents. And that, that's kind of a dynamic, fluid society. The other thing, I think it's very important. We have an ethos from the very beginning. I think Tocqueville's talked about Americans that I guess the Greeks would call it a good type of envy. It's an envy of emulation. If you and I see a guy with a Cadillac and we're driving a jalopy, we go over there and ask him how he bought it, how much it costs, what, what's he got on it. If you're in Europe, the. I'm kind of exaggerating a bit, but your, your tendency is to kick it. How do you get that? That was wrong. You shouldn't have had that. And that comes from a lot of the class envy that. That really retard social mobility, innovation. And so I think that's been very important to the United States. We had a frontier and it really encouraged dynamic people to go west. And that spirit of creating something out of nothing. And you look at, we kind of replace it with these immigrants. But when you look at someone like the founders of Google or Elon Musk that come here, they get the sense that in the United States there's going to be less regulation, less government coercion, more free speech, less censorship, and more admiration for what you create. And that, that seems to be uniquely American. And when you look at Europe, I mean, they've destroyed their energy grid, but going this subsidized green. Their borders have been open, illegal immigration. They do not assimilate, acculturate, intermarry like we do. They haven't had that experience as long as we have. Their fertility is really scary. At 1.3. 1.4. They're aging, they're shrinking. They don't. They feel. They. They're sort of utopian. They got to the end of history and that weaponry is. Was obsolete. The United States was sort of their Roman legions. They were the Greek philosophers, and they had transcended that. That's all coming back, I think for a variety of reasons. What we see in the Middle east with the Ukraine war, the rise of the United States, China, all of that is really. I shocked them that their paradigm didn't work. And it's very dangerous for their survival.

[A]

Well, and. Well and brilliantly said. But I'm going to double back for part of it that still confuses me. You talked about the frontier that's 200 years old. We don't have that anymore. We do, metaphorically. But that spirit, my son isn't imbued with the frontier spirit in the way previous generations were. And you talk about the Europeans and the class system and all that. They have the same Internet we do. They have the same world economy as we do. They don't have all our natural advantages. But shouldn't they be shaking this off? Shouldn't they look at America? They love America. They all watch friends, they all watch the NFL. Shouldn't they look at America and be able to copy what we do? Or they can't, or they don't want to. Why, why don't we. Why are we going to have a monopoly on so many of these things?

[B]

Still, I think they still are. Are wedded or they're trapped in this view that America is this aberrant offshoot of Europe and it's a wide open society of cowboys and rich people and great divergencies and in class and the way I think Tocqueville said it, the best. The United States. In the United States he had hope because the independent in that time, it was the agrarian class, small landowners of 1830. There wasn't a peasant class. But what he analyzed was applicable to any period. And he said basically, in America, Americans are perfectly happy with people who have more than they do, as long as everybody in that process is better off. Europeans, he said, they are. Ha. They insist that everybody be equal, coercively equal, even if that means they're all worse off. They'd rather be worse off than equal than Americans would rather be better off, but some more better off. And that. That kind of sums it up in the United States that part of it's their class system. Part of it is they were the embryo of communism and socialism that had Strong roots and they're, they are command economies still in parts. They're very socialistic. And the equality, I mean the French Revolution is egalitarianism and fraternity and ours is liberty and it's a big difference. The French Revolution was trying to make everybody equal and we were trying to allow everybody their own initiative and to have freedom. Liberty is a kind of a different idea than coerced freedom.

[A]

It's just so incredible how relevant de Tocqueville still is. Just like with the founders Federalist Papers. I mean if you've not read de Tocqueville and you're listening to us, I recommend it. The guy just got in the United States and every insight he had or many of the insights he had, I guess are still relevant to understanding why this country is different than every other place. Really just a phenomenal, a phenomenal ability to see what was special about America. Have you lived your whole life in California?

[B]

Yes, I, I'm speaking from my farm. I'm the fifth generation live in the same house. Yeah, it's. I haven't gone too far. I commute to Stanford once a week.

[A]

But how many of, how many of the other 49 states have you been to?

[B]

I've been to every state. I travel too much. I did. I had a health issue lately, but I. Until then I was flying once every two weeks. So I've been. Been to every state and.

[A]

Yeah, I've been to every state too and, and I've covered politics in 49 of the 50.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I've just, I'm so struck by. We have our federal system. Other countries really mostly don't have states that are as empowered as our states and the founders, again ingenious. Not just the federal separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and the executive, but power balance between the states and the federal government. And now we have this self sorting for the most part. Polarization and partisanship. Red America and blue America. Within blue states there are some red areas and vice versa. But is America as compared to when we had 13 colonies, is America more divided regionally now? Less divided? All exactly the same. Do you see the regional divisions now as compared to 250 years ago?

[B]

Well, it's something to worry about because the founder's idea was that federalism would allow the idiosyncratic nature of regional areas to be expressed without competition or war with others. And it was kind of a safety valve concept. It was really taxed. What I think they would have said is what is worrisome is when there is a Geographical component to ideological differences. And we've only really had that once, and that was in the 18, late 1850s where those geographic differences were cemented with ideological pro slave anthes. And what's a little bit worrisome today is that the ideologically left is blue and red. And maybe 20 years ago they were purple everywhere and now they're starting to separate. And on top of that the ideologies are getting more distinct. And it's pretty clear the blue state model, economically, I'm not talking about socially or culturally, but economically it doesn't work. So more people are going from blue to red and they're blue are doubling down on that. They don't want to make those changes. They kind of mock people who go to tenant here in California. If you go to Wyoming, Montana, but especially Texas, Tennessee, Florida, people kind of look, well, you just left, but we're dividing. So I think, you know, when you go to another state like a Tennessee, California, and you're right about pockets in California, here in the San Joaquin Valley in the center, it's very conservative, as is far north northern California. But mostly they can be different countries almost now.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

The people's attitudes and the infrastructure. California, when I was a kid, it had the most impressive school system infrastructure, airports, and when I. You don't really know how decrepit it's become and backward until you go to a place like what you see is going on in Texas and Florida with the infrastructure, freeways and everything. And then you look at California, it's just 30 years of stagnation and, and ideology and, and people are just leaving in droves. It's, it's. I don't. I think of maybe 20 people I taught with in this area at the Cal State system that were professors on the left. They were all on the left, but they've all, all of them have left. When they retired, they just left. Which is kind of an.

[A]

Sorry. We see in commentary and in fiction speculation about America being potentially in the eve of a civil war. Does it feel that?

[C]

How.

[A]

To what extent does it feel that way to you?

[B]

I don't think so yet because still we have these popular culture, the music, sports, things like that are very, very important. We kind of downplay them. The other thing is that so far the, the right is sort of a. I got to take care of my family, my church, my community. I don't have time for politics. Live and let live. More of a libertarian. The left is more intense, I think, and holistic and they keep trying to push agendas I think the right would say, if you want the trans agenda and, and biological men sports, just keep it to yourself in your, your state or your local. If you want sanctuary cities until maybe recently, okay, but we're not going to do it in ours. And if you want to have a critical legal theory idea about no cash bail, if that's what you want to do in Detroit, or you want to do that and say, okay, but we're not going to do that, but I think the left feels that they're losing that argument and they have to be intrusive and do it everywhere. And so far you haven't seen, I mean, January 6th was more of a buffoonish riot than, I think, an insurrection. But you haven't seen the right pushback. But if you keep doing it and you keep trying to shoot people, people on the right try to shoot people or the president and you glorify that and you openly say, you know, James Carver, I said, who I thought was pretty reasonable, even though I don't agree with him. But he said the other day that you have to have a visceral hatred of Donald Trump. You didn't want him dead, but you have to have a visceral. And that's going to be his fate. You have to hate him. That's the type, that's the type of public discourse that brings out Ruth or some of these other people. So what I'm a little afraid of is if they keep pushing it and I, I'm in an area where there's 95% Hispanics, my, that I grew up with, and you look at the ICE officers and that's a subtext that people haven't talked about. 55% of them are Mexican American. And you have this idea that these kind of upscale antifa or Karen caricatures, many white are pushing, pushing, showing them, throwing stuff at them, insulting them while they're trying to keep illegal alien criminals out of their communities. And you get the impression they're getting very, very angry. I think a lot of people on the right are trying to say now don't push it. And I hope that they can, they can keep calm. But I'm in a family where I'm the only. We were all kind of Kennedy Democrats and I have a twin brother. And I would say that I'm the only one left of, I mean, right of center. And I would say, and maybe your family is similar, but when you go to a family gathering, it's rare, rare these days. The people on the left seem to want to bring up politics more than the people on the right. People on the right want to keep calm and realize that they're not liked because of their politics and they just want to get through the meal. The people in the left feel they're intellectually more adept or they can have better and they just want to bring it up and see if they can convert and get angry. And I think that's a, that's what's happening a little bit. That's scary. So that, that's a long, windy answer, but it's scary.

[A]

Let's, for a birthday present, let's put together an all star team of America.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Can't be anybody who serves in the military or in the government. And you can't choose. We'll do five. You can't choose more than two people from any century. Okay, give me five names. I won't hold you to it, but just five. Who should be considered for America's all star team? No government, no military.

[B]

They can't be the founders, for example.

[A]

Can't be the founders unless they didn't serve. But most of the prominent military.

[B]

Yeah, well, can I go backwards?

[A]

You can do. You just, you just can't do, you can't do more than two from any century.

[B]

Yeah, well, well, I think the most substantial person by far in our generation is Elon Musk. No one has mastered, I mean, he single handedly saved American space exploration satellites. He invented the, in the United States, the car, the electric car industry. He saved social media. So he, he's by far the most substantial. I think In World War II, somebody like William Knudsen or Henry Kaiser, they, they took the United States that had an army that was 19th in the world in 1940. And by 1945, we had a GDP that was larger than all of the major combatants, all the Axis and the Allies put together. Our navy was larger than all the navies of the world put together. And our army in a country of 145 million was 12.5 million. It was almost the same size as Soviet union that had 240 million people. So they were quite something. Martin Luther King, I think was very important because he understood he, he had a very good argument that had it been followed, would have, I think changed racial relations. And that is that it wasn't he or black leaders that were necessarily demanding freedom for blacks. And he was channeling Frederick Douglass that it's in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. And he was saying, you have a promissory note. White America and all we're asking is, we're not asking for a revolution or communism, we're just asking to honor what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. That was very powerful. And then the non violent tradition had that been kept with was very important. I.

[A]

Give me, give me one more.

[B]

Yeah, I have. There have been a lot of great writers in America and people like Mark Twain, especially when you have people who can really understand the American experience. Thomas Wolf was another one, Hemingway's to some degree, but they were very. I think Mark Twain was the most American and summed up the American experience in a way that people from all different classes and they were entertained by it at one level and then other people that were academics understood at another level. But it was unifying. Mark Twain and things like that were very important.

[A]

Yeah, Twain like to toque. You could read them today and get insight not just into America but into human nature. Just a genius. That's a pretty good list, sir. Grateful to you, Victor Davis Hansen. Happy, happy holidays to you. Happy anniversary and thank you for celebrating America's 250 with us.

[B]

Thank you for having me, Mark.

[A]

All right, as always, as I said, if you want to hear more from this great man whose views and opinions and insight are valued by smart people around the country and around the world, you have an opportunity to do that on a regular basis. Check out Victor Davis Hansen In His Own Words. New episodes every Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube, you'll want to check. Check him out and read his columns as well. He's an extraordinary, extraordinarily productive content creator and genius. Grateful to you. Thank you. So think about the last 30 bucks you spent. Maybe it's on a streaming subscription of something you don't even watch, or a lunch you've already forgotten about. That's $30 and it's gone forever. Acre Gold lets you turn that so called lost money into something better, physical. 24 karat Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds up and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. Think about this. Real gold in your hand at your house. And over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for the collectors out there, they've just dropped something really cool. The limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel. They're strictly capped and once they're gone, they're history. So while you're checking them out, claim your free entry to the Speed Club sweepstakes. They're giving away other stuff that's cool. A 1 gram Hot Wheels gold bar plus a massive grand prize. It's the 10 gram 24 karat hot gold hot Wheels bar. Both come in official collector packaging and they're both up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just 30 [e-mail] mark again. Go right now to getacregold.com mark and subscribe today. All right, next up and joining me now, Aaron Tang. He's the moderator of PBS's Breaking the Deadlock and a law professor at UC Davis and very happy to have him here. Aaron, thank you for being here.

[C]

Thanks for having me. Mark.

[A]

I know a lot of smart, ambitious, telegenic law professors, all of whom would like to get TV shows and almost none of whom have them. How did you get this show?

[C]

Good luck being in the right place at the right time. I got a nice message from producers of Breaking the Deadlock. They were re upping this format, this TV show that was very popular in the 90s on PBS. And a law professor had moderated these episodes. So they brought six or seven law professors, I'm sure, all very much smarter than me. And I happen to be pretty close to having young kids down on the ground imagining playing, living in a world with them, a hypothetical world with them that's actually more or less what the show is occupying, an imaginary space that rhymes with real life and putting people in hard decisions, which is what I do with my kids. So I think things just sort of worked out and it's been a real blessing.

[A]

How is the dialogue of Breaking the Deadlock, do you think, consistent with the way the founders foresaw, we'd have speech on the national town square? Sure.

[C]

I think it embodies some of the best dreams and hopes that the founders might have had. I don't think the founders had any illusions that Americans were magically going to agree on all the hard problems of the day. That wasn't their own experience, of course. Huge disagreements over the future of the country. I think what they hoped was that men and women of good intention could sit down and listen to each other, try to understand each other, view themselves in a sort of political marriage where maybe we disagree, but we all have the same goal, understanding, persuading each other rather than trying to destroy each other. Right. An oppositional model. So that's what we try to portray on the show and get out of this us versus them modality that's so common today.

[A]

Yeah. When you bring Voices on there, what are you trying to accomplish? In other words, when you have a good episode, what, what happens? What's the execution of a good episode?

[C]

Sure. So a couple things that make us feel like we did things right. 1. Agonizing moments. I think one of the things that Americans viewers need to see about the reality of politics today is that a lot of the choices that our elected officials face are actually hard. That's not the picture you get from watching crossfire type debates on the news. One side thinks it's easy in their direction, the other side thinks it's easy in their direction. How dare the other side be so dumb or disingenuous. The truth is, a lot of questions we face about voter id, about health care, are really hard, really nuanced. So if we can get real officials, prominent thought leaders in America to agonize, that's important. And then of course, the second thing is to show people from different viewpoints, and we always have stridently conservative, stridently liberal folks being able to talk to each other, definitely not always agreeing, but able to engage in a way that models, I think, what it would look like to have a conversation with a neighbor or somebody you go to church with, who you know, voted for the other guy in the presidential election, and yet still being able to sit down with each other.

[A]

The book you've written, Supreme Hubris. I love the title because it's the most hubristic branch in my experience. I got nothing against individual judges. Actually I do, and justices. But my complaint is more about the institution. It's the least scrutinized of the three branches, in part because they don't allow coverage. They only seem to do interviews when they've got a book to sell. And I consider a bunch of politicians in robes equal, the liberals and the conservatives. And it was driven home to me, for me, most emphatically by Bush v. Gore. Every justice in Bush v. Gore voted based on the party of the president who nominated him for the court. Not, not consistent with their previous judicial, stated judicial philosophies. It's not the only case like that, but it's the starkest case because it was a totally political case. Instead of setting aside politics, they. They acted like they were five Republican senators and five and four Democratic senators. So first question, so you know where I stand on this is how does the, the federal courts operate today as a, as a co. Equal branch connected to the legislative branch and the executive branch as compared to what the founders had seen? How is it the same? How is it consistent and how does it deviate from what you. Your understanding of how the Founders assumed it would operate and hoped it would operate?

[C]

Okay. So I think one thing is the same and one thing is different. I don't think the Founders imagine federal judges being entirely neutral, dispassionate. They knew federal judges would be partisans in the same way that you were describing. Maybe not in every case, but it's hard to set our side, our political priors, our social circles. I mean, you know, John Marshall, the most famous chief justice in our history, was the Secretary of State when he was nominated to be Supreme Court, like a month before John Adams left office. Right. So the idea that we would have neutral, you know, dispassionate judges, I don't think that was ever the reality. What's different, though, I think, is the amount of power this Court exercises. I don't think our framers would have imagined a Supreme Court weighing on the constitutionality of the vast majority of controversial public laws that are enacted by states or Congress. Every important executive order that the President announces. I think the framers would have thought most of these questions would have been left to the people acting through their elected lawmakers. A Congress that actually did work.

[A]

And there's more adjudication because more cases are brought to the Court or the decisions are more sweeping.

[B]

What.

[A]

Why are that. Why are they doing more than you think the Founders would have thought?

[C]

So, yeah, so I think that is a part of it, the scope of what can be sued over. You know, courts in the 18th century were very much like, I'm going to resolve this dispute between person A and person B. There was not. They were not really courts, were not really instruments for setting social policy in this broad way. The idea of, you know, public interest litigation. Right. Was a very much a 20th century innovation. So I think that is a part of it, and I think the other part of it is sort of a growing sense among Supreme Court justices that it's much more fun to decide the big pressing issues of the day to grab that power for yourself. Some of that comes about for really good reasons. I think the Supreme Court grabs a lot of its power after 1954. Once it embroils itself in doing the right thing, ending segregated schools and public education. Once the Court's like, oh, you know what? We actually can issue single decisions that tell everybody what the equal protection clause means, what free speech means, what due process means. The Court just sort of runs away with this power. And the justices are all too happily engaged in deciding these disputes for the rest of Us.

[A]

If you were a chief justice and could set policy for the high court and the lower courts, what changes would you institute?

[C]

Oh, boy. Well, I mean, this is fun because, I mean, it's just never going to happen. I haven't even given thought to that question. I think, I do think that I would explain decisions on the shadow docket more. That is a very important part of what the court does explain.

[A]

For those who don't know what is the shadow docket and what would more explanation provide?

[C]

Sure. So in the old days before maybe 10 years ago, when this, before the Supreme Court would issue a final judgment on a major case on birthright citizenship, the independent agencies, the Supreme Court would always call for full briefing from the parties, issue an oral, have a. Hold an oral argument and then issue an opinion, sometimes hundred pages of opinions explaining its decisions. Nowadays, the Supreme Court will first decide on the merits of a case using something called the shadow docket. While it's a ruling technically not fully resolving the case. What happens is this is in the weeds and I'm sorry, Mark, you might have to edit this out if you have that option.

[A]

No, we don't edit out. We're all, we're all for transparency here. You're doing great.

[C]

The president does something. The president decides, I'm going to get rid of birthright citizenship. People who are upset sue and they get a preliminary injunction. A lower court says, I'm going to pause this. This looks unconstitutional, but I'm not going to hold the trial. I'm not going to hold through the whole thing. And it used to be that the Supreme Court would wait until after the trial, after the full year, two years, to decide if the Trump executive order was right now the party that loses here. The Trump administration goes straight to the Supreme Court on the shadow docket to appeal the temporary injunction, the preliminary injunction, and the court will issue a ruling without briefing, without oral argument deciding it there. And that is what people find so objectionable because the Supreme Court's making these huge decisions without the benefit of full reason consideration.

[A]

So very little explanation. Just sort of like a word from on high. This is what's happening. My biggest complaint about the court now, that I would change if I were chief. Not that you asked me, but I'm going to tell you and then ask you what you think is they're too slow on cases that are in the real world, you know, oh, brief, send us your briefs in four months. Will schedule our oral arguments four months after that, we'll issue a ruling at an unpredictable date. Four months after that. Some cases, okay, but for instance, they have a case about whether the President can fire members of the Fed. Okay, it's about the Federal Reserve Governor Cook, but it pertains to the guy who's outgoing Fed chair, Mr. Powell. They've had this case for months and it's not a super complicated case. I bet you every justice and every clerk knew how the vote was going to go. You know, I'm not saying they should write their opinions with, with, with AI, but I mean, write the, write the thing here, get the briefs. Let's say, let's say it was, let's say it was like Bush versus Gore, which they did hear very quickly. Let's say they, they thought, well, this is just as urgent as that. How quickly? From the time they accepted the case to the time they rule. If you were Chief justice and you said, Mark Halpern's right, the world needs this ruling, how quickly could they do it? I say 17 days.

[C]

So that's not inconceivable. And in fact, there's some tension between the points that you and I just talked about. The shadow docket, defenders of the interim docket, they'll call it on. The court will say they're actually doing exactly what you're saying they are. The emergency docket, the shadow docket. The court can issue quick rulings. They're thinly reasoned to.

[A]

But it's not the final decision.

[C]

It's not a final decision. That's true. So you want to say, you want the final.

[A]

Let's say, let's say I was chief and you were my clerk, you've been a judicial clerk, and I'm the Chief justice and I say, I say, aaron, we're going to do this in 17 days. Give me a schedule. You'd say, okay, they get, they owe us the briefs in two days. We'll hear oral arguments in four days. And then we've got almost a week and a half to write the thing. Then immediately after the oral arguments, we'll, we'll go and change, we'll go in the conference room. We'll, we'll decide who's, how people are going to vote. We'll vote, we'll assign the majority opinion. Anybody wants to write a concurrence or dissent, and then the dissent and say, okay, everybody's got a week and a half to write the thing. I mean, you know, don't play, don't play poker. Don't take a vacation. Get this real world decision with real world implications done. What's wrong with my idea.

[C]

So it's not a crazy idea. And sometimes the court does act that expeditiously.

[A]

Very rarely, though.

[C]

Rarely. Very rarely, though, frankly. The major roadblocks are one, you need to have a staggered briefing schedule so that parties can respond to each other's briefs. So two days. Two days. Two days of time. But your point could be a month. Right. We don't need six months. We don't need eight months.

[A]

Well, we certainly don't need six months. But I'd say. I'd say staggered. I'll give you a day. I mean, you know, these private lawyers want to bill the government. Lawyers want to putz around like it's not the norm.

[C]

The quality of the briefing. It's going to. If you want the Supreme Court to get cases. Right, right.

[A]

You want the briefing to be, I mean, I mean, name a profession that needs that long to do stuff. I mean, I mean, all they're doing is reading some legal briefings and writing a decision is not rocket science. They have. How many clerks they have? They have four clerks each.

[C]

You're probably right that on the judges, the justice's side, this takes too long. And I'll tell you one big reason is a norm of courtesy to dissenting justices.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

In my experience, when I clerked at the supreme court in the 2013, 2014 term, majority opinions would often circulate as soon as a month after oral argument. There's some reason it could be faster. It could be 2 to 3 reason to act as. But then there's this norm of does anybody want to dissent? And the dissenting justices take their sweet old time.

[A]

I know, but again, Supreme Court is like, is like the book publishing business. If you write a book now, they'll say, okay, the book's coming out in February, we need the manuscript in July. No, you actually don't like these, these antiquated places who just have. They do it the way they do it and the evidence that they can do. Both industries can do it the other way. I don't remember the exact briefing schedule on Bush versus Gore. Man, they had to get that one right. I'm not sure they did, but

[B]

both

[A]

sides got to write briefs. They had oral arguments. There were hundreds of opinions in that case.

[C]

I will say one thing to Recommend your proposal. 17 days or 30 days or what have you. It would encourage the Supreme Court to write less. It would encourage justices to write less. And that's not a bad thing because these, Nobody's reading these 100 page opinions.

[A]

All this, it just, you just Got to change your expectation. And. And I don't think it needs to be done on every case.

[C]

I suspect they'll get it right, too, but, you know, there. Yeah, let's.

[A]

Okay. All right, Aaron, let's move on to this. How old are your kids?

[C]

7 and 10.

[A]

7, 10. What's. What's something that's used to be true about America that's either not true or less true now that you would like to be there for them? What's something that's changed in a negative way that you hope comes back to a more positive for your kids?

[C]

Sure. So I have a distinct memory. When I was four years old, I was watching a presidential debate with my parents. It was the George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis election. And I remember my parents watching that debate and being genuinely, genuinely unsure who they were going to vote for, but saying afterwards that they liked both candidates. They seemed to nice, thoughtful, trustworthy people. I would love a time when most Americans can watch a debate between two candidates and believe that no matter the views of the candidates, the politics, it's not a blood sport. It's not like I want my team to win this debate to destroy the other side. It's a moment of kids coming together and watching, like, oh, people have different viewpoints. We disagree, but we're trying to understand each other. We're not trying to destroy each other. I don't pretend, Mark, that's going to happen anytime soon. A lot would have to change for us to get there. But the us versus them mentality we're out to destroy. Own the libs or own the. That's the problem.

[A]

Beautiful answer. Do people refuse to come on your show because they don't want to sit with somebody else who's in a different tribe? Does that happen?

[C]

I don't know that anybody's articulated it in that exact purpose. There have been people who have been reticent to go on the show because they're worried that it's an ambush. Frankly, more often conservative folks have worried that, you know, PBS is trying to set them up and put them in, you know, in situations that are going to embarrass them. And they've uniformly afterwards said, wow, that was not what I expected. That was a really thoughtful, genuine conversation. The vice president of the Heritage Foundation, Roger Severino, a person I often disagree with, but I think is a really terrific example of thoughtful, reasonable person who thinks through hard questions, comes out differently. He's been on the episode, on the show three times because he's enjoyed it so much. The dialogue, I think that is a testimony to how important this mission we have is of showing Americans, showing viewers that it's not broken. We don't have to sit at a table and try to destroy each other.

[A]

Yeah. Beautiful answer. Truly beautiful answer. If you could have dinner with any of the founders, who would it be and why?

[C]

Probably Alexander Hamilton, because my kids would have a lot of questions like where he got his rap skills. I mean, maybe just with Manuel. Probably Hamilton.

[A]

Yeah. You think it's okay for kids your age, your kids, who are your kids, ages to see Hamilton with all the profanity and adult themes?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think there are parts of the second act with Mariah Reynolds that we withhold from our kids.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

But I think I overall like this idea of people that we, you know, celebrate as heroes being flawed. You know, my 10 year old is now aware of Hamilton's infidelity and his poor choices getting into a duel. People are flawed. People are complicated.

[A]

Yeah. I think that, you know, Michelle Obama said Hamilton was the greatest work of art of any kind ever produced. I'm not sure that's true, but I see her point and I just think the impact of Hamilton is so big. The show Hamilton is so big for the reason you said, showing the humanity of someone like that. But also it's just a genius integration into extremely entertaining program show of some of the great themes of American, not just the founding, but of our history.

[C]

I think that's right.

[A]

I can't think of anything else even close to that. And I know just my son has started to listen to some of the music. We've not seen the whole show yet, but I know he knows stuff about American history now. He wouldn't have known. In a really deep and textured way,

[C]

it makes us history, the founding, the revolution, Cool again. And boy, wouldn't it be great if 10 years from now we were talking about how the current generation of voters, your kid, my kids are deeply informed and exercising the right to vote in a thoughtful way, perhaps inspired by their childhood experiences watching this theater. So every, every little thing we can do counts. You know, even these rap battles, like the cabinet battles. Right. Whether we get involved in the war between England and France and the second, the bank of the United States. They are such wonky things. And to have kids be like, oh, there are. That's the Federal Reserve. That's the, that's the historical analog to the Federal Reserve. How do we feel? Right. It's just it, it opens up these worlds in ways that are accessible to Young people.

[A]

It is beautiful. It's just so genius. It staggers my mind. Lastly, Your hope for America next 250. What are some of your hopes for

[C]

the country over the next 250 years? Yeah, I mean, maybe this is too. Maybe I should dream bigger. I'm hoping we're around in 250, Mark. I'm hoping that Extant.

[A]

Your hope is for extant.

[C]

Yes. Survival. I mean, yeah, I think we will get through this difficult moment of divisiveness if the next generation can figure out how to talk to each other, how to reach out and find people they disagree with at church, at little league games, people who voted for the other person and say, you know what? We could vote for two very different candidates and still want the good life for our kids, for our families, for this country. We don't have to give in to the, you know, the glitz and glamour of politicians who make it look like life or death. This is the most important election ever. If you don't pick vote for us, if you don't destroy the other side, America's over. That's not right. It's up to us as the people. If we demand some sensibility from our elected leaders, we can get it. That's my hope.

[A]

Beautiful. Also, tell people where and when they can see Breaking the deadlock.

[C]

Yeah. So the next episode of Breaking the Deadlock, entitled how to Fix an Election, will be on nationwide on your local PBS station on July 7th evening time.

[A]

Aaron, unlike many lawyers and Supreme Court clerks I've met, you're both likable and interesting. So I'm very, I'm very grateful to you for being here. Thank you.

[C]

High praise from you, Mark. Appreciate it.

[A]

Happy holidays to you.

[D]

Thank you.

[C]

You, too.

[A]

All right, that's it for today's special fourth of July episode. We hope you have a safe, happy and very meaningful Independence Day with your family and your friends. And we hope that you come on back when we're done with our break. We're looking forward on My family to celebrating the fourth of July with a big old cookout. Back next week, more conversations, more reporting, more reported monologues, and more telling you what's coming up next in politics, media and our culture. Subscribe to the program on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. So you, like other nexters, always know what's coming next time.

[D]

Real talent is defined by what people can do, not where they learn to do it. So by stopping at the education section of a resume, you might throw away the perfect hire skills. First, hiring helps you see talent others miss, like more than 70 million stars scaled through alternative routes, let their story unfold and gain a competitive advantage because hiring managers who start with skills are 60% more likely to find a successful hire. Hire skills first. Learn [e-mail] brought to you by OpportunityAtWork and the Ad Council.