Ben Rhodes: "If We Had To Pay With All This Blood, It Was Worth It"

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Gist – Ben Rhodes: "If We Had To Pay With All This Blood, It Was Worth It"

Date: June 23, 2026
Host: Mike Pesca
Guest: Ben Rhodes (Former Obama Speechwriter and Deputy National Security Adviser)
Episode Theme:
Exploring the power of American speeches through history, how rhetoric shapes national identity, and the ongoing importance (and challenges) of confronting hard truths in public discourse and politics.

---

Episode Overview

Mike Pesca sits down with Ben Rhodes to discuss his new book, All We Say: The Battle for American Identity, A History in 15 Speeches. The conversation delves into the historical and modern role of rhetoric, the selection and significance of both well-known and lesser-known American speeches, the challenges of authenticity and hard truths in oratory, and the pitfalls of ideological purity in today’s political landscape. Rhodes offers firsthand reflections on speechwriting, American identity, Obama-era politics, and foreign policy negotiation, notably the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA).

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. American Democracy and Civic Information Crisis

• Pesca opens the show by highlighting the lack of meaningful civic information in local New York primaries, using real races as examples (00:00–07:00).
  • “Some of the races … there is just nothing out there. And I don’t know whose fault this is, but it’s not good for voting.” (03:40, Pesca)
• Emphasizes that democracy relies on informed voters, but often critical candidate comparisons and debates are lacking at the local level.

2. The Power of Rhetoric and Choosing 15 Speeches

• Ben Rhodes outlines his criteria for selecting the 15 speeches highlighted in his book (15:59–17:51).
  • Sought to encompass the ongoing “debate over what it means to be American.”
  • Inclusion of diverse, less celebrated voices alongside canonical ones (FDR, MLK).
  • The intention: “…our identity, this, what is an American, has been informed by people like Red Jacket as much as by people like Benjamin Franklin.” (20:30, Rhodes)
• Rhodes sees speeches as a lens on history, identity, and the country’s evolving debates.
• Notable Quotes:
  • “I wanted their response to the foundation… Red Jacket is this fascinating character because the speech is at a very dramatic moment.” (16:39, Rhodes)

3. Red Jacket: Native American Voices and Pluralism

• Discussion of Red Jacket’s 1805 speech and its remarkable defense of religious freedom and logical critique of forced conversion attempts (16:39–21:50).
  • Rhodes highlights Red Jacket’s rhetorical brilliance and the case for pluralism:
    "If the Great Spirit meant everybody to worship the same way, he would have given everybody the same book.” (19:32, paraphrased by Rhodes)
  • Observes that Native traditions questioned the drive for private property and happiness in white society.
  • Pesca notes that Red Jacket’s name, “Sago Iwatha,” means “he who keeps them awake”—literally “woke,” with a double historical irony. (21:50, Pesca)

4. Anna Dickinson: Forgotten Voices and Logical Dismantling

• Introduction to Anna Dickinson, a celebrity abolitionist and suffragist, and her speech “Idiots and Women” (22:55–26:45).
  • Delivered lacerating satire dismantling arguments against women's suffrage.
  • Her life arc: Fame and later institutionalization, illustrating the cost of radical visibility in her era.
  • “She was like a stand up comic. Her style was not refined rhetoric, it was kind of lacerating satire.” (25:51, Rhodes)

5. What Makes a Great Speech? The Role of Hard Truths vs. Articulation

• Debate on the essence of great speeches: Do they tell hard truths, or do they put eloquence to widely-held but unarticulated ideas? (26:45–33:03)
  • Rhodes argues for authenticity and the unique voice of the speaker:
    “The people who can… tap into something innate in their identity… that’s the only person on Earth who could deliver it.” (28:33, Rhodes)
  • Ultimate preference for speeches that tell “hard truths.”
  • Lincoln’s Second Inaugural as an example:
    [Quote]
    “If God wills that it will continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword…” (32:24, Lincoln, cited by Pesca)
  • Rhodes’ Reflection:
    “He’s essentially saying… if we all have to die to atone for this sin, that would be just… No American president had ever spoken about slavery like that before.” (33:03, Rhodes)

6. The Modern Problem of Purity and Historical Complexity

• Addressing modern purity politics and its impact on public life and progressive possibilities (39:25–44:54).
  • Rhodes critiques presentism and “purity tests” applied to figures like Lincoln.
  • Invokes Frederick Douglass’s strategy: Use the best of American founding documents to advance freedom, not simply reject flawed origins.
  • “Let’s choose what we like. Let’s choose the better version of what we can see in this [the Constitution] and make it work for us.” (41:32, Rhodes)
  • “…if you judged the person at that table on the worst thing they ever did, you’d never have dinner with them again.” (39:25, Rhodes)

7. The Shift from ‘Yes We Can’ to Grievance and Cancel Culture

• Obama-era optimism versus current negativity in Democratic discourse (44:10–48:37).
  • Obama’s famous “race speech” as an argument against cancel culture; the practical need to leave the door open to all, without demanding public confession of flaws.
  • Social media and anger-driven politics cited as exacerbating division and gloom.
  • “There’s a kind of really grim and angry energy [now]. I look back on the 08 Obama campaign, and that was fun. That was a good time.” (47:14, Rhodes)
  • Contrast with MAGA movement: Even if misguided, its cultural energy and fun are politically powerful.
  • Attempts at contrived optimism (“campaign of joy”) ring hollow if not authentic.

8. Lessons from Reagan, and Insights from Foreign Policy

• Reagan’s speeches and strategic legacy (49:44–52:06).
  • Rhodes distinguishes rhetoric from pragmatic achievement in ending the Cold War.
  • Recognizes that treaty-making and pragmatic diplomacy often outweigh even masterful messaging for lasting impact.

9. The JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal): Diplomacy, Concessions, and Realism

• Pesca presses Rhodes on criticisms of the Iran deal, specifically the front-loading of incentives to Iran (52:06–54:10).
  • Rhodes argues that Iran’s concessions were also front-loaded, the “cash” was not US taxpayer money but Iran’s frozen funds, and that successful diplomacy requires both parties to give and get upfront for buy-in.
  • “You have to give to get in diplomacy. And I think something which actually Reagan understood.” (53:30, Rhodes)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Red Jacket’s rhetorical logic:
  “If the Great Spirit meant everybody to worship the same way, he would have given everybody the same book.” (19:32, paraphrased by Rhodes)

• On the “woke” tradition:
  “To the Seneca, he was known as Sago Iwatha… he who keeps them awake… which means he was literally woke, but also exciting.” (21:50, Pesca)

• On speeches that endure:
  “Any speech to be great needs to have a degree of authenticity... It has to be the only person on earth who could deliver it.” (28:33, Rhodes)

• On Lincoln’s reckoning with slavery:
  “If we had to pay with all this blood, it was worth it.” (33:03, Rhodes referencing Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address — also the episode’s title)

• On cancel culture and family:
  “If you judged the person at that table on the worst thing they ever did, you’d never have dinner with them again.” (39:25, Rhodes)

• On the shift in political energy:
  “I look back on, like, the 08 Obama campaign, and that was fun… I think a lot of Democratic politics and campaigns have been kind of angry, grim affairs in the Trump years … if I look at, you know, a MAGA rally...they’re having a good time.” (47:14–48:02, Rhodes)

• On diplomacy:
  “You have to give to get in diplomacy. And I think something which actually Reagan understood.” (53:30, Rhodes)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Civic Information & Democracy: 00:00–07:00
• Ben Rhodes Introduction & Book Premise: 15:25–16:39
• Red Jacket & American Pluralism: 16:39–21:50
• Anna Dickinson & Dismantling Sexist Logic: 22:55–26:45
• Debating Great Speeches & Hard Truths: 26:45–33:03
• Lincoln’s Second Inaugural & National Reckoning: 32:24–34:32
• Purity Politics & Historical Complexity: 39:25–44:54
• Obama, Cancel Culture, and Party Strategy: 44:10–48:37
• Reagan’s Rhetoric vs. Realpolitik: 49:44–52:06
• JCPOA Iran Nuclear Deal Diplomacy: 52:06–54:10

---

Summary in the Original Tone

Mike Pesca’s trademark blend of rigor, curiosity, and wry humor animates the conversation. Rhodes is reflective, nuanced, and, despite some pessimism about current political trends, insists on the enduring value of reckoning with the past honestly and inclusively. The episode is a masterclass in using historical rhetoric to diagnose and potentially heal the nation’s divides, with vivid stories and practical political insight.

---

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

This episode is an insightful journey through American rhetorical tradition, viewed through speeches that shaped — and were shaped by — the nation’s evolving sense of self. Ben Rhodes illustrates that history is not just made by the famous and the powerful, but by voices often left out of conventional narratives. He and Pesca thread together historical context, present-day challenges in movement-building and persuasion, and the realities of diplomacy, making the episode rich for anyone interested in politics, civic life, or the art of persuasion.

Transcript

[A]

Hiring isn't just filling a role. It's about finding people who can drive results. Indeed Sponsored Jobs helps you match with the right candidates faster. Target candidates by skills, certifications or location. Join the 3.3 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves@ Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring do it the Right Way with Indeed. It's Tuesday, June 23, 2026 from Peach Fish Productions. It's the gist. I'm Mike Pesca. Tuesday, June 23rd, you're saying, oh, that's primary day in New York State. All right, if you're not from New York State, why would you be saying that? So here's what I did. I did some research. Is it because I am a citizen of the state and into civics and the civic life of our people? I don't know. Not exactly. Is I host a podcast that occasionally talks about politics. Not exactly. I just maybe kind of wanted to know who these people who were running were or are. And I got to tell you, some of the candidates not even giving a description, an endorsement, far from endorsement, never been going to give you a judgment on the candidates. But some of the races, if you were a civic minded individual and you said to yourself, oh, I wonder who these two candidates are who are running for my assembly district. Who is this Samantha Patan, who is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. Who is this Pia Rahman, who is not in my section of Queens. You'd be able to find some information just on those two. They sat together with a third candidate in a basement of some church or a middle school in Queens. They were asked some questions. It was lovely. And on other races I looked at Ian Huntley, E O N N Huntley, who is taking on incumbent Stephanie Zitterman in Brooklyn's 56th Assembly District. And you find the information you need because a group name Citizens Union has interviewed each of those candidates. All of the candidates they spent 20 something minutes with each a bunch of concerned citizens ask the candidates questions and there they are up on the screen. You'd have liked the view. Count on each of those videos to be more than 90, because that's what it is. But my point is if you want to find out the information, you can. But on so many of these races there is just nothing out there. And I don't know whose fault this is, but it's not good for voting. So there is Assembly District 54 before your eyes glaze over, why do I care about the New York assembly? Look, there's 150 seats in the assembly divided by the number of citizens in the state. They're each representing 150,000 people. They get paid a pretty high salary. Their votes are really quite important. It's more than just an academic excellence exercise. This is, you know, the fundamentals of democracy. So who's running for Assembly Assembly District 54 against incumbent Eric Delon? I thought it was Dylan Delon, guy named Christian Celeste Tate. And there's information on Delon. He has some, you know, he's an elected official and has been for many years, first in the City Council, then in the State assembly. And he has some speeches and going and, you know, donating or doing some work with soup kitchens. And there's Christian Celeste Tate, who's giving speeches to the dsa. But there is no cross section of the two of them either exchanging any views or any sort of reasonable, non ideologically inflected arbiter. To give you a fair contrast. I looked up and I spent over an hour. So imagine a citizen trying to find how Tate and Delon differ on the issues from someone's point of view other than simply Tate or Delon. And it's not out there. The first hit is a website called the Independent. And you know they're independent because they're independent of conventions of spelling. They spell their name I n D Y P E N D N T. Anti poverty activists takes on real estate ally. It seems a little slanted. It's a lot more. That Independent article is a pro Tate article. And in fact, if you look at videos to see if these guys have been on the same podcast, the same broadcast a debate anywhere in a civic institution, the answer seems no. But the number one result is this video which was seen by 2000 people assailing Delon promoting Tate. And it was by the author of that independent article.

[B]

Just as he was being inaugurated into the State assembly. Ten years ago, New York City found

[A]

him guilty of corruption.

[B]

From his years on the City Council, he was hit with a $9,000 fine for grabbing an affordable apartment for which

[A]

he didn't even qualify. From his crooked developer friend and campaign donor, Sergio Benitez. Delon illegally gave tax breaks to this

[B]

developer, Benitez, who was also his landlord.

[A]

The second biggest hit was an article in the Brooklyn Reader, BK Reader. I don't know if they're so ideologically inflected. I didn't think so. I thought that they were Just kind of a very local newspaper. But the headline is. No, seriously, where is Eric Delon? Okay, maybe the Brooklyn Reader, who perhaps I should trust. Maybe the editorial board is criticizing Eric Delon. No, it was a guest editorial written by Christian Celeste Tate. So what I'm saying is if you want to do your civic duty and really figure out from any source other than one of these guys speaking in the assembly or one of these guys giving a speech to the DSA, you can't. Sorry, 150,000 people of District 54. I will be looking to see what the turnout is. It's always hilariously and depressingly low. I think these are important positions. Positions. I don't know who to blame, why no one is engaged in actual debates or joint appearances. I suspect it seems like Tate is getting himself out there and he's the challenger. So I suspect that he was trying to get Delon to play with him to engage in a debate. We'll see.

[B]

We'll see.

[A]

If Delon loses this race as the too comfortable incumbent, which is a real familiar phenomenon, you would think that even someone like him, who might say, oh, I'm the incumbent, people know my name, has been looking at New York politics for the last eight years. Maybe not. Maybe we'll see a turnout of a few hundred thousand people determining whoever wins the primary, which will, in another bout of something a little bit depressing for democracy, totally guarantee that they win the general because that's the only race that matters. On the show today, I give you a long and full and interesting interview with Ben Rhodes. He is Barack Obama's former chief speechwriter and among his credits are that he was the deputy national security adviser to Barack Obama. Really important in writing Cuba policy. We talk a lot, actually, in a second part of this interview about the jcpoa, what his book was about since he was a speechwriter. It is about words. It is about speeches. It is called all we say, the Battle for American Identity. A history in 15 speeches. Ben Rhodes up next. Working outside in the springtime means you're dealing with chilly mornings and hot afternoons and everything in between. Working outside in summer is a whole other kettle of, well, wetness. And that's where your workwear that you're wearing of cotton blends isn't working. It restricts your movement. It get. Get soaked after a few raindrops. But true work uses advanced performance fabrics to build products designed specifically for work on the job site. And I'm also going to introduce you to the T2 work pant, which keeps you comfortable over a wide range of conditions. I use the T2. Use it. I wear it. I also have these great shorts. The wicking. Just the wicking. It's an excellent, excellent way to look fashionable and actually get the job done. The work doesn't stop just because the weather changes. Upgrade to the T2 work pant and stay comfortable no matter what the day brings. Get 15% off your first order at truework.com with code the gist that's T R U E W E-R K.com code the gist True work. Built like it matters, because it does. Did you know that when helping older Navy dolphins, a researcher unlocked a secret to healthy aging for all of us, even the non dolphins among us. And you know, everyone loves dolphins and I hope I can convince you to love yourself just like our flippered friends. You're worth it. I'm excited to share with you guys. C15 from fatty15, the first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered in more than 90 years. It's an incredible scientific breakthrough. It supports long term health and wellness and healthy aging. So the founder of Fatty 15, Dr. Stephanie Venn Watson, discovered the benefits of C15 while working with the US Navy to continually improve the health and welfare of older dolphins. She went to the dolphin retirement home and she noticed some of them were really thriving. What do they have? It's what is now called C15. She did studies on cellular fragility syndrome caused by the lack of C15. As many as 1 in 3 people. I can't give you the dolphin percentage worldwide may have C15 levels and fragile cells. We're all aging, which means that healthy aging so starts from birth. Studies have shown that C15 is a foundational nutrient for you and for flipper. I'm taking fatty 15. They give it to you in a nice glass vial. I pop one every day and I have to say I feel a little bit more energy and I've been very successful at disabling bombs with my nose underwater. Now I joke about that, but I do feel a little Vim. Fatty 15 was developed to support healthy aging for all from kids to parents to grandparents. That's why award winning fatty 15 is now available as pure capsules, delicious Apple Mint gummies for teens and adults and Yummy Berry Blast gummies for kids. Fatty 15 is on a mission to support healthy aging for all, including all ages and stages of life. You can get an additional 15% off their 90 day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com gist and using code GIST at checkout. The 2026 primaries are all around us and you could trade the biggest political races on cowsheet on cow she you could trade major primaries, election outcomes and the biggest political storylines as they happen. Like you could pick who will win the Senate, the Democrats or the Republicans. Or let's take California. Will Karen Bass or Naima Raymond win the California mayor race? Right now, Bass is currently trading at 63%, meaning $100 trade would pay out. That's $155 if she wins the mayor's race. You could bet on when Jay Clayton will be confirmed or when will traffic at the Strait of Hormuz return to normal? It's pretty close. 64%. 65% as I speak ticked up 1% before September 1, 2026. So bet 100.

[B]

What's that?

[A]

65% you win about a little less than 150. 147. 148 on Kalshi, you're trading against peers in a live market, meaning there's no house. As the probability changes, you can buy in and out of your position for a limited time, download the Kalshi app and use code gist to get $10 when you trade 10k a l shi calshi trade on anything 18 plus. Only restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event contract trading involves risk may not be suitable for all investors. Prices, values and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, see kalshee.com regulatory I've been working on creating a more peaceful nighttime routine for deeper sleep. That is until my two puppies come and they live in my room. Anyway. The biggest upgrade or the Puppy Defense Fund wasn't aromatherapy. It wasn't meditation, wasn't listening and setting my intention or playing some sort of backing track. That was the whales. It was my king mattress from Lisa. Turns out the best hack to improve your sleep is to address what you've been sleeping on. And since making the switch, I unwind easier, sleep deeper and wake up feeling energized. My bed is my happy place. Soon the dogs will be on it. I have only my Lisa to protect me. This is a thing of beauty that lets me get my beauty sleep. Lisa mattresses are meticulously designed and assembled in the USA for exceptional quality and they have free shipping and easy returns and 120 night sleep trial. They won the awards. They won all the mattresses. Best Hybrid and Best Memory foam mattress was named by the New York Times Wirecutter. They're featured by West Elm as their go to mattress partner Lisa is committed to eco friendly materials and sustainable practices. And I should say that they also have this really cool sleep quiz where you'll find your perfect match in less than two minutes. Go to quiz Lisa L E E S A dot com in fact, go to Lisa.com for 30% off on their July 4th sale. In fact, they're extending their July 4th sale even beyond July 4th. They're taking it all the way to the 13th. So that's 30% off plus an extra $50 off with promo code, the Gist exclusive for my listeners. That's Leesa.com promo code the Gist for the July 4th sale, which goes way beyond July 4th. It's 30% off. And then we'll also give you an extra $50 off. Support our show and let them know we sent you a checkout. Lisa.com promo code the Gist Ben Rhodes joins us again. His new book is called all we say, the Battle for American Identity, a history in 15 speech. And the reason that he is in a position to talk about 15 speeches really more is that he was a speechwriter and deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama. And if you listen to him in writing in the New York Times or on Pod Save America, you know that he still holds a belief, maybe an antiquated or fading belief in the power of rhetoric, rhetoric in the long form to make the case. Ben, welcome back to THE gist.

[B]

Good to be back.

[A]

They have so many of the greatest hits in here, speeches that we need to know and hear about. You have the Four Freedoms by fdr. You have Martin Luther King, I have a Dream. But you also had a couple of others that exemplified portions of American history that were worth getting into in ways that I hadn't considered before. So there is a speech by Red Jacket. The name itself is interesting. That's what the white man called him. His people called him something else. Let's just dive right in with what was he arguing? Why is important to put in the 15 speeches to understand America?

[B]

I wanted to pick 15 speeches that could essentially try to encompass the history of the country and especially the history of the debate we've had over what it means to be American. Like what is this all about, this project? And, you know, I start with Ben Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, who gives a speech defending the compromise that made the Constitution possible with the idea that that basically set everything in motion, like that's how we got a union. But we compromised about really big things. And that kind of set in motion this competition between different arguments and stories we've had since. And for the next one, I did want to include a Native American voice. And I thought doing that at the beginning of the story made sense because essentially I wanted their response to the foundation founding of a country on land that in large cases, they once not owned, but certainly lived on. And Red Jacket is this fascinating character because the speech is at a very dramatic moment. He's a Seneca chief, the Seneca, part of the Iroquois Nation, the Iroquois Confederation, which is six nations in largely the northeastern United States. It had been the predominant power on the continent, that part of the continent, before the white people got here. And he's speaking in 1805 at a time when they've basically lost almost everything. Like they're on a kind of shrinking island of land. Their people have kind of been ravaged by the loss of that land, by the introduction of alcohol and by missionaries. And there's a guy named Reverend Cram, who's a missionary, who's there to basically try to convince the Seneca to let them proselytize, let them convert them to Christianity.

[A]

Yeah, good Dickensian name, as in Crema religion.

[B]

And he shows up. Cram does. He shows up with a guy from the US Government who's kind of there to watch, you know, so there's kind of an ominous. You can feel the scene was probably a little threatening. Like the US Government representative says, pay close attention to what this man has to say. And then Cram makes his case. And Red Jacket was a noted orator. He was chosen to be the person that could respond for all of the people assembled there from the tribes. And he gives this incredible. I mean, the fun part about writing this book is actually the less discovered speeches. He gives this incredible, short, powerful response that reads like it could be today, in which he tells the whole story of what has happened to his people. That, you know, we were here, everything was great. Then you all showed up. We were nice to you. We shared our food and our shelter with you, and you introduced poison. And I think he's referring to alcohol there. And that kind of sets in motion him saying again and again, like, we extended a hand of friendship, and you just took and took and took from us in this very kind of simple, evocative language. But he gets to the core of this point, which is you say you want us to worship the Great Spirit, that's their God, the way that you do with Jesus as his son. And he gets very kind of clever. He says, first of all, if the Great Spirit meant everybody to worship the same way, he would have given everybody the same book. So why did he create all these different religions if there's only one?

[A]

And then he says, or just in general. You wrote it down in a book which we don't read. So there's a logical failing.

[B]

Yeah, there's a logical failing. Exactly. And then he says, you know, if you all. If this is the one true religion, then why do you all fight about it so much? I mean, in so many words. He actually says it more eloquently than that. And I think what's so powerful about that is a couple things. The first is, you know, he was aware that most Americans had left, or many Americans at least, had left their home countries because of religious persecution and that Christian denominations had fought wars against each other. And so there's a kind of powerful logic to his point of saying, look, if you're telling me that this guy Cram has all the answers, then how come you guys can't even figure out amongst yourselves? But I thought, what was more powerful about it?

[A]

And he also had to decide which was. And you seem pretty miserable just looking. Just your daily actions. We are a lot happier.

[B]

I don't know if you know that's right. And he's of a tradition, by the way, that I talk about of interactions between native peoples and white people where they're like, you guys keep telling us that we need private property, but that seems to drive you guys nuts. Like, we don't have property. We just kind of share everything. We were doing fine. We're happy with that. Is this working out so well for you guys? Like, you may be richer and more powerful than us, but are you actually happier than us? Which, again, you read that today, and it hits in a certain way. But I also was struck by the fact that what Red Jacket was making a case for was pluralism, religious freedom. Red Jacket is actually making the case for the thing that Americans said in their Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, he's like, just leave us alone. Let us worship how we want to worship. And I thought that was really interesting that also that speech was anthologized. White people thought we should write this down. Like, this guy has something to say. And I think it makes a kind of interesting point that our identity, this, what is an American, has been informed by people like Red Jacket as much as by people like Benjamin Franklin. Those ideas about pluralism, about religious freedom, and frankly, about the right of even vulnerable people to be left to have their own way of life. That's a part of our story as much as Anything else?

[A]

Right. A couple other points about Red Jacket, who I didn't know about. And I thank you for introducing him to me. To the Seneca, he was known as Sago Iwatha, which translates to keeper awake, or he who keeps them awake, which means he was literally woke, but also exciting. But as you say to us, he know. He is known by Red Jacket, a thing that he looks like to them. He is known by an inherent quality. He also, in his speech, does a logical dismantling of the illogic of some of his political enemies. And there are others in the book who do that. We know that Frederick Douglass would do that. But then you also introduced me to another figure. These are the two I hadn't heard about. Anna Dickinson, who was this celebrity suffragette for a while before she was involuntarily committed. But she talked about women's rights and women's suffrage. In the speech you quote, just by going line by line of the other arguments and demonstrating there the paucity of the logic therein.

[B]

Yeah. You know, so she's another remarkable character that I didn't know about either. And she, like, when she's like, 20 years old, emerges as this, you know, fire and brimstone abolitionist speaker at the dawn of the Civil War, to the point that she spoke to a joint session of Congress and Abraham Lincoln, the first woman to do that in her early 20s. I mean, she was a huge figure in that period of American history. And then after the war, there was a speaker circuit. And one of the things that was interesting to think about is that in those days, people who traveled around giving speeches were like pop stars. Like, Anna Dickinson was like the Taylor Swift of her time in that. You know, she would pack halls because

[A]

there were maybe more the Beyonce in that. She dabbled in acting, too.

[B]

Yeah, well, that. Yeah, that gets a little weird. But there weren't pop stars, right. There wasn't amplified music. Right. And so the thing that happened is someone came to town and gave a speech, and everybody came out to see it. And someone like Anna Dickinson would give the same speech, like, hundreds of times and get paid well to do it. And it was right around the time that photography came into being. And she was, you know, by all accounts, like, a very attractive, striking woman. And so people would collect pictures of Hannah Dickinson and, like, keep them in their house like baseball cards, you know, and she gives this speech called Idiots and Women in the late 1860s. And the reason for the title is that after black suffrage, after black people were granted the right to vote, black men in the 15th amendment, the only people left who were not allowed to vote in the United States were women and idiots. And idiots in that time meant people with like a mental disability. And what I loved about her style, in addition to her story, which was fun to tell and relive and, you know, people were just fell in love with her wherever she went. She clearly kind of casts a spell over people. She, she was like a stand up comic. You know, her style was not, you know, refined rhetoric. It was kind of lacerating satire, you know. And so she kind of goes through all the arguments that are made to tell women why they shouldn't it's better that they don't vote. You know, like there's one argument that women are above that they're so the fairer sex, like, should not dirty their hands with politics, you know. And another argument is that, well, you didn't, you know, sacrifice or serve in, in the Civil War when in fact women had served as nurses and women had lost, you know, their, their husbands and sons and fathers in the war. And kind of one after another she dismantles these arguments, but while kind of making fun of them and like making jokes about them and picking on men.

[A]

Title for, you know, Chelsea Handler's next special. Right?

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. Well, the irony of Anna Dickinson that was so extraordinary to me is that she also, her life is. And I'm dating you and me because, you know, we're of a generation. Her life was like a behind the music documentary in that she like, rockets, rockets to fame as a young woman. She's beautiful, she's brilliant, she's popular, she's rich. And then as she starts to get older, like, people start to tune out Anna Dickinson. And yeah, she tries to become an actress and, and bizarrely tries to stage like a Hamlet performance where she plays Hamlet, which is pretty bold, you know, in the 19th century for a woman to be playing Hamlet. And ultimately they commit her to an insane asylum. And so her speech, idiots. And women like, hits a little harder when you realize that they literally decided she was crazy because of the things that she was arguing, you know, and then lived out the rest of her life in relative obscurity.

[A]

Yeah, I read up on her. She did kind of argue her way out of the insane asylum and Danville in Pennsylvania and in Goshen, and she actually got some money from the newspapers who. Who so criticized. Very fascinating. Now, early on you say you argue that the greatest speeches tell hard truths and I wonder how true that is. They could. But I think it's more likely that the speeches, especially the ones we'll consider great in the moment, more likely put some eloquence or some magic to beliefs that were either theretofore inartic or in the ether, but just never said that way. So when you're at that point, Future Boss talks about red states and blue states and where one state, the United States of America. Obama in the convention, I mean, people loved it, not because it was a hard truth, but because embodied in this person was an idea they wanted to get behind. Or to take a bunch of other Democrats, because I know you'll agree with what they were saying. In 1948, Hubert H. Humphrey talks to the DNC and says, we much must walk out of the shadow of state rights and forthrightly into the sunshine of human rights. Was that a hard truth or is that an eloquent phrase saying what the convention wanted to hear? I'm also thinking of Mario Cuomo's critique of Reagan City on the Hill DNC speech, which in retrospect, seems like a wonderful grievance list of Democratic action items at the time, some of which, many of which I agree with, some of which it seems, in retrospect, he was a little wrong about. So what do we think? What do we think of this? What truly makes a speech great? Is it unfair to say that history has to validate it?

[B]

It's a great question, I guess I'd say, first of all, I think any speech to be great needs to have a degree of authenticity. In other words, the people, the person delivering the speech has to be, like, the only person on earth who could deliver it. And actually, one reason why in this book, each chapter, I spent a lot of time telling the backstory of the person and the times and the movement they came from is I want to find out, like, what produced this unique voice that could come along. And so even if you talk about, like an Obama, I remember sometimes people that weren't that familiar with how politics worked would kind of almost be disappointed that he had speechwriters, you know, like, that he didn't just stand up and orate. And I would always tell them, well, imagine me reading the speech. It would be totally ridiculous. Like, it's his voice and it's a voice that he.

[A]

Well, you had a white grandmother. You had a white mother.

[B]

Yeah, I did have a white grandmother. So, yeah, I had that going for me. And so I think that the people who can kind of tap into something innate in their identity. In other words, it's like not just Them telling you what they want to do, but they're able to kind of convey why they want to do it. Like. Like, why are they there telling you a story, essentially? Now, I hear your point. I guess I would say that my favorite speeches are the ones that tell hard truths. Right? I mean, you can have a great speech that doesn't. You're right. But I actually, frankly think that those speeches are a little less interesting. And I'd include Obama's 2004 convention speech and Cuomo's speech. That Obama speech. What it did is it found a new language for, like, what had been a moribund liberalism, you know, like liberalism in the Reagan era. And even through, you know, Clinton and the Bush years had gotten kind of stale and a little angry. And Obama came along and he injected it with this kind of mixture of his own multiracial identity. You know, that's the authenticity. But also he managed to make concepts of improvement sound unifying. So he wasn't shamed. Obama didn't shame. There's a lesson in. For the left today, it was about going much bigger than that and saying our ideas are the ones that are ultimately the patriotic, unifying ideas. Now, I think the hard truths piece that, to me, are the speeches that land the hardest. Like, if you look in this. In this book, if you look at. I'll even take a conservative idea, and then I'll take my favorite speech. You know, I have the Reagan evil empire speech, and that was red meat for his crowd. So it wasn't a hard truth in the room. But I think the reason it landed with, like, Soviet dissidents and people on the other side of the Iron Curtain is it was like, well, this guy's, you know, he's speaking a moral language like he's speaking a hard truth about the Soviet Union. It's not even what I would have chosen, but I can see how. And I know firsthand from talking to people that that's how it was received. I think a more profound hard truth, though, is Lincoln's second inaugural, where, you know, he's got to stand up. The war's about to end, everybody's gone through hell, but everybody's feeling pretty hopeful that. That they're almost done with it. And he can, you know, he could have gotten up there and just talked about, you know, the greatness of the troops and the battlefield victories and the future plan for America. But instead, he felt like he had to tell the truth about the meaning of the war itself. And he speaks this sentence that I think I described it as like the most radical sentence ever said by an American president.

[A]

Want me to quote it directly?

[B]

Yeah, go for it.

[A]

Here's the quote. If God wills that it will continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago. So still it must be said, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. In other words, everything that we've done to make up for slavery, every bit of the cost, every bit of the blood that was drawn was necessary and worth it. Such was the evil of slavery.

[B]

Exactly. I mean, he's essentially saying like, if we all have to die to atone for this sin, like that would be just, you know, and no American president had ever spoken about slavery like that before. And frankly, like, it's hard to think of an American presence who said quite like that since. But the reason he's doing it is he realizes that given the crime of slavery and given the scale of what we've just been through in the Civil War, that the war had to be about something more than just like saving a union, you know, saving like a political arrangement, like. So he went, he went much bigger into this harder truth. And actually he didn't absolve the north either. He described it in that speech as American slavery repeatedly, not southern slavery, slavery. You know, Lincoln had said in other times that if we had been in their shoes, in the white Southern shoes, we probably would have done as they did and vice versa. And it was like, it was so interesting reading that today where we have such a hard time, you know, we just want to be affirmed. If there's something wrong, it's all somebody else's fault, you know, and here's Lincoln just saying, like, this was our sin for 250 years, that the slave trade was going on and if we had to pay with all this blood, it was worth it. But that rhetoric, that message, he felt necessary to kind of have a second founding of the United States.

[A]

And in a minute, we'll be back with more of Ben Rhodes to hear all he says. If you're a business owner, you know that missed calls and slow follow ups are silent killers. That's how businesses leave money on the table without ever realizing it. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q U O. The business communication system built so you never miss a call. Quo works wherever you are right from your phone or computer. Keep your existing number, add teammates in minutes, sync your CRM and let the call routing handle itself as you scale. It's easy. Calls, texts, voicemails, transcripts and contact details all in one clean view so your team always has the full picture and can show up for every customer conversation, ensuring a seamless and more personalized experience. Money is online. Always say hello with Quo. Try quo for free plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com gist that's quo.com gist live shopping on Whatnot is exploding right now. Exploding in the good way. I've seen the shows, I've seen the rankings, I've seen the revenue numbers. The numbers of sellers making over $1 million on whatnot has doubled in the last year. So if you're selling online or out of a storefront, which they still have full time side hustle, you know how hard it is. You're hoping that someone somehow finds your listing. You wait for them to walk in. Whatnot flips that on Whatnot, you go live, you sell directly to people in real time. They see what you've got, they ask questions, they keep coming back. My producer Corey, loves whatnot and he's always selling and acquiring collectibles. Let us even call them collectibles. I don't want to use brand names, but they are a fun company. Anyone can sell. Whether your business is big, small, or yet to exist. Across Whatnot, the number of sellers making over a million dollars a year has doubled. Some make more. This is how averages work. Some make less, but consistency pays off. Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order. Just search for whatnot w h a t n o t whatnot in the App Store and start scoring amazing deals. Ever notice how the second you Google something, suddenly every ad you see is about that thing? Or when you're traveling and just want to watch the show you always wanted to watch, it's blocked. Yeah, the Internet isn't really open. They call it the open Internet. No, you have to start using a product like like Proton vpn. I use Proton vpn, the traveling part. I mean, I'm paying for my subscription. It doesn't matter if I'm overseas. The way I see it, I want to see what I'm paying for on occasion. And also the security is really important. So ProtonVPN is a secure VPN service designed for people who want to prioritize their digital privacy and security. Haven't hit that point as hard. There's the connection convenience aspect and there's the privacy aspect. It keeps what you do online private and lets you access the Internet like it should work open, secure and on your terms. They have strict no logs policy that's independently verified and it works seamlessly. So whether you want to watch content from anywhere, get around block sites, or just keep your activity private on public WI fi, protect yourself. Proton VPN has you covered. It's easy to get started. Right now ProtonVPN is offering our listeners 70% off a two year plan. When you go to protonvpn.com gist that's P R O T O N vpn.com/gist for 70% off your two year plan. That's protonvpn.com gist. We're back with Ben Rhodes, author of all we say, the Battle for American Identity, a history in 15 speeches. And we just heard Ben talking about Lincoln. So I would like to know, Ben, what do you think of the recent reconsideration of Lincoln as someone who patronized the black population by trying to pitch colonization to them, or who was far less than perfect? Such framings as the 1619 Project, which goes on to win a Pulitzer Prize, captivates intelligentsia, says that he was this seriously flawed figure because he doesn't measure up to the standards of sophistication that we have today. That Lincoln was not, as you say, a speaker of the most radical sentences ever, but as being essentially a disappointing compromiser.

[B]

I just have a huge problem with that for a couple of reasons. One is just like, who among us is perfect? I mean, I just look in your own. I actually have the, you mentioned the white grandmother. I have the race speech from Obama. And one of the famous lines in that is when he's like, I can no more disown Reverend Wright, his pastor, who said all these inflammatory things, any more than I can disown my white grandmother who raised me, who I love, who I also have heard say things made me cringe. Essentially they were racist. And the reason I point to that is that I think that landed well with a lot of people because, like, look around your family dinner table at Thanksgiving. Like, do you agree with everybody? Like, if you judged the person at that table on the worst thing that they ever did, you'd never have dinner with them again. Like, people are able to accept the complexity of other human beings and love them in their own lives in a way that they don't seem to be able to do anymore in politics and history. And that's one reason why we're at each other's throats as Americans. I think as someone who is more on the left, though, what I find frustrating about that attitude is it's kind of self defeating because Frederick Douglass actually, who's also a chapter in this book, he had a falling out with William Lloyd Garrison, who is like probably the most famous white abolitionist, a great man, and actually the man who helped discover Douglass and put him out on the circuit. And the falling out was over the Constitution because Garrison kind of, you know, feels like a bit of a leftist. You know, you might encounter today. Garrison said we shouldn't work within the Constitution. Like that document is in is, you know, irredeemably messed up because it was written by slave owners and it allowed for slavery. And so whatever we're shooting for as abolitionists has to be something different than that. And Douglass insisted that he wanted to invoke the Constitution in his abolitionism. And he said, when I look at that document, I see a profoundly anti slavery document. Now that doesn't mean that there weren't things in there, including a three fifths compromise and including, you know, the, the Fugitive Slave Law was like upheld. But what Douglas is saying is like, look, let's choose what we like. Let's choose the better version of what we can see in this and make it work for us. And politically that was very smart because politically that allowed him to get the 14th and the 15th amendment passed, that granted, you know, equal rights and black suffrage. And I feel like there's a problem today. Like the title of the book is all we say. It's taken from MLK the night before he's killed. He said, all we say to America is be true to what you said on paper. He's talking about the Declaration of Independence. Every single progressive activist or politician in this book invoked all men are created equal to hold America accountable and to say that's what we're shooting for and you know, to try to rally Americans to make that good. What if they had said, you know what, that document was written by a white slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson. So you know what? I'm tossing out the Declaration of Independence. It would be self defeating as a matter of politics. Let's take these documents and make them work for us on the left and you shut the door on that possibility. If you look at Lincoln, you choose to not see the second inaugural address and you just choose to see that he supported some colonization schemes or he said some white supremacist things earlier in

[A]

his life, right now you would agree that the purity tests, the throw out the Thomas Jefferson name idea, everything else that did take hold in the Democratic Party through 2024, at least then putting aside the fact that the, the solution to that doesn't seem logically to be Donald Trump. This is what Obama was still talking about in the 2024 convention where he was once again saying, reach out to the person who disagree with and don't expect perfection. And of course, he also, by the way, quoted the Declaration of Independence right there before endorsing Kamala and Tim. But this was a problem. This was. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but how much of a problem did you think this was with your, the party and what the American electorate was hearing from the party when it came to the imperfect, imperfect, but genius insights of some of the people you write about in your book?

[B]

I think it's a problem. And actually it's funny to again reread the 2008 so called race speech from Obama for this book because part of it is actually just a speech against cancel culture. And he's saying, don't cancel Reverend Wright. I'd like to not disown my guy in the same way I wouldn't cancel my grandmother. You know, and I think that.

[A]

And he said that in 24. Right. If a grand, if a parent or grandparent occasionally says something that makes us cringe, we don't automatically assume they're bad people. We recognize the world is moving fast. He was, I think, the only one who said, you know, extend a hand to these people who might otherwise vote against us, think not like us, but still we know them to be good people.

[B]

Yeah. And I think I learned something from Obama. And I'm not here to say he did everything perfectly, but I think he was right about this. The point you're making, Obama didn't shame people even when people wanted him to shame people about things like racism. Obama's message, which is pretty consistent with, well, Obama's message was always not. You need to acknowledge, come out with your hands up and acknowledge that this is a racist country and that this is, you know, an imperialist endeavor or what have you. He knew that that would foreclose his ability to just as a practical matter, you know, never mind the fact that, like as he said, you know, morally, who among us is in a glass house, is in a glass house, like we all have flaws. But as a practical matter, well then that prevents you from reaching a whole group of people. And what Obama would say is, let me tell you the history of this country. And let me tell you all the times we've changed for the better in the past to address these problems that we have around race and other things. This country is so great that it's been able to change in the past, and it can do it again. Please join me in that effort. It was an open invitation to being a part of the progressive narrative, and it didn't require you to again come out and acknowledge your flaws on the front end. I think that a couple things happened. One is Trump's election. I think really, some people, it just felt like the first one, it confirmed their worst fears about America, or maybe it made them see the country in a way they never had. And it brought about an anger, an anger that kind of led to these places at the precise time, by the way, that social media is prioritizing, the kind of triggering content that an algorithm is literally going to deliver to you. The thing that makes you the most angry, the thing that illuminates racism if you're on the left, for instance, or sexism or any ism that is negative. And I think that where I'd even add to what Obama said is in addition to that, shutting the door in conversations with certain people, I think that in the decades since Trump has dominated our politics, there's a kind of really grim and angry energy. And I acknowledge that I've been a part of it at times. Like, I'm guilty of it myself. But I look back on, like, the 08 Obama campaign, and that was fun. That was a good time. Like, people wanted to be a part of it because it seemed like it was a good time. And I think a lot of Democratic politics and campaigns have been kind of angry, grim affairs in the Trump years. Whereas if I look at, you know, a MAGA rally, it's not my idea of a good time. But those people, like, they're having a good time. Like, they're wearing hats and weird outfits and hanging out hats.

[A]

They got a soundtrack.

[B]

Yeah. And I think Democrats are figuring this out, though, like, just to show you that some people on the left can do this. Yeah. The Mamdani campaign looked fun. You know, like, I was. I'm a New Yorker. I was watching it from. From afar, most of it. But, like, people looked like they were having a good time hanging out, like they were doing scavenger hunts, you know, like.

[A]

Like.

[B]

So I think it's a combination of, in this 99 question. Comment on his politics. It's just about his policies. It's about, are you projecting an energy that is attractive to people, you know,

[A]

and I think shaming people if it's real and authentic. I remember all the talk, the meta talk about the Walls Harris campaign where the campaign of joy. So much joy. Brad Summer joy. And it just, to me, it wasn't organic. Less joyful the more they articulated the joy. That's right.

[B]

That's exactly right. Like, it has to be organic. But I think, I think people have. Look where I'll defend Democrats a little bit on this is what Republicans were also good at. You know, because I had friends who would come to me and be like, you're the party of cancel culture. You, you know, all this stuff. It was that there was kind of an online left that practiced this the most aggressively. Like, you didn't find that many, like politicians that were doing it, but the like. But in part because there wasn't enough effort to distance yourself from that dynamic, but also because the Republicans were very good at like choosing the craziest tweet and being like, look at what the Democrats are for. And that kind of not actually what most elected Democrats are saying. So we kind of fell into that trap a bit too.

[A]

So I wanted to ask you about, because you're frequently, you write for the New York Times and you're frequently an expert on foreign affairs or cited as an expert. You're always an expert since that was what you. You did for many years. So you. In this chapter on Reagan's speech, which was an interesting and I think warranted selection, I wouldn't call it his greatest speech, that to me was Boys of Pontu Hock, just in terms of the brilliant language. And then the Brandenburg Gate was a pure distillation. You know, Gorbachev bring down this wall. But this was an interesting speech in that it was Evil Empire, but it also had. It was two evangelicals. And so it had a lot of language about the right to life. But you say, and this is the important thing that I kept thinking the Cold War's end owes more to Reagan's pragmatism than his invocation of good or evil. That's right. For all the, I think maybe cartoonish depiction of Reagan, he got the big things right and he got the big things right with the Soviet Union. And it doesn't even matter. His messaging helped him, but the treaties that he signed and the initiatives that he backed were really the most important thing. Which brings me to you did messaging on the JCPOA and the Iran deal, but you also were instrumental in putting together the deal. So if you can, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about that because right now it's, I mean, at the time it was sold as it's either this or war. And now we're living through the war and this version of war without a lot of foresight, without anticipating shutting down the Strait of Hormuz definitely does not seem the better choice. And I also know that the defenders of the jcpoa, and at the time I thought it was worth a shot, will always say it was working. So let me just ask you a couple of questions about that and let me give you, if you don't mind, my take on the JCPOA and the current state of things. One criticism, and David Frum says this, and others who were critics then and less critical now say big flaw of the JCPOA is that it front ended all the cash incentives. So there wasn't a phase. And you know this, I'll just say it for the audience, $1.7 billion or so was given to the Iranians right up front. There was no requirement of compliance where you could go, six months later you get this 100,000, six months later you get this hundred thousand. Why not?

[B]

Well, first of all, the Iranian concessions were also. There are two reasons. Like one is the Iranian concessions were also front loaded. So notably they had to ship their stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country. Right. And they also had to kind of immediately remove like the vast majority of their centrifuges and they had to destroy the reactor, the core of their plutonium reactor, so they couldn't have that. So basically we make a front end concession and then the thing they do as the next step is, are the most consequential parts of the deal. It's not like those things waited years. So look, and then the second thing I'd say is, well, that's what's possible. I mean like, and this, what everybody's learning now, what we learned at the Frickin negotiating table 15 years ago, would it have been nice for the Iranians to make all those concessions without getting money up front? Of course, I would have preferred that. But what's insane to me about Washington and the Trump people keep discovering this now it's diplomacy and it's not our money. Trump has lied about this repeatedly. You would think that we wrote them a check, it was their money that had been frozen. And so I would say that,

[A]

you

[B]

know, you have to give to get in diplomacy. And I think something which actually Reagan understood, you know, and something kind of became, you know, I think the hawkish elements, particularly on Iran, became so adamant that essentially we needed a deal in which the only thing that existed in the deal are Iranian concessions. And I think what you're seeing today is even having bombed that country relentlessly and blockaded it, they're still not going to make concessions without getting something in return.

[A]

That's it for today's show. The Gist is produced by Cory Wara. Jeff Craig does How To. Ben Astaire is our booking coordinator. Kathleen Sykes does the Gist list, and Michelle Pesca is extraordinary in her role as coo. Thanks for listening.