An Optimist’s Vision of America

Summary

---

The Good Fight – “An Optimist’s Vision of America”

Host: Yascha Mounk

Guest: Theodore R. Johnson

Date: June 12, 2021

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Yascha Mounk talks with Theodore R. Johnson, Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and author of When the Stars Begin to Fall: Overcoming Racism and Renewing the Promise of America. The central theme examines whether America can overcome its legacy of racism and build a truly egalitarian, multiethnic democracy. Johnson, drawing on his government, military, and scholarly experience, shares his pragmatic optimism about America’s future and discusses his vision for bridging the gap between American ideals and national reality.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Nature of Optimism in America’s Racial Journey

• Johnson describes his book as “aspirational” yet “realistic about the challenges of race” (05:10), ultimately maintaining optimism about America’s capacity to fulfill its ideals.
• He frames the quest for equality as a “test of national character,” emphasizing it is not inevitable—success depends on “whether we have the fortitude to manufacture the nation we want” (05:10).

2. Understanding American Ideals vs. Historical Reality

• Johnson draws a key distinction between “the United States” (the geopolitical nation, often “comfortable with racism”) and “America” (the set of aspirational ideals and principles such as equality and liberty).
  • “America...is the ideals. It is the principles, the values...We can be in a United States that is imperfect and...believe that the principles...can be the thing that unites us” (09:50).
• The progress toward equality is viewed as an arc, not a destination—connecting the ugly and beautiful parts of the nation’s origins to its unachievable-yet-worthy North Star of egalitarianism (06:43).

3. Why Hold Fast to the Ideals?

• Johnson argues that America’s founding ideals, even if initially hypocritical, have inspired successive generations to reinterpret and expand them:
  • “Even if the founding of the country and all of its rhetoric was based in rank hypocrisy, we have reinterpreted it to be powerful...Successive generations get to determine how this thing blooms” (12:37).
• The ongoing struggle is proof that “the project itself is not irredeemably racist, no more than the generations that implement the project are” (12:37).

4. Framing Racial Equality as a Collective Good

• Moving away from zero-sum thinking, Johnson critiques the notion that gains for one group must come at others’ expense:
  • The “ultimate project...is to make the increased access to our democracy not feel like loss to those who have traditionally enjoyed more of it than others” (15:29).
• He argues convincingly, citing works like Heather McGee’s, that inequality diminishes society as a whole:
  • “When inequality, whether it’s racial, socioeconomic...all of us, even those at the upper end of the hierarchy, are harmed by its presence” (18:21).

5. How to Frame the Fight for Racial Equality

• Rejecting solely material or identity-based appeals: Johnson is critical of both approaches that focus on “organizing primarly around identity alliances” and those that emphasize “economics over identity” (22:59).
• Arguing for a collective, inclusive American identity: He proposes uniting through shared belief in “democratic strangers” forging “civic friendship”—an identity “juxtaposed against a state that presently is not responsive to any one of us in the way that it should be” (24:24, 24:28).

6. Group Identity and National Identity: Navigating Complexity

• Johnson rejects both the erasure of group identities and the skepticism toward national identity:
  • “I can be both...black and American...There’s nothing incompatible with my group identity...and the American ideals, even though in United States history, my identity as a black person would have subjected me to horrible, horrible crimes” (29:37, 30:27).
• He draws on ideas of “American civil religion”—shared symbols, rituals, and narratives that can unite across group differences, while cautioning against their “bastardizations” (radical secularism or ethno-nationalism) (33:10).

7. Patriotism, Protest, and Civic Friendship

• Johnson advocates for an inclusive, evolving patriotism:
  • Example: “The most powerful singing of the national anthem ever was Whitney Houston’s 1991 Star Spangled Banner...a black woman...giving the most beautiful rendition...” (33:45).
  • He discusses Colin Kaepernick: “He participated in the ritual...kneeling was a gesture...to show that you still love America, but you’re just trying to point out some things that are wrong” (33:45).
• “Civic friendship” requires recognizing difference, extending grace, and finding affinity with fellow citizens—sometimes found in moments of crisis or shared struggle (33:45).

8. American Culture & Solidarity

• American culture, as experienced by immigrants and diverse communities, can foster shared identity beyond the political and civic:
  • “There is a sense of America that all of us belong to...by virtue of the fact that we grew up here or that we’ve been here for so long” (39:51).
• Johnson identifies “social solidarity”—a connection through shared, unchosen culture—as a resource to strengthen solidarity and democratic commitment (40:37).

9. Institutional Approaches: Military Lessons & Affinity Groups

• Johnson’s military experience illustrates the power of shared mission and exposure to diversity in building bonds:
  • “The reason the military is often held up...is not because they adhere to the same set of values...it’s the exposure to difference” (44:26).
• He acknowledges a place for affinity groups if they reinforce inclusion—not segregation—and argues for incentivized national service to foster exposure and civic friendship (45:57).

10. Defining and Addressing Racism

• The term “racism” is often overused and misunderstood; Johnson prefers a structural focus:
  • “We’re not talking about interpersonal relationships...we are talking about the way our society works, such that people similarly situated do not reap the same rewards...because of their zip code or their race or gender” (46:34).
  • “Structural racism is not about hate...It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that the climbs for different groups aren’t different based on group membership” (46:34).

11. What Must Change—Structures or Character?

• Instituting justice reforms and democracy protections are important, but the deeper requirement is civic friendship and active solidarity:
  • “If we have perfect systems...but we have a populace that does not see themselves in their fellow citizens, then there is no improvement...that are going to get rid of the animus that is felt...” (49:37).
  • The “moonshot” is to change national character and build a willingness to defend each other’s rights.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On American Aspirations:
  “It is within our capacity to become the thing we want to be...But this is ultimately a test of character, of national character.” — Theodore R. Johnson (05:10)

• Distinguishing Country from Ideals:
  “America...is the ideals. It is the principles, the values. So we can be in a United States that is imperfect and believe that the America...is still the thing that unites us.” — Theodore R. Johnson (09:50)

• Progress, Not Perfection:
  “Let’s appreciate that progress and recognize that the journey’s not done...progress is a reflection of the United States...moving very slowly but incrementally closer to this American society that is principle and value based.” — Theodore R. Johnson (10:51)

• The Cost of Inequality:
  “When inequality, whether it’s racial, socioeconomic...all of us, even those at the upper end of the hierarchy, are harmed by its presence.” — Theodore R. Johnson (18:21)

• On Patriotism and Protest:
  “I actually think it’s good for us to have these moments where we come together...I think the most powerful singing of the national anthem ever was Whitney Houston’s 1991...” — Theodore R. Johnson (33:45)

• Defining Structural Racism:
  “We’re not Talking about one person’s hatred of another...We are talking about the way our society works, such that people similarly situated do not reap the same rewards...simply because of their zip code or their race or gender or whatever.” — Theodore R. Johnson (46:34)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• The Aspirational Nature of Johnson’s Book: 05:10
• The United States vs. America Distinction: 09:50, 11:56
• Why and How Ideals Matter: 12:37
• Framing Racial Equality as Win-Win: 15:29, 18:21
• Beyond Material or Identity Politics: 22:59, 24:24
• Matrix Identities & Civil Religion: 29:37–33:10
• Patriotism, Whitney Houston, and Kaepernick: 33:45
• American Culture as Social Solidarity: 39:13–40:37
• Military Lessons on Exposure & Bonds: 43:29–45:17
• Defining Structural Racism and the “Crime of the State": 46:34
• Character, Solidarity, and Long-Term Hope: 49:37

---

Conclusion

Theodore R. Johnson offers an “optimist’s vision” grounded in hard realities: that bridging America’s racial divides requires not just policy change but a transformation of national character through solidarity, exposure, and the overcoming of zero-sum thinking. Distinguishing between the country’s imperfect reality and its guiding principles, Johnson argues for a multiethnic, truly democratic friendship as the path toward a better American future.

---

Transcript

[Botox Advertisement Narrator]

Chronic migraine is 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botox Onobotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they start. It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. It prevents on average eight to nine headache days a month versus six to seven for placebo.

[Botox Safety Information Narrator]

Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

[Botox Advertisement Narrator]

Why wait? Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

I don't think me being black makes me less American, and I don't think me to American rituals and symbols and Americana makes me any less devoted to the project of Black America, which is basically to help America become more American. And I think this goes for every group. If you're the descendant of Irish immigrants or Chinese immigrants or Native Americans or whatever, you can hold on to your American journey and hold onto America, even recognizing that historically the United States may have wanted to prevent you from being part of it at all.

And now the Good Fight with Jascha Monk.

[Jascha Monk]

Instead of my usual spiel at the beginning of this podcast, I have a favor to ask of you today. The audience for the podcast has been steadily growing, but we want to make sure that we reach as many people as possible. And so if you like the Good Fight, if you like the conversations we have here, if you want more people to hear some of the upcoming debates I will have on the podcast with everybody from George Packer to Neil Ferguson in the coming weeks and months, I would love for you to just take a minute to share the podcast with a few of your friends. You can take a second to find the right link and send it to people, or you can simply tell them, hey, I've been listening to this podcast, the Good Fight with Jasia Munch. Go to your podcast app and look for it. It'll be easy to find. We want to make sure that we keep growing this wonderful community. And, and I would also love to hear your suggestions for further guests, your feedback, your ideas for how we can improve. At the same time, thank you so much for doing this favor to me. And now we're back to regular programming.

My guest today is Theodore R. Johnson. Ted is a Senior Fellow at the Brennan center for justice at nyu. He had a distinguished career in government and military before joining Think tank Land. He was a White House Fellow during the first term of the Obama administration, a speechwriter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a commander in the United States Navy. Ted has a new book out called when the Stars Begin to Fall, Overcoming Racism and Renewing the Promise of America. We had a searching conversation about the nature of the challenges facing the United States today, the things that are wrong in the United States, and the promise of America that we should nevertheless hold on to. I think Ted is one of the most important voices today in doubling down on the idea that despite all of the very real injustices, it is possible for a multi ethnic society like America to build real civic friendship, to have a future that lives up to its ideals more fully than the past or the present present. So it's a tough conversation, but also I think, an optimistic and inspiring one. It's one that made me feel a little bit better about the country and the world. Ted Johnson, welcome to podcast.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Thank you for having me. Always good to be here.

[Jascha Monk]

I feel like I've been wrong for the right of this book from early stage. We were both fellows at New America at one point and I heard a very early stage of this book project being presented, if I remember right.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Right. Yeah. And the project I brought to New America is maybe it's 75 degrees off of where I thought it was going to be when I started. But I think that's just the nature of writing books. You almost don't know what it's about until you finish it up.

[Jascha Monk]

Yeah. So one thing that's interesting is that I think it was in certain ways a reasonably optimistic project when you started. I think the public mood on the question of race and racism has become much more pessimistic in the meanwhile. How would you describe your book? Do you think on the whole you're optimistic or pessimistic about where the country is today and where the country can Hope to be 25 or 50 years from now on the question of race?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

So this is absolutely an aspirational book. It is Realistic about the challenges of race and liberalism and social economic inequality, et cetera, but it is ultimately optimistic about our chances in this experiment, in this project. Whether or not we can achieve the thing we say we want to achieve is a whole nother question. But I think it is within our capacity to become the thing we want to be. And we'll just have to see whether or not the stars align and the odds are in our favor as we go forward. But this is ultimately a test of character, of national character, and it is not so much a question of the environment, whether the environment will permit us to have the country we want, but whether or not we have the fortitude to create, manufacture the nation we want.

Yeah.

[Jascha Monk]

One of the things that I find interesting and frustrating in the conversation at the moment is that there's such a desire to emphasize and uncover injustice, which is important and understandable, that we often lose out of sight what a goal even should be, what kind of society we should even aspire to. And so, as a result, I think the vision that ends up being put forward often is one where, even if all of the recommendations were implemented, even if a vision that some authors put forward were realized, it still would be a society that I wouldn't want to live in because it would still be pretty dystopian. So, you know, what do you think is the importance of having an ideal to aim for? And what is that ideal? What kind of society is it that you think we should be aiming to build?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, so it's pretty simple in terms of, like, the idealistic American society. It is egalitarian in the sense that all of us are created equal, as in the Declaration, and that we all have these unalienable rights that we can exercise to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, that's very broad. And the interpretation of what does it mean to have life and what does it mean to have liberty and pursuit of happiness. But I don't know that we agree on just those two basic principles yet. I think we are fighting over who has access to these principles instead of arguing about how we can make them more accessible to more people. The other thing that I really hate about the current conversation about race relations in America is we're debating about which story of America we should be telling ourselves. Should we be thinking about the horrors of the past so that we don't repeat them and that we learn those lessons and implement them, or should we be thinking about the ideal society? So we've sort of got our eye on the prize and our North Star that we're always, always working toward. And the argument seemed to be where more of our focus should be on that latter piece of who we want to be or the former piece of who we were so that we don't return there. And what I try to do in the book is draw the arc between these two points and say, let's not focus on either point exclusively. Let's focus on the arc exclusively. So let's talk about the progress of a nation over it's, you know, almost 250 years now, which means we have to recognize the starting point, which is both ugly and beautiful, and we have to recognize the. The ultimate North Star or the goal society that we want, which is probably unachievable in its purest sense. But the journey there is what makes the project worthwhile if we're taking this journey together and if we agree that, you know, access to the journey is not a commodity to be hoarded by the few, but one to be spread around.

[Jascha Monk]

Well, I think that goes to one of the key questions and debates in this space, which is that there's one way of talking about the United States and about the present condition of race in the United States, which comes from a long black tradition that goes probably from Frederick Douglass to Barack Obama, which is broadly speaking, and very hard to summarize in a sentence or two to say that the ideals of America have always been right and the country has always fallen short of those ideals in terrible ways. I think there's another way of talking about it that's becoming more fashionable where actually the injustices aren't incidental to America. They have a definition of America. They have a thing that truly characterizes the country. And so where do you fall within this debate? I take it you're more on the former side. What's the case for that?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, so one of the things I do is I think about the United

States and America differently, instead of sort

of using them synonymously. So what we know from our history is that the United States, the geopolitical entity, the nation state, can live quite comfortably with racism in its explicit forms and chattel slavery and its less explicit forms, you know, like racially disparate outcomes or disparate access to certain rights or benefits, privileges of citizenship.

But the nation state is only motivated by its interests.

It's not motivated by some morality about the rights and values and dignity of people, except to the extent that it secures a national interest. America, in my view, is the ideals. It is the principles, the values. And so we can be in A United States that is imperfect and believe that the America, the principles that undergird the founding of the country, even if they're not realized today and may never be purely achievable, is still the thing, one that unites us. What else does a nation of 330 million people across race, ethnicity, religion, region, dialects, et cetera, have in common, except this belief in American principles that can be the thing that unites us? So my sense is, yes, there have been terrible things that have happened in this country, and I am much happier being a Black man in 2021 than in 1921 or 1821 or 1721. And so let's appreciate that progress and recognize that the journey's not done and sort of tidy this up.

That the progress is a reflection of

the United States, the geopolitical entity, moving very slowly but incrementally closer to this American society that is principle and value based, that we're aiming towards, and that all of our American prophets, for lack of a better term, American disciples across history have painted a picture of that

gives us a sense of what's possible

if we can figure this multiracial democracy thing out.

[Blinds.com Advertiser]

Did you know if your windows are bare, indoor temperatures can go up 20 degrees. Get ahead of summer with custom window treatments like solar roller shades from blinds.com and save up to 45% off during the Memorial Day Early Access sale. Whether you want to DIY it or have a pro handle everything, we've got you free samples, real design experts, and zero pressure. Just help when you need it. Shop up to 45% off site wide right now during the Early Access Memorial day [e-mail] rules and restrictions apply.

[Jascha Monk]

So if I'm understanding right, you associated America more with the ideal of a country, and United States more with the historical reality of country and the contemporary reality.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Exactly.

This is the nation we have, not

the nation we want. And we have to close the gap between United States and America.

[Jascha Monk]

So I guess a pushback that might come from the left on this is even on the ideal side. You know what should make us think that there is something to be ideal, that the ideal is in fact, historically motivating, that it's something we should aim towards, that it's something that can have power in the world. I think the cynical view that's very common now is to say that ideal was always a fig leaf. It was always a way of cloaking what's actually going on. It was always an excuse for it. And so actually, we should give up on the ideal why is it that we should hold onto the ideal? Why is that normatively right and sort of practically realistic?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, so a few things. One is the words written at the founding of the country did not accurately characterize the state of the country when they were written. And I think everyone kind of agrees on that. The original sin, in my view, isn't what white people did to black people, but it's that a nation founded on the principle of equality, enslaved people. And so like that natural contradiction was the original sin in my book. But over time, every generation has sort of reinterpreted, I think, to a more accurate interpretation of those founding principles. So Abraham Lincoln gave new life to the Declaration in many of his speeches. And whether or not the words that Lincoln said in his interpretation of the Declaration was actually what the Framers, the founding generation, meant when they wrote them is almost beside the point because Lincoln gave them new life. Martin Luther King gave both the Bill of Rights and the Declaration new life, and I have a Dream speeches, et cetera. And so part of the beauty of the American project is that successive generations get to determine how this thing blooms. You know, farmers can plant whatever seed they like, but they don't get to determine whether the thing grows, what it grows up to, to become nature. And time sort of figures that out. So I think that's where we are. And so even if the founding of the country and all of its rhetoric was based in rank hypocrisy, we have reinterpreted it to be powerful. And even those on the left utilize the powerful rhetoric of our founding documents to justify the policy positions, whether it's Medicare for all or tuition free college or whatever it is. It's not because they want to burn down a nation where all of us are created equal and where we have the rights to life living, pursuit of happiness. It's that they think these policies actually get us closer to that. And so even for those folks that think America is irredeemably racist, I think my sense is they're saying in the gap between who we have been and who we profess to be, that racism is the cause for that gap. But my sense is that as long as we work towards closing that gap, it is proof that the project itself is not irredeemably racist, no more than the generations that implement the project are. So if we can be better than the previous generation, then the project itself becomes less racist because we say so, because we the people get to determine what this thing looks like in the end.

[Jascha Monk]

You said a few minutes ago that you would much rather be a black man in the United States in 2021, but in 1921 and 1821, I think it's obvious that that would and should be true. At the same time, your book describes ways in which America today continues to be deeply shaped by racism. How would you, at a sort of 10,000 foot view, describe the present moment? And I don't mean the present moment in relation to Donald Trump or to QAnon, or to very important things that have happened over the last few years, but in relation to 50 years ago, to 100 years ago, or to where hopefully we will get 50 or 100 years from now.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah. So I think the challenge and the beauty in America is sort of wrapped up in this one thing. And it is that there is a cohort of folks who think that America is a static thing, and changes to that static thing represent a threat to the thing itself. And so they defend the static version of America. And to whatever extent change happens, as long as it's small and incremental, then it may be acceptable as long as the status quo isn't disrupted too much. And this also emanates from a place where it's a zero sum game that the more of America you get, the less of it is available. For me, on the other end, there is the America as an expanding project, and that there's enough of this for us all. And that if we have our principles right, if we practice civic friendship with one another, that we can figure out how to make this work for all of us. And while it will require some sacrifice and forbearance from all of us, that ultimately we leave behind a better nation than the one we inherited. So in some sense, we are picking up the battles from 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and trying to partition out our part of America that we feel like we have rights to based on the Constitution and our struggles for equality. And then in another sense, I think in the more ideal view of America, it is that this is not a zero sum project. That when we expand our democracy, we actually strengthen it instead of weaken the portions of each of us receive. And making that mental hop is not an easy proposition. Because when you are in an unequal society, a society that has a hierarchical structure, those folks at the upper end of the hierarchy, when they sense a leveling, that is, they actually sense that leveling as loss instead of a societal gain. And so the ultimate project, in my view, the goal that remains in front of us is to make the increased access to our democracy not feel like loss to those who have traditionally enjoyed more of it than others.

[Jascha Monk]

John Stuart Mill is one of my favorite writers, and in his wonderful book on women's equality, the Subjection of Women, he makes the great point that in fact, the loss from male domination is to both sexes. It is most obviously and most cruelly to women. But it's also, for example, men who are incapable of getting the joys and the meaningful virtues of a relationship of equal with their spouses or with women in their lives as long as they live in a society in which men have all of those legal advantages over women. I feel like you make a somewhat similar point in trying to argue in your book for why it is that we should think a society of true racial equality is one that all Americans could benefit from. Tell us about that.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

And this is a novel point to me. I mean, Heather McGee, in her recent book, has argued this. Carney in his recent book, has argued

that when inequality, whether it's racial, socioeconomic, when it happens, all of us, even those at the upper end of the hierarchy, are harmed by its presence. So when racism is not a thing that black people need to figure out and not a thing that white people need to fix, it is a problem, I call it in the book, a crime of the state that all of us are harmed by. And so it is incumbent upon all of us to address it. When you look at in the book Dying of Whiteness, they talk about all of the different ways that the changing demographics in the country, the changing economics of the country, is actually taking the most toll on young white men in rural America, where suicide rates are higher than any other demographic, where opioid use is higher than any other demographic. And this is a sort of means of coping with or not the loss of a sense of social status that you have sort of failed your forefathers because you've not been able to attain the economic security and social status that they did, and that you're being crowded out of your America by all of these other people who are, like, leeching on the state or taking your place in line. And so it has real material costs for every American. And the second part of this is that a lot of our leaders know this, and they know that as long as they can exploit racial tensions, they actually don't have to deliver a functioning, efficient government to anyone. Because as soon as the public unites and starts demanding for the government to do something, they can start pointing at different groups saying they're cheating, they're cutting you out. The reason your community is in bad shape is because these people over here are sucking up all your hard earned tax dollars. And then the citizenry turns against one another and starts bickering about racism and its existence or not, and fairness and jobs and pay and all this stuff. Meanwhile, those at the upper echelons with economic and political power get the government to operate to their advantage. And so racism becomes a major distraction for the people's ability to provide oversight of its government. If we have a government where it derives its power from the consent of the governed, then racism is a way of preventing the governed from ever giving consent, because we're too busy arguing about for whom that government should be working.

[Jascha Monk]

So how would you frame the fight for racial equality in a way that maximizes the chances of people seeing this? I believe you. I agree with you that living in a society of true racial equality would in fact be of benefit to everybody, and especially to all of us who believe in something like the American ideal, as I very much do. It seems to me at the same time that a lot of the structure of a conversation at the moment makes it hard for people to see that that is of course, to a large extent the fault of racial and racist provocateurs like Donald Trump and like many people on the right who are trying to exacerbate racial tension as much as they can. I worry, though, that some of the language among my own friends helps to exacerbate that feeling as well. When we talk about electoral politics in a way that basically says over time, white voters are dwindling, non white voters are rising, and that's why Democrats are always going to win, it is casting the American future in these zero sum terms. If mainstream media outlets speak of people of color as inherently virtuous and white people as inherently evil, it seems to set up a moral scheme. But understanding makes people very defensive. So how do we fight for racial equality in a full throated way without running that danger?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah.

And so this is the question for the American experiment. If we cannot answer this question, there will not be an America to leave. There might be a United States, but it's not going to be the America that we want. And so there's no easy answer. What I think is not the answer is pointing to the material losses that people experience by supporting racially divisive policy or supporting politicians that capitalize on exploiting racial tensions. And so if you point to people and say, because of the presence of structural racism in the United States, the health care you need to save your mom or your own life, you're not going to get because politicians will be bickering and nothing will happen. I don't think that's going to work. You can't point to economic losses or instability and say if you just partner with those people over there who you don't know and don't look like and don't worship the same as and have different cults and cultures, then the health insurance your mom needs or the job or the fair wages that you want will suddenly appear. There's something about the nature of identity, like identifying as an American and protecting that identity that supersedes the material arguments for how racism is harmful.

[Jascha Monk]

I hadn't thought about it in these terms. So I guess there's at least three positions in the debate, right? Like one position is to say that actually the way to win this fight is just to organize. Primarily a wrong identity alliance is for people of color to win against whites. And we shouldn't be trying to get people along too much. We shouldn't be trying to make the argument this is actually good for everybody. White people are never going to get on board and it's making too many concessions to them. And so let's just sort of fight all out. So you pose that now some of the people who oppose that position do it from a kind of socialist left, let's say, they say, hey, we should be emphasizing economics over identity. And we should be saying that all American workers have a common set of interests and they're being exploited by people on the right who use these wedge issues. They use the sort of racist stuff and so on in order to distract the working class from the fact that they actually have all of these common interests, whether white working class or black working class. And so let's emphasize that if only we can overcome racism, we can have universal health care and a minimum wage and all of the other good stuff. And what you're saying is actually may or may not agree with these policy positions, but that's not right either. We really actually have to win the fight over the ideal first of all, I guess. Is that the right characterization? And if so, what's the third position that you were about to lay out before I interrupted you?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

I think the third position is the thing that unites us isn't a common economic interest. That can be useful, but I don't know that it's thick enough to resist anti democratic appeals that will absolutely follow any attempt to build a broad based multiracial coalition. I think we have to organize around a collective inclusive identity and that that identity is juxtaposed against a state that presently is not responsive to any one of us in the way that it should be. In other words, the state is kind of in breach of the social contract, and the only way we can bring them back to conform with it is if we are willing to unite and hold the state accountable. And if we are not willing to do this, then the only thing that awaits us is a more divided society where conflict is increasingly along racial and class lines and will not deliver any bit of the democracy that we want it to deliver, because it will be too busy handing out favors and tokens to certain constituencies just to hold on to power. And this is what makes the argument so difficult, because I'm asking people to come together over a shared belief instead of a collective self interest, if that makes sense. Instead of saying, here's what you gain, here's what I gain, and so let's just work together so we can both get what we want out of this thing. I'm saying we both get shortchanged in this thing unless we recognize each other's inherent right to the thing in the first place. And the only way we can do that is recognize that we are essentially democratic strangers in this large nation that needs to find a way to establish civic friendship so that the nation we want to have is a nation that is possible for posterity. And if that's not enough to move you, if you would rather have a country where your group wins and everyone else loses, fine, say that. Don't say that you believe in American values and principles. Say that you're fighting for in a liberal society where your side wins. And then we can have a different discussion about what the country results from after that. So I list some things about how we can kind of manufacture this connection across difference in the book. But ultimately it's going to be personal and collective choices that we make to find bonds of connection and to manufacture these bonds of affection with one another in order to hold the government accountable for not delivering on the society that I think in general we all want. We may disagree on how to get there or the policies in that perfect society, but we all pretty much agree on the principles that undergird this America that we hope for.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone. Paying Big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give It a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[Botox Advertisement Narrator]

of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] tell me a little

[Jascha Monk]

bit about the nature of that common identity. I think there are two extremes of how we might think of a future common identity, which I take it you reject. And I'd love to hear how you straddle the path between them. So, you know, one extreme is to say we should give up on any form of group identity altogether. Right. That we should think of ourselves as Americans first and foremost and all of the sort of ethnic and perhaps to some extent all religious distinctions that now structure society should become irrelevant or at least as minimal as possible. So at 50 or 100 years from now, people won't think of themselves at all in ethnic terms. And while they may have a religion that's not going to structure their association life and so on very strongly, it's a kind of popular parody of the idea of a melting pot. Right. That's one kind of idea. The other idea, which I think is quite fascinating at the moment, is one where, where you're very skeptical of national identity, but you're very, very complimentary of any form of sub national identity in which you encourage people insofar as possible to identify by their ethnic or religious group to some extent by their sexual orientation or gender identity, in which that even starts to go for majority groups in ways that usually would have been antithetical to the left. Right. There are some writers like Robin Diangelo, who actually really want to encourage people like me to feel white, to identify as white, to embrace the whiteness, which is something that I personally am very resistant to. So it seems to me that you have, I don't want to call it a middle vision because I don't think it's an arithmetic middle between those two. But a third vision which recognizes the importance that, for example, black identity is going to play going forward in a way that the first perhaps doesn't, but it also wants to, is skeptical of a doubling down on subnational identity, is mindful of the need for national identity in a way with the second conception I outlined is not. So tell us how this third conception of identity compares and contrasts with the two that are sort of so dominant in debate today.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, I think of these identities as sort of matrix where both of them, both the national identity and group identities are robust and resilient enough to accommodate the other where I don't have to choose to be an American and surrender my blackness and I don't have to choose to be black and. And then sort of eschew all of the things that make me American. I can be both. And look, you're talking to a retired military guy. So every time a black dude like me shows up in a military uniform, I am both black and an American and wearing the uniform of both at the same time. And this is, you know, a century ago, Du Bois talked about the double consciousness or the two ness, of trying to be Negro and American, and that the only thing that keeps the two from tearing each other apart is just the strength of the black American, him or herself. And so I think of it in that way, but I don't think they

have to be intention.

I don't think me being black makes me less American, and I don't think me clinging to American rituals and symbols and Americana makes me any less devoted to the project of black America, which is basically to help America become more American. And I think this goes for every group. If you're the descendant of Irish immigrants or Chinese immigrants or Native Americans or whatever, you can hold on to your American journey and hold onto America, even recognizing that historically the United States may have wanted to prevent you from being part of it at all. This is why I draw the distinction between the nation state and the principles. There's nothing incompatible with my group identity as a black man or as a man, as a military man, a veteran or whatever, and the American ideals, even though in United States history, my identity as a black person would have subjected me to horrible, horrible crimes. So that's how I think about this now. The hard part is figuring out how does one live with these matrix identities in a society, one where group identities are leveraged politically, where group identity has material impacts on your outcomes, whether it's education or wages or jobs or housing opportunities or whatever. How do I reconcile the disparity alongside the ability of group and national identities to sort of share the same space? And this is where I pull on the American civil religion. This concept really from Jean Jacques Rousseau centuries ago, but refreshed by the sociologists out of Berkeley. Robert Bella in 67, where he talks about the American civil religion and how our rituals like the national anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance and our pantheons of great Americans and our canon and the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, et cetera, how these are the things that unites this multiracial, multifaceted country, and how this is the ultimate aim of this project. But one of his students, Philip Gorski, I can't remember if he's at Yale or Princeton, but basically says that vision is true, but the bastardization of that vision is increasingly prevalent. The folks that stormed the Capitol had a civil religion. It was just like religious ethno nationalism. You know, it was very Christian, it was very white and thought that America was for a very specific few that were self appointed defenders of the realm. And then there's another bastardization that says there is no place for any of this floaty, flowery rhetoric about ritual and commonality and these high minded principles. He calls it radical secularism. There are only policy battles, there are only outcomes. And let's focus on outcomes and policies and not on the emotional connections we have to one another based on our shared belonging in this larger project that we call America.

[Jascha Monk]

Yeah, that's fascinating. Thinking through these different bastardizations of a civic religion. I mean, one way of teasing out what you're saying is to talk about patriotism and the importance of that. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. So I think in a way you've already made the case for it. I'm also really interested in this idea of civic friendship that you mentioned. What would real civic friendship look like? If we manage to build civic friendship? I guess, where do you see it present today in the United States? Where do you see an absence of it? And if we managed to build a society that truly has civic friendship, what would that look and feel like?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, that's a great question. So to the patriotism point, I do believe that there is a place for the national anthem. I'm not one of those folks who thinks reverence of the flag and the national anthem is actually more harmful to the project than the embrace of it. I actually think it's good for us to have these moments where we come together. In fact, I think the most powerful singing of the national anthem ever was Whitney Houston's 1991 Star Spangled Banner at the super bowl at a time where the nation was at war. This is a black woman from Newark, New Jersey, whose family was part of the great migration out of Georgia, giving the most beautiful rendition of the national anthem. So much so that it became a national bestseller and, you know, funded Red Cross and military. I mean, it's just, it's gorgeous. And I think that is an example of how you can hold both your group identity. I don't know if another person could have brought that beauty to a national anthem, which is a part of our national identity than her in that moment. So patriotism. I talk a little bit about Kaepernick in the book, you know, him kneeling, and the focus was on his kneeling during the ritual instead of the fact that he still participated in it. He didn't walk off the field. He didn't not show up for it. He participated in the ritual, but because he didn't do it the way people wanted him to, they thought he was being disrespectful. And when in fact, you know, kneeling was a gesture that was chosen on the advice of a military veteran who said, instead of sitting on your butt, why don't you kneel as a sign of respect to show that you still love America, but that you're just trying to point out some things that are wrong or where it's fallen short? So I think our conception of patriotism needs to expand to not be so liturgical and so focused on adherence to ritual, and instead focus on the participation in the ritual, even when you're exercising your First Amendment rights in that participation, especially when it's not done in a disruptive way like Kaepernick. So to the second question of civic friendship, one, civic friendship extends that grace, so that when Kaepernick kneels or other people kneel, you recognize that as a sign of respect and an exercise of the very constitutional rights that the flag represents, and pointing out where the nation has fallen short, but where it exists in an enduring fashion and in a place thick enough to be resilient to other appeals. I'm not sure that it does. I think we can get snapshots of it when a natural disaster hits some community, or like among cancer survivors. I think there's a kind of civic friendship through shared experience. I think civic friendship, it is the active part of solidarity, which is what the book is really arguing for. How can we find solidarity with one another across these differences? Which is to say, how can we be civic friends with people in a democracy that we'll never meet, you know, people in Idaho that I'll never meet? How can I be their civic friend and stand in solidarity with them? And this is the question, and I don't know how to create this thing. I've suggested things, you know, more civic education and national service and thinking about things like deliberative democracy that mandates people be included in decisions that government makes or reforms to our institutions and processes. But even if we do all of these things, there kind of has to be a desire to actually be a participant in the America that we profess. To want instead of a combatant in the America that we perceive to be in short supply, and we're trying to commandeer it for ourselves.

[Jascha Monk]

As an immigrant to America, I have a slightly different view on what holds America together than virtually all of my friends who were born and raised here. So I want to put this to you because I agree with everything you said so far. But I would add to it that it does seem to me like America has a common, everyday culture, which actually is a really important part of what gives people a form of common identity and to some extent, perhaps at its best, a form of common civic friendship. Now, you know, I spent part of a pandemic in the northern part of Florida, which is to say the part of Florida that's north enough to really be the South. I'm recording this while I'm staying with friends in Harlem. You know, the cultural difference between this place and Palm Valley is huge. And the cultural difference of people in different boroughs of New York, or different parts of different boroughs of New York, different parts of the same borough of New York, different parts of Queens, are very, very significant. So I don't want to understate that. And yet, especially if you look at people who are born and raised in the United States, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their place of birth, whatever their religion, they share a set of common cultural scripts, a set of common cultural references that, as somebody who's new to this country or was new to this country 10 or 12 years ago, actually appears very, very strong. And so I wonder whether you think that a common American culture, not one that harkens back to the Mayflower particularly, not one that's sort of, you know, putting on historical costumes, and obviously not one that primarily looks to one ethnic group, but rather one that really recognizes the lived American culture of 2021, which, for the many problems of the country, actually is very diverse, sees people cooperating, whether in the workplace or in private life, across many ethnic and religious divides, sees the emergence of musical genres which are deeply shaped by many different demographic groups, whether that lived American culture can be part of that American identity, or whether it really is primarily those civic ideals, primarily those political ideals.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, that's a great question. I was in the military, which meant,

one, I was around a bunch of

different Americans from places I've never been,

people I never would have met except

for the fact that we were stationed together, we deployed together, and we were often together overseas. And you get a real sense of what American culture is when you're outside of America, especially with other Americans. And sort of when you return to

America, just sort of walking off of

the airplane and back into the airport,

you kind of feel America in a way that you feel foreign when you

walk off the plane in another country. And so you're absolutely right that there is a common culture.

There is a sense of America that all of us belong to.

Just by virtue of the fact that we grew up here or that we've been here for so long. So this is in the book I

sort of give a few lessons from

the black American experience that I think the nation would be wise to adopt in order to establish this national solidarity. One of them is essentially social solidarity. So national solidarity, the way I describe it, is basically political solidarity plus civic solidarity, which is to say, political solidarity is when people stand together over a just cause, over a moral cause, and they bond together over their adherence to this moral belief. And sort of stand beside one another for that reason. Civic is when people bind together because there's something in their society that is broken. And they're sort of demanding collectively that that thing be fixed.

And it's often people demanding of the

state to do this thing. So national solidarity is essentially people coming together over a moral claim, like defeating racism and inequality and demanding the state take action to do this thing. And we stand in solidarity with one another so that we all benefit. But the part of the black experience that I pull out that we would be wise to adapt is the social solidarity, which is the solidarity to be found in groups that you didn't choose to belong to, but that you do belong to. And by virtue of your belonging, a culture and a connection emanates from it. And this is exactly what you're talking about, this sort of social solidarity of being American. And for all of the complaints you may have of the country and its governance and its leaders, you know that when you return from Europe or Asia or Africa and land in America, the feeling of stepping into that American airport is familiar. And you didn't choose to be American for the vast majority of us. Some of us did. But the vast majority of us were born here and were sort of born into this culture. And so you have a kind of social solidarity because of this shared American culture. And instead of politicians building on that social solidarity to build unity, they sort of make these rhetorical pleas to it. And then everything after that rhetorical plea divides us along lines of identity. Because it's politically expedient. For politicians or even in the media. The sensationalism of the conflict of identity is useful or helpful for their business plan, even if it's damaging to the broader American project of bringing us together.

[Jascha Monk]

What does it look like to foster that civic friendship and that common sense of identity in a practical level in institutions? It seems to me that there are very different sets of ideas about how to do that. I don't know that much about the military I haven't served. But my understanding is that by and large, the message from the hierarchy there is to say, you're a soldier, you're a member of this particular unit, you're an American. And while of course we recognize that you have other attributes, while we may give you, when that's feasible, a day off for your religious holiday and all of those kinds of things, really the common identity comes first in many spaces. There's a different approach. So now in many elite private schools, you have sort of affinity groups which are not self chosen. That's one thing, right? When people say, I want to go hang out with people who are Muslim or who are black or who are Jewish after school, but rather imposed by the administration so that you talk about race or other issues in race segregated groups or religiously segregated groups that are sort of chosen and imposed by the administration. So that's something where you're saying, no, in order to build the functioning school community, we should really emphasize and double down on these identities. Which of those approaches do you think is more promising and what can we learn from different kinds of institutions in American society for how to build that civic friendship?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

I can tell you the vast majority of folks that I worked with in the military didn't join the military because they were bubbling over with patriotism from the womb till their 18th birthday and wanted nothing else but to be in uniform.

There are some, but it is not

the majority, not even close. Some folks have always just wanted to fly jets, and so the military became a way to do that in an economically feasible way. Some folks have always liked the camaraderie and the fraternity of military life, and so they joined for that reason. But the majority of folks that I've come across, especially on the enlisted side, joined because of the economic benefits that come with military service, like health care and housing benefits and education benefits, guaranteed paychecks, guaranteed housing in many cases. And so it is a very pragmatic decision to join the military, often influenced by socioeconomic circumstances. And then I think the next reason is come to family business in some sense. So I say this to say that

the reason the military is often held

up as doing a really good job of bringing different people together and Establishing bonds is not because they adhere to the same set of values and those values bring them together. I think it's because these are people who made independent decisions to join the military and then are thrown into these units and they are exposed to people they would never meet otherwise. And it's the exposure to difference and being able to break out of the caricatures and stereotypes of other groups and be able to put a face in a conversation and a smile and laughter and anger to people helps break down the divisions and the differences between us and create bonds of affection just through the exposure. That is where I think the military is successful as an institution. And so I think the nation needs to build off that example. There is a place for group identity

even in the military.

The pilots in the Navy and the guys who drive ships in the Navy, they are always, sometimes, hopefully sometimes not at each other's throats because of the platform that they fight just within the Navy. Nevermind the jokes that services have about one another, that's fine. So ERGs, or employee resource groups or affinity groups, those are fine as long as the message is about how those identities are part of an inclusive America and not how those identities should segregate themselves from America because of its history. The other thing is, while there's a place for those groups, I think more of our resources should be and exposure to people that we are different from. And this is why I think a

program, even probably not mandated, but an

incentivized program of national service is essential to forming civic friendships. Because the only way we can break down these differences or these barriers between us is through exposure. And so to the extent we can foster that, facilitate it, manufacture it, I think the project of American democracy kind of hinges on our ability to find it.

[Jascha Monk]

That's very convincing to me. You have an interesting account of how to think about the nature of racism in society today. And you think that that's a term that is so emotionally laden that it sort of raises people's hackles, and so that has implications for how we should use it and how we should think about it.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah. So the first thing is the term has become broader than it should be. And so everything is racist. And because it's racist, that means that white people hate people of color. And now the lines are drawn and let's go to battle over resources. And that is immediately unhelpful. And so I think the first thing is when we talk about racism in America, we need to first acknowledge we are not talking about interpersonal relationships. We're not Talking about one person's hatred of another. We're not talking about bad apples and that sort of thing. We are talking about the way our society works, such that people similarly situated do not reap the same rewards for the sweat of their brow as another group simply because of their zip code or their race or gender or whatever. Let's address those inequalities, not to make sure everyone gets the same thing, but that people can reap the benefits of the work they put into a thing. And so I think we are much more productive when we focus on that latter thing. And so this is where there's an argument about, you know, is structural racism real? Is it not? If structural racism is defined as the government hating black people, then I think structural racism is not real, because I don't think the government has the capacity to hate. It's not a sentient being. It doesn't care about love or hate or good or bad or morality or not. It cares about interests. So I don't think America hates people of color. I don't think America hates black people. I do think that the way our society is structured means that for black Americans to achieve the American dream, the hill we have to climb is degrees steeper, and the climb is, in real numbers, higher in magnitude than it is for other groups. And that is a function of the way our society is structured. And it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the climbs for different groups aren't different based on group membership. And that is how I think about structural racism. This is not about all of us coming down the hill at the same speed to make sure we have equal outcomes. It's a function of making sure the hill we all have to climb is relatively the same hill. And there will be regional differences, there'll be class differences. I get all of that. But when the differences are pretty distinct along racial lines, that means the society works in a way that is structurally racist. And it says nothing about people's hearts or behaviors or attitudes. It just says that we need to fundamentally think about the fundamental design of our structures such that that is no longer the case. So that's how I think about racism. And this is why I call it a crime of the state. Because as long as the state allows the extent of structures to persist, then structural racism is not going to be overcome. You know, white and black people holding hands and drinking Coke together is not going to, like, solve the structural problems, even if the hatred in people's hearts suddenly is washed away. We have to address the structures.

[Jascha Monk]

And so what would it mean to address those structures and more broadly, what kind of actions can the state, but as importantly, what kind of actions can all of us take to realize your vision of Latin America?

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Yeah, so, you know, one is if we were to pass every pro democracy measure in front of the House or the Senate today, we still would not have an egalitarian society on the back end. It would be a society perhaps more likely to achieve that egalitarian thing. But as long as people are not committed to one another, then the outcome of any policy implementation is likely going to replicate the existence of inequality that was there prior to its implementation, just in a different degree. So how do we get rid of the unfairness in our structures? One, I do think that there is democracy and justice reform, things that we can do. You know, if there are disparities between who's getting arrested and who gets longer sentences and who it's really easy for them to vote and who it's really complicated for them to vote, then like, let's stop doing that. And whatever reforms that are required to make the experience more fair and more equal across group differences or group belonging the better. But this is a project of character. And so we have to one get to know one another, which is why again, I recommend national service. We have to work alongside one another. So this is not about just having beers and exposure, but now let's decide what our school budget is going to be. And the community is going to come together and deliberate together and then make binding decisions that they all agree to adhere to as a result of that deliberation, so that we are active participants in this democracy alongside one another. And so I think that exposure and then this broader project sort of helps facilitate some of this connection to ensure the structures are fair and that other points of view are recognized. But the sort of moonshot of the book is this is that if we don't change a single process, a single institution from the way it exists today, but we have a change in national character and how we view our fellow citizens, and we are willing to go to bat for them when they are being treated unfairly, then the status quo structurally probably is okay because the actors within the system are thinking in terms of solidarity. Conversely, if we have perfect systems that run really efficiently, but we have a populace that does not see themselves in their fellow citizens, then there is no improvement that we can make to the systems of democracy and justice that are going to get rid of the animus that is felt within the populace. And it's like giving a 15 year old the keys to a Corvette or a Porsche. It doesn't matter how well the machine runs, the person behind the wheel doesn't know what they're doing. And so we have a citizenry that isn't pro democracy and so we need both. But I err on the side of the former. Let's figure out the bonds of civic friendship first. Or not first, but two, because that is what gives us long term stability and resilience even as our institutions are weakened and strengthened as time goes on.

[Jascha Monk]

Ed Johnson, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

[Theodore R. Johnson]

Oh, thank you for having me.

This is great.

[Jascha Monk]

Thank you so much for listening to the Good Fight. Lots of listeners have been spreading the word about the show. If you two have been enjoying the podcast, please be like Rate the show on itunes. Tell your friends all about it. Share it on Facebook or Twitter. And finally, please mail suggestions for great guests or comments about the show to goodfightpodmail.com that's goodfightpodmail.com

[Theodore R. Johnson]

this recording carries a Creative Commons 4.0 International License.

[Jascha Monk]

Thanks to Silent Partner for their song Chess Pieces.

[Bloomberg Narrator]

Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money because behind every headline is a bottom line. Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe [e-mail].