A Tumultuous Week in Impeachment, and Jill Lepore on Democracy in Peril

Summary

The New Yorker Radio Hour

Episode: "A Tumultuous Week in Impeachment, and Jill Lepore on Democracy in Peril"

Host: David Remnick
Date: January 31, 2020
Producer: WNYC Studios & The New Yorker

---

Overview

This episode captures a pivotal moment in U.S. history: the final days of President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial. The episode features on-the-ground reporting and candid conversations with key figures such as Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California, offering direct insight into the contentious Senate proceedings. Renowned historian and New Yorker staff writer Jill Lepore joins to reflect on democracy’s fragility—both past and present—drawing historical parallels with the 1930s and exploring how civic discourse and institutional norms shape democratic resilience.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The State and Process of Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Interview with Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren; reporting by Susan Glasser

• Senate Dynamics & Lack of Public Outcry

  • There was a notable absence of mass public protests or constituent pressure compared to other recent political flashpoints (eg. Kavanaugh hearings, killing of Soleimani).
  • Senator Coons observes: “We haven't [received] thousands [of calls]. The fact that they feel that they know the outcome is really the thing… I know what's going to happen.” (03:30)
  • The general resignation to a foregone conclusion, with little expectation of witnesses being called or the outcome being swayed.

• Contention over Witnesses—Especially John Bolton

  • Senator Coons underscores the significance of Bolton’s potential testimony:

    “If what ends up happening after two days of questioning is that every one of my Republican colleagues votes for no more witnesses, no more documents, it'll be hard to reach any other conclusion than they just didn't want to know...” (04:29)

  • He strongly questions the rationale for not hearing Bolton, especially given the apparent relevance of his knowledge.

• Daily Life Inside the Senate Trial

  • Senator Coons describes camaraderie and tension among senators, with lighthearted moments—like note-passing with Amy Klobuchar—contrasted with the stress of high stakes for senators running for president who are trapped in Washington instead of campaigning. (05:35)
  • Glasser notes the granular details of the trial experience, such as senators’ beverage choices and cafeteria fare.

• Legal Arguments and the Impeachment Case

  • Senator Coons highlights the problematic legal positions taken by the President’s defense, notably Alan Dershowitz’s arguments:

    “It was designed to give them a hook to hang their hat on that says, yes, what the President did was wrong, but you can't impeach him for that.” (08:06)

  • He insists on the necessity of further witnesses and documents for transparency.

Congressional Perspective: Three Impeachments—Nixon, Clinton, Trump

Conversation with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (House Manager)

• Historical Comparisons

  • Lofgren:

    “There are some surprising similarities between Nixon and Trump. Nixon tried to cheat in an election and he covered it up. Trump tried to cheat in an election and covered it up. The differences are honestly, Nixon was more forthcoming with the Congress...” (10:06)

  • She highlights Trump’s refusal to allow any testimony or documents versus Nixon’s grudging compliance.

• Significance of Procedure and Precedent

  • Lofgren:

    “If the Senate declines to have documents and witnesses, that would be a radical departure from history and from precedent. It would also defeat the purposes I think they have, which is to find the truth.” (11:23)

  • Warns that allowing the executive to stonewall Congress would permanently erode checks and balances:

    “If the Senate allows it, it will forever change the relationship between the branches of government… Because there will never be a piece of information or a witness ever sent to Congress for an impeachment.” (16:13)

• The Dramatic Impact of John Bolton’s Revelations

  • Lofgren describes learning of Bolton’s manuscript as a “game changer,” likening it to Nixon’s public confession—yet notes the lack of subsequent consequences:

    “That is a game changer. That’s like when Nixon admitted everything Monday morning… Wow.” (12:21)

• Pragmatic Approach to the House Managers’ Argument

  • Lofgren aimed for an evidence-based, logical legal argument to guide senators:

    “This is a trial. And so… I think it’s helpful… to point that out in a very logical way that gives citations to actual facts and law that they can use…” (14:58)

---

Timestamps and Memorable Quotes

• [00:10] David Remnick:

  “If the president shot John Bolton in the middle of Fifth Avenue, it seems he wouldn't lose any voters. Not among the Republican senators voting in his impeachment trial anyway.”

• [04:29] Senator Chris Coons:

  "If what ends up happening after two days of questioning is that every one of my Republican colleagues votes for no more witnesses, no more documents, it'll be hard to reach any other conclusion than they just didn't want to know..."

• [08:06] Senator Chris Coons (on Alan Dershowitz):

  "It was designed to give them a hook to hang their hat on that says, yes, what the President did was wrong, but you can't impeach him for that."

• [10:06] Representative Zoe Lofgren:

  "Nixon tried to cheat in an election and he covered it up. Trump tried to cheat in an election and covered it up. The differences are... Nixon was more forthcoming with the Congress... Trump told every member of the executive branch not to testify. No documents, nothing."

• [16:13] Zoe Lofgren:

  “If the Senate allows it, it will forever change the relationship between the branches of government… There will never be a piece of information or a witness ever sent to Congress for an impeachment…”

---

Jill Lepore: Democracy in Peril—Perspectives from the Past

Interview with Jill Lepore, historian and staff writer, with David Remnick

Key Themes

• Parallels between the 1930s and Today

  • The threat to democracy in the 1930s arose from collapsing institutions, poverty, rising extremisms, and the allure of authoritarian ‘strongmen’.
  • Lepore:

    "...the staggering needs of mass society seemed in many parts of the world to just be not addressable by majority rule... there needed to be a strongman who could rescue starving populations from their suffering." (19:39)

• Civic Experimentation—America’s Town Meetings

  • Radio and live forums offered spaces for Americans to debate foundational questions, from universal health care to the meaning of democracy.
  • Lepore describes them as “corny,” yet essential to public participation:

    "They’d have these big questions, you know: should the United States have universal health insurance? ... And people are really kind of dedicating themselves, kind of struggling with, working their way through these really big questions." (23:29)

• Media, Information, and the Threat of Propaganda

  • Lepore connects Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” broadcast to the perils of misinformation and the responsibilities of citizenship:

    "If you think about what the implications are of a technology of communications, radio is invasive… It’s incredibly intimate... And Wells was kind of interested in saying… you have to actually be careful where you’re getting your information." (25:42)

• The Modern Democratic Slippage

  • Lepore discusses the Democracy Index’s assessment of the U.S. as a “flawed democracy” post-2016:

    “According to this index, the United States first fell out of that top tier category in 2016 and became a flawed democracy. And every year since 2016, the US rating has been worse.” (27:18)

  • The causes are structural—long-building inequality and increasing executive power—not merely the product of Trump’s presidency.

• Hopeful Lessons and Civic Responsibility

  • Lepore invokes philosopher Benedetto Croce:

    "Politics and government is not like the weather... You don't just sit around trying to decide, do I need an umbrella today? You actually go out and change the weather." (31:42)

  • She argues against “fashionable political despair,” reminding listeners:

    “Before 1965, we didn't even have voting rights in this country. What is the past that you think was so infinitely better than this moment?... Those conversations that you have about what's going on are what actually restores the democracy.” (32:45)

---

Timestamps and Notable Quotes

• [19:39] Jill Lepore: “The staggering needs of mass society seemed... not addressable by majority rule... there needed to be a strongman who could rescue starving populations from their suffering.”
• [23:29] Jill Lepore: “People are really kind of dedicating themselves, kind of struggling with, working their way through these really big questions.”
• [25:42] Jill Lepore: “Radio is invasive... a voice in your kitchen... You have to actually be careful where you’re getting your information.”
• [27:18] Jill Lepore: “The United States first fell out of that top tier [democracy] category in 2016 and became a flawed democracy. And every year since 2016, the US rating has been worse.”
• [31:42] Jill Lepore: “Politics and government is not like the weather... you actually go out and change the weather.”
• [32:45] Jill Lepore: “Before 1965, we didn't even have voting rights in this country. What is the past that you think was so infinitely better than this moment?... Those conversations... are what actually restores the democracy.”

---

Episode Structure & Timeline

• [00:00–02:18] Opening, context setting by Remnick and Glasser; snatches of senators’ comments.
• [02:18–08:43] Susan Glasser walks with Senator Chris Coons: inside look at Senate daily life and the impeachment process.
• [08:58–16:58] Interview with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren: reflections on three impeachments and the erosion of checks and balances.
• [17:46–24:43] David Remnick & Jill Lepore: historical analysis of democracy’s crises, the power of public debate.
• [24:51–33:25] Media, misinformation (“War of the Worlds”), civic information literacy, the modern state of democracy, and philosophical reflections on hope and action.

---

Tone and Language

• The tone is analytical, informed, urgent, and at times wry—especially in David Remnick’s opening muse and Lepore’s references to “corny” 1930s radio.
• Both political guests are measured, candid, and focused on the gravity of constitutional process and history.
• The historical segment with Lepore is both sober and optimistic, blending warnings about decline with encouragement to participate and question.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers listeners a rare dual focus: granular, real-time reporting from inside the historic Senate impeachment trial, and a sweeping historical reflection on what democracy means at times of crisis. The voices of Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren illuminate the stakes and struggles of democratic accountability, while Jill Lepore provides much-needed context, hope, and a reminder of the enduring importance of civic discourse and collective action—now, as in the past.

Transcript

[Susan Glasser]

From one World Trade center in Manhattan, this is the New Yorker Radio Hour.

[David Remnick]

A co production of WNYC studios and the New Yorker.

[Narrator/Host]

Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. To stretch just a little bit what Donald Trump has already said. If the president shot John Bolton in the middle of Fifth Avenue, it seems he wouldn't lose any voters. Not among the Republican senators voting in his impeachment trial anyway. And by the time you're hearing this, it may be over all but the shouting. And just as the President's lawyers have said already, it's finally going to be up to the voters to decide the fate of Donald Trump and the fate of the Republicans who have supported him all the way.

[David Remnick]

Hey, guys, let him through.

[Panel Moderator/Announcer]

Let him through, let him through. What do you make of John Bolton's.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Motivations at this point? Do you think he's trustworthy?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

Just half ass in the House?

[Senator Chris Coons]

I've seen the New York Times story. I have no idea what they're talking about. I think there's no need for witnesses. I think the case, as I said, is so strong, hopefully it's over this week and we can get focused on doing the business of the American people.

[David Remnick]

So far as I know, there has been no witness deal.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Are you in conversations about a bipartisan deal?

[Panel Moderator/Announcer]

No.

[Senator Chris Coons]

The Democrats have spent a lot of time imagining what the President's motives are. Someone ought to spend some time imagining what John Bolton's motives are other than making millions of dollars to trash the president.

[David Remnick]

I will vote for a motion that allows for all relevant witnesses.

[Susan Glasser]

And I think both sides are entitled to relevant witnesses. I do not see how Biden is relevant to these allegations, but I believe the standard is they have to be relevant.

[Narrator/Host]

We heard Senators Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Lisa Murkowski, M. Romney, Rand Paul and Kirsten Gillibrand. All of our coverage on impeachment [e-mail] much of it from Susan Glasser, who reports from the Capitol.

[Susan Glasser]

I see Carl Hulse there, the very distinguished New York Times correspondent.

[Senator Chris Coons]

I actually heard something funny today from sleep staff. They're kind of enjoying this because they are. Their members are locked in the Senate without their phones for like, all day and they know where they are and.

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

Don'T have to talk to them.

[Susan Glasser]

We are on our way to hook up with Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. We're going to walk over from his Senate office to the Capitol for yet another day of proceedings in the Senate trial. It's Wednesday, right in the middle of the Senate trial. Of President Trump.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Hey, how are you?

[David Remnick]

Hi.

[Susan Glasser]

Thanks so much. Hi there.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Yeah, I was just protesting on the fact that if we walk from here over to there, we're gonna walk right.

[Susan Glasser]

Through the main protest. When we walked over here before, I don't know if there's a huge number of people who come out, but when there weren't, like, a ton of people, so. Which is one of the notable things, really, about this impeachment trial. I've been really struck by the fact that there aren't people in the streets.

[Senator Chris Coons]

We had extra people lined up to answer the front desk calls, because during Kavanaugh, during the strike on Suleimani, during other moments in the last year or two, we've gotten just floods of phone calls. We haven't. We've gotten hundreds, but not thousands.

[Susan Glasser]

The fact that they feel that they know the outcome is really the thing. Not that there aren't strong passions on both sides, but I know what's going to happen.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Imagine a game that you've recorded and intend to watch, but then someone blurts out who won and what the score was, and you decide not to go back and just watch the replay.

[Susan Glasser]

What I wonder is about, you know, we're about to have the Iowa caucuses in New Hampshire. We're in an election year. You know, President Trump has essentially always appealed to people on the idea that this is a rigged process and a rigged system in the Democratic Party. Arguably, Bernie Sanders says something of the same. The system is rigged against you. This is literally kind of like a rigged trial. I don't know how that resounds politically, but I've been thinking a lot about that.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Well, if what ends up happening after two days of questioning is that every one of my Republican colleagues votes for no more witnesses, no more documents, it'll be hard to reach any other conclusion then they just didn't want to know because John Bolton is available, is offering to testify, is, if press accounts are to be believed, the author of a finished manuscript that is directly relevant to the issues in front of the Senate. It's pretty hard to explain why you wouldn't want to hear from John Bolton.

[Susan Glasser]

So, okay, you're sitting there every day. I'm stuck up in the gallery, so I'm staring at you. You haven't been.

[Senator Chris Coons]

I'll wave next time I see you.

[Susan Glasser]

You're not a milk drinker. Apparently, Mitt Romney's a chocolate milk drinker. You're sitting there next to Amy Klobuchar, who, of course is one of several Democratic senators running for president. And who are stuck here in Washington instead of in Iowa. You're a big Biden backer coming from Delaware. You guys are passing notes. You know, what are you talking about?

[Senator Chris Coons]

So, Amy, Senator Klobuchar also sits next to me on the Judiciary Committee. You know, partly they're just lighthearted notes, observations about particular members of the President's team or the House managers and how they're doing or what's going on. And sometimes I'm just encouraging her because I know it's difficult to be literally days away from the most important political moment of her life, which is the Iowa caucuses, and to be here rather than there.

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, no, it's really every time. We're now arriving at the Capitol, so we'll have a security interlude, at least for us.

[Senator Chris Coons]

You guys have got to answer that.

[Susan Glasser]

So now we're inside the Capitol with Senator Coons, and Senator Cantwell has just come in for the day, too. You have party lunches before?

[Senator Chris Coons]

Yes, we have a caucus lunch that's beginning right now.

[Susan Glasser]

Okay, and how useful are those for, you know, touching base with people and, you know, like, are you talking about.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Absolutely. Talking about the trial. We're sort of comparing notes on conversations we're having with colleagues today in particular, we're having conversations about what are the questions that we're going to be asking, in what order, who's taking the lead on which issues.

[Susan Glasser]

Right. So what is your question that you most want answered?

[Senator Chris Coons]

Well, I've got 10 that I most like.

[Susan Glasser]

They're not going to let you ask 10.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Here's the question. The president's brief states, Congress has forbidden foreigners involvement in American elections. No, despite that, in June 2019, President Trump said if Russia or China offered information on his opponent, quote, there's nothing wrong with listening. And he said he might not even alert the FBI. Does President Trump agree with your statement? And again, this is a question to his lawyers that foreigners involvement in American elections is illegal.

[Susan Glasser]

Good question.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Let me put it this way. If the answer is no, we have a big problem if there are Republicans who refuse to accept this foundational legal principle, haven't helped us. And I'm assuming that those who end up voting against removal because of these impeachment articles will still agree that what the President did was wrong.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, that's the interesting thing. I would say that Alan Dershowitz argument on Monday night for the Republican senators was key because he essentially gave them the free pass to make the argument that you and I anticipated all along.

[Senator Chris Coons]

It was designed to give them a hook to hang their hat on that says, yes, what the President did was wrong, but you can't impeach him for that. I would say this. If your argument, if a Republican makes the argument removing the president this soon, this close to an election, isn't the right response, we should trust the American electorate, let them make the decision.

[Susan Glasser]

That's another strong argument.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Then you have to support more witnesses and more documents because otherwise you're saying, I trust the electorate, but I'm willing to participate in a cover up that prevents them from knowing what they should know to reach a conclusion about this.

[Susan Glasser]

So, Senator Coons, you've been very generous with your time today. I can smell the lunch wafting out, although it doesn't smell that good. Is the food okay?

[Senator Chris Coons]

I'll tell you, the food here is usually really good, but not always.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, thank you again, Senator Coons, for your time.

[Senator Chris Coons]

Thanks, Susan. Great to be on with you.

[Susan Glasser]

Thank you. Okay, so we've just finished having a conversation with Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. And now we're going to walk through the Capitol to the Capitol crypt and the hideaway office of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who's one of the seven House managers. I'm here with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from California, who has the very interesting distinction of being not only one of the seven House managers prosecuting in effect, the case against President Trump, but she is the only member who has been on her third impeachment. So we can talk a little bit about that. Congresswoman Nixon, Clinton, Trump. As Nancy Pelosi said, no matter what happens in the Senate, Donald Trump is always going to be impeached. That list is always going to include him.

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

That's right.

[Susan Glasser]

What's the shorthand you have in your head so far about the difference between Nixon, Clinton and Trump?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

Well, there are some surprising similarities between Nixon and Trump. Nixon tried to cheat in an election and he covered it up. Trump tried to cheat in an election and covered it up. The differences are honestly, Nixon was more forthcoming with the Congress. He told publicly all his staff to come to the Congress to answer relevant questions honestly without requiring a subpoena or anything of that nature. Trump told every member of the executive branch not to testify. No documents, nothing. Most people won't realize that Nixon was less of a cover up artist than President Trump.

[Susan Glasser]

Amazing. So we are speaking on Wednesday morning before the trial goes into session. And of course, the, the big question is whether there's really anything other than a completely orchestrated kind of march to the inevitable outcome that we're witnessing. So what is your view of that?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

Well, I, you know, I'm an optimist. I don't think I could have this job if I weren't an optimist.

[Susan Glasser]

You have to be one.

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

And we have presented a very compelling case based on evidence and fact. Witnesses in the trial, senators have a chance to call additional witnesses. And there has never been a trial in the Senate on impeachment. And it's not just presidential treatment, it's judicial as well, where there haven't been witnesses and documents. So if the Senate declines to have documents and witnesses, that would be a radical departure from history and from precedent. It would also defeat the purposes I think they have, which is to find the truth. Ultimately. That's what a trial is about, to find the truth.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, of course, Congresswoman, right in the middle of the trial over a weekend, on a Sunday, late in the afternoon is when the news about John Bolton dropped in the New York Times. Where were you when you heard about it and what did you think?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

I was sitting with the other managers in a room in the Capitol, going through the next day's proceedings and preparing, and one of the staff got a flash on their phone and the first words out of my mouth were, yikes.

[Susan Glasser]

So you had no advance notice?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

No, I had no idea. Now, we had heard, we'd read in the paper that there was some book, but what it said, we had no idea. I just thought, wow, I mean, that is a game changer. That's like when Nixon admitted everything Monday morning and he had to announce his resignation the next day. Wow.

[Susan Glasser]

But it wasn't. It's more like Access Hollywood, isn't it?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

You know, that was about sex, just like the Clinton impeachment was about sexual. I don't approve of what Clinton did, and I certainly don't approve of the language and the behavior that President Trump engaged in. But that's not a high crime and misdemeanor. That's for voters to decide, and they decided that they didn't care about that misbehavior. President Trump, this is a very different issue. This is about misusing his power to subvert the Constitution of the United States to the detriment of the interests of the American people. That is a very severe charge.

[Susan Glasser]

Think that's what's so extraordinary for me, just as an observer, to watch what happens from that yikes, wow moment on Sunday evening. Over the last few days, you and I have both been in the Capitol and we've heard a process once again of many of your Republican colleagues in The Senate essentially going from. Wow, I'm not sure. To. Well, we don't really need to hear from that anyways. And it's.

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

Well, some of the senators have said that. Let's be clear. Clear. Most of the senators haven't said anything, so we don't know what they're thinking. And I'd like to believe this, that they are evaluating what is the right thing for the country. That's what I'd like to believe they're doing for you.

[Susan Glasser]

During the House manager's presentation last week, you know, I was struck by the fact that you seemed to take a much more kind of evidence based and legal approach to the presentation and some of them were much more partisan and rhetorical. Was that by design on your part?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

This is a trial. And so if they are laying out evidence that's incorrect or a theory of the law that doesn't hold up, then I think it's helpful, I hope, to the senators to point that out in a very logical way that gives citations to actual facts and law that they can use as they reach a conclusion. That's a job I was assigned to do and I'm trying to do it as best I can.

[Susan Glasser]

So, okay, on the arguments, what do you think is the strongest and weakest part of your case? Constitutionally.

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

I think there's clear evidence that the President committed a high crime and misdemeanor. He subverted the constitutional order for his personal benefit to the detriment of the interests of the country. I think there's really no, there's no evidence to the contrary.

[Susan Glasser]

Are there any arguments that you heard from the Trump team so far that you thought were particularly strong or that you were surprised by?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

You know, it's just dust in the air. I was really disappointed that it was not, it was, I thought, very weak.

[Susan Glasser]

Isn't the lesson here for American politics that stonewalling works?

[Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren]

If the Senate allows it, it will forever change the relationship between the branches of government. What it would say to a president, Democrat or Republican, you can just tell the Congress to pound sand if this misbehavior is basically just ignored. I think what it means is there would not be an capacity for the Congress to utilize the remedy that the founders put in the Constitution to hold an executive to account. Because there will never be a piece of information or a witness ever sent to Congress for an impeachment and probably for oversight either, for anything the President doesn't want.

[Susan Glasser]

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, I really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much.

[Narrator/Host]

Susan Glasser is the New Yorker's Washington correspondent, and you can read her on impeachment and Much [e-mail] Zoe Lofgren represents the 19th congressional district of California. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. More to come.

[David Remnick]

In the 1930s, you could count on the Yankees winning the World Series, dust storms plaguing the prairies, evangelicals preaching on the radio, Franklin Delano Roosevelt residing in the White House, people lining up for blocks for scraps of food, and democracies dying from the Andes to the Urals to the Alps.

[Narrator/Host]

Jill Lepore is a historian at Harvard University and a staff writer at the New Yorker, and she's cultivated a real specialty in setting today's political upheavals in the context of American history. Her essay in Every Dark Hour considers how our nation responded the last time it seemed that democracy was in serious trouble around the world.

[David Remnick]

American democracy too staggered, weakened by corruption, monopoly, apathy, inequality, political violence, hucksterism, racial injustice, unemployment, even starvation. We do not distrust the future of essential democracy, FDR said in his first inaugural address, telling Americans that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. But there was more to be afraid of, including Americans own declining faith in self government. What does democracy mean? NBC Radio asked listeners. Do we Negroes believe in democracy? W.E.B. du Bois asked the readers of his newspaper column. Could it happen here? Sinclair Lewis asked in 1935. Americans suffered and hungered and wondered.

[Narrator/Host]

Jill, in your essay you're describing a time when Americans and people all over the world were really questioning the future of democracy. What was going on that was making Americans so nervous, a familiar feeling, but so nervous about the democratic process.

[David Remnick]

It was witnessing new democracies fail. So at the end of the First World War, a whole lot of new democracies had been born, when European empires had been broken up. And it was exciting and riveting and there was a sense of triumph, that early 20s sense of triumph that markets were soaring, people were getting wealthier, democracies were thriving, and it all seemed to fall apart. And by the time you get to the 1930s, the beginning of the Depression, of course it's much worse and much more perilous because the staggering needs of mass society seemed in many parts of the world to just be not addressable by majority rule that there needed to be a strongman who could rescue starving populations from their suffering.

[Narrator/Host]

So this was a period of enormous uncertainty for democracy, and Americans themselves had a lot of questions about what democracy meant and how it should work. And the solution you suggest to some Extent was to talk?

[David Remnick]

Yeah. I mean, on the one hand, a lot of Americans were swayed by communism and by fascism. I mean, there is a huge range of political opinion and all kinds of new political activity in the United states in the 1930s. Political experiments. But in many ways, in response to the attractions of forms of political extremism, Americans who did believe in democracy really fought for it by trying to rekindle its spirit.

[Narrator/Host]

Well, I want to play a clip from something called America's Town Meeting of the Year.

[Panel Moderator/Announcer]

What does democracy mean?

[David Remnick]

This Is this completely goofy? I mean, I think I just sort of warn listeners. This sounds really corny. So you either love this stuff or you don't love this stuff stuff. It was a national radio broadcast. It started in 1935 and it was enormously successful. So they would hold these debates in a lecture hall. They'd bring in like a thousand people, sometimes more, and they'd bring to the stage a few different people, a panel of maybe four or five people. It wasn't like a one on one debate. I mean, they called it a debate. It's more of a panel or a symposium. And they'd have these big questions, you know, should the United States have universal health insurance? And they bring in half. You know, half the people on the panel would agree and half would disagree.

[Panel Moderator/Announcer]

No more appropriate place could be found for a discussion of the subject. What does democracy mean than our own town hall in New York City, the home of America's town? In the early American town meetings, a majority of all citizens of a community used to meet together and determine where to build the new schoolhouse, how to run the new road, and what to do about Widow Jenkins Obstreperous cow. Is it possible to conceive of self government today in those terms? What then does democracy mean under present conditions? In that sense, democracy for the first time is really being tried. Democracy for the first time is really being tested. Now for the questions. We're effective. Man in the balcony there, Mr. Hathaway stated that the democracy he accepted is the democracy that will permit this pressed capitalist class to bring in socialism peacefully. Don't you think that the working class, Mr. Hathaway, would do very well to drop any nonsense of any possibility of bettering its condition under this present system of society and listen to the message of the Socialist Labor Party, the only revolutionary organization in the United States.

[David Remnick]

What I'm struck by listening to it is the sense that people had in the 1930s that they were really on the precipice of history, that democracy was new as that announcer said, historically, democracies had only begun with the United States in 1776. But what they really do accomplish, a lot of these conversations, is really bringing in ordinary people. I mean, you just really do get the sense when you listen to them or when you read debates, accounts of debates that are going on in town libraries and in school buildings that are opened up at night for debates, political debates, that you're kind of basic farmers there, your union workers there, the nurse from the hospital is there, the librarian is there. And people are really kind of dedicating themselves, kind of struggling with, working their way through these really big questions. I mean, think about the suffering of the Depression. I mean, everyone was vulnerable to complete economic collapse. No matter where you stood, just you could fall really fast, and people saw one another falling really fast. And so what was going to hold people up? Well, you're going to have to hold each other up.

[Narrator/Host]

Jill, I understand you want to play another clip which might be more familiar to our listeners.

[Panel Moderator/Announcer]

Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt our program of dance music to bring you a special bulletin from the Intercontinental radio news. At 20 minutes before 8 Central Time, Professor Farrell of the Mount Jennings Observatory, Chicago, Illinois, reports observing several explosions of incandescent gas occurring at regular intervals on the planet Mars. The spectroscope indicates the gas to be hydrogen and moving toward the Earth with enormous velocity. Professor Pearson of the observatory at Princeton confirms Farrell's observation and describes the phenomenon as, quote, like a jet of blue flame shot from a gun, unquote.

[Narrator/Host]

Well, I think some people at least will recognize that this is a clip from Orson Welles famous apocalyptic radio drama, the War of the Worlds. But I have got to say it's not the direction I thought we were heading in. How does this relate to discussions about dem that were going on at that time?

[David Remnick]

It's totally just a pretext to listen to Orson Welles. No. So War of the Worlds was broadcast, of course, on Halloween in 1938. And Welles has offered many explanations over his lifetime for why he did it. But the one I believe, and I choose to believe, is that Welles was actually genuinely concerned about the possibilities that radio could be used for nefarious purposes. If you think about what the implications are of a technology of communications, radio is invasive. It's this voice in your kitchen coming out of your living room. It's incredibly intimate. And the very. The term fake news comes out of the 1930s because it's what Americans and the British, it's what the Allies called Nazi radio broadcasts. On shortwave radio, they broadcast these English Language, news reports. They were just a bunch of lies. They broadcast them all over north and South America. And there was a lot of stuff on the radio. There was Father Coughlin. There's a lot of nuttiness from Huey Long. There's a lot of stuff that you should be really suspicious of on the radio. And Wells was kind of interested in saying, here's actually another obligation of living in a democracy. You have to actually be careful where you're getting your information. You have to have a critical apparatus around it.

[Narrator/Host]

And that's a lesson we're still struggling with, it seems. Jill, one thing that surprises me. You wrote about the Democracy Index, which rates the nations of the world on just how democratic they are, right down to the bottom of the list where North Korea is. But the US Isn't doing so great in recent years. Why not? What are the factors that go into a country's rating in the Democracy Index?

[David Remnick]

Yeah, it's this. I mean, you can, I guess, people try to measure anything, but there was a kind of concern. This Democracy Index was started by a think tank, I think, associated with the Economist magazine as an expression of concern for the seeming fragility of democracies around the world that would something that would be worth paying attention to. So there's a whole series of measures that go into it having to do with voter turnout or having to do with do people show up, even kind of congressional turnout, legislative turnout? Are laws being passed? Are laws being vetoed? Is the press free? Is there censorship? And unsurprisingly, when the Democracy Index started, the United States was one of the stronger democracies rated as a full democracy. According to this index, the United States first fell out of that top tier category in 2016 and became a flawed democracy. And every year since 2016, the US rating has been worse. So two things seem to be true from this evidence, right, that the number of democracies around the world has been dwindling. And then in the case of the United States, the United States has become significantly less democratic.

[Narrator/Host]

So we chalk that off to Donald Trump. What are the factors that have made us dip?

[David Remnick]

I guess I just think that stuff that's been going on with the growing power of the presidency as against the other branches of government goes pretty far back. I mean, it certainly goes back to Nixon.

[Narrator/Host]

That'S for sure.

[David Remnick]

I can't see a Hillary Clinton White House having turned that around and ceded power back to Congress. For instance, the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court is something that, I mean, I would date to, to really? Reagan's Justice Department and Reagan's appointments. I guess conservatives would look at that differently, but people would date that to the Warren Court, say those are things that are making our system of government not work as it was designed, and.

[Narrator/Host]

Increasing incoming inequality, which precedes Trump, and it's just only been exacerbated. But it's not all on him. I take your point completely. It just seems that since 2016, in rhetoric and in action, the individual has made a difference. I'm not saying he's the everything and the be all and there weren't factors before and it will probably outlive him.

[David Remnick]

Things are absolutely outlive him. But I mean, I don't know. I put a chart on the screen in a class that has income inequality polarization charted from 1945 to 2016, and we get where we get based on changes that start in 1968. So, yes, you can follow that chart from 2016 to 2020 and things look worse. But it's a long term. Those are long term trends.

[Narrator/Host]

Your piece fairly yearns for calls for the modern equivalent somehow of town halls, radio plays, public forums, the kind of thing we were discussing before. How would you see that taking place in the world that, you know, of the University of social media, of the technologies that we have available? Is it even possible? What would it look like?

[David Remnick]

I'm sure that it actually does take place in all kinds of ways. I mean, I spend a fair amount of time going to K through 12 schools and meeting with kids and watching them debate stuff or argue over things. I think there's a lot more of that going on than we might perceive. I don't think you can really track it going on on social media because it's not conducive. It's not conducive as a format to the kind of careful, deliberative listening that you can imagine. But I think it actually goes on all the time in classrooms. I went to my city council, to a city council meeting this year, and I was like, all right, democracy is still working, but you kind of have to get into a room with people.

[Narrator/Host]

So I want to go back to your piece. You write about a series that ran in 1937 in the New Republic where editors asked each writer, a series of writers, whether they thought political democracy was on the wane. And you described the answer given by the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce. And Italy at that point was living under fascism. So what did Croce say?

[David Remnick]

He objected to the question. The way a good philosopher should and he just objected to the passive framing of the question because he's like, his thing was, all right, politics and government is not like the weather. Like, we don't just like you're asking me basically a meteorological question, like, what's the weather look like? It's not the weather. This is actually we control politics and government. So you don't ask people, what's the weather going to be like? You ask people, go out, how are you going to go out and change the weather? What are you going to do? You don't just sit around like trying to decide, do I need an umbrella today? You actually go out and change the weather. And that's what I think people had a sense of needing to urgently do in the 1930s. And we do have a kind of different sensibility. I don't know.

[Narrator/Host]

We.

[David Remnick]

Whatever. In the quarters that I inhabit, there's a lot of political despair. It's a fashionable political despair. It's almost like a fetish for political despair.

[Narrator/Host]

Is it a reasonable political despair?

[David Remnick]

Seriously? No, I don't actually think it is.

[Narrator/Host]

Why so?

[David Remnick]

I really don't. Because, look, before 1965, we didn't even have voting rights in this country. What is the past that you think was so infinitely better than this moment? It's easy to take democracy for granted when things are going fairly well. And when you watch democratic institutions being jeopardized and when you watch abuses of power and authority, it casts your attention and your concern into really stark light. And those conversations that you have about what's going on are what actually restores the democracy. They are what rekindles those traditions, what defends those institutions, and what renews the democracy itself.

[Narrator/Host]

Jill Lepore, thanks so much.

[David Remnick]

Thanks, David.

[Narrator/Host]

Jill Lepore is a staff writer. Now, throughout this election year, we're going to be considering the future of democracy from a range of perspectives. And we've inaugurated a series appropriately called the Future of Democracy. And we'll send you all the pieces in the series. If you text the word democracy to the number 701, don't worry, I tried it and it works. Text the word democracy to 70101. I'm David Remnick and thanks for joining us today. And I hope you'll tune into the New Yorker Radio Hour next time.

[Senator Chris Coons]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Barbis of Tune Yards with additional music by Alexis Quadrado. This episode was produced by Alex Barron, Emily Bottin, Ave Carrillo, Rhiannon Corby, Karen Frillman, Kalalea, David Krasnow, Caroline Lester, Louis Mitchell, Michelle Moses, and Steven Valentino, with help from Morgan Flannery, Allison McAdam, Meng Fei Chen, and Emily Mann. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Charina Endowment Fund.